POLITICAL THREAD
- Thread starter kybobcat
- Start date
What finite resource? And who will not be sustained? Are you the man in 1970 arguing we will run out of food in the year 2000? The reality is, time and time again, people use current technology and resources to predict the future. You do not factor in future efficiencies
JA, I've always said SS was an Ponzi Scheme. Why throw your BS out? Educate yourself first.
Yea we do need more smart people. Let me know when we restructure on education system. Hell, 2/3 of KY voters just said KY's socialist monopoly education system is just fine. Not very smart.
If I'm not mistaken, the U.S. basically stopped immigration in the 1920s, and continued that way up till Ted Kennedy wrote some type of bill to open it back up. Can't remember all the details.
Legal migration that brings in the right people is wanted and necessary. The US has brought in too many 3rd world people and the problems they bring. Now they are gaining power in government and we are living with the results.
** Wise Words Department **
"You feel a little older in the morning. By noon I feel about 55."
-Bob Dole
"You feel a little older in the morning. By noon I feel about 55."
-Bob Dole
Incans, Mayans
I'm not asking about an individual. I'd asking the total amount. For example, let's say 500 million people globally qualified for what you mentioned. Would you let 500 million people in?
It is being disingenuous to make a statement where you advocate by giving examples of controlled legal immigration that we agree with and support.....and essentially lumping in illegal immigration as people who are motivated to come here to start a Silicon Valley tech behemoth. Going to the bank to withdraw your money and going to the bank to rob it are not the same thing though the result is the same. Those millions who Biden lured across the border will not just decide to go illegally to some other nation to start their business.
Austin’s such a s- hole, lol.
I was responding to Wayne saying we need to cap legal migration to 5% of the population, and arbitrarily supplying a percentage of migrants as currently being too much. We are in agreement it seems as I already said, as a legal migrant myself, I’m against illegal
Well Ron, we of course want more of immigrants like you. It's those other assholes who we don't want.
But seriously, the scale matters. We don't have enough housing here already. Plus social cohesion is an important thing.
Strawman.
Your argument was it historically led to downfalls, so my counterargument was specifically to that. No society in history ever benefitted from letting in more people than it could handle. Period.
Small government, small taxes, no tariffs (long term), make commerce easy and profitable, make innovation lucrative. Do these things and a country/civilzation/empire will thrive. The DOGE is a huge step in the right direction imo as it’s trying to achieve the small government/taxes part. The rest will figure itself out. Dont make it too hard to legally migrate here - make it attractive for those with drive to migrate here, and the rest will sort itself out, as has been proven time and time again
My argument is how much a society can handle is never a static number and constantly changes with efficiencies. It’s the reason in 1970 the food supply could only handle 8 billion but through GMO crops and farming and energy efficiency lo and behold we can now comfortably feed 14 billion.
He’s going to make a great POTUS in 28. This coming from him in particular is very powerful.
No it wasnt. Your argument was clearly stated and its wrong which is why you're trying to squirm out from under it. Since your first argument is defeated, lets move on.
This argument too is wrong. You're focusing way too much on food when the much bigger concerns are lack of infrastructure. Power grids, roads, hospitals, schools, jails, and basically every other public service in the southwest is completely overwhelmed. Lets assume we dont let in another person, when they breed like rabbits that strain will keep growing exponentially every 14-18 years
That is far from a benefit.
Before you start writhing around again, just know there is literally no logical argument to let in more people than you can handle. None. Every single argument is emotional and easily defeated.
I don't like arbitrary numbers either. We need to first turn off the spigot. End the perverse incentives. We can do this by a couple of new laws.
- End birthright citizenship for non-citizens.
- Require voter ID citizen only voting
- Grant work visas so we can get our vegies picked and homes roofed
If they come here to work and we need that work class...bring them on. If not, do not allow them in.
Are your workers "citizens?"
1. Rome fell because the empire split into two halves with very different political, social, and religious values. Sound familiar?
2. Neither was isolationist. Western Rome in particular depended almost completely upon imported goods for luxury and for food. They also depended heavily upon imported slave labor to the point that regular citizens couldn't get jobs. Sound familiar?
3. That led to a population collapse that further destabilized the west by causing number 1. This is going to sound familiar soon. You cannot import people who refuse to assimilate. People will not have kids if they feel they cannot live comfortably.
4. The Western Empire was decadent and led completely by rich manor holders who frolicked all day long. Their military was made up of mercenaries and non citizens and they had little to no interest in defending Rome. That led to invasion after invasion by the "barbarians". Ironic part is that the barbarians were more Roman than the Romans by then.
Byzantium lasted a good long time but fell due to a variety of reasons. None of which was because they isolated.
The VOC fell apart due to political infighting, market corruption, and the fact the rest of Europe caught up them. They managed to hold onto the "Spice Islands" until the fifties and their Caribbean colonies stayed loyal until 1986 or so.
Isolation can be dangerous from the angle that it let's the rest of the world take care of itself. That will probably impact our ability to import goods. The thing is, TPTB will turn Mexico into China south while we use our own resources to meet needs. That way we won't need to import nearly as much.
Now making a rich ally to our south is a whole other problem that I take serious issues with.
You seem emotional and argumentative. I am not typing while laying on my belly, there is no writhing or squirming. I am not a snake. I thought we were having a nice philosophical conversation - I am not trying to win anything. Who is breeding like rabbits? What is the current birth rate in developed countries? It’s currently 2.1 (2 Will keep a population flat). Did you know as people go to a more developed country their birthdate drops. That’s why in the 60s people thought the current world population would be 12 billion, they didn’t account for the decreasing birth rate in developing countries. Theories as to why are less infant mortality, movement away from farm work, and the desires to be a consumer making raising children less appealing.
Back in the 1800s we were able to generate power from coal at 10%. We’re currently up to 60%. As new energy needs arise not only will new energy sources appear (nuclear for instance) but the technology to extract it and extract it more efficiently will become cheaper and more readily available. We can handle as many smart motivated people as we can, it will only lead to better outcomes for all.
I bet there are easily half a billion that meet the criteria of the first 3 (I don’t think that many would would to uproot their lives and move the the US, though). The bottleneck that is created is the job and housing component , right? It would incentivize immigration to less desirable locations like the rust belt and even places like Monticello because these locations would be easier to secure those two things.
Scaramucci calling for the 25th amendment. LMAO.
After watching a literal brain dead invalid in office for four years with no one invoking the amendment, it should forever be barred from use. Thats literally why it was there and noone would use it.
After watching a literal brain dead invalid in office for four years with no one invoking the amendment, it should forever be barred from use. Thats literally why it was there and noone would use it.
Of course my workers are citizens - they’re all white people - some with very advanced degrees.
You’re absolutely correct that isolationism wasn’t the only downfall - lots of factors. You can make the same argument for the Chinese empire in the 1800s. Now let’s try another exercise- what society/country/empire PROSPERED after shutting down their borders or practicing isolation?
The North Korean population in the movie World War Z was successful through isolationism and removing the teeth from the population. Perhaps that’s what they’re going for?
In the long term, zero. In the short term, quite a few.
Japan comes to mind right away. They had a cultural problem and they realized the needed to address it so they shut the borders and removed what they deemed harmful. They ran a bit long with it, but it worked.
I don't think even the new admin is in favor of such complete isolationism. Something like 40% of the S&P depends upon foreign monies. They won't risk that, nor will they compromise our ability to project power, but they will hopefully purge the spies and foreign instigators from our shores.
What I do expect to happen is that the US will start to cherry pick when, where, and with whom they do business, and that venture will be equal or outright favor us. The rest can pound sand.
Yeah, Vance was on a morning Sunday show like every Sunday explaining the administration's views
James Carville said Democrats started their '7th string quarterback' by running Kamala Harris in 2024
Longtime Democratic strategist James Carville said Democrats ran their '7th string quarterback' in the 2024 presidential election, in an interview with PBS on Friday.
Ya short term I don’t see too many issues. The issues is giving other countries the incentive to do business with each other and not the US that will be harmful - other countries would love the opportunity to increase their trade to the detriment of the US. Tariffs are a huge negative to free trade of course but it seems to me Trump is using them as a negotiating tactic and not a long term trade policy.
There’s nothing wrong with any of this. Hell, I don’t think Canada will accept any foreigner that doesn’t speak French. Not reeling in illegal immigration is going to doom the legacy of the Biden administration, even though it’s not felt as much currently.
