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 “weird” if it weren’t true. But those men are getting weirder by the day.
Former president Donald Trump’s running mate, Sen. JD Vance (Ohio), is off to a wobbly start. A Harris 2024 campaign email sent on Friday was headlined, “JD Vance Is a Creep (Who Wants to Ban Abortion Nationwide).” The statement continued, “JD Vance is weird. Voters know it – Vance is the most unpopular VP pick in decades.”
It was bad enough when footage resurfaced of a 2021 interview in which Vance called Democrats “a bunch of childless cat ladies who are miserable at their own lives and the choices that they’ve made.” Things got worse last week when Vance offered a non-apology, blaming “people” for “focusing so much on the sarcasm and not on the substance of what I actually said.”
Uh, okay, but that doesn’t help at all. The substance — which Vance said he stands by — is asserting that adults without children do not deserve an equal say in the nation’s affairs. Another unearthed clip of Vance 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 didn’t take that back, either, going only so far as to claim it was a “thought experiment” and not a firm policy position.
This is remarkably similar to the “you need god to be moral, so atheists are all immoral” BS (and is coming from the kinds of people who claim the same). No, a person does not need to have kids to give a fuck about the future of other people, just basic respect and compassion for their fellow humans. “I only care about things that affect me directly” is Republican thinking.
giving a fuck =/= giving more fucks. It’s basic human psychology here, not some great moral play
There are a LOT of people that don’t give a fuck about anyone else who have kids, so your idea of “basic human psychology” is deeply flawed.
ok? I don’t see what that has to with my point or your original point. People do all sorts of things. What matters is the averages. Are you seriously saying parents on average care less about kids than people without kids?
Why? As you said, people do all sorts of things. Some people with no kids care about kids a lot, and some with kids don’t. Using averages as an excuse to give some people more representation than others (which is what the guy you’re agreeing with proposed and is related to his Kamala “no kids” attack) is a terrible idea.
Well ok then, all kids should have a vote! If you’re considered legally alive, you can vote! Since it really doesn’t matter on average, that babies and toddlers are pretty bad at voting properly right? Full equality!
If you’re not already a registered Republican, you should become one. You’re just their type.
Why the fuck should you have more votes than me cause you put your cock in a vagina and let something slide out of it? Explain to me in great detail how that somehow gives you more value than me? Or how that somehow negates my ability to care about others and the future. Fucking idiot.
Because, you absolute dunce, humans are hardwired to care more about the HUMAN that slid out the vagina than some rando. Care MORE, not at all. It’s not about your ABILITY to care, it’s about what what actually fucking happens in reality.
Also the way you talk about having children is not really helping your claim that you care about them.
Doesn’t the existence of abusive parents throw a wrench in that logic?
It’s a moot point anyway because who decides how much more a parents vote is worth? You can’t have a real democracy when who gets to vote is decided by who gets to vote. Whoever has the voting power today will vote to tip the scales of democracy in their favor tomorrow, ad infinitum until we’re back to only white male landowners voting. What you’re arguing for is essentially a whole new dimension of gerrymandering.
You. Didn’t. Answer. Any. Of. My. Questions. Lmdao.