JD Vance calls for taking away voting power from “people who don’t have kids"
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Kamala HQ
@KamalaHQ
·
26m
JD Vance calls for taking away voting power from “people who don’t have kids”: “Doesn't this mean that non-parents don't have as much of a voice as parents? Doesn't this mean that parents get a bigger say in how democracy functions? Yes. Absolutely”
===============================================================
video at link
Tags
Who is online
692 visitors
This the most complete, up-to-date and diligently researched list of childless people anywhere on the internet or in print.
( I intended to print the whole list but then realized it was far too long . This is only about a quarter of it. ) Some famous people who didn't have kids . . . - Brianland (brianhassett.com)
Jesus Christ
Isaac Newton
Plato.
Mary Magdalene
Mother Teresa
Florence Nightingale;
Joan of Arc
Lawrence of Arabia
Edward the Confessor,
Betsy Ross
Rosa Parks
Bert Parks
Susan B. Anthony
Arthur C. Clarke
Ralph J. Gleason
the Dali Lama
the Pope
the Happy Hooker
Dr. Kellogg
Dr. Atkins
Dr. Seuss
Howard Hughes
Amelia Earhart
and both the Wright brothers
Oliver Wendell Holmes
John Clellon Holmes
George Bernard Shaw
Beethoven
Tchaikovsky
Mussorgsky
T.S. Elliot
W.H. Auden
H.L. Mencken
George Gershwin
George Balanchine
George Washington
Lionel Hampton
Lillian Hellman
Helen Keller
Helen Thomas
Helen Mirren
Quentin Crisp
Colin Quinn
Robin Quivers
D.H. Lawrence
E.M. Forster
J.M. Barrie
Billie Holiday
Bettye LaVette
Bettie Page
Leonardo
Michelangelo
Vincent
Salvador Dali
David Hockney
Jackson Pollock
Lee Krasner
Mary Cassatt
Frida Kahlo
Thoreau
Chekhov
Nietzsche
Schubert
Spinoza
Virgil
Keats
Poe
Proust
Rimbaud
Whitman
Tennessee Williams
Washington Irving
Robert Louis Stevenson
Hans Christian Andersen
Yves Saint Laurent
William Lyon Mackenzie King
Minnesota Fats
Alexander Pope
William Blake
Thomas Hardy
Harlan Ellison
Henry James
James Buchanan
Samuel Johnson
Samuel Beckett
George R.R. Martin
Lewis Carroll
Landford Wilson
Noel Coward
Hart Crane
Edward Albee
Virginia Woolf
George Eliot
Isak Dineson
Jane Austen
Willa Cather
Margaret Mitchell
Alice B. Toklas
Louisa May Alcott
Marjory Stoneman Douglas
Edna St. Vincent Millay
Joyce Carol Oates
Katherine Anne Porter
Katherine Mansfield
Flannery O’Connor
Edith Wharton
Elizabeth Wurtzel
Eudora Welty
Emily Dickinson
Emily Bronte
Anne Bronte
Mary Oliver
Harper Lee
Amy Tan
Anaïs Nin
Maureen Dowd
Gwen Ifill
Ann Patchett
Dorothy Parker
Raymond Chandler
James Baldwin
Joseph Campbell
Carlos Castaneda
Bernardo Bertolucci
Terrence Malick
Don DeLillo
Dean Koontz
Christian Dior
Ricky Jay
Jean Genet
Jerzy Kosinski
John Paul Jones
Gus Van Sant
Gene Autry
Randall Jarrell
Seymour Hersh
Delmore Schwartz
John Ashbery
Jim Marshall
Lester Bangs
Billy Collins
Gore Vidal
Edward Gorey
Allen Ginsberg
Henri Cru
Ralph Nader
Jerry Brown
Andy Warhol
Keith Haring
René Magritte
Merce Cunningham
Rudolf Nureyev
Alexander Godunov
Ahmet Ertegun
Brian Epstein
Bob Barker
Bill Blass
Sandy Koufax
Oliver Sacks
Paulo Coelho
George Peabody
Amy Clampitt
Son House
Wally Wood
Man Ray
Anita O’Day
Maria Callas
George Washington
I guess Vance thinks the father of our country had too much say.
You don't think step fathers raising small children are real fathers?
Vance, I believe , has said that Kamala Harris is not a parent. She has two stepchildren.
She became their stepmother when they were 15 and 20 years old.
So now it is only people who have young children who should have a "say"? Doesnt "the future" pertain to 15 and 20 year olds also?
The more Vance talks, and people make excuses for him, the worse it gets.
It doesn't matter what age a "child" comes to you for you to love. I love my son-in-law like he's my own son. I sure didn't raise him. I love his brother the same way
So those rumors about Washington's sex life are true after all!
Impressive list!
And let not forget Taylor Swift!
Not only doesn't she have kids-- but she's also one of those so-called "Cat Ladies"!
I must ask, where in the hell does he say a damned thing about taking away voting power? He doesn't. This article is total bullshit and you know it.
The only way that people have a tangible "say" in a democracy is through the vote. It is the only "say" that can be measured.
Democracy functions through government. What is people's "say" as regards government? The vote.
He may not want to take away childless people's vote. Maybe he just wants each parent to have two votes.
Well, then please explain what this means:
Think of schools...................
“think of schools” is not an explanation. I asked you to explain what the quote means - what his words mean - if it’s not taking away voting power.
Okay. If you want parents to have a bigger say in schools then non-parents should not have to pay property taxes to support said schools.
You are pursuing a loser argument. It has no chance. It is absurd. Just because a GOP politician says something does not mean it is a good idea.
Don't disagree with that one bit. In fact, I threw that into a discussion a week or so back. Figure out the percentage of the property taxes they pay and reduce their burden by that amount.[✘]
Are you aware of what that would do to parents? The cost for education would sky-rocket since all those whose kids are not in public schools or those who have no kids will no longer be contributing.
But if you think that is a good idea, then why should voters who pay the most taxes have the same voting influence as those who pay little or no taxes? If you think our system should operate à la carte as you would prefer with public schooling, then that principle should apply throughout. Pay only for what you actually use.
Yeah, Jim, Vance really is on to something here.
If you have children you are worth more to the nation and should have more influence on society. So if you pay extraordinary taxes you are funding the nation and should have more influence on how your money is spent for society.
Sounds good to you?
I'll gladly pay my income taxes now that my children are grown. I would have felt the same way if I were childless. You want to know why? Because the young people in school today are our future nurses, doctors, engineers, teachers. They will be assets to all of us in a few years
I'd much prefer to have educated people taking care of me and mine, thanks. Also, I'd like to be able to hire educated people. I'll gladly pay taxes for that ability.
So, people without children should determine school policy? School policy should be determined by phreaks pushing their own self serving agenda rather than parents?
And these same phreaks oppose school choice because it threatens their power to indoctrinate.
People without children also pay for the schools. People without children are just as likely to "know" what is best for society as people with kids. If that were not the case there wouldnt be thousands and thousands of children abused by their parents every year.
Voters with kids should have a greater say so in how their children are being educated than by some radical leftist dweebs who think they know what is best for our country. A lot of that neglect and child abuse occurs in our public schools.
Well, duh. That's the way taxes work. Our taxes are used for all sorts of things where the taxpayers have no say. That's been a common complaint about the so called 'welfare state'.
Expecting teachers to be social workers really has interfered with public education. Expecting schools to provide social services before providing education devalues education.
If child abuse is a problem then schools are not the proper service providers to address that problem. That expectation means a school is no longer a school. Schools are institutions intended to provide education. Hijacking these institutions to divert public tax money for other social services fails our children. And phreaks hijacking these institutions to indoctrinate with their own self-serving politics is harming our children.
No matter how absurd and undemocratic the idea posed by a GOP leader, it is simply accepted and run with.
You can say whatever you want, like we all can, but you are not addressing what is in the article.
Should parents have more "say" in our democracy than non parents?
Taxes is your argument?
We all pay taxes on things we don't get a say in.
As for the other part of your post.
No shit, really? Parents are the ones that abuse the most? How could that ever be?
Think that some single people wouldn't abuse kids if they were forced to be around them as much as parents are?
Being single doesn't make anyone smarter on how to deal with kids; or what is best for kids. Nor does the argument we were all kids at one time.
The seed is a 45 second video clip that doesn't provide any context.
Parents are bearing far more responsibility for the future of the country than people without children. Parents are now criminally liable for things their children do. A political activist can use a school to indoctrinate kids to commit crimes and the parents will be held accountable and criminally liable.
If society is requiring parents to assume more responsibility and accountability then why shouldn't parents have more say in society?
I didnt say that single people know more about what is best for kids than their parents do. Stop making shit up.
Vance says that people who are parets should have more say about the future of the country than non parents do.
On what basis? People who dont have kids can care every bit as much as "parents" do about the future of the country, and to say otherwise is unhinged from reality.
Okay, so why not give Elon Musk voting power proportional to the taxes he pays? After all if we require someone to assume more responsibility and accountability for paying for our nation then why should they not have more to say on how their tax dollars are used?
If I pay 10 times more taxes than you then do I get 10 times your voting power?
Here is another twist. If Amy has 5 children and Bob has no children then Amy should pay higher property taxes since this typically goes to fund public schools and Amy is using 5 slots where Bob uses none?
Keep going ... your stupid argument will trip over itself on each step.
Speaking of twist. You cannot magnify voting power.
I hope everyone gets a good laugh from your response.
I have no idea where that came from. My argument was that taxes are irrelevant to having a say in education. That's the way taxes work. Taxpayers don't have a say in how their taxes are used. That's been a complaint for the so called 'welfare state'.
Figure it out Nerm. I am illustrating absurdity with absurdity.
That is what you stated directly.
No, single people don't know as much as any children's parents.
I am single and wouldn't even pretend to give council to any of my friends that have kids. Much the less dictate school policy and education to them.
That's a valid means of discourse. But putting words I didn't say into my mouth is slanderous misinformation; that's not absurdity.
I did not put words in your mouth. Make an argument or not, but cease with the dishonest tactics.
Yes. How we educate our children impacts all of society and government. And anyway, what about young adults who don’t have children yet? Do they not care about schools? What about older couples whose kids are grown? Do they lose their voice in school issues?
But if you think that being that closely tied to an issue is required for taking part in the making of law and policy, then maybe men should not have any voice in abortion since they can’t get pregnant.
Maybe younger voters should not be allowed to vote on issues affecting Social Security, Medicare, retirement home regulations, etc.
Maybe straight people shouldn’t have anything to say about gay marriage. Maybe cis people shouldn’t get a voice in trans issues.
I mean, you could totally do it this way. Only stakeholders get a voice. It would be wildly inefficient, but sure, let’s try it. Just prepared to lose your say on a lot of issues.
well done
Why would they even care?
Since old people aren’t going to be around much longer, why have them vote on anything?
Grandchildren? Or maybe they just care about our future even though they won’t be here to see it?
Have you considered that maybe older couples who have sent kids through the entire system might have some valuable experience, insight, and wisdom on school issues? And maybe if they channeled that experience into not just their vote, but also speaking out on the issues, that we all might benefit from it?
Oh let's go WAAAAAY over the top. Don't be ridiculous.
No nor do I think the majority would. Grandchildren okay as long as they live in the same jurisdiction.
Which part is ridiculous? Will you be offering anything of substance today?
To be fair, I know that’s going to be difficult. You are pretty much trying to defend the indefensible. You’re just doing a poor job of it.
But only parents bear the responsibility and accountability for education. If the education is inadequate then the kid, as an adult, will be living in the parents basement. And if the kid shoots up the school then the parents will be criminally liable. The community reaps the benefits without any responsibility or accountability.
The voters don't have any skin in the game. The teacher's won't be held accountable for anything. The teacher's union can even overturn an election to impose it's own political view on kids. All the responsibility and accountability falls onto parents shoulders.
If public education is failing children then what can parents do? Parents bear the responsibility, schools do not. If a parent feels their children are better educated by a church school or a charter school then they have to bear the burden alone. Parents are trapped by society into whatever society provides. And a large part of society doesn't have any skin in the game.
The parents who are complaining now were once voters without children, too. People without children will be forced to use the education system they voted for. And then it will be too late because, as parents, they are only allowed to comply. They've had their vote and now must live with the consequences.
Taking their vote away on anything. As for your insulting tone, it is NOT indefensible. The fact you don't like what you read doesn't make it any less viable.
Only parents? Not teachers? Not administrators? Not writers of textbooks? Not the designers and maintainers of educational facilities and equipment? What about people who just are experts in how to educate someone?
What about the non-parents who will hire - or not hire - the graduates? What about the myriad industries - public and private - who need potential employees to be trained in certain skills and knowledge?
Why even send kids to school if only benefits the immediate family? Let’s just homeschool everyone, no requirements. If they learn something useful - great! If they just sit around and eat and play video games all day, I guess that’s freedom. Hooray Freedom!
I’m sure that will result in an extremely vibrant, intelligent, and productive America…not.
Yes, only parents. Teachers, administrators, and all the rest do not suffer the consequences of a curricula that fails to prepare students for life beyond school. A student ill prepared to function as a self sufficient adult won't be living in a teacher's basement. There are few career opportunities for professional students.
They get the benefit of skimming the cream. If an ill educated individual fails to meet expectations then they're cast aside without any concern or consideration. Are there no prisons? Are there no poorhouses?
Where did that come from? Certainly not anything I said.
You know, parents can vote with their feet. That's also democracy, isn't it? Once upon a time, a long time ago, the quality of local schools factored into home purchases. But then affirmative action came along and took that vote away from parents. Parents could choose to send their kids to a private school (church school, charter school, a variety of private academies) as a vote with their feet. But now lack of tax credits, arbitrary accreditation requirements, and tuition cost is taking that vote away from parents. Parents can form a cooperative home school but any sort of diploma is not recognized in most states to punish the students.
But what makes you think that parents who do have kids in schools have no power to indoctrinate? When it comes to indoctrination, parents with kids can be just as bad as people with no kids!
So, who do you want in charge of indoctrination? The Catholic Church? Nazis? Soviets? Point those little scapegoating fingers in every cardinal direction. There are plenty of examples of institutional indoctrination throughout history.
Do you want institutional indoctrination for or against indigenous cultures? And who determines what is to be imposed and enforced as the preferred doctrine? Do we celebrate the French-Indian wars as cultural examples of murder, torture, cannibalism? Or does doctrinaire democracy demand the burning of those books?
Who decides if our children are to become Dakota or Sauk? Do we adopt the cultural doctrine of Taoyateduta or of Keokuk? Will that be done democratically? Or will the choice follow the fashion of the day?
No, definitely not the Keokuk.
Nice folks really-- but that wouldn't be consistent with the values of their culture! (I'm surprised you didn't know that.)
I've played at the feet of Keokuk. Never saw anything commemorating Black Hawk.
If the values of their culture is to have their asses kicked then Little Crow would be their hero.
We are running a two trillion dollar deficit when we are not at war, there's no depression and no pandemic or other public emergency. Someone has to start thinking about the pain this going to cause to future generations. Empowering the people with an investment in the future to help protect it makes sense, but I doubt it would make all that much difference. Parents can be just as invested in the live for today, who cares about tomorrow philosophy that John Keynes embraced to justify deficit spending decades ago.
WTF???
It is an election year, we will need to attack Christmas next, then maybe try to convince a group that those other guys want to take away your right to vote, or .........the border will get overrun by Thanksgiving, just so much to choose from and Covid is low hanging fruit.
This guy is out of his mind.
He thinks that the 'voice' of a voter is a function of the number of children said voter has. His reasoning is that the number of kids determines one's investment in the country.
I have two kids but I disagree with Vance. What about childless people who create businesses, invent new technologies, engage in scientific discovery that improves our lives, volunteer community service, donate to worthy causes, etc.?
Trump sure can pick 'em.
And there is an endless supply of "conservatives" making excuses for people like him.
I have one grown child.
I also own a business that employs local residents, participate in community service, and donate to worthy causes.
I also pay my taxes. Reduce my voting power, and I consider that to be taxation without representation. We fought a war over this shit.
This is all about growing and strengthening the cult. They find ways to exclude people they don’t like or agree with, while identifying some characteristic they think is common to their membership.
his is all about growing and strengthening the cult. They find ways to exclude people they don’t like or agree with,
Kudos on identifying the point of this seed in bringing back idle comments he made in 2021.
What’s idle about it? Was he not trying to persuade people? Was he high?
Why is the date important? Has he changed his mind since then?
Start with the obvious legal issues that makes the scheme a non-starter. He's been in the Senate. He's now on a national ticket. Has he taken a single step in the years since the speech to make this happen?
It's literally the definition of idle musing.
People are not only judged on whether or not their ideas are feasible. Their ideas show their mindset.
Then I wonder why he needed to repeat it on the Tucker Carlson show?
Keep going with the childless cat-lady in misery who want to spread misery to everyone crap, Vance. You are helping that miserable cat lady get elected.
Yes, he sure has evolved. He went from Trump is Hitler to I was wrong Trump was a great president that I will serve loyally. Truly the swampiest creature in politics.
As is true of so many political articles, the author picks a segment of a 30 minute speech and doesn't provide the context around the remarks. Instead uses one sentence in an effort to articulate partisan talking points. I found the entire speech and posted a link to it. It's a total of 35 minutes as it also includes a Q&A after. It's a YouTube video so there will be a member or two who cannot access this due to restrictions from their country of origin.
J.D. Vance on our Civilizational Crisis - Intercollegiate Studies Institute
FYI - the speech was given July 24th, 2021 which was before Vance won his first election.
So, what do we need to know about this important context? I don’t have an hour to invest in this guy, and I’m betting most others don’t either. Was he being facetious? Has his position changed?
You need to ask him............Hell if I had realized this was three years ago I wouldn't have commented but once. Water over the damn.
Do you hold Democrats like Kamala Harris to the same standards?
She has flopped on law enforcement, criminal sentencing, drugs, and pretty much everything else since she was California's AG; but Democrats still are touting her "accomplishments" as an AG. In fact she is running on them. It isn't like she has done anything as VP- other than failing at being the border Czar.
I would rather that individuals view the full speech rather than have someone accuse me of being one sided or a trumpist. Politics has gotten so nasty that people will accuse others of all sorts of things with no real evidence. People will view different things from the speech no doubt and I don't want to be accused of putting words in anybody's mouth or getting into an argument over what I think.
The more important point, I think, is that once again we have a "reporter" who cherry-picks a small piece of a 30 minute speech and uses that to attack with partisan talking points.
Makes it kind of hard to discuss the matter, then.
I appreciate that cherry picking happens, but it's your claim that this is taken out of context. I would think you could articulate how in just a few sentences. In the meantime, we have nothing to discuss.
Non sequitur. I didn't define a standard for anything. I asked a couple of questions. This looks like a pretty clumsy attempt at whataboutism by you. Do you just have that kind of thing as a macro that activates when you hit "reply?"
I'm pretty sure this is from that same speech so I'm not sure what a better context would be. Maybe I'll skim through the entire video and see what is excuse might be.
I wonder, if the father and mother disagree on how those votes should be used, who J. D. thinks should get to decide?
Nah, I don't really wonder. He's shown us what he thinks of women. I'm only surprised his wife hasn't kicked him to the curb.
I watched and listened to the video while I was making and eating breakfast. In my opinion there is no additional context that would mitigate his comments about parentless people. He talks for about a half an hour and half of it is on that topic. The first half is a general attack on "woke" culture, and the second half gets more specific about childless adults. The one thing that could be said in Vance's favor is that he says his criticisms do not include people who are not able to have children for whatever reason.
Interestingly, he says, right before the comment about giving more voting power to parents, that he knows his remarks on this might get him "in trouble".
It just took a few years.
Exactly, that highly successful brown woman, the daughter of successful immigrants, gives that rosy introductory convention speech for her husband. How disappointing that she has used her education to clerk for Brett Kavanaugh and John Roberts. JD has turned her away from being a Democrat and into a children bearing Repub. She's probably too far gone to kick him to the curb.
i get his point, yet cannot agree with it. For i do believe a parent should look more forward in thinking , and thus pol.icy, as it will affect ones offspring down the road, this however, should not result in the removal of another's right, and input into whom is elected to serve
Vance was 36 years old and entering into politics, intentionally, when he made these comments. Tell us the reasons you think he has changed his mind.
Are you trying to tell us he changed his mind in three years? If he has he is free to say so. Dont hold your breath.
I think quite a few childless cat ladies are very happy.
who the hell is JD Vance to lecture people on "civilizational crisis" ?
Wasn't he invited by the ISI to provide that lecture?
the 'civilizational crisis' he is referring to, and he says this explicitly in the video, is the shortage of new American babies.
That may or may not be a big problem going forward, but I would not call it a 'civilizational crisis'. JD Vance does.
Crisis might be overstated. Earlier this year, the White House noted that our low fertility coupled with an aging population:
I hope Vance keeps up with crazy talk like this. This will appeal to his MAGA base but will alienate the more rational among the electorate.
I think the Trump campaign will be having words with him on message.
Of all the taxes I pay, school taxes are the one I am more than happy to. Perhaps it is time for Vance to pen a new tome ... An Irrelevant Faithlessness and How I Came to Love a - What Did I call Him again?
Since Vance hasn't tried to write legislation for this proposal while in the Senate, I see it more as a thought experiment than a real proposal.
Having a proxy vote for the interests of your kids is a novel idea in concept. It assume the voter may be taking a long view instead of short sided interest. I don't know if that would hold true in our real world. Also this would face a hard court challenge.
I'm not a big Vance fan but there are more important things to argue about than this thought piece that is going nowhere.
Probably so, but then there are people who are completely indifferent to a second Trump presidency and spend a lot of time trying to mock people who oppose Trump.
Does that ring a bell with anyone?
By the way, why does DEI upset anyone? Arent there many more important issues?
Not with me. I'm not at all indifferent to a second Trump presidency. I don't try to mock people, just inaccurate facts and ideas.
The presumption is that unqualified people - or less qualified than alternatives - are placed in important jobs solely because they satisfy a demographic requirement. I won't say that never happens anywhere, but I'm not sure why anyone would desire that. Why, for example, would any president want a poorly qualified VP? It would just make that president's job harder.
Having said all that, I do think Biden did Harris a huge disservice by announcing that he would appoint a black woman as VP. I do think you can want to put a black woman in the position and then go look for a qualified one. That's fine. But the way he did it just reinforces the bias against diversity efforts.
Biden announced that he would appoint a woman. He specifically said he would not guarantee that he would select a black woman.
DEI can be implemented well or not. If it is tokenism or wrong hires that can't do the job, or superficial inclusion, it leads to frustration. When implemented well, it can foster innovation, enhance employee participation in problem solving engagement, and increase successes.
You’re right. I believe I was remembering his promise to put a black woman on the Supreme Court.
That he did promise.
MSNBC just played a clip of JD Vance saying that children should be given the vote but their vote should be controlled by their parents.
So much for the claim that his remarks were not about voting.
For what its worth Vance's side is saying it was a "thought experiment" .
This is great nonsense. I hope the Trump campaign does not get control over Vance and allow him to keep offering thought experiments.
If he does Trump will swap him out. It is already bubbling beneath the surface. I saw an article today discussing if Trump could ditch him. I think he can, at least within the next few weeks.
And if Trump swaps him out it will be damaging for Trump. (Not among his supporters, of course.)
J D Vance is so low down trashy he makes Sarah Boo Boo Palin look sophisticated and classy in comparison...
In other words, he perfectly fits in with The Trump Klan!
In what ways?
MAGA trash talk...
He went to Yale.
He is certainly starting off badly. Hopefully he will continue badly.
Who made that claim?
[✘]
?
Overpopulation is the biggest problem we face, and it multiplies all other problems. Lower birthrate is part of the solution as is ending immigration. There is just not enough room or resources,
To keep economy going we need to move to quality over quantity
We don’t seem to be very good at improving the quality of our population.
Apparently all citizens are equal, but some citizens are more equal than others.