I've seen plenty of him to know what I'm saying too. Fine, you're not trolling or baiting - I guess I have to take your word for it. But making an unequivocal statement in support of JD Vance in response to my comment didn't sit well with me for some reason. I couched my comment in terms of it being my opinion, whereas you stated your op…
I've seen plenty of him to know what I'm saying too. Fine, you're not trolling or baiting - I guess I have to take your word for it. But making an unequivocal statement in support of JD Vance in response to my comment didn't sit well with me for some reason. I couched my comment in terms of it being my opinion, whereas you stated your opinion as if it were fact. No matter, at this point.
But here's a question about him being a dad -- why do you think that automatically makes him more responsive to the dangers to children, i.e. do you think that's what it takes to care about children, that dads and moms are necessarily more concerned about the welfare of "other people's children" or of children in general than other people can be and often are? Because that is a popular myth. I have seen way too many dads and moms who don't care about their own children, let alone anyone else's. And yes, I think he's an opportunist, if that's the term you want to use, though not sure if he's a utilitarian.
Here is back ground to answer your legitimate and thoughtful question about whether people become more attuned to the dangers for children in a roiling world of almost inestimable dangers to children, almost all of them caused by unhealthy profiteering from the medical industrial complex and from the organized criminal cartels supporting rovgue states by addicting Americans (which i know a little something about having worked on the streets of NYC through the Mafia dump of crack cocaine and heroin during the HIV/AIDS / COCAINE pandemic that decimated poor neighborhoods in NYC and flooded the foster care system, street child shelter programs, juvenile justice system and morgues with kid casulaties. and my having come to Appalachia to work with the poor a decade before witnressing first hand once again the catastrophe on rural poor of the dramatically addictive fake painkiller OxyContin dump by Big Pharma (infested with the reprehensible hyper-addictive additive developers who laced cigarettes and targeted youth addicts former employees of tobacco "enhancing" corps that left for greener financial pastures when displaced by exposes, as well as by a "seeding" influx of the white collar educated members from the families of Mafia (and later,cartels) members , who having been betrayed in the Pizza Connection USA and MAXi Trials, Italy by paid chemists concocting mega-addictive narcotics, "made" their own and sent them to help alter the organizational culture of companies producing "medicine" to instead become twice profiting corporate purveyors of addiction that for the poor soon switches to street drugs and the rented turf of local dealers and small gangs, but for the rich has become a way to proft astronomically from targeting every human being for pill pushing of mulitiple health compromising "maintenance" drugs from the cradle to the grave: YES i think that the life experience of loving and raising children does in fact awaken awareness of the absolute consequences of bad policy, broken systems, decimated economy, bureaucratic nightmare overreach and lack of actual and lack of actual provision of social protective factors to mitigate the harm done by the besiegment of working poor and abject poor peoplewho number 72% of our country's population that is not wealth insulated and privileged, by any combination of broken dreams/ loss of capacity building towards healthy mature autonomy by any combination of risk factors for negative putcomes for kids including family abandonment or abuse, bereavement, family chemical dependency, economic insufficiency itself, environmrental instability which is even now nationally ensured in hideous foster care protocols, (the AVERAGE number of bouncing "home" placements for any of the many thousands of kids IN SUPPOSED CARE during the 1980s was 31 moves ) ,failed educational masteries/ lack of capacity building including illiteracy, witnessing or enduring violence particulalry family violence, etc. ALl of these risk factors for children of families who are not wealth insulated have skyrocketed in past three years and as well some over past three decades. It;s sobering concerning and elicits deeply protective considerations for people who have firsthand knowledge of these challenges and those lost upon the way to leatned helplessness and anesthetizing --which JD Vance most certainly and thankfully has... and NO i do not think having children is necessary to care for them, but i DO KNOW that having an opinion that is deeply and broadly informed with experiential knowledge as well as theoretical aka pice of paper from indoctrinating rather than illuminating and explorative sources is a necessity to weighting opinions witn common sense and FACTS
I'm with you. From what I've seen of Vance, I would say he's a weasel who was chosen because he poses no threat to Trump's agenda. Also, so many people have disputed his version of reality in his book I can't take him seriously. The dude went to an Ivy. These next four years will be hard for anyone who believes the Constitution should be more powerful than the whims of a guy who thinks he's Jesus.
I've seen plenty of him to know what I'm saying too. Fine, you're not trolling or baiting - I guess I have to take your word for it. But making an unequivocal statement in support of JD Vance in response to my comment didn't sit well with me for some reason. I couched my comment in terms of it being my opinion, whereas you stated your opinion as if it were fact. No matter, at this point.
But here's a question about him being a dad -- why do you think that automatically makes him more responsive to the dangers to children, i.e. do you think that's what it takes to care about children, that dads and moms are necessarily more concerned about the welfare of "other people's children" or of children in general than other people can be and often are? Because that is a popular myth. I have seen way too many dads and moms who don't care about their own children, let alone anyone else's. And yes, I think he's an opportunist, if that's the term you want to use, though not sure if he's a utilitarian.
Here is back ground to answer your legitimate and thoughtful question about whether people become more attuned to the dangers for children in a roiling world of almost inestimable dangers to children, almost all of them caused by unhealthy profiteering from the medical industrial complex and from the organized criminal cartels supporting rovgue states by addicting Americans (which i know a little something about having worked on the streets of NYC through the Mafia dump of crack cocaine and heroin during the HIV/AIDS / COCAINE pandemic that decimated poor neighborhoods in NYC and flooded the foster care system, street child shelter programs, juvenile justice system and morgues with kid casulaties. and my having come to Appalachia to work with the poor a decade before witnressing first hand once again the catastrophe on rural poor of the dramatically addictive fake painkiller OxyContin dump by Big Pharma (infested with the reprehensible hyper-addictive additive developers who laced cigarettes and targeted youth addicts former employees of tobacco "enhancing" corps that left for greener financial pastures when displaced by exposes, as well as by a "seeding" influx of the white collar educated members from the families of Mafia (and later,cartels) members , who having been betrayed in the Pizza Connection USA and MAXi Trials, Italy by paid chemists concocting mega-addictive narcotics, "made" their own and sent them to help alter the organizational culture of companies producing "medicine" to instead become twice profiting corporate purveyors of addiction that for the poor soon switches to street drugs and the rented turf of local dealers and small gangs, but for the rich has become a way to proft astronomically from targeting every human being for pill pushing of mulitiple health compromising "maintenance" drugs from the cradle to the grave: YES i think that the life experience of loving and raising children does in fact awaken awareness of the absolute consequences of bad policy, broken systems, decimated economy, bureaucratic nightmare overreach and lack of actual and lack of actual provision of social protective factors to mitigate the harm done by the besiegment of working poor and abject poor peoplewho number 72% of our country's population that is not wealth insulated and privileged, by any combination of broken dreams/ loss of capacity building towards healthy mature autonomy by any combination of risk factors for negative putcomes for kids including family abandonment or abuse, bereavement, family chemical dependency, economic insufficiency itself, environmrental instability which is even now nationally ensured in hideous foster care protocols, (the AVERAGE number of bouncing "home" placements for any of the many thousands of kids IN SUPPOSED CARE during the 1980s was 31 moves ) ,failed educational masteries/ lack of capacity building including illiteracy, witnessing or enduring violence particulalry family violence, etc. ALl of these risk factors for children of families who are not wealth insulated have skyrocketed in past three years and as well some over past three decades. It;s sobering concerning and elicits deeply protective considerations for people who have firsthand knowledge of these challenges and those lost upon the way to leatned helplessness and anesthetizing --which JD Vance most certainly and thankfully has... and NO i do not think having children is necessary to care for them, but i DO KNOW that having an opinion that is deeply and broadly informed with experiential knowledge as well as theoretical aka pice of paper from indoctrinating rather than illuminating and explorative sources is a necessity to weighting opinions witn common sense and FACTS
sorrry i cannot edit this for my expressive dyslexia i hope it is not too convoluted
I'm with you. From what I've seen of Vance, I would say he's a weasel who was chosen because he poses no threat to Trump's agenda. Also, so many people have disputed his version of reality in his book I can't take him seriously. The dude went to an Ivy. These next four years will be hard for anyone who believes the Constitution should be more powerful than the whims of a guy who thinks he's Jesus.