214
So apparently JD Vance wants to tax "childlessness" Make America Fertile Again: The strange bedfellows of the new baby boom agenda (reason.com)
submitted 1 year ago by to c/uspolitics@lemmy.world
102 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 5 points 1 year ago (16 children)

Unless you live in a US territory or DC, you have representation.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 16 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago* (11 children)

    Depending on where you live, "representation" means less than the paper it's written on.

    Do you oppose AI-powered surveillance in your local city? Golly, that's swell and all, but they already made up their mind months ago! Everything else is just a formality, and they're more than happy to make it as difficult as possible for you to be heard during public meetings.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (9 children)

    Argue against representative democracies, then. Claiming it doesn't exist is just wrong, though.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago* (8 children)

    Your comments have a certain vibe about them, don't they?

    They hold elections in Russia.

    Based on your logic - I imagine they have a great deal of choice then, as well.

    Breathe easy! I don't expect a response:

    Government is flawed in all forms and corruption can fundamentally prevent any flavor of it from working as intended.

    There are infinite circular arguments that can spin up from nitpicking any obvious issues... available to anyone seeking the low hanging fruit. Your comments here do a fine job of providing examples.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (7 children)

    "Vibes" are not evidence, and "Bad thing exists that claims to do good thing, so good thing must actually be bad!" is not a reasonable argument. I never claimed any democracy is perfect, or even suggested as much.

    If you hate being "nitpicked" over your unfounded arguments, maybe don't make them, then.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago* (6 children)

    ... and if you have something meaningful to add to a conversation or post: I'd suggest something more substantial than "Nuh, uh - prove me wrong" or some other equally low effort form of trolling. It's practically textbook. At least attempt to mask it.

    I digress.

    Topically - I enjoy discussion. With that said: only one of us attempted to polarize an observation into a black and white topic. Curious. Vibes seem to check out.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    "Starts off claiming [thing] doesn't exist. Accuses others of 'polarizing' discussion and calls them trolls." Sure thing, bub.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (4 children)

    Everything down to that response is reductive, misinformed, and right out of the classic playbook.

    On the off chance you are actually that unaware of your response patterns:

    My most sincere apologies - I mistakenly thought you were at least being paid to be that obtuse. It would appear you are just a natural.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (3 children)

    The idea that anyone that would dare disagree with you must be getting paid for it is staggeringly egocentric. Keep up with the name calling, though. It does a great job showing your comments for what they are.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (2 children)

    You'd have to have actually posted something meaningful that was discussion worthy for that to happen. I applaud the wounded behavior.... also a fallback mechanism in the aforementioned guide.

    You could just be a fallacy factory without realizing it. A natural. Who's to say:

    You injected yourself in these threads. You even spun up the imaginary conflict in which you were going to argue about. You picked the topic you weren't equipped to discuss. It isn't my, or anyone else's, duty to caudle you when that blows up in your face. Act like a twat - be treated as such.

    Typically I find amusement in dealing with people like you but - you may as well have been posting from a response tree.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    "If you have an issue with the tea taxes please direct your concerns to your representative in the house of lords"

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Did colonists get to vote on their representative every 2 years? No? Ok, not the same then.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    It should be noted that the colonies did have their fair share of English apologists. Thank you for offering up an example that can be used in the present day.

    While "ack-shu-ally" history does not repeat itself - it does tend to rhyme.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •