[Newfie]

The point isn’t what people think or that Immigrants are good/bad, it’s that the USA can sustain only so many.

Trying to stay close to the physical reality here.

[dissident]

The point isn’t what people think or that Immigrants are good/bad, it’s that the USA can sustain only so many.

Trying to stay close to the physical reality here.

A voice of sanity in the SJW shitstorm. Any country has an upper bound on how much immigrants it can absorb without producing economic and social disruption. This has nothing to do with drowning Syrian boys and the fact that immigrants are humans. SJWs never look at the problem from the right perspective. It is all about their feels and dogma.

[Pops]

The point isn’t what people think or that Immigrants are good/bad, it’s that the USA can sustain only so many.

Trying to stay close to the physical reality here.

The point IS what people think. Rs believe they are bad. Ds are effectively the reactionaries now, so (just like the Rs with Obama) will oppose everything trump.

Notwithstanding the fact I kneejerk towards a protectionist bunker mentality, we should understand it's a minority of a minority view. And just to ground ourselves, the "physical reality" is the US can feed 2-3 times the current population easily. We'll need to worry about going the way of the Irish before we run out of land, as you know, during the Irish potato famine owners were exporting record amounts of wheat while the peasants starved eating blighted potatoes.

trump didn't run on sustainability, just the opposite. He siad Mexicans are rapists and drug dealers, that's the argument Rs bought. As I said before, Obama deported lots without much fuss but trumps outrageousness radicalized Ds toward unlimited immigration. This is now set in stone as partisan I'm afraid. trump saw the crack in which to drive his wedge and like any good demagogue he exploited it starting the first day. Now it is unresolvable, the next D POTUS can't plead "sustainability" because even more than before immigration is seen as a partisan, racist issue entirely.

I couldn't find anything about americans being worried about sustainability wrt immigration. Here is Gallup poll history on the environment, no mention of sustainability, food, farm, carry or even population. If you could cross tab the wall people with the environmentally concerned people, I'm gonna bet there is little overlap.

Ds are much more concerned with the environment, they think about recycling, regulation, what they buy, but not overpopulation — it's so 70s. Not one person volunteered in that Gallup poll that something they do to protect the environment is have fewer kids.

To conclude my sunday sermon, pretending that sustainability is the justification for cruelty at the border is about as disingenuous and it gets. trumps entire domestic policy is to free corporations to rape the commons, and eliminate taxes on the rapers.

.

[Newfie]

Pops,

From what I hear you are talking apples and oranges compare to what Dis and I were commenting on. Physical reality vs. reality TV.

Yeah I get that the herd movement is all about the optics and where the lighting stuck.

The physical reality is the grasslands are running out and the herd will starve and then turn upon itself.

Your view point seems to be rooted in the 24/7 news cycle.

I was referring to our relatively distant future, which is being cast in the now.

[Plantagenet]

the US can feed 2-3 times the current population easily. We'll need to worry about going the way of the Irish before we run out of land....

Theres another factor to consider. Climate change predictions suggest that parts of the midwest are going to see more and more giant floods of the type we had this last summer that put millions of acres under flood waters for weeks at a time, reducing crop yields over a huge area. Climate predictions also suggest that droughts and heat and fires will affect agricultural areas in California and the SW, further reducing US farm yields.

I think its overly optimistic to imagine that US farm production is somehow immune to the effects of climate change when the scientific models are telling us otherwise.

cruelty at the border .....

Another way to look at this is that its cruel for the United States to lure millions of immigrants to leave their homes and make the hazardous journey to he US by effectively having open borders. In the law there is a concept called the "attractive nuisance" If someone has a swimming pool, for instance, and doesn't fence it, that pool will inevitably attract kids from the neighborhood and may lead to a drowning death. The US, by not fencing our border effectively, is helping to draw millions of people to try to reach the US.

A large number of people are assaulted, robbed, raped and killed attempting the journey to United States. Those people who advocate for open borders don't seem to care about the thousands and thousands of victims who are assaulted and even killed along the way trying to get here. Even those who make it the US often spend thousands of dollars to do so.

Several thousand dollars is a lot of money in latin America. I often wonder if these people would be better off if they spent that money building homes for their family or drilling a well for their farm or in supporting pro-reform political reform candidates in their home countries instead of spending their life savings to come to the US and work off the books at sub-minimum wage jobs.

Cheers!

[Newfie]

And just to ground ourselves, the "physical reality" is the US can feed 2-3 times the current population easily.

The how do you explain the ground water reserves being depleted? According to the guy who came up with the Global Footprint he did not include resource depletion in that calculation so effectively the “footprint” is only showing real time energy conversion. And further according to this gentleman we are depleting our soils at 10-40 times the regeneration rate. Which to use his best case example, that to make the soil sustainable we need to set aside 9 out of 10 acres each year, make it fallow.

This disregards the falling water tables and that eventually we will run out of oil to run the tractors.

I don’t see any of that discussed in your source, which sounds like it is just using current production rates.

I’m not sure how we got onto this particular thread drift or what it has to do with the Democrats other than I find them as completely lost in reality as the Republicans, no effectual difference. Both parties believe in a mythical “invisible hand” managing an economy based upon a physically impossibility, infinite growth.

The Ogallala Aquifer supports an astounding one-sixth of the world’s grain produce, and it has long been an essential component of American agriculture. The High Plains region—where the aquifer lies—relies on the aquifer for residential and industrial uses, but the aquifer’s water is used primarily for agricultural irrigation. The agricultural demands for Ogallala water in the region are immense, with the aquifer ultimately being responsible for thirty percent of all irrigation in the United States. The Ogallala Aquifer has long been unable to keep up with these agricultural demands, as the aquifer recharges far slower than water is withdrawn.

http://duwaterlawreview.com/crisis-on-t ... -ogallala/

[Pops]

Pops,

From what I hear you are talking apples and oranges compare to what Dis and I were commenting on. Physical reality vs. reality TV.

Yeah I get that the herd movement is all about the optics and where the lighting stuck.

The physical reality is the grasslands are running out and the herd will starve and then turn upon itself.

Your view point seems to be rooted in the 24/7 news cycle.

I was referring to our relatively distant future, which is being cast in the now.

Are you saying your lack of information puts you in a better position to analyse politics than me who reads stuff?

Are you saying trump is the steward of the environment? That Rs want to limit immigration because they worry about sustainability? That they are going to push us into degrowth? Protect the air and water, push for efficiency and renewables and recycling and reducing consumption? That the walmart shooter was killing brown people to save us from overpopulation

LOL
.

[Pops]

I’m not sure how we got onto this particular thread drift or what it has to do with the Democrats other than I find them as completely lost in reality as the Republicans, no effectual difference.

Look at this page
Select Environmental in the drop down category menu
Note the number of regulations attacked by trump
Tell me again that there is no difference.

[Pops]

I don’t see any of that discussed in your source, which sounds like it is just using current production rates.

We aren't about to succumb to famine.
Invoking "physical reality" in justifying trumps immigration pandering is disingenuous, his motivations are many but none are environmental protection or food security.

The long and short is climate doesn't have borders. Either we save everyone or no one survives. Republicans do not believe that.

[Plantagenet]

The long and short is climate doesn't have borders. Either we save everyone or no one survives..

I don’t think climate change is going to work that way. Certain areas and certain climate zones are going to be affected more severely then others.

For instance, rising sea levels are going to displace hundreds of millions of people who now live and farm low lying deltas in Egypt, Pakistan, India, Vietnam. I doubt that we’ll be able to “save” hundreds of millions of people, especially when climate change is causing sea level to rise around the coast of the USA and reducing crop yields across the USA.

Cheers!

[Pops]

I don’t think climate change is going to work that way. Certain areas and certain climate zones are going to be affected more severely then others.

Remember the Twilight Zone where the lights went out and in a matter of hours the only people on the block with lights burning and the generator rumbling were attacked as martians ( or commies, I can't remember)

That's us, we may be the strongest now, but we aren't stronger than everyone combined. The best prep is well fed neighbors.

[Newfie]

Pops,

Sorry dude, you’ve some where you have lost the thread on reality. You posts make no sense what-so-ever. There is no longer a point in responding to you.

Best wishes.

[Pops]

Pops,

Sorry dude, you’ve some where you have lost the thread on reality. You posts make no sense what-so-ever. There is no longer a point in responding to you.

Best wishes.

Sorry you can't keep up newf.

I think this is likely where a number of trump defenders will wind up. After a while the battle to excuse, accuse, apologize, defend, build increasingly elaborate conspiracies, (just to have then shot down in a tweet or on TV the next day) is just not worth the effort.

His "disruption" had a big appeal to folks who bought the "both sides" argument. Maybe it turns out people realise both sides aren't the same after all. Like I've said a few times I've watched people bend into pretzels trying to defend his policies who a year earlier were taking the exact opposite stand.

trump is building a wall to keep our population sustainable...
Yeah, that's the ticket!

[Cog]

Pops argument has devolved into a variant of Orange Man Bad. Sad he does not understand the reality of unrestricted illegal immigration. Or perhaps he does understand it and wants it for some yet undisclosed reason.

[Outcast_Searcher]

The point isn’t what people think or that Immigrants are good/bad, it’s that the USA can sustain only so many.

Exactly. Clearly and succinctly stated. Nice job.

[jedrider]

The point isn’t what people think or that Immigrants are good/bad, it’s that the USA can sustain only so many.

Exactly. Clearly and succinctly stated. Nice job.

The borders were never open, they were porous. There was an 'agreed upon' procedure for returns or deportations, but the focus was on turning away from the border, or returns, but not deportations. Whether one thinks we already have too many people or not, part of our diversity and labor force was supplied by so-called illegal immigration.

The Democrats must enunciate a policy on immigration. The Republicans have no policy, but just allow Trump to do as he pleases. There's a difference there.

[Newfie]

Both parties have, within recent history, had periods when they controlled the House, Senate, and Congress but did not pass meaningful immigration reform legislation.

IMHO This is simply because BOTH parties buy into the concept of “mandatory eternal growth”. They are afraid to challenge this failed economic model.

We need to challenge that model to deal with climate change as well as resource depletion of all types.

[Plantagenet]

The Democrats must enunciate a policy on immigration.....

Haven't you been watching the debates or following the D candidates? The Ds have been enunciating their immigration constantly. Most of them have pretty much coalesced around a single immigration policy which involves loosing up the border to let in more people and eliminating ice to end law enforcement inside the borders. Some also want to make Obamacare and other federal programs available to illegal aliens, even though they aren't citizens, since the Ds will make them all citizens as soon as they can anyway.

I haven't heard any Ds demanding that illegal aliens get reparations, but I predict that is coming too.

Cheers!

[Pops]

IMHO This is simply because BOTH parties buy into the concept of “mandatory eternal growth”. They are afraid to challenge this failed economic model.

Yet it is only ONE party attacking the little girl who said that very thing to the UN.

Such mental gymnastics must be exhausting. No surprise that old white guys are so screwed up.

[Plantagenet]

Sanders just had a heart attack. Biden is too old and he's dirty to boot. That puts Warren into first place.

The anybody-but-Warren movement among Ds is desperate to find someone to stop her from getting the nomination.....

hillary-rockets-3rd-place-predictit-rumors-swirl-over-2020-run

The Hillary BUZZ is getting louder.....

Cheers!