All purpose news and politics thread part VI: This Is Not The Time For Posing

[hyped78]

According to polls, a majority of Democratic voters didn't want any increase in legal immigration, so a reform that's based on what voters want would keep immigrations levels as is, and provide more border security.

Democrats don't want any increase in LEGAL immigration? Where are you getting that data from? (not saying you're wrong, but I'm surprised, so just checking)

[Mister Mets]

Democrats don't want any increase in LEGAL immigration? Where are you getting that data from? (not saying you're wrong, but I'm surprised, so just checking)

Sure. According to a 2018 Poll, just 40 percent of Democrats supported an increase in legal immigration. A combined 55 percent wanted the levels to stay the same, or an actual decrease. Another five percent didn't answer.
https://www.usnews.com/news/politics...g-both-parties

https://www.pewresearch.org/politics...r=0&par=1&trk=

[hyped78]

Sure. According to a 2018 Poll, just 40 percent of Democrats supported an increase in legal immigration. A combined 55 percent wanted the levels to stay the same, or an actual decrease. Another five percent didn't answer.
https://www.usnews.com/news/politics...g-both-parties

https://www.pewresearch.org/politics...r=0&par=1&trk=

Interesting, thanks for sharing. I would've thought most Democrats support an increase in Legal immigration. I do note, however, that the study shows that the opinion trend is going in that direction:

"Since 2006, the number of Democrats who believe legal immigration should increase doubled from 20 to 40 percent. Republicans views have also changed, but less drastically. Currently, 22 percent of Republicans support increasing legal immigration. Since 2006, the number of Republicans who believe legal immigration into the U.S. should be decreased fell from 43 to 33 percent."

The thing is, in my opinion: 1) US Birth Rate in 2020 was 1.64 (data from the World Bank). In developed countries, in order to reproduce the current population at a stable rate, you need 2.1 children born per woman of childbearing age. The difference between 1.64 and 2.1 means that US population will decline by ~22% in each generation, unless there is positive net migration to balance that, 2) I think we agree that Legal migration is better than Illegal migration. The US needs Legal migration, basically, before you fall into a demographic trap (inverted pyramid) like what Japan is experiencing right now.

The situation in many European countries is even worse because 1) Some countries have even lower birth rates, e.g. Italy 1.24, Spain 1.23, 2) Most European countries have robust welfare systems that need a certain mix of active vs. inactive population.

[hyped78]

Early voting trends:
https://edition.cnn.com/2022/10/31/p...rms/index.html

- Pre-election voting is outpacing 2018 so far across 36 states where the data is available, according to Catalist
- In total, more than 21.4 million ballots have been cast in 46 states
- Nearly 3 million pre-election ballots have been cast in Texas and almost 2.8 million have been cast in Florida
- In Arizona, Florida, Nevada and North Carolina, Republicans are making up a larger share of those who have returned pre-election ballots than they did in those states in 2020
- The biggest jump has taken place in Florida where Republicans have cast 42% of the pre-election ballots, up from 36% in 2020
- Arizona Republicans have cast 37% of the ballots so far, up from 34% at this point in 2020, and North Carolina Republicans have cast 31%, an increase from 29% two years ago
- Republicans in Nevada make up 35% of those who have cast a pre-election ballot, up less than a percentage point from this point in 2020
- In Pennsylvania, it’s Democrats who have slightly increased their share of the pre-election vote from 2020. Keystone State Democrats make up 72% of ballots cast so far, while at this point in 2020, they made up 70%

@WestPhillyPunisher - this last one is good news for you

[shooshoomanjoe]

Musk just dissolved the whole Twitter board and is now the sole member. He can do what he wants, within the laws of the countries where twitter operates.

And one thing is clear by now: He is in over his head. And he doesn't realize that, so he is not listening to experts. He drank his own kool aid that he is some kind of genius.

Like: How does he think this will help against bots?
Attachment 125874

So what does this mean, advertisers are leaving Twitter?

[4theEarth]

Actually, that sounds almost exactly like what the Democrats also want, and very much what most Republicans don't want. Especially those who don't want elections.



This is where you are confusing two separate things. Sure, Democrats would prefer to vote for someone who is smart enough to handle the job, instead of someone with questionable abilities like Taylor Green. That doesn't mean that voters can't vote for who they want.

And yes, Democrats prefer people in government to be intelligent and qualified for those positions.

As for the law, then again qualified people should hold positions of importance. However, the debate over various legal theories should remain a scholarly debate. Democrats simply want judges and others in related positions who follow the law, fairly and equally, without bias or political leanings.




If it is a choice between biased politicians (on either side) doing the redistricting versus an independent committee that is less likely to draw up districts in n ways that favor one party over another, then isn't that the best way to do it? As for the makeup of these committees, yes a lot of discussions has already been done regarding how best to create them. If you know where to look for the published info.

Minimizing partisanship is the focus of what the Democrats are doing. Republicans, on the other hand, seem to be very fond of partisanship so long as it is to their advantage.



Immigration has been a divisive and hotly debated issue for generations. As for solving this problem, seriously, no one should be excluded from trying to help come up with a solution.

If the politicians haven't been able to figure it out, then outsourcing it to academics and experts in the field should be worth a try. You ask the big questions about limits and so on, but do you have any answers? Do you know of anyone who has come up with a solution that everyone can get behind?

Smart people are just people who have dedicated their lives to something and strive to make a positive contribution [Or take over the world, who knows?] But in the end, they are just people.

So yeah, you are off base. Democrats value intelligence (and a good, well-rounded education) because we have seen the damage not-quite-so-intelligent (or poorly educated) people can do, or how easily these people can be taken advantage of.

So very interesting - all of this and sorry to jump in here while just lurking about as politics is usually just a morbid topic for me and I never feel like I fit in either of the standard labels of Democrat or Republican and for that matter find liberal and conservative equally confining. True to our political history though every side tries to assert its enlightenment connection and the primacy of reason. The law in particular rests on this assumption simply because it, as both of you seem to agree, want order and things to arise from order, which it should immediately pointed out is not the same as reason and which Tami rightly points out in her joke about a political persuasion that has its own perverse take on reason coming from natural order.

I think the thing both of you are talking past is really continuity and not order and reason. By continuity I mean maintaining a system and collection of values attached to and even arising from various intuitions which should have primacy over others. Republicans therefore favor originalism, social values and customs that are rooted in the past as proof of effect. Democrats favor government and group dynamics as expressions of values, producing through its understanding of imperfection - liberalism as an extension of life's complications and the use of reason to address such problems. Hence, we have the scientism of most liberals and progressives.

Thus we also have a path for both sides to create their own version of Elites as even though as both of your arguments suggest reason is at the heart of it, it really is not but rather it is just where values and thus authority is situated. In fact there is no science or experiments to Political science, facts and truth values are all too often confused and great philosophers have spent centuries trying to square that circle. Frankly, it seems like a waste of time when trying to get great masses of people to behave in a particular way is the real function of politics. Or not if you love absolute freedom as I do yet despise so many of ways people use it.

[hyped78]

In fact there is no science to Political science

An uncomfortable truth

[hyped78]

DeSantis went to New York to campaign for Lee Zeldin... errr.... shouldn't he be focused on campaigning for himself and his colleagues in Florida?

I'm not saying he can't go to New York to campaign, or anywhere else, but this seems a bit "arrogant" (maybe this is not the right word, I also thought of "dumb") - especially considering Zeldin is gonna lose. Someone will say he's already laying down the groundwork for 2024, but if that's the case he seems to be getting ahead of himself.

https://www.politico.com/news/2022/1...eldin-00064123

[4theEarth]

Interesting, thanks for sharing. I would've thought most Democrats support an increase in Legal immigration. I do note, however, that the study shows that the opinion trend is going in that direction:

"Since 2006, the number of Democrats who believe legal immigration should increase doubled from 20 to 40 percent. Republicans views have also changed, but less drastically. Currently, 22 percent of Republicans support increasing legal immigration. Since 2006, the number of Republicans who believe legal immigration into the U.S. should be decreased fell from 43 to 33 percent."

The thing is, in my opinion: 1) US Birth Rate in 2020 was 1.64 (data from the World Bank). In developed countries, in order to reproduce the current population at a stable rate, you need 2.1 children born per woman of childbearing age. The difference between 1.64 and 2.1 means that US population will decline by ~22% in each generation, unless there is positive net migration to balance that, 2) I think we agree that Legal migration is better than Illegal migration. The US needs Legal migration, basically, before you fall into a demographic trap (inverted pyramid) like what Japan is experiencing right now.

The situation in many European countries is even worse because 1) Some countries have even lower birth rates, e.g. Italy 1.24, Spain 1.23, 2) Most European countries have robust welfare systems that need a certain mix of active vs. inactive population.

Growth is a capitalist concern however not environmental one and to paint non growth as a disaster is to play into both sides use of "Replacement" theory. Should we say that China's one-child was a failure? probably so if only its little impact on consumption as the rich nations still drive the larger condition.

[hyped78]

Growth is a capitalist concern however not environmental one and to paint non growth as a disaster is to play into both sides use of "Replacement" theory. Should we say that China's one-child was a failure? probably so if only its little impact on consumption as the rich nations still drive the larger condition.

I'm not necessarily talking about positive population growth but rather about keeping the population stable. And the only way the US can avoid losing population is through positive net migration.

Japan offers a stark reminder to what can happen to a developed economy with low birth rates and low immigration rates. The population of Japan has started to decline from a high of 128.1 million in 2008 to 125.6 million (United Nations data). It's not just that Japan's population is declining, it's also that it's getting older. The government has vowed to keep population above 100 million by 2060, which would still mean the country loses 28 million people vs. 2008. One third of the Japanese population today is older than 60 - this is not sustainable. Japan's aggregate economy will undoubtedly shrink as a result.

[4theEarth]

I'm not necessarily talking about positive population growth but rather about keeping the population stable. And the only way the US can avoid losing population is through positive net migration.

Japan offers a stark reminder to what can happen to a developed economy with low birth rates and low immigration rates. The population of Japan has started to decline from a high of 128.1 million in 2008 to 125.6 million (United Nations data). It's not just that Japan's population is declining, it's also that it's getting older. The government has vowed to keep population above 100 million by 2060, which would still mean the country loses 28 million people vs. 2008. One third of the Japanese population today is older than 60 - this is not sustainable. Japan's aggregate economy will undoubtedly shrink as a result.

It is only a problem in an economic competitive sense is what I am saying. Friends that I know in Japan don't see it as a problem, the immigration issue is negligible as Japan isn't seen as an escape valve for the Asian poor but rather rare eastern europeans. Their attitude is like Brits losing the empire - oh well it was grand wasn't - if only people tried to be more like us.

[hyped78]

It is only a problem in an economic competitive sense is what I am saying. Friends that I know in Japan don't see it as a problem, the immigration issue is negligible as Japan isn't seen as an escape valve for the Asian poor but rather rare eastern europeans. Their attitude is like Brits losing the empire - oh well it was grand wasn't - if only people tried to be more like us.

Regular people in Japan don't see this as a problem but they will soon. Japanese authorities are quite worried about this, as this isn't sustainable. It's impossible to finance a welfare state mid to long term under this trend.

It's not a problem in just an "economic competitive sense" at all. It's a problem when there's not enough money to pay for people's unemployment subsidies or pensions. It's as much a social as an economic problem. At some point there's not enough active workers in the country to pay for welfare for inactive people.

It's not about economic competition. It's about the ability to improve standards of living, reduce inequality and poverty in a country.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world...-decline-2021/

[Malvolio]

Musk just dissolved the whole Twitter board and is now the sole member. He can do what he wants, within the laws of the countries where twitter operates.

And one thing is clear by now: He is in over his head. And he doesn't realize that, so he is not listening to experts. He drank his own kool aid that he is some kind of genius.

Like: How does he think this will help against bots?
Attachment 125874

Does Musk think Stephen King is trying to negotiate the price because he's having trouble coming up with $20 a month? It's the principle of making anyone pay for something that's been a free service for years.

[AnakinFlair]

So what does this mean, advertisers are leaving Twitter?

I think I heard that General Motors was suspending advertising on Twitter for the time being, to see how the Elon Era affects the platform. But if hate speech and vitriol continue to rise, I can see a mass exodus of advertisers from Twitter.

[Username taken]

Regular people in Japan don't see this as a problem but they will soon. Japanese authorities are quite worried about this, as this isn't sustainable. It's impossible to finance a welfare state mid to long term under this trend.

It's not a problem in just an "economic competitive sense" at all. It's a problem when there's not enough money to pay for people's unemployment subsidies or pensions. It's as much a social as an economic problem. At some point there's not enough active workers in the country to pay for welfare for inactive people.

It's not about economic competition. It's about the ability to improve standards of living, reduce inequality and poverty in a country.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world...-decline-2021/

This is something that a lot of countries aren't explaining to their citizens. Without exaggerating, Japanese authorities are very worried about their aging population.

It's going to be a severe problem for a lot of Western countries too.

With the core population declining and people living longer, the welfare state in many countries will be severely strained without legal an structured migration.

The only other option is to raise debt to fund welfare but then how do you pay that debt back?

The easier option will be to get people to come in legally, work and pay taxes to fund the state.