this post was submitted on 30 Jul 2024
532 points (97.5% liked)

politics

19097 readers
4022 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] TexasDrunk@lemmy.world 8 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Wait, I was just one story. Now I'm a minority. And if I bring you more info you'll shoo that away as well.

I'm for lowering the voting age if we can also let them have real autonomy the way we get by law at age 18. Until then they just end up voting for who they're told or bullied into because the way most of them will get to voting locations is by their adults. Give them REAL civics classes, not the whitewashed bullshit they currently sell to kids in rural areas (ask me how I know), so that they can make informed decisions. Maybe also a way that they can get to polling places without their parents knowledge. I'm sure there's a ton of shit I'm forgetting because I'm angry as fuck that you reduced me to a single story instead of 600,000 stories and tell me I have less of a stake in the future. I have the exact same stake for the next 40 years that someone who likes to give a woman a creampie.

If we're only talking about lowering the voting age there are a lot of steps we should take in that direction. But your original stance was to give parents greater voting power. It's right there in your first comment in this thread. Lowering the voting age doesn't give parents more voting power unless they're the ones deciding shit.

I bet if you backed off that insane, idiotic statement you'd have more people willing to listen. Until you remove it and apologize for it I'm going to assume you're for meth-addled fuckwads getting an extra vote because they learned how to fuck without protection. Because that's what the couch fucker's stance is and you don't disagree with it. You said so yourself.

[–] morrowind@lemmy.ml -1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I'm sorry, I didn't mean to make it a personal attack on you. I was not expecting such on overwhelming negative response.

I'm not gonna change my original comment now. Lowering the voting age is, practically speaking, a way to give parents voting power. You cannot escape that in any human society I'm aware of. I suppose I could have worded it better, but this is reminding me too much of reddit, where if what you say sounds wrong people will pile on you and vice versa, and I came to lemmy to get away from that shit.

[–] TexasDrunk@lemmy.world 2 points 3 months ago

Online, the words you use are all we have to judge your intentions. We don't know you. I bet we agree on a bunch of shit. I bet if I knew you I'd happily share a drink or something with you. But I don't.

All I have to go by is that you stated you don't disagree with the couch fucker and brushed off 600,000 stories by saying mine is the only one, then backed up and said it's fine because it's the minority. No mitigation plan. Hell, in an ideal world I'd say immediately lower it to 15 because parents would let the kids follow their conscience and someone that isn't Andrew Tate would be teaching them actual history and current events without bias.

Yeah, it sucks that you have to watch the way you say things. Unless you want to stop by the house one day and have a drink or let me feed you, then we can bond over some shit and I'll know your intentions. Then we can kick it without worrying about the exact words we use.

It's easy to lose sight of the fact that we're talking to real people sometimes. In my head I know you're not just saying "fuck them kids, they should have just been born to better parents!" It's just hard to see that shit without taking it personally sometimes because all you have to judge my intentions is my words as well.