Vance says Americans without children should not get “nearly the same voice” in democracy as those with children. - Politics Discussion

[–] maixiu (2232) 4 months ago

He's right. Why should people with no investment in the future of the country get to make decisions that will affect my progeny down the road?

reply

[–] punkrockgirl (1270) 4 months ago

As someone who can legally vote but is young and has no kids, I feel as though I have no business voting. Yes, it's my right, but in a way there's a good point in letting parents have more decision. Parents have a lot more experience in life. Of course the problem with the scenario is that it's very subjective. Lots of controlling, evil people exist in all circles, but if we're talking in more general terms it has more validity.

reply

[–] maixiu (2232) 4 months ago

You have a leg up on so many of your contemporaries by displaying such wisdom. Keep it up and you'll turn out great. God bless.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 4 months ago

Maixiu doesn't think you should get to vote at all regardless of whether or not you have children. Just so you know. He thinks women shouldn't be able to vote.

reply

[–] maixiu (2232) 4 months ago

If she and her husband share their political beliefs it will make for a harmonious home and her electoral will can be expressed through him.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 4 months ago

Yes, I know you view women as nothing more than vessels to be bred and second-class citizens. I know you're a proto-gilead fascist piece of shit.

I was just letting the other user knows what a repulsive scumbag you are.

reply

[–] maixiu (2232) 4 months ago

*chef's kiss*

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 4 months ago

Fascist dickhead.

reply

[–] maixiu (2232) 4 months ago

Sticks and stones.

It really bothers you that your leftist m.o. doesn't work on me and many others. In the past you've uttered certain magical incantations and buzz words with the full expectation that the other person will fall back on defending their pure intentions, thus acceding to your morality. But those days are ending. It really grinds your gears.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 4 months ago

You've misunderstood everything. Right-wingers historically have fairly, in many cases, repudiated allegations of fascism or racism on the basis that they are not either of those things. But you literally are. You are openly authoritarian. You are openly racist. You are openly sexist.

You are comparing apples to oranges.

reply

[–] Melton (4593) 4 months ago

It didn’t work. All you succeeded in doing was revealing yourself to be a screeching soy bitch trying to get someone in trouble again, which only further ruins both your reputation and the reputation of the sick woke Leftoid ideology you peddle.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 4 months ago

It didn't work? Am I wrong that maixiu wants to remove women's rights to vote?

reply

[–] punkrockgirl (1270) 4 months ago

Though I was replying to him, it was still meant to regard the post and strictly parenthood rather than gender roles

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 4 months ago

Since you don't think women should vote, it holds that you essentially only think men should vote on behalf of their families.

Do teenagers, young adults not have an investment in the future?

Do retired people have an investment in the future?

reply

[–] maixiu (2232) 4 months ago

Though both young and old have an interest in the future, the former don't possess the wisdom and experience to best plan for that future, while the latter are prone to short-term selfishness given their advanced years. Political participation and voting should be restricted accordingly

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 4 months ago

How do old have an investment in the future when they are likely to be dead in under a decade?

Middle-aged and older people vote like cretins all the time. Tons of people in the USA or UK are completely politically uneducated and barely keep up with policy from any party. Your premise is completely unfounded.

reply

[–] maixiu (2232) 4 months ago

They have that investment through the love a human feels for its offspring. Men plant trees so that their grandchildren can sit in the shade.

Have you ever noticed that your entire method of argument lies in "whataboutism" and reflexive contarianism? When do you ever propose ideas of your own?

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 4 months ago

>They have that investment through the love a human feels for its offspring. Men plant trees so that their grandchildren can sit in the shade.

And many of them have dementia, and/or are hopelessly out of touch with current affairs.

>Have you ever noticed that your entire method of argument lies in "whataboutism" and reflexive contarianism? When do you ever propose ideas of your own?

I see no reason full-stop to challenge the principle of automatic franchise access for adults. What would I "propose" here, exactly? You also did not challenge this: Middle-aged and older people vote like cretins all the time. Tons of people in the USA or UK are completely politically uneducated and barely keep up with policy from any party. Your premise is completely unfounded.

reply

[–] maixiu (2232) 4 months ago

"And many of them have dementia, and/or are hopelessly out of touch with current affairs."

Case in point. "But...but...what about this exception to the rule?"

And anyway, you're arguing a point I myself made. Go read my post again. There should be a method of limiting the franchise after a certain age.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 4 months ago

>Case in point. "But...but...what about this exception to the rule?"

When you start getting into people in their 80's, it's not an exception at all.

>And anyway, you're arguing a point I myself made. Go read my post again. There should be a method of limiting the franchise after a certain age.

Okay then, how should it be restricted for the elderly?

You also did not challenge this: Middle-aged and older people vote like cretins all the time. Tons of people in the USA or UK are completely politically uneducated and barely keep up with policy from any party. Your premise is completely unfounded.

reply

[–] maixiu (2232) 4 months ago

"Okay then, how should it be restricted for the elderly?"

You tell me. You've made the same point, so how about not asking others to do your thinking for you?

reply

[–] Melton (4593) 4 months ago

He has confused himself again 🤦🏻‍♂️

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 4 months ago

No, I have not said that elderly people should be restricted from voting. But by your logic, you should support that happening. I think that it is ultimately going down a dangerous road to start restricting who can or cannot vote based on specific characteristics.

reply

[–] maixiu (2232) 4 months ago

Do you support 5 year olds voting?

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 4 months ago

No. I am fine with 16 or 18 year old base voting. But it seems to me that you are bound to restricting almost everyone from voting, to the point where the system becomes rigged. You almost seem to be admitting that your worldview is fundamentally unpopular and loathed, and thus you want to rig the decks to ensure that you can't lose.

And you've given zero fucking reason why women should be disenfranchised.

reply

[–] VladPutin (1582) 4 months ago

How should the number of votes everyone gets be calculated? Should voters get to have one vote per child?

reply

[–] Lord Rake (4465) 4 months ago

How about instead of that you have to have a job, or own a house/land to vote. It you aren't employed and don't own anything then no vote for you.

reply

[–] VladPutin (1582) 4 months ago

You don't want that. You'd lose the votes of all those unemployed meth-belt MAGA voters in the trailer parks of America.

reply

[–] Lord Rake (4465) 4 months ago

They exist only in your mind. People on meth aren't too political.

reply

[–] VladPutin (1582) 4 months ago

Trump rallies are filled with trailer park dwelling meth-heads.

reply

[–] B1cKsurN (17457) 4 months ago

500 posts... 0 substance.

reply

[–] VladPutin (1582) 4 months ago

Over 15,000 posts and even less than zero substance.

reply

[–] B1cKsurN (17457) 4 months ago

LMAO Now this is a "I know you are but what am I" post if I ever saw one...

Damn Pee-Wee, I wrecked your brain pretty good.

reply

[–] VladPutin (1582) 4 months ago

I "literally" took the page out of your book.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 4 months ago

Sounds like a great way to entrench an oligarchical system. Another day where moviechat posters reveal their budding desire for authoritarianism.

reply

[–] Lord Rake (4465) 4 months ago

Wow, Skavau runs to his authoritarian talk when someone mentions the idea that people who don't contribute to the system shouldn't get to vote to take other peoples stuff.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 4 months ago

The right to vote as default for all adults is an integral part of every western democratic state. Putting up blocks to disenfranchise people is always abused.

reply

[–] maixiu (2232) 4 months ago

And extending the franchise to all and sundry is abusive to the productive and informed.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 4 months ago

So here we go then, you can find any excuse to disenfranchise anyone until only roughly 2% of the population can vote.

You essentially reject democracy.

reply

[–] maixiu (2232) 4 months ago

Yes. Liberal democracy has been a failure, as was foreseen by great thinkers in the past. They accounted for the differences among humans, but you refuse to do so. Everyone's the same to you.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 4 months ago

No, I do not view everyone as the same. Part of liberal democracy is that we aren't the same, but that the state should not persecute people because they are different. I recognise also that some people's viewpoints are incompatible with said system and that they wish to persecute other people. Like you do.

The political and social incompatibility of Islam in the UK is very much real. It is a problem. But people like you are also a problem. The reasons why Islam are a problem are the same reasons why people like you are a problem. You have not answered why I should view your worldview any differently than I would an Islamist.

reply

[–] maixiu (2232) 4 months ago

You know, by excluding Islamists and "people like me", your vision of the ideal government would be closer to a reality. Are you willing to take that step? If no, why not?

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 4 months ago

When did I say anything about excluding specifically. I have no desire to tell you have to live your life, or a muslim. You can be as conservative as you like. You just don't get to impose that on other people.

Do you accept that your worldview is as culturally anathema to the UK as an Islamists worldview, and that you would be equally likely to struggle to integrate? Yes or no?

reply

[–] maixiu (2232) 4 months ago

No one gets to impose their ideal world on you, but you get to impose your ideal world on the Islamists and "people like me". What gives you that right?

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 4 months ago

What have I imposed on you or muslims?

And Islamists, if they don't like it, are welcome to leave. They're free to be Muslim here - but not free to impose themselves on non-muslims.

reply

[–] Lord Rake (4465) 4 months ago

Why not let illegals vote if they live in a country then? They use the stuff and pay rent, shouldn't they vote if they live in an area with other people?

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 4 months ago

I don't think illegal immigrants should be in the country, and should be deported. are you arguing that because we block illegal immigrants from voting, therefore we could justifiably block anyone from voting? every single western democratic country grants voting rights with citizenship.

reply

[–] B1cKsurN (17457) 4 months ago

It really isn't, because people just vote themselves welfare...and the system inevitably collapses.

Universal suffrage is bad.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 4 months ago

And old people vote on the basis of pension handout promises. And younger people vote on the basis of removing student fees. Everyone votes, partially, for reasons of self-interest. What's your point?

reply

[–] B1cKsurN (17457) 4 months ago

Point is not everyone should be voting.

JD Vance is 100% correct. We need to go back to the old ways of voting for our(not the UK) country's future.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 4 months ago

So who should not be voting, exactly?

reply

[–] Rorikon (17889) 4 months ago

Yeah, fuck those homeless vets.

reply

[–] Lord Rake (4465) 4 months ago

Honestly if they are homeless they are probably on drugs and fucked up from the bullshit wars that the Bush's, Clinton and Obama sent them to so we should help them get their life straight because homeless generally dont have an address and cant vote anyway.

reply

[–] B1cKsurN (17457) 4 months ago

Where are you from again?

reply

[–] Tam87 (1218) 4 months ago

I don't think it's a big deal. North America, Europe and Japan suffer from very low birth rates. His idea will never fly, but at least it'll bring attention to it.

reply

[–] moviechatterer (15697) 4 months ago

suffer? you mean "benefit" surely?

reply

[–] maixiu (2232) 4 months ago

What's beneficial about watching your people slowly extinguish themselves? If it was a
single family member slowly drinking themselves to death, you'd consider it depressing to watch. Writ large and it becomes an easily dismissed statistic. How does it feel to embrace the Stalinst philosophy "the death of one man is a tragedy, the death of a million is a statistic"?

From abortion to depopulation, the left always embraces death.

reply

[–] moviechatterer (15697) 4 months ago

Because increasing the population as a policy is as dumb as a pyramid scheme.
The planet has limited capacity and resources
where does it end?

and if the above means nothing to you how come the right are so up in arms about immigrants coming in all the time?

reply

[–] itsbananas2024 (1796) 4 months ago

Its not immigrants, its the flood of illegal aliens.

reply

[–] moviechatterer (15697) 4 months ago

Potayto potahto
Why are the right bothered about the "flood of illegal aliens" , if they are not bothered by untethered population expansion?

reply

[–] Corbell (10995) 4 months ago

1. A declining population means large portions of the population failing to reach the primary the goal that most people want, ie building a nice familiy. That is a sign of a serious failing of our society and culture. Certainly indicates complete failure of government policy.

2. Covering that failure by importing a population of workers, to keep the economy growing is a way of not addressing the real problems and failures, and instead is an attempt to cope. One that has many negative effects in addition to NOT address the real problems.

reply

[–] moviechatterer (15697) 4 months ago

The only reason you would fail the goal of " building a nice familiy" is if the definition of " building a nice family" includes increasing the number of people in it from one gen to the next.

Cant a one child family be nice?

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 4 months ago

Fertility issues are actually becoming a problem in the west (and elsewhere, it is dropping everywhere - it's just countries are at different levels) but Corbells description of the only goal in life to have a big family is kinda sad.

reply

[–] Corbell (10995) 4 months ago

Many are failing to find a partner at all. Thus, NO CHILDREN.

And/or finding the partner too late, to have many children, if any.

I know of at least two couples that got married, and waited to get their finances in order and found themselves just not having children. Wait, no, THREE.

reply

[–] moviechatterer (15697) 4 months ago

I read about this I think (The Korean version I mean), caused by societal / cultural pressure of , basically , paraphrasing here:

"Working your fingers to the bone for the man and having no time for your own life

reply

[–] Corbell (10995) 4 months ago

I'm not sure what that means. Can you expand on that?

reply

[–] moviechatterer (15697) 4 months ago

I read an article about the decreasing birthrate in parts of Asia which attributed it to people working too hard and having no time for relationships.
It seemed to be partly because they needed to financially but also partly because the it was just "the done thing" to work long hours to get ahead.

kind of like your two couple friends , and the intro to Idiocracy - but turned up to 11, ie similar causes but more acute in places like Korea

reply

[–] Corbell (10995) 4 months ago

Ok, got it. Sort of what I thought/expected.

And my point is, that is a failure of policy. The answer is not to import some chinese workers to keep the factories running. That is a bandaid treating an effect of the problem, not the problem itself,

and certainly not helping the KOREAN CITIZNES, who are suffering due to the bad envirnoment created by bad policies.

After all, what IS korea? Is it the balance sheets of some corportations, or is it the KOREAN PEOPLE?

reply

[–] moviechatterer (15697) 4 months ago

After all, what IS korea? Is it the balance sheets of some corportations, or is it the KOREAN PEOPLE?

Whoah there, you're veering close to some dirty commie "universal income" / "minimum wages" / "Seize the means of production" territory there
🤣😂

...I jest

reply

[–] Corbell (10995) 4 months ago

Hilarious...

As a conservative I do NOT buy into the class warfare of the left, nor the view of capitalism as inherently evil.

That does not mean that I am a fan boy of them, nor do I forget what the goal of a government is to look out after the security and interests of their CITIZENS.

i made a pretty serious point about the human cost of a declinging birth rate. I hope that you consider that, moving forward.

We have been greatly distracted from real issues by ... a lot of nonsense.

reply

[–] maixiu (2232) 4 months ago

Are you incapable of grasping the difference? Because I'm in favor of my people maintaining healthy demographics, you think that's no different than letting genetic aliens flood my land?

I never said I supported runaway population growth, but not maintaining a 2.1 TFR means you're committing ethnic suicide. I suspect your eyes well up when you hear about some species of animal on the endangered list, so why aren't you equally sympathetic to types of humans who are going extinct? South Korea's TFR is less than half what is needed to merely tread water. That may seem "beneficial" to someone who hates Koreans but it's alarming to even a neutral observer.

reply

[–] Corbell (10995) 4 months ago

AND, consider the reality that those numbers represent. Millions of young Koreans that are failing to find a life partner and get married and have children. Millions of people that will never have the joy of raising children, and will be lonely and sad old people, dying alone.

reply

[–] moviechatterer (15697) 4 months ago

That seems to be separate issue that has caused the first one.
You could in theory have a population decreasing due to 1 child per couple with all the young adults happily married in fulfilling family relationships.

reply

[–] Corbell (10995) 4 months ago

You could, in theory. In reality that does NOT seem to be the case.

And this seems to be a nearly global issue. In all first world nations, at least.

We are doing something wrong and a lot of people are suffering terribly because of it.

reply

[–] moviechatterer (15697) 4 months ago

genetic aliens?
ethnic suicide?
types of humans?

I hadnt really thought about dividing the people into races and setting them against each other

reply

[–] maixiu (2232) 4 months ago

Mother Nature took care of that for you.

reply

[–] VladPutin (1582) 4 months ago

It's not unlike the EC if you think about it.
Thousands and thousands of miles of unpopulated prairie defy the will of millions and millions of voters.
But that's the only way the repugnant ones can win an election.
The gay porn star just wants to take it a step further.

reply

[–] maixiu (2232) 4 months ago

In your case, it's more like those people are thwarting the will of your millions and millions of non-firing neurons.

Your rage-filled hatred of the common man is quite vile. You'd have made a perfect tool of the State in a totalitarian country.

reply

[–] VladPutin (1582) 4 months ago

Nonsensical word salad.

reply

[–] BKB (9987) 4 months ago

I agree with the man. Not sure why you feel he's a fucking idiot, but whatever

reply

[–] Switchstar (342) 4 months ago

Because some people are physically unable to have kids you dumbass. Ever think of that? Why should those people have less of a say than people who can and do have kids? Other people simply can't afford to raise a kid.

reply

[–] BKB (9987) 4 months ago

They could apply for adoption if they're unable to have kids. Ever think of that?? 🙄

reply

[–] SamNoyoun (5866) 4 months ago

I would gladly take a hit to my voting power if they got rid of the school tax portion of my property taxes...

reply

[–] John47 (40) 4 months ago

What a moron, doesn't he realise there are more than enough people on the planet. Everyone not having children is not a terrible idea.

For parents that do a good job, we also have lots of people having large families they can't even look after and rely on the state. This would be an enticement for people to have even more children or have them simply for a form of voting social credit and while you can be a parent, not every one should be.

reply

[–] Gd5150 (11758) 4 months ago

Interesting approach. Certainly worth discussion.

No one under 25 should be allowed to vote either. They are simply too ignorant and uninformed. They lack life experience to make responsible decisions.

The presidency should be reserved for over the age of 55, preferably 60. As people under that range care too much about themselves still.

It’s good to have these conversations and discuss the philosophies behind the laws of the republic.

Thank you Jim Vance.

reply