I heard he was crazy
No more so than any other right-wing populist.
2 Likes
I think JD is a bigger deal than one might think. It signals a significant shift in direction of the Republican/conservative policies. To learn more, look into Oren Cass and the American Compass group.
There is a fantastic interview of this gentleman with Ezra Klein. And he is more than a match for Ezra.
“Developing the conservative economic agenda to supplant blind faith in free markets with a focus on workers, their families and communities, and the nation.”
Other R senators that are sympathetic to its aims include Cotton, Hawley, and Rubio. And it’s a measure of this factions influence when you see a labor union leader at the podium of the RNC.
Times are changing.
1 Like
I would say that the civil war that had been fought within the GOP has been resolved…and sadly, it’s a sign that the populism behind the MAGA label will have traction after Trump eventually leaves the stage.
Also, it hints that the Rs are happy to swap new union votes while ditching the libertarians.
More partyless old republicans, but a lot of new R votes. It’s a smart play.
I was looking at it as there being a slight chance that, for a few years, there might actually be a viable possibility of there being a few candidates for office I could support beyond the minimal “lesser evil” standard.
1 Like
Just to clarify (since I had started with a longer post but edited it down to the point where not everyone might make the logic jump) – I’ve been wondering if there might be enough critical mass for common ground to be found for a viable third party for an election cycle or two.
Vance has some ideas for sure.
So since I have 3 kids, do I get more votes than someone with 2 kids? And as I am in the process of getting divorced, which one of us keeps control of those votes?
Going to have to negotiate it like the tax deductions.
1 Like
I don’t think this is such a bad idea. It’s a corollary to the issue with Brexit being due to all the old people voting, despite not being around for the consequence. If you plan to never have kids, all else equal, you may not care as much about climate change, for example.
You can negotiate, one gets the dog the other gets the votes.
I guess i group this with the idea that people need religion and consequences like hell to act in the best interest of others. Maybe if you are a selfish asshole and think everyone else is a selfish asshole, you conclude the only thing keeping you from trashing the planet is having kids.
2 Likes
Yeah man that guy is crazy af
I think assuming people aren’t going to act primarily in pursuit of their own self interest is naive. Sure, transition for climate change. But how much more are you willing to pay for energy/etc when you don’t have skin in the game? Surely less than if you have a stronger vested interest.
The idea that kids tend make you think and care more about the future isn’t necessarily wrong, but I think that doesn’t mean people without kids have so little consideration for the future that they deserve fewer rights. It would also create a set of perverse incentives that Republicans hated so much that they reformed welfare in the 90’s.
Sometimes I have to wonder if the launching loads of sh!t into the air is a tactic to distract from the real ends. Makes me very worried.
It’s an older meme, but it checks out.
1 Like
I think we are agreeing there are a lot of selfish assholes and JD Vance seems like one of them.
1 Like
Counterpoint: People who don’t have kids may care more about climate change than those who do and decided not to increase the population when we already output too much pollution. Having a child is one of the worst environmental things one can do. Therefore, childless people should get more votes than those who clearly don’t care as much.
(I do not believe this, but am pointing out the absurdity.)
1 Like