JD Vance Catch-all | “we have to destroy the universities in this country”

  • Thread starter Thread starter nycfan
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 933
  • Views: 22K
  • Politics 
gtyellowjacket said:
Nice to be here. Definitely missed the discussion.

I doubt it will pass either.
Click to expand...
Back in 2013-16 orso, Vance had the rep of being able to make nuanced, somewhat thoughtful comments on social issues. Whether for political expediency or because he used up all his reflective capabilities, he has gone full rabid.
Now when he makes an incredibly stupide remark about women, POC or society, there is a term for it. As we say to describe his dangerous nonsense: "It's called a Vance"
 
Two Republican women telling the GOP that JD Vance is going to single-handedly destroy their electoral chances. You don't even have to take my word for it!
 
CFordUNC said:
Click to expand...

Sorry Meghan, if "not who we are" is reference to the current conservative movement in this country, I'd argue you're unconvincingly naive.

Now, if Meghan is referring to the millions of conservative women who've struggled to start families, and/or currently struggle, sure. But the greater conservative movement in this country hasn't been about economic policy, "freedom", or a big-tent for many, many years - it's about control, and controlling women and family development is starkly in the Project.
 
nycfan said:


EDIT - I think he was saying that parents should get extra votes per kid, not that childless can’t vote at all.
Click to expand...

So those same parents that would depend on social services that the GOP want to eliminate.
 
For the record, giving extra votes to people with children is not a lunatic idea, in my opinion at least. Matty Yglesias has also toyed around with the idea. I would prefer to lower the voting age to 12 or 14 or something like that, but the principle is similar. Don't get me wrong -- I don't wholeheartedly endorse the idea, but there is some merit to it if you strip away the insults and culture-war BS that Vance brings to it.

Basically, the idea is that it's pretty hard to convince old people to support long-term investments. Here I am talking about a) physical infrastructure like a better electricity grid, federally funded research for new technologies, b) education, both in terms of breadth and depth, and c) long-term fiscal solvency. It's not hard to see why -- they won't be around to enjoy them! It's not too different in kind from the problem often facing publicly traded companies -- that the investors, who are often around for only the short- or medium-term, want to slash R&D to juice current earnings, or who judge managers by their ability to hit earnings estimates multiple quarters in a row over their ability to build strong organizations for long-term growth.

Giving additional voice to the people whose interests are more aligned with the long-term health of the country is likely to promote, over time, better management for long-term prosperity. That is the idea, in a nutshell.

The downsides of the plan are evident to all and do not require elaboration. I am personally agnostic about the idea, as I see the advantages and disadvantages. Maybe this is the corporate law professor in me talking, but bad things tend to happen to institutions over time when you give power to people who don't really care about the success of those institutions. It's the main reason why equity grants became such an important part of executive compensation.
 
superrific said:
For the record, giving extra votes to people with children is not a lunatic idea, in my opinion at least. Matty Yglesias has also toyed around with the idea. I would prefer to lower the voting age to 12 or 14 or something like that, but the principle is similar. Don't get me wrong -- I don't wholeheartedly endorse the idea, but there is some merit to it if you strip away the insults and culture-war BS that Vance brings to it.

Basically, the idea is that it's pretty hard to convince old people to support long-term investments. Here I am talking about a) physical infrastructure like a better electricity grid, federally funded research for new technologies, b) education, both in terms of breadth and depth, and c) long-term fiscal solvency. It's not hard to see why -- they won't be around to enjoy them! It's not too different in kind from the problem often facing publicly traded companies -- that the investors, who are often around for only the short- or medium-term, want to slash R&D to juice current earnings, or who judge managers by their ability to hit earnings estimates multiple quarters in a row over their ability to build strong organizations for long-term growth.

Giving additional voice to the people whose interests are more aligned with the long-term health of the country is likely to promote, over time, better management for long-term prosperity. That is the idea, in a nutshell.

The downsides of the plan are evident to all and do not require elaboration. I am personally agnostic about the idea, as I see the advantages and disadvantages. Maybe this is the corporate law professor in me talking, but bad things tend to happen to institutions over time when you give power to people who don't really care about the success of those institutions. It's the main reason why equity grants became such an important part of executive compensation.
Click to expand...
Man, this is why when you talk, I listen. I had not considered the vast majority of these points that you bring up. I would still say I’m opposed to the idea in principle, but recognize that there are at least more merits to the idea than I initially gave it credit.
 
superrific said:
For the record, giving extra votes to people with children is not a lunatic idea, in my opinion at least. Matty Yglesias has also toyed around with the idea. I would prefer to lower the voting age to 12 or 14 or something like that, but the principle is similar. Don't get me wrong -- I don't wholeheartedly endorse the idea, but there is some merit to it if you strip away the insults and culture-war BS that Vance brings to it.

Basically, the idea is that it's pretty hard to convince old people to support long-term investments. Here I am talking about a) physical infrastructure like a better electricity grid, federally funded research for new technologies, b) education, both in terms of breadth and depth, and c) long-term fiscal solvency. It's not hard to see why -- they won't be around to enjoy them! It's not too different in kind from the problem often facing publicly traded companies -- that the investors, who are often around for only the short- or medium-term, want to slash R&D to juice current earnings, or who judge managers by their ability to hit earnings estimates multiple quarters in a row over their ability to build strong organizations for long-term growth.

Giving additional voice to the people whose interests are more aligned with the long-term health of the country is likely to promote, over time, better management for long-term prosperity. That is the idea, in a nutshell.

The downsides of the plan are evident to all and do not require elaboration. I am personally agnostic about the idea, as I see the advantages and disadvantages. Maybe this is the corporate law professor in me talking, but bad things tend to happen to institutions over time when you give power to people who don't really care about the success of those institutions. It's the main reason why equity grants became such an important part of executive compensation.
Click to expand...
Playing that out, should there be an age at which you are no longer eligible to vote? Like, if you get past your life expectancy, should we assume you no longer care about the future and will vote selfish short-term interests that deprive support to future generations? YES, we have seen that in action in any school bond referendum, for instance, but should we just ASSUME it and strip people of their right to vote at a certain age? That seems to me to be an extension of the assumption underlying extra votes for children ...
 
farce said:
Has it occurred to this dim bulb that parents might not agree on who vote for? How does he propose to resolve a child’s vote when that happens?

What a dipshit.
Click to expand...
What if both parents are 17 years old or in prison? Or what if the parents are dead? Poor kid gets disenfranchised?
 
HeelingAg said:
Sorry Meghan, if "not who we are" is reference to the current conservative movement in this country, I'd argue you're unconvincingly naive.

Now, if Meghan is referring to the millions of conservative women who've struggled to start families, and/or currently struggle, sure. But the greater conservative movement in this country hasn't been about economic policy, "freedom", or a big-tent for many, many years - it's about control, and controlling women and family development is starkly in the Project.
Click to expand...
My personal take away from observing our politics from the Obama era on, is that America (really any country, or ever community, any group lager than 100 people or so) can be divided into three roughly equal sized camps:
  • Those who by nature are, for the lack of a better word, assholes toward those not in their in-group
  • Those who by nature are kind, caring, and empathetic towards those not in their in-group
  • Those who by nature have no moral valence but can be swayed by the strongest emotional appeal they hear in the public square at any particular time
"Who we are as a nation" at any given time is determined by who has taken leadership in the public square and is currently swaying the members of that third group. I like the way this model explains "Who we were" under Obama equally as well as "Who we have been" under Trump, (and possibly, and not to put the cart before the horse, "Who we could become" under Kamela). It also explains "who Germany became" under Hitler, for example. I feel like it has a ton of explanatory power.

The price I've payed arriving at insight is that I've lost the innocence of believing that "people are fundamentally good at heart", but honestly my empirical observation wasn't really backing that up so much anyway. I guess I can be good with "I'm surrounded by a significant percentage of people who are fundamentally good at heart, and even more who can be swayed to be so, at least temporarily"

And to be clear, I don't care how kind, caring or empathetic you are to the members of your in-group. If you are an asshole to members of out-groups, you're still just a plain old asshole to me.
 
superrific said:
For the record, giving extra votes to people with children is not a lunatic idea, in my opinion at least. Matty Yglesias has also toyed around with the idea. I would prefer to lower the voting age to 12 or 14 or something like that, but the principle is similar. Don't get me wrong -- I don't wholeheartedly endorse the idea, but there is some merit to it if you strip away the insults and culture-war BS that Vance brings to it.

Basically, the idea is that it's pretty hard to convince old people to support long-term investments. Here I am talking about a) physical infrastructure like a better electricity grid, federally funded research for new technologies, b) education, both in terms of breadth and depth, and c) long-term fiscal solvency. It's not hard to see why -- they won't be around to enjoy them! It's not too different in kind from the problem often facing publicly traded companies -- that the investors, who are often around for only the short- or medium-term, want to slash R&D to juice current earnings, or who judge managers by their ability to hit earnings estimates multiple quarters in a row over their ability to build strong organizations for long-term growth.

Giving additional voice to the people whose interests are more aligned with the long-term health of the country is likely to promote, over time, better management for long-term prosperity. That is the idea, in a nutshell.

The downsides of the plan are evident to all and do not require elaboration. I am personally agnostic about the idea, as I see the advantages and disadvantages. Maybe this is the corporate law professor in me talking, but bad things tend to happen to institutions over time when you give power to people who don't really care about the success of those institutions. It's the main reason why equity grants became such an important part of executive compensation.
Click to expand...
Interesting idea with many facets to it.

Something I’d add to the discussion - young people, including young voters, are often not well-known for their patience, nuanced understanding of complicated issues, or looking down the road to see what needs doing.

Are they going to be thinking, “Oh, this highway construction bond will make a real difference in 10 years;” or, “This school bond will make a huge difference to my kids (they don’t have any kids, yet)?”

This year, numerous young people want Biden to snap his fingers and end the war in Gaza. They think he has the power to do so. Many thinking this way are in college. I doubt 12-17 year-olds will give much deep thought to Gaza or a school bond bill.
 
nycfan said:
Playing that out, should there be an age at which you are no longer eligible to vote? Like, if you get past your life expectancy, should we assume you no longer care about the future and will vote selfish short-term interests that deprive support to future generations? YES, we have seen that in action in any school bond referendum, for instance, but should we just ASSUME it and strip people of their right to vote at a certain age? That seems to me to be an extension of the assumption underlying extra votes for children ...
Click to expand...
My modest proposal. Everybody retains their current vote thought their lifetime. But youths are also awarded a full extra "steward of the future vote" that is weighed at 1 extra vote at 18 and steadily declines to a 0 extra votes around age 78 or so.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top