The GOP needs to convince voters that Donald Trump and JD Vance are regular guys, and, manifestly, they are not.
It would be strange for Democrats to attack the Republican presidential ticket for being āweirdā if it werenāt true. But those men are getting weirder by the day.
Former president Donald Trumpās running mate, Sen. JD Vance (Ohio), isĀ off to a wobbly start. AĀ Harris 2024 campaignĀ email sent on Friday was headlined, āJD Vance Is a Creep (Who Wants to Ban Abortion Nationwide).ā The statement continued, āJD Vance is weird. Voters know it ā Vance is the most unpopular VP pick in decades.ā
It was bad enough when footage resurfaced of a 2021 interview in which Vance called Democrats āa bunch of childless cat ladies who are miserable at their own lives and the choices that theyāve made.ā Things got worse last week whenĀ Vance offered a non-apology, blaming āpeopleā for āfocusing so much on the sarcasm and not on the substance of what I actually said.ā
Uh, okay, but that doesnāt help at all. The substance ā which Vance said he stands by ā is asserting that adults without childrenĀ do not deserve an equal sayĀ in the nationās affairs. Another unearthed clip of VanceĀ showed him arguing that parents, when they vote, should be able to cast an extra ballot for each child in their family who is under voting age. He didnāt take that back, either, going only so far as to claim it was a āthought experimentā and not a firm policy position.
Your assertion was that, āParents have a greater stake in our nations futureā. Do people suddenly stop caring about the future when their children move out? Perhaps you donāt think parents of adult children should have extra votes but you suggested that they care more about the future and the totality of people who have children is still greater than those who do not, putting that class in the driverās seat.
More like your stances are weak and unsupportable and you want an easy exit.
My stances are perfectly supportable, but I have no desire to debate with immature people on the internet
Ah yes, the classic defense of someone who is dead wrong but is too weak to admit it.
Sure thing.
Your stance is pathetically weak. There is no justification for altering constitutional rights to give a subset of people political advantage who btw already get billions of dollars in tax incentives every year. You already get paid to have children but thatās not enough, you want even more: outsized political power.
In order for your stance to be correct, not only do we have to have it in our nature to care more about the future, if we have kids, as well as that, what they think is good for the future, is.
Show proof of these things, and then your argument hold water. Until then this all just what seems like it should be true to you.