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: 23K
  • Politics 
Callatoroy said:
She is exactly right and It's not at all who we are but all you see is what you want to see. It's easy to create a boogeyman and then everyone fits that profile. Its the lazy way out. It requires curiosity, effort and a desire to understand a different pov. By the way, curiosity is one of the signs of intelligence.
Click to expand...
By the way, Donald John Trump is likely the least curious President and in the bottom 15% of adult humans in terms of curiosity.
 
UNCatTech said:
What would the rules be? There would have to be a cut off, most kids under 10 are probably voting for who their parents tell them to. Most kids under 18 are probably not informed enough and would vote for a party, like so many adults.
I just can't see this being a good idea.

Also, the your statement about owning more shares does give one more stake in the company. I don't agree that having more kids gives one more stake in the country.

Then there's the considerations of parents that can't have kids, why would they be punished?
Click to expand...
Well, like I said, there would be a lot of downsides -- which is why I'm not in favor of the idea. I just don't think it's ridiculous.

To clarify: I do not think that more kids = more of a stake in the country. What I was saying re: corporate law was an explanation of why I hadn't considered the multiple kids angle. It wasn't a defense; it was a mea culpa as to how and why I hadn't thought that part through.
 
CFordUNC said:
Damn! Congrats to your oldest. That's impressive.
Click to expand...
Why would you believe that? Do you believe fishiop when he says his son is at Harvard? Funny how all these guys who can barely keep a coherent thought are just pumping out elite intelligences . . . .
 
Mulberry Heel said:
No, she's exactly wrong and you're the one who is seeing only what you wish to see. Given the two top candidates your party has chosen I feel quite confident in that assertion. Another sign of intelligence is the ability to look at what politicians say and propose and believe in and form conclusions based on their statements and speeches. And it seems quite clear that Donald J. Trump and J.D. Vance and the party they lead is not in favor of things that matter to a great many modern women, such as abortion rights, IVF, and so on.
Click to expand...
Your assumption is that trump and vance speak for everyone in the pub party and that their views on abortion, IVF, etc. represents the entire party because almost all of the comments on this board are targeted at the pub party, not trump / vance. They don't represent millions of republican views. trump didn't win 100% of the pub vote in the primary. Literally millions of republicans see trump for what he is and only support him as a means to an end. These people are not this
But for everyone of those I can show you this
I don't assume, as you seem to, that this represents the entire democratic party.

Vance's comments don't reflect my views on women and kids. That doesn't mean we don't share the same views on the border or other topics. I think I'm pretty damn good at looking at what politicians say and propose and believe in on the campaign trail because I know what campaign rhetoric is and I know what is actually doable within our checks / balances. I never believed trump was going to build a wall and mexico was going to pay for it but it sure did tell me that he was going to put effort into having a secure border. I don't believe trump is going to round up 11 million illegals and deport them but it tells me he is going to try to identify the bad ones and get them out and secure the border. I don't believe trump is going to pull out of NATO but I do believe he is going to get those countries to carry more of the load. None of that makes me what you perceive me to be, or millions of others but it is easier to make us boogeymen because it fuels the hatred.
Zoo_View said:
Just curious……are you still voting for Trump-Vance?
Click to expand...
 
Callatoroy said:
Your assumption is that trump and vance speak for everyone in the pub party and that their views on abortion, IVF, etc. represents the entire party because almost all of the comments on this board are targeted at the pub party, not trump / vance. They don't represent millions of republican views. trump didn't win 100% of the pub vote in the primary. Literally millions of republicans see trump for what he is and only support him as a means to an end. These people are not this
But for everyone of those I can show you this
I don't assume, as you seem to, that this represents the entire democratic party.

Vance's comments don't reflect my views on women and kids. That doesn't mean we don't share the same views on the border or other topics. I think I'm pretty damn good at looking at what politicians say and propose and believe in on the campaign trail because I know what campaign rhetoric is and I know what is actually doable within our checks / balances. I never believed trump was going to build a wall and mexico was going to pay for it but it sure did tell me that he was going to put effort into having a secure border. I don't believe trump is going to round up 11 million illegals and deport them but it tells me he is going to try to identify the bad ones and get them out and secure the border. I don't believe trump is going to pull out of NATO but I do believe he is going to get those countries to carry more of the load. None of that makes me what you perceive me to be, or millions of others but it is easier to make us boogeymen because it fuels the hatred.
Click to expand...
I hate to tell you this, but choosing Donald J. Trump as your presidential nominee three times in a row does mean that he speaks for your party. Nearly all dissenting voices in your party - Romney, Cheney, etc. have been labeled as RINOs and driven from party councils. Nearly all others - like Nikki Haley or Ted Cruz or Lindsey Graham - long ago bent the knee and whatever they think of Trump in private they go along with what he says and wants in public. Haley attacked Trump in the primaries and was crushed and then did an about-face and endorsed him after all the harsh things she said about him. You say some Republicans don't agree with abortion, yet red-state governments across the country have passed harsh anti-abortion laws even in cases of rape, incest, or the mother's life being in danger. And the bulk of your party is pushing for a national abortion ban, and while Trump himself claims he doesn't support it the record of your party on the abortion issue does not provide many grounds to believe him. And the same can be said about a host of other issues.

So you never believed that Trump was going to pay for the wall or that Mexico would pay for it, but you still supported him because you supported his policies on the border or immigration? Do you not see how that sounds - you didn't mind Trump wasting taxpayer money on a wall just because maybe we would be tougher on immigrants? If a man tells you he is going to use the government to round up 11 million people using the military and law enforcement it is best to believe him, but if you wish to excuse him at least making the attempt because in the process he might "get a few bad ones" then go ahead, but that sounds like a pretty awful justification and rationalization to me. You can keep rationalizing that Trump isn't going to do all of these terrible things - things even you admit would be bad - because in the process he might do a few things you support, but it sounds a lot to me like the old "to make an omelette you've got to crack a few eggs" excuse. And I would much prefer that Trump never get the chance to put any of his threats and policies into place, no matter that he might do a few things you agree with along the way.
 
Last edited:
Zoo_View said:
You keep posting that Trump is smart.

Then you post that curiosity is an indicator of intelligence.

Trump isn’t inquisitive or curious.
Click to expand...
Curiosity is an indicator of intelligence. Not the only indicator. Where did your 15% number come from? How is that even measurable? Can you post a link to it?
 
farce said:
I am 70 with no kids. I would support a tax increase for things that benefit society as a whole and future generations because I am not an entitled asshole thinking only of myself. And I reject the notion that most older people are. People who lack empathy and compassion aren't bound by age.

ETA: we have seen over and over with MAGA that people do not necessarily vote in their own self-interests.
Click to expand...
Agreed. I think by and large those without children are FAR more likely to be concerned about the future of society than those who raised children that have now left home. I completely resent the characterization of childless people as somehow being disinterested in societal good through public policy.
 
Mulberry Heel said:
I hate to tell you this, but choosing Donald J. Trump as your presidential nominee three times in a row does mean that he speaks for your party. Nearly all dissenting voices in your party - Romney, Cheney, etc. have been labeled as RINOs and driven from party councils. Nearly all others - like Nikki Haley or Ted Cruz or Lindsey Graham - long ago bent the knee and whatever they think of Trump in private they go along with what he says and wants in public. So not all Republicans are opposed to abortion, but polls show the vast majority are, Trump brags that he appointed the Supreme Court justices who overturned Roe, and red-state governments across the country have passed harsh anti-abortion laws even in cases of rape, incest, or the mother's life being in danger. And the bulk of your party is pushing for a national abortion ban, and while Trump himself claims he doesn't support it the record of your party on the abortion issue does not provide many grounds to believe him. And the same can be said about a host of other issues.

So you never believed that Trump was going to pay for the wall or that Mexico would pay for it, but you still supported him because you supported his policies on the border or immigration? Do you not see how that sounds - you didn't mind Trump wasting taxpayer money on a wall just because maybe we would be tougher on immigrants? If a man tells you he is going to use the government to round up 11 million people using the military and law enforcement it is best to believe him, but if you wish to excuse him at least making the attempt because in the process he might "get a few bad ones" then go ahead, but that sounds like a pretty awful justification and rationalization to me. You can keep rationalizing that Trump isn't going to do all of these terrible things - things even you admit would be bad - because in the process he might do a few things you support, but it sounds a lot to me like the old "to make an omelette you've got to crack a few eggs" excuse. And I would much prefer that Trump never get the chance to put any of his threats and policies into place, no matter that he might do a few things you agree with along the way.
Click to expand...

UNCRx85 said:
yes, I do recall him having ample “executive time” on his daily schedules.
Click to expand...
He made up for it by working past 8:00 though. Some call it a day when the clock strikes 8:00
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top