16 minutes ago, Mike030270 said:

The double down maga is doing is hilarious

In all fairness he was invading her well scripted cos play. I would love to know how much tax payer money is spent on her stylist and makeup products. It might even be more than Trump's.

57 minutes ago, It Hurts said:

Yeah totally out of line. The gestapo would at least announce themselves as the gestapo before disappearing people.

"WASHINGTON – President Donald Trump said he plans to make changes to his administration's aggressive crackdown on illegal immigration to protect migrant farmers, hotel workers and others in the leisure industry who have been among those deported."

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2025/06/12/trump-immigration-migrant-farmers-hotel-workers-deported/84166061007/

Hmm, so illegal immigration bad or not? C'mon MAGAts, how are you gonna explain away TACO again?

6 hours ago, Kz! said:

Yep, everyone who thinks it's a bad idea to use third world immigration to make up for declining birthrates is a troll. Elderly libtards are easily the worst.

That reminds me, did @Toastrel ever come back or did the election finish him off?

What is your plan?

Wait until the price of bricks go up due to government usage verification programs.

2 hours ago, lynched1 said:

The Jr senator from California that no one ever heard of barges into a hearing dressed like a janitor because his constituency sees him as ineffective.

I do hope they charge his stupid ***.

This is the most stupid crap ever. 'He identified himself'... He claimed to be a US Senator, but didn't have his senate pin, then attempted to approach a member of the cabinet while yelling out attempting to get past secret service during a press conference in an era where political violence (especially on the left) is on high alert. He deserved what he got. Oh and he tweeted not long ago that nobody is above the law

On 6/10/2025 at 5:49 PM, mattwill said:

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.

Projected assuming current trends continue precisely as they are. But we don’t know that to be true — demographics are dynamic, as are the underlying fertility rates.

So here is an alternative hypothesis:

Right now, the biggest issue with fertility rates seems to be the age at which women have their first child. This has climbed from about 21.5 in the 1970’s to about 27.5 today. When women do give birth to their first child earlier, their fertility rates are much higher and above replacement, even today.

So what’s the biggest barrier to having their first child? Housing costs, mostly. Young couples can’t afford homes, and because they can’t afford homes, don’t feel financially secure enough to get married and start a family.

Well, adding tens of millions of new people to the demand pressure on housing certainly seems like it would impact the cost. Right now, there are somewhere in the region of 20-30 illegal immigrants in the country, and another 22 or so million legal immigrants. This versus a housing stock of 147 million. So we are looking at 40-50 million total immigrants added to the demand pressure on 147 million homes.

It seems to me at least some of our own fertility issues would be solved by relieving this pressure. Obviously we want to keep the best and brightest immigrants, but at some point we are really doing a disservice to our own youth by driving down wages and increasing the cost of living through mass immigration, and preventing them from the security they feel they need to start having children.

26 minutes ago, It Hurts said:

This is the most stupid crap ever. 'He identified himself'... He claimed to be a US Senator, but didn't have his senate pin,

They must wear the proper adornments if they don't want to be assaulted by the gestapo...

Another FAFO casualty

"I thought he was going to focus on the criminals..."

1 minute ago, pisceschica said:

Another FAFO casualty

"I thought he was going to focus on the criminals..."

If your business requires you to employee illegal immigrants, it deserves to go out of business.

2 minutes ago, TEW said:

If your business requires you to employee illegal immigrants, it deserves to go out of business.

There is another part I think this particular one did not address. Some of his workers had pending asylum cases; but yes for the most part he probably still uses illegals.

Summer riot season has opened in Georgia

Noem "Oh, you know what, I haven’t, I don’t even know the Senator. He did not request a meeting with me or to speak with me. So when I leave here I’ll have a conversation with him and visit and find out really what his concerns were. I think everybody in America would, would agree that that wasn’t appropriate.

That is some fail grade facsism right there. Meet with him afterwards? Didn't someone tell her about the helicopter rides?

😏

Notice how the protests/riots are in liberal blue cities. They know no one will do anything about it. The Democratic party is one you should run away from. Pathetic

8 minutes ago, It Hurts said:

Notice how the protests/riots are in liberal blue cities. They know no one will do anything about it. The Democratic party is one you should run away from. Pathetic

What major US cities would you consider to be conservative?

I certainly hope it pays well.

1 hour ago, TEW said:

Projected assuming current trends continue precisely as they are. But we don’t know that to be true — demographics are dynamic, as are the underlying fertility rates.

So here is an alternative hypothesis:

Right now, the biggest issue with fertility rates seems to be the age at which women have their first child. This has climbed from about 21.5 in the 1970’s to about 27.5 today. When women do give birth to their first child earlier, their fertility rates are much higher and above replacement, even today.

So what’s the biggest barrier to having their first child? Housing costs, mostly. Young couples can’t afford homes, and because they can’t afford homes, don’t feel financially secure enough to get married and start a family.

Well, adding tens of millions of new people to the demand pressure on housing certainly seems like it would impact the cost. Right now, there are somewhere in the region of 20-30 illegal immigrants in the country, and another 22 or so million legal immigrants. This versus a housing stock of 147 million. So we are looking at 40-50 million total immigrants added to the demand pressure on 147 million homes.

It seems to me at least some of our own fertility issues would be solved by relieving this pressure. Obviously we want to keep the best and brightest immigrants, but at some point we are really doing a disservice to our own youth by driving down wages and increasing the cost of living through mass immigration, and preventing them from the security they feel they need to start having children.

Thank you for the thoughtful response. As I’m sure you are aware housing costs are a huge issue here in Northern California where I live. There are several themes that run through the discussions of that issue. Here are a few of those themes.

(1) The delay of first child from 21.5 to 27.5 only addresses the women who actually have children. It does not address the proportion of women who choose not to have children at all. In 2023, 29.4% of American households were married couples without any children, and 29.0% were single households without children. Women younger than 50 are especially likely to say they just don’t want to have children … 64% vs. 50% of men in this group. Majorities in both groups say not having kids has made it easier for them to afford the things they want, have time for hobbies and interests, and save for the future.

(2) The increased inability for young families to afford home ownership is a significant factor in the decision not to have children. There is a broadly held belief (dare I say bias) toward apartment living being a damaging factor in child development. Bottom-line, couples don’t want to raise a child without a front and back yard where the child can play.

(3) in order to be able to afford home ownership, more and more young families are pursuing careers for both spouses, and women with full time careers are much less likely to prioritize having a child over having a career.

(4) What has played out over and over again in California is that housing prices do not come down when the supply and demand curves attain balance. Housing prices continue to go up, just at a slower rate of increase.

(5) Building new homes on a community actually increases the resale cost of existing homes. The reason is straightforward. Building new homes is expensive. Over $500 per square foot in my community. When the new homes sell, they become the "comparables” for the pricing of the resale of existing homes, and real estate agents raise the per square foot prices of their existing home listings to match those new "comparables.”

I look forward to hearing your thoughts about these five factors that strongly support (A) the continued increase in first child age above 27.5, (B) the continued increase in the proportion of adults (both women and men) who never have children, and (C) the high likelihood that ownership home prices will continue to rise unabated.

56 minutes ago, mattwill said:

Thank you for the thoughtful response. As I’m sure you are aware housing costs are a huge issue here in Northern California where I live. There are several themes that run through the discussions of that issue. Here are a few of those themes.

(1) The delay of first child from 21.5 to 27.5 only addresses the women who actually have children. It does not address the proportion of women who choose not to have children at all. In 2023, 29.4% of American households were married couples without any children, and 29.0% were single households without children. Women younger than 50 are especially likely to say they just don’t want to have children … 64% vs. 50% of men in this group. Majorities in both groups say not having kids has made it easier for them to afford the things they want, have time for hobbies and interests, and save for the future.

(2) The increased inability for young families to afford home ownership is a significant factor in the decision not to have children. There is a broadly held belief (dare I say bias) toward apartment living being a damaging factor in child development. Bottom-line, couples don’t want to raise a child without a front and back yard where the child can play.

(3) in order to be able to afford home ownership, more and more young families are pursuing careers for both spouses, and women with full time careers are much less likely to prioritize having a child over having a career.

(4) What has played out over and over again in California is that housing prices do not come down when the supply and demand curves attain balance. Housing prices continue to go up, just at a slower rate of increase.

(5) Building new homes on a community actually increases the resale cost of existing homes. The reason is straightforward. Building new homes is expensive. Over $500 per square foot in my community. When the new homes sell, they become the "comparables” for the pricing of the resale of existing homes, and real estate agents raise the per square foot prices of their existing home listings to match those new "comparables.”

I look forward to hearing your thoughts about these five factors that strongly support (A) the continued increase in first child age above 27.5, (B) the continued increase in the proportion of adults (both women and men) who never have children, and (C) the high likelihood that ownership home prices will continue to rise unabated.

Some additional information about (1) above.

In the mid-1970s, approximately one-in-ten (10%) of U.S. women ages 40 to 44 had not had a biological child. Compare that to just under 50% of women under 45 in the US were childless between 2015-2019, up from about 42% in 2015-2017.

Yeah waving an enemy flag while pursuing violence is abhorrent

1 hour ago, Gannan said:

Yeah waving an enemy flag while pursuing violence is abhorrent

J6 reference.

1 hour ago, Kz! said:

J6 reference.

It’s all they have