This is the Democratic Party.
- Thread starter lawpoke87
- Start date
Not just Biden. Trump in morbidly obese, three years less old, and talks looney tunes. Even on his best day, he couldn't get anything through Congress and that was years ago. Meanwhile Biden has delivered on promises that Trump and other previous Presidents couldn't deliver and has pulled our allies back together.
Do I wish there was a younger bench running on both sides? Yes. One of a CEO's key responsibilities to plan for succession. Neither one has done it. But I'd rather pick from Biden's cabinet than Trump's list of sycophants.
Trump is speaking with the same lack of mental acuity as he had 15 years ago.
Not the same subject.
I can't believe you can pretend with a straight face that the senate would vote a supermajority to have Biden impeached. You make me laugh.
The proof would have to be absolute and the crime incredibly serious, before you had any # of Democrats vote to convict.
Always telling when the response attacks the messenger and ignores the message
Kudos to this Dem. Will never pass but takes some courage to make such a proposal
When the messenger is consistently delivering errant or obscurant messages, I will attack the messenger.
Unfortunately this was not the case here. Thus why you ignored the message and attacked the messenger.
Honestly, it’s the only way out country is seeing population growth which is ultimately a net benefit. The problem is that the growth isn't distributed spatially.
The population growth argument has always perplexed me. I do understand the benefit from an economic standpoint. Although the net benefit when the growth arises from largely uneducated and unskilled workers is marginal at best.
We have a finite land mass with finite resources. It’s a mathematical certainty those finite resources will be consumed faster as the population grows. Odd to me those most concerned about the end of mankind due to global warming are among the most supportive of adding to our population. Makes very little sense to me other than political.
China, a country that is roughly equal to us in terms of landmass, can sustain 3-4x our population. India: Same thing. I’m not saying that I want us to grow to that extent but the natural resources assertion is a bit farcical, the growth rate of the US population (mostly due to immigration) is well within sustainable limits.
What we don’t want to happen is devolve into a Japan situation where we aren’t replacing as many people as are dying and the elderly have no one to take care of them. It makes you into a caretaker economy. It also makes you militarily and geopolitically vulnerable. China is starting to see this as their economy slows due to actually coming close to the asymptote of population sustainability.
A lot of the problem in the US is the private ownership of the resources in question. They’re effectively tied up. Especially land. We have more unoccupied, non agricultural, non industrial land in this country than all of these migrants could ever use…. It just so happens to be owned by private citizens or federal / state governments. That can change over a long enough period of time as property is bought and sold.
Last edited:
No. I do think their progeny who were born and raised in this country should be able to though. Just like your (insert random European nationality here) ancestors and their journey eventually afforded you the right to vote.
Might I suggest that we have no idea what is sustainable due to climate change. A point you have made many times over. Any statement of certainty regarding the future of natural resources including water and food is a fallacy.
Idiot. What's your news source, facebook, youtube, or newsmax?
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/27/nyregion/noncitizen-voting-ruling-nyc.html
Climate change is real now? Lmao. (I know it’s not really you specifically claiming it’s not)
I thought we were supposed to be able to ‘science‘ our way into adapting to climate change, which is the direction you have pointed to many times. Certainly if we can adapt to climate change we can adapt to population growth at the same time.
I’ve argued many times we should ‘science’ our way to best deal with a changing climate since there is very little the US can do to reduce global emissions. The problem is we have to date refused to take this ‘science’ approach. Choosing instead to stick our heads in the sand. Therefore, adding millions and millions of migrants is problematic due the uncertainty in food, water and other natural resources. Pretty simple concept.
The second part of Aston's sentence was never argued here.
It was never argued as a cheap argument, just as the only argument that would work. There was never even the faintest argument here, that it would be cheap, even without the migrant situation exacerbating it. It will be expensive as hell without the migrants. It might be untenable with the migrant issue. I love how Aston argues about how expensive that will be, but then throws in the sarcastic remark that we can handle it with the migrants, if we are so certain of it. Once again, that was never said here.(He broke a logical argument rule with that statement.)
Yes… they did. They put immigration laws into place that they did not have to deal with. The sense of entitlement from you is insane.
Aside from the effects of climate change, there is no problem with food and water macroscopically in the US. We can sustain growth. We have landmass that can support millions more. If we’re talking about hundreds of millions more, we might have a problem.
I agree that there is a point at which the natural resources can’t support the population. We’re not there yet.
Yes….if it weren’t for science, facts and the real world in which we now live then your argument would have merit
.
Eye roll. The fact is, that climate change is a significant contributing factor to the mass migration we’re seeing from Central America. Where do you think these people should go?Yes….if it weren’t for science, facts and the real world in which we now live then your argument would have merit
Should they stay in their own country that has become unsustainable agriculturally? If our country becomes unsustainable do you think other countries should shut you out?
Are you dense? He never said your family changed it. What he was attempting to convey was that while your family was raising themselves, legislators that your family helped elect, changed the regulation that got your family here, such that the rules were different for future generations. Whether they did that passively by not voting, or actively by voting bears no negative affect on that action. I'm not advocating for or against this statement, just laughing at your taking him too literally.
I wonder where he thinks this water would come from, that would raise these crops. The same water that he and watu post articles about it disappearing. You can't say one thing in an argument when it suits you, and then say the opposite in another argument because it suits you. At least one of those arguments will be wrong. You can't take it from the oceans either. Those are finite resources in the ecological climate system as well. That is, unless we unlock the alchemy of elements for that system.Yes….if it weren’t for science, facts and the real world in which we now live then your argument would have merit
My 9 year old is home sick today so I asked him your question.
His response “Dad, if things are so bad that we can’t feed our own people wouldn’t other countries likely be in similar situations? How could they feed their own people and 300 million additional people?”
How can a 9 year old have more logical thoughts than you
. Truth be told….if it does get to that point countries with the largest surpluses of agriculture capabilities to population will be way ahead of the curve. Might be a good idea to add this item to “how do we plan for the upcoming climate crisis”.
