J D Vance Trump VP pick

[cowboyinexile]

From what I recall he only wants Married couples who have Children have the right to vote.

Each Kid in the family gets a vote but the father controls how they all vote until they are adults. So the more kids and larger your family is (as long as your married), the more powerful your family is and the more voting power you have. and Males who lead Large and still intact Families would be the most powerful figures as they would potentially control multiple if not 10-20 votes for ONE person.

What if you are divorced? Does it come down to custody or other reasons.

For example, I'm divorced with 2 kids. I have primary custody but in our divorce agreement we each claim one kid for tax purposes. So do I get 3 votes because of where they live or 2 votes because I only claim 1 officially. But I get to claim HOH so still 2 maybe? Or because I am an evil divorcee I only get one vote because it's more important to keep families together and make everyone miserable than have 2 adults realize they are better off as coparents than a married couple.

Also, what happens if I knock someone up? Do I get more votes that way or does the mom? What if we decide I need to have custody of the child temporarily? Do I get more votes because the mom's job takes her out of state for 6 months and we don't want the kid to change schools?

What about the athletes (and others not so famous) who have 10 kids by 8 different women?

Also, what happens when my kids go off to college? Do they get to use their own vote then since they are living out of the house or do I get to use it because I'm still paying their insurance. What if you have a kid who is mentally incapable of living on their own? Do you get to keep their vote because you have to take care of them as adults? Do you lose that vote if they go to a group home?

This doesn't seem very well thought out.

 

[GOGETUMPOKE]

What if you are divorced? Does it come down to custody or other reasons.

For example, I'm divorced with 2 kids. I have primary custody but in our divorce agreement we each claim one kid for tax purposes. So do I get 3 votes because of where they live or 2 votes because I only claim 1 officially. But I get to claim HOH so still 2 maybe? Or because I am an evil divorcee I only get one vote because it's more important to keep families together and make everyone miserable than have 2 adults realize they are better off as coparents than a married couple.

Also, what happens if I knock someone up? Do I get more votes that way or does the mom? What if we decide I need to have custody of the child temporarily? Do I get more votes because the mom's job takes her out of state for 6 months and we don't want the kid to change schools?

What about the athletes (and others not so famous) who have 10 kids by 8 different women?

Also, what happens when my kids go off to college? Do they get to use their own vote then since they are living out of the house or do I get to use it because I'm still paying their insurance. What if you have a kid who is mentally incapable of living on their own? Do you get to keep their vote because you have to take care of them as adults? Do you lose that vote if they go to a group home?

This doesn't seem very well thought out.

I never thought I would see the day when Tyreek Hill could change the entire course of an election.

 

[steross]

Ohh and he wants Childless people to pay MORE taxes

Vance argued for higher tax rate on childless Americans in 2021 interview​

As former President Donald Trump's new running mate, JD Vance, faces renewed scrutiny over his previous comments criticizing childless individuals, an unearthed 2021 interview shows the Ohio senator advocating for higher taxes on Americans without children.

The comments came in a 2021 episode of The Charlie Kirk Show podcast, where Kirk, the CEO of the conservative student organization Turning Point USA, was discussing how Republicans could shift public perception of certain conservative ideas from "unthinkable" to accepted policy.

"So JD ... what are you going to do to change this conversation? Everything we have to do should be about moving ideas from unthinkable, to sensible, to popular, to policy," said Kirk, according to a video of the interview obtained by ABC News.


In response, Vance, who at the time had not yet officially launched his 2022 Senate campaign, suggested that the country needed to "reward the things that we think are good" and "punish the things that we think are bad" -- before suggesting that individuals without children should be taxed at a higher rate than those with children.

"So, you talk about tax policy, let's tax the things that are bad and not tax the things that are good," Vance said in the interview, which is no longer public on Kirk's channel. "If you are making $100,000, $400,000 a year and you've got three kids, you should pay a different, lower tax rate than if you are making the same amount of money and you don't have any kids. It's that simple."



In response to Vance's comments, Vance spokesperson William Martin told ABC News, "The policy Senator Vance proposed is basically no different than the Child Tax Credit, which Democrats unanimously support."

Vance made the comments during a March 2021 appearance on Kirk's show, but the YouTube page for the episode now reads, "This video has been removed by the uploader," and the interview is also no longer accessible on Kirk's podcast Rumble account or on other podcast services.


The video appeared to be public as recently as February of this year, but it was no longer accessible by Wednesday, according to Internet Archive's Wayback Machine. ABC News located an audio version of the interview that remained online, but not on a website run by Kirk.

A spokesperson for Kirk told ABC News that earlier this year, multiple long-form videos on Kirk's channel were removed due to a reorganization of the page and that the removal of Vance's 2021 interview had nothing to do with his selection as vice president.



In recent days, Vance has faced criticism over other previous public comments he's made, including comments made in 2021 in which he questioned Vice President Kamala Harris' leadership due to her not having biological children -- despite Harris having two stepchildren.

"We are effectively run in this country via the Democrats" who are "a bunch of childless cat ladies who are miserable at their own lives and the choices that they've made, and so they want to make the rest of the country miserable, too," Vance said in the 2021 interview on Fox News.

As examples, Vance cited Harris, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and U.S. Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg, who adopted twins in 2021.

In response to criticism over his "childless cat lady" comment, Vance spokesperson Taylor Van Kirk said the senator's words have been "twisted."


"Once again, the leftwing media have twisted Senator Vance's words and spun up a false narrative about his position on the issues," Van Kirk said. "The only childlessness we should be talking about are the childless parents who lost their kids to the murderous thugs and deadly fentanyl coming across Kamala's southern border."


Speaking at a conservative organization called the Intercollegiate Studies Institute in 2021, Vance also argued that parents should have the ability to cast additional votes on behalf of their children.

"A lot of people are unable to have kids for very complicated and important reasons ... there are people, of course, for biological reasons, medical reasons that can't have children -- the target of these remarks is not them," Vance said, prefacing his argument.

"Let's give votes to all children in this country, but let's give control over those votes to the parents of those children. When you go to the polls in this country as a parent, you should have more power -- you should have more of an ability to speak your voice in our democratic republic -- than people who don't have kids," Vance argued.

"Let's face the consequences and the reality: If you don't have as much of an investment in the future of this country, maybe you shouldn't get nearly the same voice," he said.

Vance, who was announced as Trump's running mate last week, has three children with his wife Usha.

More taxation with less representation.

Gee, it is like JD Vance was in the revolution, but wearing a red coat.

 

[steross]

I never thought I would see the day when Tyreek Hill could change the entire course of an election.

So, what is your position on these proposals that he is advocating? Should childless people pay even more taxes (already pay more since lose deductions and child tax credits)? Should they get less representation than people with children?

 

[Polds4OSU]

More taxation with less representation.

Gee, it is like JD Vance was in the revolution, but wearing a red coat.

GOP POTUS pick has stated multiple times he would be a dictator on Day One and praises Dictators

GOP VP pick is advocating for wide spread Nation Wide Taxation without Representation
and Voter Suppression to where only Married, Males , with Children have any Power.


They Legit should change the Name to the GOP to the Party of the Pre Revolutionary British Monarchy

 

[GOGETUMPOKE]

So, what is your position on these proposals that he is advocating? Should childless people pay even more taxes (already pay more since lose deductions and child tax credits)? Should they get less representation than people with children?

I lost interest when I heard he had sex with a couch. First of all, to my knowledge he hasn't put forth any proposal but it is an interesting concept. If I own one share of a company should I have the same voting rights as someone with five shares? Nope. I think he was talking out of his ass to a crowd that he knew would be receptive when he was around 35 years old. It's never going to happen. You know it, I know it, and everybody else knows it. That's what I think. Looks like it gives the Dems something ridiculous to clutch the pearls over. Honestly, I haven't really been paying much attention this week.

 

[mugatu]

What if you are divorced? Does it come down to custody or other reasons.

For example, I'm divorced with 2 kids. I have primary custody but in our divorce agreement we each claim one kid for tax purposes. So do I get 3 votes because of where they live or 2 votes because I only claim 1 officially. But I get to claim HOH so still 2 maybe? Or because I am an evil divorcee I only get one vote because it's more important to keep families together and make everyone miserable than have 2 adults realize they are better off as coparents than a married couple.

Also, what happens if I knock someone up? Do I get more votes that way or does the mom? What if we decide I need to have custody of the child temporarily? Do I get more votes because the mom's job takes her out of state for 6 months and we don't want the kid to change schools?

What about the athletes (and others not so famous) who have 10 kids by 8 different women?

Also, what happens when my kids go off to college? Do they get to use their own vote then since they are living out of the house or do I get to use it because I'm still paying their insurance. What if you have a kid who is mentally incapable of living on their own? Do you get to keep their vote because you have to take care of them as adults? Do you lose that vote if they go to a group home?

This doesn't seem very well thought out.

So if only married couples get to vote, then you lose your vote on divorce and regain it when remarried?
Do the existing children get their representation back at thime or is it only children who are born of both spouses?
So adopted children never count?
What about when a parent dies, especially the father? What happens then?

 

[cowboyinexile]

So if only married couples get to vote, then you lose your vote on divorce and regain it when remarried?
Do the existing children get their representation back at thime or is it only children who are born of both spouses?
So adopted children never count?
What about when a parent dies, especially the father? What happens then?

With regards to adoption, assuming that is permissible for voting privileges, does that right extend to same sex couples? What about if they have a surrogate? Heck, what about heterosexual couples who are unable to have children? Do they get to fill out a document stating they intended to have x number of children if not for their inability to.do so?

 

[mugatu]

With regards to adoption, assuming that is permissible for voting privileges, does that right extend to same sex couples? What about if they have a surrogate? Heck, what about heterosexual couples who are unable to have children? Do they get to fill out a document stating they intended to have x number of children if not for their inability to.do so?

Well IVF will be illegal so fertility issues could mean you never get to vote. Choose your partner wisely.

 

[steross]

I lost interest when I heard he had sex with a couch. First of all, to my knowledge he hasn't put forth any proposal but it is an interesting concept. If I own one share of a company should I have the same voting rights as someone with five shares? Nope. I think he was talking out of his ass to a crowd that he knew would be receptive when he was around 35 years old. It's never going to happen. You know it, I know it, and everybody else knows it. That's what I think. Looks like it gives the Dems something ridiculous to clutch the pearls over. Honestly, I haven't really been paying much attention this week.

So, when you hear a radical dem say "we should tax the wealth" or "we should defund all police" do you take the same "Not gonna happen so this does not affect my vote" consideration? OR, do you not worry since it is just a philosophical comment and not yet a formal proposal? I mean, there are certainly different types of pearls to clutch, right? Seems you only see one type.

And, those dem radical statements that you guys clutch usually come from the far left, not the team running for the executive positions.

And, as far as "shares" well, fine, as long as you pay the same for all those shares. But, with what he is stating is that you buy one share, make up as many more as you want, and not only do you get representation for all of them, the 'company" gives you extra dividends for the free shares. That is just stupid. But, what it really is is big goverment trying to control people's lives. We have had a polticall switch. Democrats are not perfect at it but have become closer to the freedom loving side and the republicans have become the controlling, big government side.

 

[mugatu]

I lost interest when I heard he had sex with a couch. First of all, to my knowledge he hasn't put forth any proposal but it is an interesting concept. If I own one share of a company should I have the same voting rights as someone with five shares? Nope. I think he was talking out of his ass to a crowd that he knew would be receptive when he was around 35 years old. It's never going to happen. You know it, I know it, and everybody else knows it. That's what I think. Looks like it gives the Dems something ridiculous to clutch the pearls over. Honestly, I haven't really been paying much attention this week.

You call out potential policies that are not well thought out or outright stupid... why can't we? Haha

 

[Polds4OSU]

Did they even Vet this guy or did he just suck up enough that Trump said "Thats My guy" ???​

J.D. Vance in More Trouble After Writing Blurb for Book on “Unhumans”​

Republican vice-presidential nominee J.D. Vance has found himself yet again in hot water, after it was uncovered that he promoted a book decrying progressives as “unhuman,” written by a far-right conspiracy theorist.

Unhumans: The Secret History of Communist Revolutions (and How to Crush Them) was written by the Pizzagate guy Jack Posobiec and ghostwriter Joshua Lisec, with a foreword by the recently imprisoned MAGA movement architect Steve Bannon.


The book supposedly tracks the opponents of conservatism throughout history, and endorses a modern day McCarthyism to root out the “radicals” from American institutions. “They don’t believe what they say. They don’t care about winning debates. They don’t even want equality. They just want an excuse to destroy everything. They want an excuse to destroy you,” Posobiec and Lisec wrote.

Vance provided a glowing promotional blurb about the book, which is included on the website of right-wing publisher Skyhorse Publishing, reported Thursday.

“In the past, communists marched in the streets waving red flags. Today, they march through HR, college campuses, and courtrooms to wage lawfare against good, honest people,” wrote Vance. “In Unhumans, Jack Posobiec and Joshua Lisec reveal their plans and show us what to do to fight back.”

Vance’s endorsement of the book demonstrates just how plugged-in the Ohio Republican is to the extremist, conspiratorial faction of his party.


In addition to run-of-the-mill conservatives takes such as election denialism, conspiracies about big money backers to Democratic movements, and January 6 apologia, Unhumans veers into the ridiculous when discussing the beliefs of their progressive enemies.

“On a base level, unhumans seek the death of the successful and the desecration of the beautiful,” Posobiec and Lisec claimed.

When comparing the Black Lives Matter movement to the French Revolution, they wrote: “There is no way to reason with those who manipulate the have-nots en masse to loot and to shoot. They simply hate those who are good-looking and successful.”

Of course, their far-right screed has dark implications. After Trump was indicted in May on 34 criminal charges, Posobiec advocated for violent revolt against progressives. “Take the path of the hunter, and with one singular voice, we are going to make them the prey,” he said.


Since accepting the nomination at the Republican National Convention last week, Vance has been consistently embroiled in controversy over his past statements, including his blatantly sexist comment about “childless cat ladies,” and humiliating rumors about having sex with a couch.

Beneath it all, Vance is still part of the intellectual “new right” movement, influenced by pronatalism, techno-authoritarianism, and conservative economic populism. Evidently, his reading list also includes extremist, conspiratorial material. If he even bothered to read it, before lending his name to it. Either way, Vance gave Posobiec, and all of his dangerous and ridiculous ideas, a boost.

 

[Vakarian74]

So, when you hear a radical dem say "we should tax the wealth" or "we should defund all police" do you take the same "Not gonna happen so this does not affect my vote" consideration? OR, do you not worry since it is just a philosophical comment and not yet a formal proposal? I mean, there are certainly different types of pearls to clutch, right? Seems you only see one type.

And, those dem radical statements that you guys clutch usually come from the far left, not the team running for the executive positions.

And, as far as "shares" well, fine, as long as you pay the same for all those shares. But, with what he is stating is that you buy one share, make up as many more as you want, and not only do you get representation for all of them, the 'company" gives you extra dividends for the free shares. That is just stupid. But, what it really is is big goverment trying to control people's lives. We have had a polticall switch. Democrats are not perfect at it but have become closer to the freedom loving side and the republicans have become the controlling, big government side.

What policies have the Democrates put forth to limit freedom?

 

[JTOSU]

So, when you hear a radical dem say "we should tax the wealth" or "we should defund all police" do you take the same

And, those dem radical statements that you guys clutch usually come from the far left, not the team running for the executive positions.

First, what Vance said was stupid and pandering to his audience. Definitely do not support his statement.

Second, Harris is running for an executive position. So not sure how you are aligning your thoughts.
* Harris talked about Defund the Police multiple times
* She said Warren’s proposal of 70% to 80% tax rate warranted discussion
* She supported a massive wealth transfer with student debt
* She was ranked the MOST liberal Senator by non-partisan GovTrack
* She proposed, as a Presidential candidate, a huge new financial transaction tax.
*Including taxing 401k and IRA (not distributions, but holdings)
* Taxing public pension plans

 

[Verbal]

What if you are divorced? Does it come down to custody or other reasons.

For example, I'm divorced with 2 kids. I have primary custody but in our divorce agreement we each claim one kid for tax purposes. So do I get 3 votes because of where they live or 2 votes because I only claim 1 officially. But I get to claim HOH so still 2 maybe? Or because I am an evil divorcee I only get one vote because it's more important to keep families together and make everyone miserable than have 2 adults realize they are better off as coparents than a married couple.

Also, what happens if I knock someone up? Do I get more votes that way or does the mom? What if we decide I need to have custody of the child temporarily? Do I get more votes because the mom's job takes her out of state for 6 months and we don't want the kid to change schools?

What about the athletes (and others not so famous) who have 10 kids by 8 different women?

Also, what happens when my kids go off to college? Do they get to use their own vote then since they are living out of the house or do I get to use it because I'm still paying their insurance. What if you have a kid who is mentally incapable of living on their own? Do you get to keep their vote because you have to take care of them as adults? Do you lose that vote if they go to a group home?

This doesn't seem very well thought out.

Being divorce won’t be an issue if project 2025 gets their way.

 

[mugatu]

* She proposed, as a Presidential candidate, a huge new financial transaction tax.
*Including taxing 401k and IRA (not distributions, but holdings)
* Taxing public pension plans

Can you provide information on these? I couldn't find anything where she's announced her tax policy since being a candidate.

 

[CowboyJD]

Can you provide information on these? I couldn't find anything where she's announced her tax policy since being a candidate.

She hasn’t.

He’s talking about the 2020 Democrat primaries.

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/three-big-questions-on-kamala-harriss-tax-policies-and-how-close-they-are-to-bidens-e89051f3#

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/will-bidens-401k-plan-help-you-or-hurt-you-2020-09-09

And as usual, he misleads and mischaracterizes. For instance, that “huge new financial transaction tax law”…… .2% on stock transactions, .1% on bonds, and .002% on derivatives. And it was to pay for a Medicare for all proposal she was advancing…which isn’t presently being advanced or proposed.

 

[JTOSU]

She hasn’t.

He’s talking about the 2020 Democrat primaries.

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/three-big-questions-on-kamala-harriss-tax-policies-and-how-close-they-are-to-bidens-e89051f3#

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/will-bidens-401k-plan-help-you-or-hurt-you-2020-09-09

And as usual, he misleads and mischaracterizes. For instance, that “huge new financial transaction tax law”…… .2% on stock transactions, .1% on bonds, and .002% on derivatives. And it was to pay for a Medicare for all proposal she was advancing…which isn’t presently being advanced or proposed.

As usual, JD doesn’t understand. And probably doesn’t affect him.

Yes, the proposal was a huge new financial transaction tax. Would create a tax for 401k and IRA holdings plus add cost to public pensions.
BTW, she also proposed increasing capital gains taxes to regular income tax rates…plus increasing corporate income taxes to 35%.

 

[Polds4OSU]

As usual, JD doesn’t understand. And probably doesn’t affect him.
…plus increasing corporate income taxes to 35%.

The Revenue Reconciliation Act of 1993 increased the maximum corporate tax rate to 35% for corporations with
taxable income over $10 million.
Corporations with taxable income over $15
million are subject to an additional tax of
3% of the excess over $15 million, or
$100,000, whichever is smaller

This was in place from 1993 to 2017.......

 

[CowboyJD]

As usual, JD doesn’t understand. And probably doesn’t affect him.

Yes, the proposal was a huge new financial transaction tax. Would create a tax for 401k and IRA holdings plus add cost to public pensions.
BTW, she also proposed increasing capital gains taxes to regular income tax rates…plus increasing corporate income taxes to 35%.

Oh well, I guess the party is over.

This will be my last response to a post by you.

Yet another lie from a liar. You made it a whole 20 days.

As usual JD is completely on to your schtick.

I posted the exact proposal.

You continue to mislead, mischaracterize, and misdirect….and make claims without actually citing to supporting sources or facts.

Btw, I’m quite happy with my present financial standing thanks. That attempted insult was hilarious. Checkbook smack is always a sign of insecurity by the person making it. As if the measure of a human being is how much money they have.