Vain Jangling
We are giving moms and parents a voice in …

It is interesting to listen to what people believe they are owed. Not (always) based on merit but (sometimes) merely because they want or feel they deserve it. And they have a voice (or the voice) of change simply by joining the team.

Take an individual who interviews for a specific job and is hired based on the job description and policies of the company. One would think they are accepting said description, benefits, and policies by agreeing to take the job. However, it seems today, some (or many) immediately or gradually begin to believe the rules should somehow be different now that they are there.

Some may claim it is for the greater good, for all mothers, for all parents, etc. but usually (often) further review does not always (normally) prove this. Then to take pride in shutting down the real work they were called to perform, until they get their way. Perhaps sometimes things do need to change, but it is merely vain jangling when attempting to justify it puts one’s job duties and everyone else on hold for their personal demand—for to say “X or work stoppage” is a demand.

It’s the new mindset: me before and above all others.

Vain Jangling
DOGE is unconstitutional.

If politicians really care about those who elected them. If people really are upset about the amount of taxes they pay. Then why are so many crying out more about the what is being found and the who is finding it, than the actual fraud, waste, and abuse and those responsible for it (for years, for decades)? And, honestly, when so many have promoted or been silent toward so much that has been done (or tried) in the last four years, it is mere vain jangling to believe they actually care about the constitution, the American people, and working to lower the debt—today.

Vain Jangling
Removal and change of previous platform wording is not something to be worried about.

With the new or updated Republication National Convention 2024 platform, are there any changes that persons should be concerned about? The platform is used sometimes as the reason or justification in voting for a particular candidate. Maybe the voter does not agree with the personality or morality of the person, but they do prefer one platform over another platform. Therefore, when they cast their vote, they are voting for a platform which holds to a view they can agree with —or at least agree with more than the platform of the other party (or parties).

When it comes to the sanctity of life, we find persons who hold views —and sometimes very strong views— regarding abortion. Therefore, it would be mere vain jangling to say that the wording of the platforms do not matter. It is there to first, establish what the organization stands for or supports, and second, to ensure the voter understands what the organization stands for or supports. There should be no obscurity; especially purposedly, for the purpose to misguide persons for the sake of inclusivity, where each is reading their position into the text —i.e. to ensure more votes.

The 2020 DNC platform states:
We believe unequivocally, like the majority of Americans, that every woman should be able to access high-quality reproductive health care services, including safe and legal abortion.

The 2016 RNC platform states:
The Constitution’s guarantee that no one can “be deprived of life, liberty or property” deliberately echoes the Declaration of Independence’s proclamation that “all” are “endowed by their Creator” with the inalienable right to life. Accordingly, we assert the sanctity of human life and affirm that the unborn child has a fundamental right to life which cannot be infringed. We support a human life amendment to the Constitution and legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment’s protections apply to children before birth.

The 2024 RNC platform states:
We proudly stand for families and Life. We believe that the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States guarantees that no person can be denied Life or Liberty without Due Process, and that the States are, therefore, free to pass Laws protecting those Rights. After 51 years, because of us, that power has been given to the States and to a vote of the People.

In 2016, it is clear that the RNC platform believes all unborn (or preborn) children “a fundamental right to life which cannot be infringed.” Initially, the 2024 RNC platform seems to echo that same belief: “We believe that the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States guarantees that no person can be denied Life .”

However, there is an interesting statement in the 2024 RNC platform:
We will oppose Late Term Abortion, while supporting mothers and policies that advance Prenatal Care, access to Birth Control, and IVF (fertility treatments).

It is understood that the “official GOP platform says now that states should decide when and how to restrict abortion access,” but a platform is not merely talking about the states having the right to restrict abortion access as they see fit. How can a platform say, “The states have the right to restrict or allow abortion access” while at the same time say, “We will oppose Late Term Abortion”? If the platform states it will only oppose Late Term Abortion, then it is mere vain jangling for anyone to conclude [assume] that the platform truly [still] believes, [all] unborn child[ren] [have] a fundamental right to life which cannot be infringed. Are all unborn children still people deserving life? Be clear.