I voted for Donald Trump in 2016 and again in 2020. I had planned to vote for him again in Nov. 2024, but now I am not so sure. What caused the hesitation??
I live now in Wisconsin, a swing state. In 2022 we had a race for the US Senate. Incumbent Republican Ron Johnson had proven himself to me on committees that exposed Dr. Fauci's lies about Covid, and probed to get more info about the origins of the virus, American funding of the research in Wuhan that could have gone amuck, etc. Johnson was running against a young Democrat, who was the incumbent Lt. Gov. Mandela Barnes. Johnson, white, elderly, a successful business man facing the energetic and very radical black Democrat. It was extremely close, but Johnson won, returned to Congress and helped to expose the corruption surrounding Hunter Biden and the rest of the Bidens.
In 2024 we have another Senate race in Wisconsin. Democrat Tammy Baldwin, an open lesbian, and 2-time incumbent is running against Eric Hovde, a successful business man. Tammy's ad introduces her opponent as a wealth man residing in California running to buy the Senate seat in Wisconsin. Hovde replied in ads that he was born in this house in Wisconsin, attended schools here, was on the football team in Wisconsin and still has a home here. "If Tammy lies about where I'm from, can you trust her on anything she says about me?" The most telling Republican ad is when Tammy looks at the camera and declares: "The Biden Adm. is the most successful in generations." And she votes 90% if the time in the Senate with the other Dems. If you are a Dem, you are satisfied with Tammy.
But if you're not a Dem? Tammy has an ad in which Hove says "People in nursing homes should not have the right to vote. 50% of them will die in six months anyway." He implies that the vote should be taken from the elderly. Tammy's ad features a number of un-young citizens; "That jerk." "Where did they get this guy?" Her ad implies that a Hovde bank that runs a nursing home in under investigation for mistreating some of the inmates. Another ad shows Hovde suggesting that the obese pay more for their health insurance. Eat less and shape up. Tammy's ad than alleges that a third of Wisconsians are obese.
On abortion Hovde now says 12 to 14 weeks should be sufficient time for a woman to decide on abortion. Tammy says it is up to the woman and her doctor.TRUMP HAS ENDORSED REPUBLICAN HOVDE.
I know little about J. D. VANCE, but recent comments are truly disturbing. He called Kamala Harris a cat woman who has no children. Then went on to explain, the new young leaders of the Dem Party, like Kamala, Pete Buttigieg and A.O.C. are all childless. Without children, they have no stake in society. Only those with children have a stake and therefore should have preferences (and privileges). First, the government already does this to some extent, as with the taxes, IRS. Should the childless be allowed to vote? Of course, we have a stake in this nation too.
Vance says Buttigieg has no children. But Buttigieg and his married partner Chasten have adopted two children twins. So, in Vance's world, those who adopt are still "childless." And should lose rights. What about married heterosexuals who are unable to have children? What if they go to a doctor to try invitro fertilization? Will those children count as children? Oh wait, isn't Vance a member of a church that condemns the practice. So childless couples should remain childless and lose rights and avoid procedures that may help. A friend who is gay got together with a lesbian, and had a child. Despite a good gay man and a good lesbian woman, as their son grew up, it turns out he liked girls. "The parents are not asking where did they go wrong, as so often happens when the opposite occurs. Would Vance call these parents? Or no rights for them. What about a couple in a traditional marriage who have a girl; she grows up, joins the Marines, is killed in action. Their child is gone. Have they lost their special rights too?
And then there is the man, usually seen in the early days of tv on local news, who boasts of having 13 children. Vance would be proud. But he goes on to say all the kids are with different women. No, he never bothered to marry any. That's their problem. What a stake he has in society!? Perhaps Vance would give him 13 extra votes. Vance holds views that are inimical to the American tradition. He is a threat to our future. Holding these views he is a danger as a vice president, a looming threat as a President.
I am old and came out of the civil rights movement. I became a convicted felon when trying to order coffee in Woolworths in the first modern sit-in in New Orleans in September 1960. That civil rights movement stood for equal rights, and some picket signs included the equal sign on the posters. The EEOC would undermine equal rights and impose quotas, and preferences for this group or that, depending on the whims and politics of government. I have opposed such unequal treatment for decades. Now VP candidate Vance wants to impose a new round of privileges for those who have children, denying equal rights to what he determines are the childless. Vance must change his views or be stopped. He has jumped aboard the quota privilege equity train. He must openly reverse what he as said. Trump has to disassociate with Vance until he does. Otherwise, Trump may lose because of Vance's foolishness. Bluntly, Vance would end the notion that all American citizens should have an equal input in our future. Parents would have more and a new bureaucracy would determine how many extra votes parents would have, not based on the equality of all citizens but on "equity." The government employee at his desk would determine how many votes you are entitled to cast - if any. What if parents divorce? Does the new husband get the vote of the male parent? The official will decide that. What could possibly go wrong with this new family friendly system? The official would never give extra votes to members of his own party, certainly not! What a fabulous improvement Vance has suggested. Democrats will find it the best improvement since mail-in ballots, early voting, and unattended drop boxes.
Moreover,Vance makes a mockery of the Father of our Country, George Washington, who had no children. Did Washington really have no stake in the country's future? Should he have been denied the vote?
What did Vance learn at Yale Law School? Should he be denied the Vice Presidency? Some may think I am being vindictive and have a grudge against Ohio Sen. Vance. Quite the contrary. I think if he were to fully explain the probably repercussions of his new vote-assigning policy, he would gain many new friends, and with luck Kamala Harris might invite J D Vance to be the Vice Presidential candidate on her Democratic Party ticket.
The childless have a stake in this society.This is the freest and probably still the wealthiest large nation on earth. We have not lasted the millennia of Ancient Egypt, but the longer we endure as a nation, the longer we are a beacon on the hill for a relative free and democratic society, a beacon to the world of what regular humans have been able to accomplish.
