June 10Jun 10 23 minutes ago, Arthur Jackson said:I remember.I know it's the internet but... yikes.No. This is funny though
June 10Jun 10 3 minutes ago, Dave Moss said:This is funny thoughis that really the onion?seems like an unfunny knockoff
June 10Jun 10 4 hours ago, Kz! said:I believe our country should enforce immigration laws.You are correct. That is what the Immigration Courts are for. People seeking asylum come and present their case to those courts, but due to the willful defunding of the courts the due process case can’t be heard for years. Given that our whole country has been built on the backs of immigrants, and the fact that we are currently not producing existing resident babies faster than existing residents are dying, our population would be going down without immigration. As a practical matter we therefore need immigrants.Enforcing the immigration laws would old mean a commitment to bringing order to the current governmental chaos.
June 10Jun 10 23 minutes ago, Arthur Jackson said:is that really the onion?seems like an unfunny knockoffI think it’s a site that parodies the Onion
June 10Jun 10 18 minutes ago, mattwill said:Given that our whole country has been built on the backs of immigrants, and the fact that we are currently not producing existing resident babies faster than existing residents are dying, our population would be going down without immigration. As a practical matter we therefore need immigrants.Enforcing the immigration laws would old mean a commitment to bringing order to the current governmental chaos.This is silly boomer slop.
June 10Jun 10 24 minutes ago, mattwill said:Given that our whole country has been built on the backs of immigrants, and the fact that we are currently not producing existing resident babies faster than existing residents are dying, our population would be going down without immigration. As a practical matter we therefore need immigrants.I find your syllogism fallacious.
June 10Jun 10 How many libtards have said this very thing in this thread. Is it all of them at this point?
June 10Jun 10 And another poll showing this is political gold for Trump. Please, libtards, die on this hill.
June 10Jun 10 My approval rating hasn't changed. I still disapprove. AND I would tread carefully Kz. Immigration is the one and ONLY thing folks in the middle agree with him on. IF, or should I say when he screws this up the ratings will tank. He's a horrible person. Book it. It's gonna happen. He has surrounded himself with loyalist who are some of the most incompetent people with too far right ideals that does nothing, absolutely nothing to better the country and its diverse population.
June 10Jun 10 7 minutes ago, DiPros said:My approval rating hasn't changed. I still disapprove. AND I would tread carefully Kz. Immigration is the one and ONLY thing folks in the middle agree with him on. IF, or should I say when he screws this up the ratings will tank. He's a horrible person. Book it. It's gonna happen. He has surrounded himself with loyalist who are some of the most incompetent people with too far right ideals that does nothing, absolutely nothing to better the country and its diverse population.It's about time again for CVON "dueling polls"cherry picking, selection bias, mala fide interpretations, sanctimonious accusationsit's good fun!
June 10Jun 10 It’s not many times that I see his posts making sense, but I think @Arthur Jackson nailed it here.
June 10Jun 10 2 minutes ago, Talkingbirds said:His posts never make sense, but I think @Arthur Jackson nailed it here.Fyp
June 10Jun 10 1 hour ago, Arthur Jackson said:I find your syllogism fallacious.Weird considering you're (I have assumed) British. Or Welsh. Or Scottish. We'll ignore the other possibility.Anyway, like most Western nations the US is not producing enough babies. Social programs reliant on a certain level of population growth are part of what's squeezing the budget (along with a boomer generation living well beyond its expected expiration).More taxpayers will help. Though I have little doubt that no matter where we land there politicians will over promise and under deliver.
June 10Jun 10 1 hour ago, Kz! said:How many libtards have said this very thing in this thread. Is it all of them at this point?Not me. I think having fat white slobs in the south picking fruit will help with the national diabetes problem.
June 10Jun 10 1 hour ago, Kz! said:And another poll showing this is political gold for Trump. Please, libtards, die on this hill.Meanwhile on planet earth...
June 10Jun 10 1 hour ago, Arthur Jackson said:I find your syllogism fallacious.Explain. The numbers do not lie. Without immigration, the U.S. population is projected to fall 30% by 2100 according to the Census Bureau. This is because birth rates are projected to remain too low to replace the population and mortality rates are expected to increase. Here is a graphical representation of that US Census finding.
June 10Jun 10 1 hour ago, Kz! said:This is silly boomer slop.The numbers do not lie.Without immigration, the U.S. population is projected to fall 30% by 2100 according to the Census Bureau. This is because birth rates are projected to remain too low to replace the population and mortality rates are expected to increase. Here is a graphical representation of that US Census finding.
June 10Jun 10 11 minutes ago, JohnSnowsHair said:Weird considering you're (I have assumed) British. Or Welsh. Or Scottish. We'll ignore the other possibility.Anyway, like most Western nations the US is not producing enough babies. Social programs reliant on a certain level of population growth are part of what's squeezing the budget (along with a boomer generation living well beyond its expected expiration).More taxpayers will help. Though I have little doubt that no matter where we land there politicians will over promise and under deliver.That seaweed bread he suggested sounded delightful. There must be some Welsh animals out here who leave it on hiking trails.
June 10Jun 10 1 minute ago, JohnSnowsHair said:Anyway, like most Western nations the US is not producing enough babies. Social programs reliant on a certain level of population growth are part of what's squeezing the budget (along with a boomer generation living well beyond its expected expiration).My issue was more with the idea that a higher population is assumed to be a desirable outcome. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't (I'm in the latter camp), but I don't like seeing it posed as an axiom.I believe the Earth, flat or spheroid, has approximately 7 to 7.5 billion more human beings than it should comfortably contain. Every day that passes makes me more confident in that. I may be right or wrong but this is my true view and not one of my antics.As I type this, I see a plot popping up from @mattwill showing the US population trajectory . Thanks, friend, but that wasn't my beef. It's no news to me that industrial nations have reached a comparative inflection point in population growth. But developing countries have greatly reduced infant mortality over the past century without a corresponding reduction in birth rate. It will take them longer, culturally to level out.What I'm trying to say is I'm overly sensitive to "we need more people" - anywhere, US, UK, UPS, UFC, KFC. Anywhere.
June 10Jun 10 1 minute ago, Arthur Jackson said:My issue was more with the idea that a higher population is assumed to be a desirable outcome. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't (I'm in the latter camp), but I don't like seeing it posed as an axiom.I believe the Earth, flat or spheroid, has approximately 7 to 7.5 billion more human beings than it should comfortably contain. Every day that passes makes me more confident in that. I may be right or wrong but this is my true view and not one of my antics.As I type this, I see a plot popping up from @mattwill showing the US population trajectory . Thanks, friend, but that wasn't my beef. It's no news to me that industrial nations have reached a comparative inflection point in population growth. But developing countries have greatly reduced infant mortality over the past century without a corresponding reduction in birth rate. It will take them longer, culturally to level out.What I'm trying to say is I'm overly sensitive to "we need more people" - anywhere, US, UK, UPS, UFC, KFC. Anywhere.Fair enough, but for the current labor force to sustain itself, especially with the overall aging population, we need to at least have working age population be level.Of course if you believe AI is going to replace humans then a declining population is okay.
Create an account or sign in to comment