Red Mosquito

B wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:

RockPusher wrote:What's "weird":

Insisting you are the party of smaller government, but using it to repress women, harass LGBT people, and punish people without biological offspring (that last one is a Vance special).

True libertarians should not support that crap, but they've bought into the Republican party largely because guns are more important than children, apparently/ironically.

I hadn't heard this. What is issue here?

You haven't heard the "tax people without kids more" interview?

It's the child income tax credit, but in reverse. Is increasing the CITC controversial?

I asked Ms. B that. "Don't we get a tax break b/c we have kids?"

I don't really have a problem with the policy that comes from JD's interview, but the fact that he came to it by "punishing people without kids" and not by "helping families" is just more fire on the "JD is a weird asshole" fire.

I might also add that we dump way, WAY more money into the economy trying to raise kids than we get back in tax breaks. It's not an incentive to have kids. Kids are going to put you in the poor house.

Bi_3 wrote:

B wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:

RockPusher wrote:What's "weird":

Insisting you are the party of smaller government, but using it to repress women, harass LGBT people, and punish people without biological offspring (that last one is a Vance special).

True libertarians should not support that crap, but they've bought into the Republican party largely because guns are more important than children, apparently/ironically.

I hadn't heard this. What is issue here?

You haven't heard the "tax people without kids more" interview?

Apparently not.

JD, lacking a career politician’s insights into the differences between winning a regional election campaign and winning a national one, is loudly elevating the natalist rhetoric that has been meme’d in conservative subreddits and Twitter threads the last few years.

Bi_3 wrote:

B wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:

RockPusher wrote:What's "weird":

Insisting you are the party of smaller government, but using it to repress women, harass LGBT people, and punish people without biological offspring (that last one is a Vance special).

True libertarians should not support that crap, but they've bought into the Republican party largely because guns are more important than children, apparently/ironically.

I hadn't heard this. What is issue here?

You haven't heard the "tax people without kids more" interview?

Apparently not.

I can't remember if it's the cat lady interview or if it's a different interview.

Don’t forget ol’ JD once discussed people with kids should have more voting power than people without kids.

B wrote:I asked Ms. B that. "Don't we get a tax break b/c we have kids?"

I don't really have a problem with the policy that comes from JD's interview, but the fact that he came to it by "punishing people without kids" and not by "helping families" is just more fire on the "JD is a weird asshole" fire.

So much fire

blueviper wrote:Don’t forget ol’ JD once discussed people with kids should have more voting power than people without kids.

Not that bad of an idea TBH. Folks without a stake tend to make more selfish, shortsighted decisions

This what I assume the inner monologue of several RMers is like

Bi_3 wrote:

blueviper wrote:Don’t forget ol’ JD once discussed people with kids should have more voting power than people without kids.

Not that bad of an idea TBH. Folks without a stake tend to make more selfish, shortsighted decisions

Folks who only care about their personal stakes are sociopathic.

Bi_3 wrote:

blueviper wrote:Don’t forget ol’ JD once discussed people with kids should have more voting power than people without kids.

Not that bad of an idea TBH. Folks without a stake tend to make more selfish, shortsighted decisions

Yes having kids makes people less selfish and shortsighted.

Bi_3 wrote:

blueviper wrote:Don’t forget ol’ JD once discussed people with kids should have more voting power than people without kids.

Not that bad of an idea TBH. Folks without a stake tend to make more selfish, shortsighted decisions

i rarely agree with but can respect your willingness to share your thoughts/opinions on different subjects but holy shit you thinking this is a good idea is really making me question your idealogy

B wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:

blueviper wrote:Don’t forget ol’ JD once discussed people with kids should have more voting power than people without kids.

Not that bad of an idea TBH. Folks without a stake tend to make more selfish, shortsighted decisions

Folks who only care about their personal stakes are sociopathic.

Right, and having kids changes that. You care about things like policy and community far more because they have to work for more than just you, they must work for the people you love most in the world when they are at their most vulnerable. Any real proposal would be an immoral position because not everyone can have kids or gets the opportunity to, but it does recognize that those with no stake in the future are less likely to sacrifice today to make it better for others tomorrow.

Are you really saying you think people without kids shouldn’t have as much voting power as those with kids?

E.H. Ruddock wrote:Are you really saying you think people without kids shouldn’t have as much voting power as those with kids?

if people with kids had a higher stake in things and only made selfish choices to benefit their kids we would have free lunch programs, free after school care, medical care for children etc...instead republicans vote to take away these things or not fund them

E.H. Ruddock wrote:Are you really saying you think people without kids shouldn’t have as much voting power as those with kids?

if people with kids had a higher stake in things and only made selfish choices to benefit their kids we would have free lunch programs, free after school care, medical care for children etc...instead republicans vote to take away these things or not fund them

I wouldn't say that voting in your kid's best interest means automatically voting for more social welfare programs and saddling future generations with the expense.

Bi_3 wrote:Right, and having kids changes that. You care about things like policy and community far more

People who don’t care about policy and community tend to self select out of voting, my man.

because they have to work for more than just you, they must work for the people you love most in the world when they are at their most vulnerable.

Demographically, which voting group would you say is most in favor of removing protections for the vulnerable?

Any real proposal would be an immoral position because not everyone can have kids or gets the opportunity to

No. That’s not why it would be immoral.

Look, this natalist stuff is all very funny. Imagine accusing a group of others of being selfish, while also suggesting that it makes sense for that group to have less rights than you. Amazing.

Oh, not only that, but explicitly stating that the benefit would come in the form of elevating your policy preferences. You see, my policy preferences are good. Pure. Selfless. For the people. And in order to protect the good, pure policies, some of you are going to have to accept reduced voting rights.

But at the end of the day, the person we’re talking about is running for vice president of the United States. He doesn’t just spout this stuff, but doubles down on it.

A candidate on a major party White House ticket who is that level of comfortable promoting the idea that maybe, if you really think about it, there are circumstances where some people’s vote should be worth less.

And I don’t point that out to say “look at how dangerous this is. Everybody panic.“ I point it out to say “look what a fucking idiot this guy is.” Think for a minute how easy it would’ve been for him not to have this be a weeks-long story while he is trying to win a competitive election. Think how easy it would’ve been to not be here.

This is exactly what happens when people are elevated solely because they are good at speaking to the bubble, or at fawning over a megalomaniac. Any idiot on earth would know better than to run around arguing in favor of something like this. Well, almost any idiot.

Bi_3 wrote:Folks without a stake tend to make more selfish, shortsighted decisions

take the issue of abortion for instance . . .

A lot of people without kids vote for policies that support kids and families because it benefits society now and in the future to ensure that those children are healthy and educated now and into adulthood, and that their parents are still healthy and productive members of society.

It's the same reason I support abortion and LGBTQ+ rights and low cost drug pricing and Veteran's Affairs. None of those things directly impact me, but giving my tax dollars to them is the right thing to do.

If the only reason you care about society is that you have a kid that might have to live in it in the future, you're still going to make shitty decisions on behalf of society.