I agree with JD Vance that only children should count for votes!

[ExciteBike66]

But I would stipulate that the mothers are the ones who get to cast the votes...

[brush]

1. Hah! Explain yourself, please. Why does that make any sense at all?

[ExciteBike66]

2. LOL! You are looking for "sense" in a post about JD Vance?

He is saying nonsensical stuff in order to get name recognition. Ironically, being a best-selling author makes him an unknown in rural areas

[brush]

6. Used the sarcasm gif or folks might think the same about you.

[dweller]

3. And one vote

per child
🤔

✌🏻

[brooklynite]

4. Not what he said...

Vance said there should be EXTRA votes for people which kids.

As for your line, women can be just as thoughtless in their voting patterns as men can.

[ExciteBike66]

5. Fine, mothers still get those extra votes. Same impact either way.

As to voting patterns, I would take women over men any day of the week in terms of voting.

[TheRealNorth]

7. Umm, how about No.

Hes courting the Evangelical "Be fruitful and multiply" wing. We don't need every Republican going the way of the Duggars.

[hlthe2b]

8. So you don't believe in democracy either? Infertile/barren--no vote for you!

Deliberately childless among those who give back to society, devote their lives to others? NOPE!
Can't have those people voting either!

WTF? A DUER posted this? What is this... post an outrageous RW meme day?

[Srkdqltr]

9. I think it's supposed to be sarcasm.

[hlthe2b]

10. Posters who can't be bothered to indicate so deserve to take their chances with a jury.

[Srkdqltr]

11. So are you going to tell???

[hlthe2b]

15. ...

"am I going to tell?" What, do you think this is the first grade?

[Srkdqltr]

17. Sometimes it is. I was just pointing out that the poster was

Being sarcastic about what someone else said. There is so much stupidity going around at this time it's a real shame.

[Silent3]

12. Maybe so on taking their chances with a jury, nevertheless...

...your sarcasm detector needs a major overhaul, and you need to crank down that leap to judgment a bit.

[hlthe2b]

13. No. I don't need RW memes being brought and defended here.

nor your unwarranted snark. Maybe YOU need to take your own advice.

[Silent3]

16. Uhmmm... sarcasm about this is not a defense of a right wing meme.

That's a truly bizarre way to take it. Lighten up, Francis.

[ExciteBike66]

19. I think there are times when the "/s" is not needed.

I mean, I don't feel like I had to explain it...

[hlthe2b]

20. Of course YOU would say so.

No. It is not funny. Not cute. It is a repeat of a RW meme and offensive as hell.

You implied in your self-delete that "because it was posted here (presumedly "here" means at DU) that we should assume it is sarcastic. Ummm, no. If that were true, there would be several thousand DUers now banned for disseminating RW memes--whether they were "misunderstood" or not-- that would still be here. You want benefit-of-the doubt? Then be clear.

The thought that ANYONE would be eliminated from voting for any criteria, other than legal eligibility is so repugnant--so reminiscent of Jim Crowe-- that yes, I find it offensive as hell and so not funny. Given that is precisely what some Republican state legislatures are trying to do through suppression laws--and many successfully thus far--I'm surprised you would find humor in it either.

[ExciteBike66]

21. I am so sorry to have offended you with my joke.

One of my professors once explained the concept of the eggshell-headed plaintiff...

[hlthe2b]

22. Obviously your comment suggests the opposite.

"One of my professors once explained the concept of the eggshell-headed plaintiff..."

Next?

[alphafemale]

24. Obvious sarcasm should not need to be tagged.

What are we becoming if someone is threatened with a dark mark of a jury because of a lack of a sarcasm tag?

[snowybirdie]

14. Not sure

Does he mean People who ever had kids? People who adopted or foster? People with only young kids in the house? What's age cut off? How about us grandparents? One vote per grandkid? Lots of questions on this one.

[Caliman73]

23. Nope. You assume that mothers always act in the best interests of their children.

That is a mighty big assumption. There are millions of women who voted for Trump, in both elections. Those millions of women voted the way they did for a few reasons. Either they liked what Trump was doing, they deferred to their husbands and voted with him, or they were driven to vote conservative based on fundamentalist religion and what their church tells them to do.

We cannot assume that just because one is a mother, that one will think about things from the perspective of the future that is supported by empirical evidence.

The Democratic party is the party that is thinking into the future. That is why we have the proposal for both hard infrastructure and social infrastructure (social programs). That is why any proposal for a Green New Deal is only taken seriously on the Democratic side. Vance is using the same twisted rhetoric that conservatives use to make it seem like they are on to something when they are actually the "bad guys" in the scenario. It isn't the "childless left" that is only making decisions in the short term. Decisions in the short term stem from our current economic system, which is based on Wall Street modeling, thinking only about quarterly earnings. That is the way Republicans think. What can they do to get wins in the coming election cycle. Oh, they have a long term plan, but it does not involve creating a better world for everyone. It involves them having permanent power, then deciding who gets to live in their society. They just can't sell that vision because it eliminates more than half of the current population. So, as always, they project their own desires onto their opponents.

Conservative mothers are not very different from conservative fathers.