144
submitted 1 year ago by jeffw@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world
all 36 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] BlueLineBae@midwest.social 62 points 1 year ago

JD Vance puts his cast iron in the dishwasher pass it on

[-] RangerJosie@sffa.community 28 points 1 year ago

Jorkin Dapenis Vance uses sugar substitute in his sweet tea. Pass it on.

[-] Enkers@sh.itjust.works 17 points 1 year ago

Jelly Donut Vance puts the toilet paper on the far side of the holder, and doesn't have pets. Pass it on.

[-] brbposting@sh.itjust.works 15 points 1 year ago

James David’s face when you call him Jorkin Dapenis

[-] nilloc@discuss.tchncs.de 7 points 1 year ago

Just A. Dipshit Vance after getting bedbugs from that couch sitting on the corner.

[-] SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

Whatever, the pink stuff is the only right stuff for iced tea

[-] Burn_The_Right@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago

Some folks just want to watch the world burn.

[-] themeatbridge@lemmy.world 24 points 1 year ago

Children should be allowed to vote. Kids would show up in droves. They'd get their parents voting. I'd love seeing politicians that were forced to pander to young people. There's no downside.

[-] Wirlocke 58 points 1 year ago

People like Mr.Beast gain their massive success from producing overstimulating content that attracts a forever young audience that doesn't recognize the basic manipulation and scams that he employs.

This is what politics would turn into if we earnestly let kids vote. Manipulating child audiences is practically a science now.

Even discounting that, in 2016 when I was 16 I was a "both sides are bad" centrist type. I simply didn't have the roots to consider how things like basic public policies would affect me personally. You need some grounded experience in order to realize that the things on screen will affect you and your community directly.

[-] themeatbridge@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago

That's crap. Kids don't outnumber adults, and politicians would still need to appeal to older generations.

Also, when you were 16, you were right. Both sides are bad. But one side is much, much worse. Politicians would need to spend some time and effort engaging with children and explaining why their policies do matter. Imagine how valuable that would be for a significant population of adults!

Kids are smarter than we give them credit for. They can smell bullshit, and they will vote their conscience.

[-] idiomaddict@lemmy.world 18 points 1 year ago

Maybe I’m an outlier or I was a shitty kid, but I was straight up defending Cheney in high school, because my dad was a bush fan. My first year of college, I entered rapid decompression and started understanding how my morals actually aligned with politics. I don’t think it’s because I was a dumb kid, but kids are really influenced by their parents.

That said, it doesn’t matter if there are more republican voters, it is morally right imo to allow children 15/16+ to vote.

[-] themeatbridge@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

That's the same argument that was made against women's suffrage. Adults are influenced by their parents, their peers, their employers, their professors, and many many adults live in a social echochamber that gives them a skewed sense of the world. That's still not an argument to deny the right to vote.

[-] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Exactly, we tend to reflect our parents from a young age. Mostly because their world view is basically what we know.

It isn’t until we get out from under that, that we fcan begin to form our own perceptions.

[-] michaelmrose@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

12 year old me didn't know anything and knew it. 16 year old me still didn't know shit but believed he knew everything. Allowing any age to vote is crazy.

[-] Wirlocke 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I feel this would work in theory, but in practice the path of least resistance for a political party wouldn't be to appeal to young voters and teach policy. It would be to crank up the indoctrination machine and encourage parents to do so too.

I'm sure some families would teach their children how the world works, but most would just not change; or they'd indoctrinate and abuse their kids to supporting their political party (even harder than before).

[-] themeatbridge@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

That's happening anyway. You're describing the current world we live in.

You know what would help kids see through their parents' bullshit? If adults and other kids were talking directly to them about issues relevant to their lives.

[-] michaelmrose@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

Kids of 1 aren't smarter than we give them credit for. People who can't speak in sentences or wipe their own butts probably shouldn't be weighing in on the presidential election.

[-] michaelmrose@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

What age and why?

[-] AllNewTypeFace@leminal.space 24 points 1 year ago

“Who gets the extra votes if there’s an odd number of kids and/or the parents are estranged or have opposing views?”

That’s the beauty. The husband, as the head of the family, gets the children’s votes—and his wife’s as well. Also, from now on, her name is “Mrs. “ followed by his name.

I’m sure Vance meant to explain this detail but somehow got sidetracked.

[-] AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago

I’m sure Vance meant to explain this detail but somehow got sidetracked.

There was a stuffed loveseat nearby.

I’m sure you meant, “A yet to be stuffed loveseat nearby”

[-] jumjummy@lemmy.world 23 points 1 year ago

If we’re going through with this fictitious scenario, using the same logic of childless adults not having the same investment in the future, everyone over the age of 70 should no longer be able to vote for the same reasons.

Something tells me that would help Democrats even more.

[-] Rapidcreek@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago

Every minute Vance is spouting dumb shit rather than policy is a good minute for Harris-Walz.

[-] OhNoMoreLemmy@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 year ago

That's the neat thing. The policy is also dumb shit.

[-] lolola 5 points 1 year ago

The answer is still no.

[-] can@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 year ago

Mother Jones - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)Information for Mother Jones:

MBFC: Left-Center - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: High - United States of America
Wikipedia about this source

Search topics on Ground.Newshttps://www.motherjones.com/politics/2024/08/jd-vance-extra-votes-parents-children-families-thought-experiment/
Media Bias Fact Check | bot support

this post was submitted on 16 Aug 2024
144 points (100.0% liked)

politics

26404 readers
2477 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 2 years ago
MODERATORS