US Politics Mega-thread - Page 4337

On August 09 2024 04:45 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:


Can Harris agree to just the 2 debates moderated by real news organizations, and decline the Fox one?

On August 09 2024 04:21 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:


oBlade, are you truly referring to childless Americans here? Because it sounds like it, based on what Vance said about them. Just asking for clarification.

On August 09 2024 05:00 oBlade wrote:

Thank you for asking.

My understanding is broadly there are two ways to condition behavior. One is to discourage a negative behavior, and the other is to encourage a positive behavior. For whatever reason, I believe things like having children, paying taxes, and national service are good things to do in a country, they are some basic responsibilities to fulfill. Probably the top three. Less general examples along the same lines would be things like jury duty, community service.

Therefore if the more of those things you did, the more your voice - your vote - counted, and if the less you did those things, your vote stopped counting - the incentive structure around those activities would promote them so we would have more children, productive taxpayers, and those in service to their country. It greatly benefits social cohesion and unity if you can't simply vote to spend other people's money, to send other people's children to war. And so on. When the people making the decisions are affected by both the positive and negative consequences of them, things run more smoothly and honestly.

Just because someone doesn't do even a single one of those three activities, no, it doesn't mean someone wants to destroy the country. But if they at the same time 1) do none of these things and 2) want to destroy the country and 3) become apoplectic at the mere mention of a brainstormed idea (one which will self-evidently never happen) to encourage an obvious public good, well, I could never condemn the idea, because it has served the useful purpose of exposing the very lust of some to destroy the country.

In short, I was referring to a subset of childless people. The group "childless" is not really easily defined to begin with as we were running into problems earlier - are 18 year olds childless or simply pre-child - if you had a child but she died of leukemia, are you post-child - impossible lines to draw there.

On August 09 2024 04:45 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:


Can Harris agree to just the 2 debates moderated by real news organizations, and decline the Fox one?

On August 09 2024 05:08 NewSunshine wrote:

Maybe they're lines you shouldn't try to be drawing, because we're not a village of 200 people that needs to be running the numbers on procreation in order to feel like we're not going extinct. Having children is not a basic responsibility, it's a choice to start a family. You're trying to find a way to basically measure the value of a life by measuring their baby-making status, and as you say, you're not opposed to a measure that reduces the democratic power of non-childbearers accordingly. We're "apoplectic" for taking issue with it, and therefore we're in league to destroy America. But you're in the camp that says it's okay for people to be disenfranchised for either exercising basic freedoms, or by factors outside their control. I find that quite unreasonable.

Overall, I think it's just difficult to start a conversation with a hope of it going anywhere when one party thinks it's a nationalistic duty to have children. That's a pretty warped conceit imo.

On August 09 2024 05:08 NewSunshine wrote:
Honestly, if you've convinced yourself that there are people out there who "lust" to destroy this country, and that not having as many babies as possible is their plan for doing so, you're fucking delusional.

On August 09 2024 01:25 Introvert wrote:


This is one of those times I wish I could pull a Kamala and be unburdened by what had been, or more accurately, by what I know. I don't know how you couldn't know this, but conservatives are used to be being mocked and slandered by the most influential parts of the culture for decades. It's so strange that libs feel like they've caught onto something here, I think this is more akin to something thst makes them feel good and it helps to believe that their opponents are extra offended by it. I think it has some resonance only because the charge ir hilarious when compared to the people making the accusation lol. It goes right along with the never stated but always present left-wing assumption that anyone who still believes things that became unpopular 5 minutes ago is a bad person. But this dust up is flavor of the week, without the backing of any sort of concrete source, so it makes the whole thing more ambiguous. I think the lack of a concrete underpinning (true or not) makes it feel different.

On August 09 2024 05:41 oBlade wrote:
And there are people who want to destroy the country and don't have children. In the latter case, it's often related due to springing from a more fundamental hate of themselves or loathing of authority and their surroundings. (There are even people without children who don't want to destroy the country.)

The former would not have much reason to be upset by childless people losing voting rights - because, having children themselves, they could continue to use their political freedom to achieve the ends they have in mind, of destroying the country or what have you. That's why I was only referring to the childless ones - they would be wont to remind us of their entitlement to political participation in the destruction of something that they have nothing invested in.

On August 09 2024 05:41 oBlade wrote:

Again, it is never, ever, going to happen. Changing voting classes would require a Constitutional amendment.

Having looked it up, "Vance's" "idea" (it's not originally his, and I struggle to call it an idea) was essentially to add votes to families per child. Even in fantasyland this is retarded as we would be prone to political factions based on childmaxxing. For the same reason we can't give a million time more voting power to someone who paid a billion in taxes than someone who paid a thousand. Much better and fairer, but alas still imperfect would be a binary condition - pay taxes, right to vote. Don't, no right to vote. Bear children, right to vote. Don't, no right to vote. Finish national service, right to vote. Didn't, no right to vote. About half of households pay taxes. A maximum of about half of the population are capable of bearing children. Once you've reached universal suffrage, there is no way back because the second half is never going to vote to voluntarily take their own right to vote away and give it to only the first half.

Whether you like it or not, you are a member of at least one nation as a human being, and as a human you have a responsibility to continue yourself and the system that created you. And therefore just as you didn't deride paying taxes or national service as some kind of petty "nationalistic duty" you shouldn't deride having a family either. A nation is not simply something with a government that exists to give people shit and tell them what to do and how to think in exchange for power over them. The responsibilities of the individual come first. Family should absolutely not be a political issue, both (all) parties should be radically pro-family.


There are people who want to destroy the country who have children. And there are people who want to destroy the country and don't have children. In the latter case, it's often related due to springing from a more fundamental hate of themselves or loathing of authority and their surroundings. (There are even people without children who don't want to destroy the country.)

The former would not have much reason to be upset by childless people losing voting rights - because, having children themselves, they could continue to use their political freedom to achieve the ends they have in mind, of destroying the country or what have you. That's why I was only referring to the childless ones - they would be wont to remind us of their entitlement to political participation in the destruction of something that they have nothing invested in.

On August 09 2024 10:22 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Joe Rogan is a right-wing conspiracy theorist whose idiotic podcast helps distribute misinformation at lightning speed... but there may be a silver lining to him having such an enormous conservative fan base: He just announced that he supports RFK Jr. over Trump, for president. Rogan's endorsement may actually have an effect on pulling away votes from Trump's side in favor of RFK Jr., especially since some key states will likely swing within a 3% voter shift. If some Trump voters actually switch to RFK Jr. because of Joe Rogan, then that would be stunningly useful in a karmic justice kind of way.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/thehill.com/homenews/media/4818724-joe-rogan-supports-rfk-jr-over-trump-harris/amp/

On August 08 2024 21:35 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Apparently, Republicans are calling Tim Walz "Tampon Tim" because Walz wanted to make sure that all menstruating students have access to tampons at school. It's a legitimate issue for students, as teachers know all too well. In other words, Walz is a compassionate human being who cares about children and education, and conservatives are the opposite.

Mocking Harris for laughing, and mocking Walz for paying attention to kids' needs, like food and menstrual products... Nice job, Republicans!

On August 09 2024 09:48 Sadist wrote:
This is some crazy quiverfull shit from Oblade. Need to have children to vote? Need to "pay taxes" to vote?

On August 09 2024 09:48 Sadist wrote:
A billionaire getting more votes because thats "more fair"

On August 09 2024 06:12 JoinTheRain wrote:
Even if you've fathered a child, I would still be unable to fathom why you would deem yourself worthier than your peers just because you have popped a little squeak into existence. You haven't even popped it yourself, you just took part in impregnating a woman.

On August 09 2024 06:12 JoinTheRain wrote:
It is just plain ridiculous to state that childless people invest nothing or do not enrich societies. Isaac Newton had no children. I mean, Jesus Christ had no children. Need I state more? Plato. Joan of Arc. Beethoven. Leonardo da Vinci. Tesla was also childless. Let me expand a little. Einstein had children. Yet do you think him being father is a greater boon to humanity than General and Special relativity, the frameworks that our whole existence is mostly based upon?
What I think is that laughable arguments like "you have no child, you're a social burden," are attractants for the most uneducated crowd that disgusting con-men who dub themselves politicians prey upon.

On August 09 2024 14:03 Sermokala wrote:
The Minnesota national guard has made repeated statements supporting walz over the years (and its walz not waltz like vance keeps saying for some reason) on this issue.

On August 09 2024 05:00 oBlade wrote:

Thank you for asking.

My understanding is broadly there are two ways to condition behavior. One is to discourage a negative behavior, and the other is to encourage a positive behavior. For whatever reason, I believe things like having children, paying taxes, and national service are good things to do in a country, they are some basic responsibilities to fulfill. Probably the top three. Less general examples along the same lines would be things like jury duty, community service.

Therefore if the more of those things you did, the more your voice - your vote - counted, and if the less you did those things, your vote stopped counting - the incentive structure around those activities would promote them so we would have more children, productive taxpayers, and those in service to their country. It greatly benefits social cohesion and unity if you can't simply vote to spend other people's money, to send other people's children to war. And so on. When the people making the decisions are affected by both the positive and negative consequences of them, things run more smoothly and honestly.

Just because someone doesn't do even a single one of those three activities, no, it doesn't mean someone wants to destroy the country. But if they at the same time 1) do none of these things and 2) want to destroy the country and 3) become apoplectic at the mere mention of a brainstormed idea (one which will self-evidently never happen) to encourage an obvious public good, well, I could never condemn the idea, because it has served the useful purpose of exposing the very lust of some to destroy the country.

In short, I was referring to a subset of childless people. The group "childless" is not really easily defined to begin with as we were running into problems earlier - are 18 year olds childless or simply pre-child - if you had a child but she died of leukemia, are you post-child - impossible lines to draw there.