The part about this that really bugs me is the left pointing to legal immigrants having relatively low crime rates as "proof" that illegal immigrants therefore must have low crime rates. It's a pants on head retarded logical path. The data on illegal immigrant crime is far from complete and the discussion goes well beyond crime, but damn, stop pretending these people just plain don't exist. Trump plays it up way more than he should, and like anything Trump ever has or will speak about he's certainly prone to exaggeration, but that doesn't mean it's a non-issue. That's become such a habit now though, I suppose. Don't like that Syrian immigrants are causing problems in Europe? Just pretend it doesn't happen. Don't like environmental regulations? Then the environmental problems don't exist. And so on... In fairness to her it's not like illegal immigrants working those jobs is just a stereotype. Still hilarious though.
Here's a fun little factoid: Last month there were 35K people caught illegally crossing the US/Mexico border. That's the one's they caught, God only knows how many got through. At least it's down from the 40K+ that were caught the month before. Those are staggering numbers, especially in light of the fact that supposedly illegal border crossers are now frightened to cross into our country. Obviously, they're not. How the bloody fuck are we supposed to deal with all those people?
Same way we have for decades and decades? Or do you think this is some sudden refugee crisis and we're about to be "overrun" like Europe? Last I checked there were more people leaving than coming in. We got room, and in fact we BETTER let them in to replace the children we are not having.
Because at the other end of the production line, we need CONSUMERS to actually buy the shit we're automating. We can't export everything. Boomers are poised to retire en masse, and take all their buying power to the grave. Starting with their generation, we haven't birthed enough children to replace us.
Assuming we actually *reach* this fabled era of full automation and UBI, I expect we'll all benefit. Or else. But right now, today, our car's on neutral and rolling towards the cliff.
I hear this all the time and I think it's nonsense for a lot of reasons. - We have one of the highest birth rates in the first world. That doesn't mean it's high overall, but it's not a crisis by any stretch. - As of 2012 the median age was 37.5. - The percentage of the population over 65 is less than 13%. For one, that isn't some insanely high number. Secondly, a lot of those people have their own money and don't just need younger generations to provide for them, you know? For comparison the percentage of people in their 20s is about 14%. - The percentage of people is their 40s is higher than the percentage of people in their 50s. The percentage of people in their 30s is about the same as the percentage of people in their 50s. The percentage of people in their 20s is higher than the percentage in their 30s. I mean, is this crisis supposed to be imminent? Will it be imminent in 20 years? In 50 years? It's hard to even follow what the narrative is exactly. - The population of our country is still steadily going up. It's not soaring like it was in the 50s and 60s, but is that really a bad thing? - Even though the aging population claims are way overblown, is there even historical evidence that suggests this would be disastrous for an economy? I've yet to see it. It's true that healthcare for the elderly is way more expensive than it used to be. At some point we might have a very uncomfortable national conversation about whether it's actually worth it to spend exorbitant sums of money to keep decrepit people alive for a few extra months. That said, the claims of an imminent disaster due to an aging population don't really add up. Also, you are completely missing the point about the arguments against immigration. It has nothing to do with Americans being anti-immigration. Sure, that exists, but there's very few people who just want no or very little immigration. What people want is regulated immigration rather than a system that either doesn't or poorly tracks who is coming in. We could argue all day about how feasible it is to actually enforce a properly regulated system, but assuming we could, that would be preferable to the circumstances now, wouldn't you agree? At the least we would have more legal immigrants and it would be a less shitty experience for those coming in.
Are you saying the death rate is higher than the number of immigrants coming in, or the people moving from the US is higher?
Strictly speaking about the immigrants. So many outgoing post-recession compared to the numbers incoming.
“He’s ruining our lives, and we have his back.” That is how actually stupid Trump supporters are: http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-missouri-town-tariff-20180705-story.html
Meanwhile in Maxine waters district: https://mobile.twitter.com/RedNationRising/status/1014322966824390658/video/1
a) That's not Maxine Waters' district b) Skid Row is a multi-state dumping ground for homeless people that has existed for decades; it is not a problem that Maxine Waters has created or made worse.
So...this made me laugh: 'Trump Baby' balloon gets mayor's OK to fly over London during president's visit http://www.wect.com/story/38579522/...ok-to-fly-over-london-during-presidents-visit
Should have made it a quadruped to echo Pink Floyd’s floating pig over London. Still they should really reach out to Roger Waters, I’m sure he’d be in for support.
Why is he invited? Countries should simply stop letting him or his pets to visit. Tell him to fuck off. His presence only invites angry fakefucks like the Black Bloc to trash everything that doesn’t smell like Patchouli because almost everybody outside America now hates him. He only cares about his country, make him stay in it. He’s still free to go gargle on Putin’s taint, not like he hasn’t been all along.
Because of this thing called "diplomacy" that real world leaders do. Diplomats HAVE to take the high road and at least try, in most cases, or else things will devolve. Very little is ever resolved by not talking or interacting with each other, even if the outcome is pretty well known. Personal feelings for individuals has very few places in resolving the world's issues... if you can't respect the person, then you must at least show respect for the office and the country.
Because he'll be gone in two years and it would be really stupid to cut ties with their most important ally just because of Trump. Seriously, over what? A steel tariff? He's a blowhard, but he'll only be a relevant blowhard for so much longer. Besides, the people all butt hurt over him visiting are just retards howling into the wind. "Blah blah blah, we're a bunch of idiots. This is all we know." These are the same people trying to see England's economy collapse just so they can say they were right about Brexit. I don't think they need to be taken very seriously.
Pruitt is gone from the EPA. Wheeler is replacing him, who is a coal executive. That’s good thinking.