politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- 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:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
I think you missed the point OP was, I hope, trying to make.
The truth here is that JD Vance is absolutely trying to red herring and manipulate anyone with children, or who can empathize with parents, into sympathizing with his backwards world view. JD is painting this nice little picture about how nice it is for a parent to have kids, how nice it is for a grandparent to have grandchildren, all while purposefully ignoring the elephant in the room, and the real issue behind why some people are hesitant to have children given the current state of things.
The real reason people are hesitating is not for them, but for the child. They want to spare a potential child from growing up in an America that looks like "The Book of Eli" or "The Road". They're holding off because they don't want their kid dying in super wild fires. They don't want their kid drowning in their home when the worst hurricane anyone has ever seen hits a coast. They don't want their kid getting murdered for their supplies, and left to bleed out under an irradiated sky, ash falling on them as they go limp.
It's the easiest thing in the world to say, "of course people should have kids, mine have made me so happy!"; it takes far more character to say, "I can understand why someone might be hesitant nowadays."
Now, I'm not even sure JD Vance meant to red herring here, and demonize people with very real concerns. For all we know his gross narcissism cannot even allow him to really feel for his children beyond an extension of himself. However, I know JD Vance is smart. Because of that, I'm willing to bet he answered that question so that people like you can say, "I absolutly agree with that response", and not even recognize that he completely red herringed the issue, ignored the subtilty, gathered sympathy for his shitty world view, all while grifting into oblivion.