Jennifer Aniston Slams J.D. Vance’s Resurfaced Comments About Women Without Children

[Wingnut]

Teddy Roosevelt was a big advocate for women's suffrage.  He was the first major Presidential candidate to openly support it.

Really?  That was your take away from my comment?   Dude you disappoint me.

[Bigun]

Teddy Roosevelt was a big advocate for women's suffrage.  He was the first major Presidential candidate to openly support it.

He was also the first to advocate universal healthcare IIRC.

[Hoodat]

Really?  That was your take away from my comment?   Dude you disappoint me.

Sorry.  I've had a rough day.

[Smokin Joe]

True. There’s no scenario that Jennifer Aniston would vote for TEAM Trump/Vance

But this may be the beginning of death by a thousand cuts if Vance and Trump keep making statements that put them on the defensive

It isn't the statements, it's the editing and forcible misinterpretation and then the ongoing mischaracterization of what was said, out of context, ad infinitum.

It doesn't matter what is said, the Left will find a way to twist it, distort it, and spin it as something entirely different. Might as well get used to it, they've been doing it for decades.

[Hoodat]

Aniston seems a bit sensitive about not having any kids.

[LMAO]

Aniston seems a bit sensitive about not having any kids.

Regrets?

[cato potatoe]

Yes it's a red flag, as evidenced by my list of willfully childless politicians on the other thread. 

How many young ladies aspire to grow old alone and childless?  A fraction of people are happy by themselves, which is great, but most of these cat ladies are miserable.  A lot of men are the same way.  It's so depressing the democrats rely on that group as a core constituency. 

As for the politics -- JD was showing off for MAGA, and he got burned. 

[Maj. Bill Martin]

Whether he's right or wrong, this is a stupid thing to say publicly because he's essentially talking about disenfranchising a sizeable chunk of the electorate.  And that isn't going to win he and Trump any votes....

Clip of JD Vance Arguing Childless People Shouldn’t Have ‘Same Voice’ as Parents Goes Viral

On Thursday, the Kamala Harris campaign resurfaced a video from September 2021 of Vance at the conservative Intercollegiate Studies Institute. In the clip, Vance says:

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. 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. Now people will say, and I’m sure The Atlantic and the Washington Post and all the usual suspects will criticize me about this in the coming days. Well, doesn’t this mean that non-parents don’t have as much of a voice as parents? Doesn’t this mean that parents get a bigger say in how our democracy functions? Yes, absolutely.......

What Vance actually proposed was this - kids get a vote that the parents get to cast by proxy.  So if you have kids, you get to cast an extra vote for each kid.   It's right here, at about the 25:30 mark.

https://youtu.be/jBrEng3xQYo?si=QPY3XAa1Qmkemq4Z

Of course, that means that single women - who overwhelmingly vote Democratic - will get to cast an additional vote for every child they have.   Great idea, J.D.   Let's give all those single moms sitting on their butts raising kids on the government dole EXTRA VOTES!   They don't pay any income tax, and contribute nothing but pumping out kids for which other people pay.   But they get more votes than the rest of us.

[catfish1957]

Never undersestimate the ability of a high profile republican to shoot himself in the foot.

[Mod2]

Topics merged

[Maj. Bill Martin]

His rationale for this is that he believes the government should provide more financial assistance for families, so families need to have more votes to make that happen.

[mountaineer]

His rationale for this is that he believes the government should provide more financial assistance for families, so families need to have more votes to make that happen.

Please cite source on this assertion.

[libertybele]

Whether he's right or wrong, this is a stupid thing to say publicly because he's essentially talking about disenfranchising a sizeable chunk of the electorate.  And that isn't going to win he and Trump any votes....

 

[Maj. Bill Martin]

Please cite source on this assertion.

Sure.  One of the specific policies he mentioned supporting was government loans to newly married couples that are later forgiven if they are married for a certain period of time.

But just to let you know, I never post anything like this unless I have personally dug down to verify its accuracy.  And just reading a source article usually isn't enough.  The particular statement I just made was something I heard when listening to Vance's speech for myself, in its entirety.   YouTube only lets me make 60 second clips, but this one gives the start of it and backs up what I said.  If you go to the original clip and listen through about the 26:00 mark, you can hear him lay out the whole thing:

https://youtube.com/clip/Ugkxj2EycZxoQPH_aT0p-pDMB9s3vkxQmPFF?si=23zMpcsr7QH2A3g1

[mountaineer]

How many people posting that J.D. Vance disrespected people who can’t have kids saw this clip from the same speech?

https://twitter.com/greg_price11/status/1816922616868876317

[Maj. Bill Martin]

How many people posting that J.D. Vance disrespected people who can’t have kids saw this clip from the same speech?

https://twitter.com/greg_price11/status/1816922616868876317

He didn't "disrespect" (and I really hate that word used as a verb) people in general who can't have kids, because he specifically excepted those who can't have kids through no fault or choice of their own.  But he pretty much did slam people who choose not to have kids.

[mystery-ak]

excerpt:

Regardless of who Trump chose as his VP, the media would have found something to latch onto. They zeroed in on this clip from Vance, believing it would draw the most attention from voters.

    JD Vance says women who haven’t given birth like Kamala Harris are “childless cat ladies who are miserable at their own lives,” and have “no direct stake” in America. pic.twitter.com/3DJY3pQTGe
    — Ron Filipkowski (@RonFilipkowski) July 22, 2024

Vance joined "The Megyn Kelly Show," and he addressed the "childless cat ladies" comment:

    I know the media wants to attack me and wants me to back down on this, Megyn, but the simple point that I made is that having children, becoming a father, becoming a mother, I really do think it changes your perspective in a pretty profound way.

    There’s a deeper point here, Megyn. It’s not a criticism of people who don’t have children. I explicitly said in my remarks — despite the fact the media has lied about this — that this is not about criticizing people who for various reasons didn’t have kids. This is about criticizing the Democratic Party for becoming antifamily and antichildren.

Per The Hill:

    Vance pointed to support from some liberals for young children to continue to wear masks in the years after the coronavirus pandemic began. He also claimed the Harris campaign has opposed the child tax credit, though Harris as vice president has supported expanding that policy.

Vance has previously expressed that the government should support families by making it easier for them to have children by promoting workplace policies that are more accommodating for working mothers and fathers.

Vance told Kelly:

    It’s because they have become antifamily and antikid. And I’m proud to stand up for parents. And I hope that parents out there recognize that I’m a guy who wants to fight for you. I don’t think we should back down from it, Megyn. I think we should be honest about the problem.

The media conveniently overlooks the fact that Vance, in 2021, explicitly clarified he was not referring to individuals who are unable to have children due to medical or biological reasons, a crucial context they don't want their viewers to hear.

https://redstate.com/levon/2024/07/26/jd-vance-makes-first-public-comments-about-his-childless-cat-ladies-remark-from-2021-n2177410

[catfish1957]

excerpt:

://redstate.com/levon/2024/07/26/jd-vance-makes-first-public-comments-about-his-childless-cat-ladies-remark-from-2021-n2177410

Ack....   Quit digging that hole  JD.  Doubling down on this stupid comment isn't helping at all.  Implying any woman is less a woman by not having children, whether by choice or medical reasons appeals as postion to maybe 5% of the country.

And may drive away, who knows how many.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

Regardless of who Trump chose as his VP, the media would have found something to latch onto.

Sure.  But that's not the point.

The point is whether the "something" has legs, and whether there is any merit to it.  I mean, I listened to the entirety of the speech, and Vance was very clear that he was not criticizing those who cannot have children.   But as I said above, he definitely slammed those who choose not to have children.

The really crappy part about this is that there is a valid point to make that politicians who don't have kids don't understand the issues facing those who do, and how government policies impact that.  But when Vance chose to make it the way he did, he unnecessarily handed an easy avenue of attack to the Democrats.   And they won't have to do anything other than show clips of him.

[catfish1957]

Sure.  But that's not the point.

The point is whether the "something" has legs, and whether there is any merit to it.  I mean, I listened to the entirety of the speech, and Vance was very clear that he was not criticizing those who cannot have children.   But as I said above, he definitely slammed those who choose not to have children.

The really crappy part about this is that there is a valid point to make that politicians who don't have kids don't understand the issues facing those who do, and how government policies impact that.  But when Vance chose to make it the way he did, he unnecessarily handed an easy avenue of attack to the Democrats.   And they won't have to do anything other than show clips of him.

I can see your POV, but realize a 100 people can read a statement, speech, etc.  A 100 different ways in context.  To say this was not a good look, is an understatement.

[mountaineer]

I'm female. I don't have children. And I couldn't care less about what Vance said.
Make of that what you will.

[mystery-ak]

https://twitter.com/TrumpWarRoom/status/1816889715397743090

[Maj. Bill Martin]

I'm female. I don't have children. And I couldn't care less about what Vance said.
Make of that what you will.

What I make of that is that you already are committed to voting for Trump/Vance, and therefore nothing he says at this point really matters.   FWIW, I kind of share your POV regarding the crazy cat lady aspect of this.  Politically, it's a very stupid comment to have made, but ultimately irrelevant to what he'd do as VP or President so it wouldn't impact my vote.

What did bother me a lot more than that was his clear preference for more direct government benefits paid to married couples, and presumably to those with children as well.  That's the kind of big-spending populist item that Democrats always supported.  If you want to increase the standard deduction for kids, that's fine, because that only helps those who are actually paying federal income taxes.  But more government handout to people when we're already in massive debt?  No effing way.

[roamer_1]

I'm surprised to be this far down the thread without anyone challenging the idea which holds the primary fault: Using the federal government to provide extra anything to families is the same damn thing as the Democrats using the federal government to aid homos and illegal aliens. It's all wrong. ALL of it.

Using the federal government is the problem.
What would actually be helpful is to remove the ability for the federal government to help anyone. Take away that abuility and you will see massive growth as the government shrinks.

That, in a nutshell is the entire problem with this populist MAGA movement. It is focused on using government just the same way the liberals do, rather than making government smaller and incapable of this kind of intrusion.

[mountaineer]

What I make of that is that you already are committed to voting for Trump/Vance, and therefore nothing he says at this point really matters. 

I've never been a MAGA type of person. Trump is my second - or third - choice. But I'll vote for him because the alternative really, really stinks.

And I disagree with just about any form of federal "benefits" for anyone, whether married, single, childless, parents, or anything else.