JD Vance Catch-all

  • Thread starter Thread starter nycfan
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 956
  • Views: 33K
  • Politics 
Zoo_View said:
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.
Click to expand...
Are young people less educated or sensible as voters than anyone else? There are kids who Biden to snap his fingers and end the war in Gaza. There are also many, many more MAGAs who believe that Trump will do just that, and not only for Gaza. I'll bet the youngsters would be willing to invest in green tech, whereas the GOP has been passing laws preventing government agencies from factoring climate change into long-term planning projects.

Also, young voters' attitudes are endogenous to the system. The political system is geared to respond to the middle aged and the old -- in part because old people vote (what else do they have to do?) but perhaps even more, middle aged and older people have money to donate. Kids can't compete with that, so they tune out. If they had more power, they might be more engaged.
 
WaynetheDrain said:
Shawn Kemp is going to become the equivalent of a Super PAC.
Click to expand...
Ha! You're showing your age. As am I. I still remember the Kemp as the guy who Mutumbo blocked at the end of the game that gave us the iconic image of Mutumbo grabbing the ball with joy. Kemp was driving to the rim from the left side. No way Mutumbo could have gotten the block if he went up with his left hand. But Shawn Kemp, being Shawn Kemp, tried to cram it down with his right.

Also Larry Johnson had tons of kids IIRC
 
I am guessing my first wife is a Trump voter. She also dislikes children and never had/wanted any.

I am thinking that these comments by Vance do nothing to gain voters and risk losing people like her.
 
CFordUNC said:
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.
Click to expand...
Thanks. You know, you might enjoy reading the work of Matty Yglesias. He's a very smart, centrist writer with a background in policy; he knows a lot, and he writes well. I had thought about these points a long time ago, but it wasn't until he wrote about it as if it was a serious idea that I realized it could, in fact, be a serious idea.

I haven't read his work too much recently, after he moved to substack and put his stuff behind a paywall. But seeing as how you pay for Bulwark, maybe you'd be interested in paying for him also. I don't know how much he charges. Enough to make a pretty good living, I think (I saw one estimate of his takehome as 500K) but that's in part because he has a lot of subscribers.
 
superrific said:
Thanks. You know, you might enjoy reading the work of Matty Yglesias. He's a very smart, centrist writer with a background in policy; he knows a lot, and he writes well. I had thought about these points a long time ago, but it wasn't until he wrote about it as if it was a serious idea that I realized it could, in fact, be a serious idea.

I haven't read his work too much recently, after he moved to substack and put his stuff behind a paywall. But seeing as how you pay for Bulwark, maybe you'd be interested in paying for him also. I don't know how much he charges. Enough to make a pretty good living, I think (I saw one estimate of his takehome as 500K) but that's in part because he has a lot of subscribers.
Click to expand...
I'll check him out- thanks for the rec! Always looking to learn.
 
superrific said:
Ha! You're showing your age. As am I. I still remember the Kemp as the guy who Mutumbo blocked at the end of the game that gave us the iconic image of Mutumbo grabbing the ball with joy. Kemp was driving to the rim from the left side. No way Mutumbo could have gotten the block if he went up with his left hand. But Shawn Kemp, being Shawn Kemp, tried to cram it down with his right.

Also Larry Johnson had tons of kids IIRC
Click to expand...
Well he was used to cramming things.
 
As a childless person, I hate this idea. Certainly I'm biased, but I would argue that we already do A LOT in this country to subsidize the decision to have kids. And by and large, I feel the majority of US-born kids are fairly useless... and the higher number of generations their ancestors have been here, the more likely they are useless.

If we want to focus on policy to ensure the future of the US, we need to find ways to promote immigration IMO. People coming here for the opportunities not available in their country of birth has always been the lifeblood of the US (unless you are Native American, of course).
 
superrific said:
Are young people less educated or sensible as voters than anyone else? There are kids who Biden to snap his fingers and end the war in Gaza. There are also many, many more MAGAs who believe that Trump will do just that, and not only for Gaza. I'll bet the youngsters would be willing to invest in green tech, whereas the GOP has been passing laws preventing government agencies from factoring climate change into long-term planning projects.

Also, young voters' attitudes are endogenous to the system. The political system is geared to respond to the middle aged and the old -- in part because old people vote (what else do they have to do?) but perhaps even more, middle aged and older people have money to donate. Kids can't compete with that, so they tune out. If they had more power, they might be more engaged.
Click to expand...
1) Yes. Young voters are less educated or sensible as voters than most citizens older than 25, or 30, or 35.

2) In terms of power, if one is able to do basic math, one easily sees that the easiest elections to influence are local ones, especially school board elections.

All age groups turn out more for presidential elections; but, young voters are notoriously bad at turning out for and volunteering for school board, town/city council, and county commissioner elections……the elections they could most easily, readily, and greatly impact, they ignore in overwhelming numbers……the elective offices that likely most impact their lives.
 
gtyellowjacket said:
Germany looked at this proxy voting for kids in the early 2000's but voted it down. Japan is looking at it now.

The idea is to shift more political power to people with kids with the hope that it will drive policies to encourage higher birth rates. But I'm sure Vance has done the math and this will result in more GOP votes.
Click to expand...
I can understand why Japan might float this idea. They have a very serious problem in that country currently with younger citizens not wanting kids.
 
NYCBlueBlood said:
As a childless person, I hate this idea. Certainly I'm biased, but I would argue that we already do A LOT in this country to subsidize the decision to have kids. And by and large, I feel the majority of US-born kids are fairly useless
Click to expand...
1. "Kids are useless" is a take, I guess.
2. I don't think the idea of kids getting votes is about subsidizing anything. It's about aligning incentives.
3. I don't know how old you are, but suppose you are childless and 75 (hopefully you will be someday, if not yet). What on Earth would make you, say, advocate for a tax increase to pay for a decarbonizing energy grid? It's against your self-interest. You have nothing tying you to the future. Now, maybe you are an empathetic person who cares about others' welfare, or someone like me who is borderline obsessed with making good public policy, but those aren't reliable predictors of political views. For the most part, people vote in alignment with their own interests, at least somewhat. And if your interests are consumption now because the future belongs to others, then why would it be good for the country for you to have a say in its future?

As I said above, I'm by no means wedded to this idea. It has downsides for sure. And I can understand your perspective, especially if you are 45 and think your vote should count as much as a 45 year old with kids. You're not wrong.

I am skeptical that Japan is looking at increased voting power for families as an inducement to have kids. That's just not how it works. One vote is almost worthless in a large democracy; five votes or 10 votes does nothing to change that, really (zero times 10 is still zero), and nobody would go through the ordeal of child-rearing for that reason.
 
Moore County NC is a booming retirement area. Golf. Lots of pretty wealthy folks have moved there
They couldn't pass a school bond if every school was on fire
 
superrific said:
1. "Kids are useless" is a take, I guess.
2. I don't think the idea of kids getting votes is about subsidizing anything. It's about aligning incentives.
3. I don't know how old you are, but suppose you are childless and 75 (hopefully you will be someday, if not yet). What on Earth would make you, say, advocate for a tax increase to pay for a decarbonizing energy grid? It's against your self-interest. You have nothing tying you to the future. Now, maybe you are an empathetic person who cares about others' welfare, or someone like me who is borderline obsessed with making good public policy, but those aren't reliable predictors of political views. For the most part, people vote in alignment with their own interests, at least somewhat. And if your interests are consumption now because the future belongs to others, then why would it be good for the country for you to have a say in its future?

As I said above, I'm by no means wedded to this idea. It has downsides for sure. And I can understand your perspective, especially if you are 45 and think your vote should count as much as a 45 year old with kids. You're not wrong.

I am skeptical that Japan is looking at increased voting power for families as an inducement to have kids. That's just not how it works. One vote is almost worthless in a large democracy; five votes or 10 votes does nothing to change that, really (zero times 10 is still zero), and nobody would go through the ordeal of child-rearing for that reason.
Click to expand...
Reminds me of an article I read recently about government-run dating apps in Japan. The initial goal was to try to help young people who want to get married find a mate so they would have kids. But it turns out they've been most successful helping older Japanese find a later in life mate to grow old with.
 
nycfan said:
Reminds me of an article I read recently about government-run dating apps in Japan. The initial goal was to try to help young people who want to get married find a mate so they would have kids. But it turns out they've been most successful helping older Japanese find a later in life mate to grow old with.
Click to expand...
That's likely in part because there is no way those government-run dating apps are good or appealing. Japanese young people can be kind of crazy, in a good way. When I was in college, I put on a performance for a Japanese band called Space Streakings. Their music is really impossible to describe, and their stage show was just bonkers -- they had springs on their shoes, flashing LED lights everywhere, weird props, the whole works. It was an amazing show. They were fairly popular in Japan among the youth, though not as popular as sonic anarchists like the Boredoms or Ruins.

There is no way the government run app would appeal to that crowd.
 
superrific said:
suppose you are childless and 75 (hopefully you will be someday, if not yet). What on Earth would make you, say, advocate for a tax increase to pay for a decarbonizing energy grid? It's against your self-interest.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Last edited:
CFordUNC said:
Why is Kamala Harris a "low IQ black woman" in your mind? You don't graduate from law school, become a successful attorney, become a successful prosecutor, become Attorney General of the largest state in the nation, become Vice President, and become at worst 50/50 odds to become the next POTUS, by having a "low IQ." That you continue to believe this, much less say it, is quite an indictment on your character. I hope you'll reconsider your choice of words moving forward.
Click to expand...
Not an indictment on my character. The black part is important because that is a demographic that trump was gaining inroads with. Now he decides that he is going to be "not nice" to a black woman who represents two demographics he can't afford to lose any votes from.

The low IQ part I believe to be completely accurate. I'm not saying she is double digits, but her IQ isn't on par with what any reasonable person would associate with a person holding the highest office in the country. Maybe I should have said average IQ. To be clear I'm not saying she is dumb as it relates to the ability to learn. However, I know personally at least 15 attorneys and went to school with at least 5 people I knew quite well that went to law school. A few have extremely high IQs but the majority are no more intelligent than college grads in other occupations. They were just more disciplined and had a better work ethic and drive. So graduating law school doesn't mean high IQ.

The rest of her resume is underwhelming with what you would expect from someone elected potus. It doesn't scream high IQ or even overachiever. She apparently had some help along the way. To what degree I don't know but she apparently made some useful connections. In her role of vp she has proven to be completely incompetent. Her interviews indicate someone with average IQ. I have read years and years of comments you guys have made about pub presidents, vp, congress people, judges, etc. I know exactly what you would say about kamala if she were a pub given what she has shown since her campaign and in her role as vp. I also know what would be said about her less than sterling college degrees. Howard and UCLSF aren't exactly Ivy League and I know how much stock you guys put into credentials because I read the critiques of pub candidates and their educational backgrounds. She would be attacked on par with what you say about the intelligence of trump, W, ACB, etc. You can say you wouldn't but you wouldn't be truthful. I can remember some of the comments that were made about her during the campaign and they weren't good. In a primary, none of the libs on this board would vote for her. She didn't win a single delegate and was hired SOLELY because she is a black female. That's it. Now you and some others have seemingly forgotten the comments about her that were made during the campaign. She didn't all of a sudden transform into this brilliant mind that makes people go wow she should be potus. She fell into it because of her color and gender. So, I stand by my characterization of her intellect and know if she wasn't Kamala (D) you and most on here would agree with me. I'm not into pretending someone is something they aren't because they are a potus nominee. You haven't heard me make excuses for trump and I have been critical of vance where warranted.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top