It doesn’t make any sense at all to impose draconian environmental regulations like shutting down pipelines and banning drilling on federal lands while at the same time opening the border and allowing massive immigration. The Democrat’s have gone completely nuts.
4
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
4 comments
Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.We are not permitting mass immigration. We are controlling entry especially during this hoax of a virus. We are permitting people fleeing for their lives as we did the Irish. An orderly transition across the border thusly people will be less likely to enter illegally bringing in unchallenged diseases. Drilling on taxpayer owned lands is degrading what we chose to preserve for all the people not to mention the ecological damage done for a product that is becoming obsolete. Pipelines block migrations, leak, cause damage & are open to sabotage. Crossing near or on Amer Indian lands disregarding their opposition is dictatorial. We can not continue to fund obsolete ventures with tax payer monies. We are trying to resolve our differences without attacking the government LITERALLY. You can change this in 2 years if your argument convinces enough people. The Democrats are barely in power. Again I think the Democrats must rescue the nation once again from the manipulating rich guys who never have enough. You sir have given the diagnosis of "nuts". Perhaps I might say this, you would know.
Mooolah
Level 8
Feb 6, 2021
4
If you had any sense you’d know that pipelines were the most economical way to move oil which supplies the overwhelming majority of US energy. You’d also realize we don’t need any more immigration from Catholic countries who encourage high birth rates and overpopulation. Hell currently we’re just serving as an overpopulation relief valve for those very countries if we don’t watch it we will become just like them.
@Trajan61 I so understand your arguments. It is how we look at these differences. Many come from countries that do not permit birth control, such as Ireland, recently reversed as well as the Philippines. I agree birth control is an issue. here we have access to contraption since 1964 when it became legal. These Catholic countries force women to bear children. We will not become like them as they come from dictatorships supported by our past governments. They come for freedom & out of the 11 million undocumented commit crimes is few indeed. Education sets them free to improve our nation as they work at jobs we refuse at wages that are difficult to live on but massively better than where they originated. We sowed these seeds of immigration by supporting despotic regimes, which engaged in genocide. Pipelines? Economical is not the only factor. We are moving away from fossil fuel & a pipeline will soon be obsolete. Electric vehicle battery backups will become standard as petrol stations in the future. Fossil is doomed. I sold my Exxon stock years ago. Nice that you are so civil. Are you high also?
The percent of immigrants in the US population is no more now than it was in the 1880s. Of course, since we have a much larger population, the absolute number is bigger, due to math, a thing of which you might be aware. And they come from different places than in the 1880s, and they look different, so many of the descendants of those immigrants in the 1880s seem to think that immigration now is a bad, bad, terrible, awful, horrible thing, compared to then, when their grandparents and great-grandparents were the ones doing the immigrating. (Because, looking around the Republican Party leadership, I see so many Native Americans, I am staggered. Oh, wait, no, the other thing. I see so many white faces who forget that their families all came from oversees and stomped the Native Americans to paste, it makes me retch.)
The birth rate in America has been declining for decades; so where are employers going to find people to fill those low-paid, starting jobs that Americans, even in this near-Depression economy (thanks again, Trump) refuse to do? Immigrants. It may be stereotypical to say this, but look at the restaurant industry. It would be nigh impossible to staff restaurants in many states and major cities without an immigrant population willing to work, and work hard. American-born teenagers aren't willing to wash dishes and bus tables anymore; they're too entitled for the most part. This says as much about the lack of a work ethic among Americans as as it does about the strength of the work ethic in immigrant communities.
Immigrants without college degrees are 1/3 of the work force in some industries, like farming, fishing, and forestry, as well as building & grounds cleaning and maintenance workers. Likewise 27 percent of hotel workers, and 21 percent of home health care industry workers. Cut that off, and those industries suffer; so then does the whole economy.
"Allowing massive immigration" is your term. In reality, it's simply returning to the previous normal levels, as well as allowing asylum seekers to actually receive asylum. I take it you've read, at some point, the words on the Statue of Liberty; "Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"- or maybe not. Those words do not have an expiration date stamped at the bottom; they're as valid as they were in 1883; despite Ken Cuccinelli's attempt to add "And who will not become a public charge" to them.
"Draconian environmental regulations" is also an entirely subjective phrase. They may seem draconian to people who want to drill in the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge- they're entirely reasonable to people who want to, oh, I dunno, preserve the wildlife. Federal lands belong to the public. They were set aside for preservation, not to be leased out to whoever lined the pockets of the most politicians' campaign funds. It makes perfect sense to me to stop subsidizing further production of gas and coal, polluting industries which are destroying the environment, and invest in clean energy technology before it's too late.
And if you don't believe in global warming, ask the ski resort operators in Michigan's Upper Peninsula, who, for the first time in ever, are forced to consider buying snow-making machines because they aren't getting the accustomed 300 inches of yearly lake-effect snow. Tell them this is just normal weather fluctuations. I don't think they'll believe you, though.
Paul4747
Level 8
Feb 6, 2021
5
Trying to use reason seems futile with someone who's just witnessed the most massive deficits ever recorded and thinks that's sound fiscal policy, the largest failure in public health and thinks that's leadership and who's ideal future plan boils down to coal good, brown people bad.
Considering that overpopulation is the number one cause of global warming it doesn’t even make sense to open up the border. And it damn sure doesn’t make sense to ban drilling on federal lands in New Mexico, Wyoming and other states where a lot of the land is marginal anyway. Seems common sense should come into play but there seems to be a sad lack of that now days.
@Trajan61 You will never exhibit common sense until you learn how to distinguish fact from fiction.
@Buttercup, @LovinLarge You don’t appear to have any common sense. Typical liberal.
@Trajan61 You are hilarious! A grow man who no one takes seriously because he doesn't provide supporting evidence for his factual claims because he can't because they're false. Typical con!
The voters have spoken, it's time for you pathetic losers to crawl back under your rocks.
@Trajan61 Bill Clinton, a Democrat, ended up with SURPLUS, NO DEFICIT!
Pay attention, hear me well: Lying, since drump is gone, is no longer acceptable!!!!!!!
@AnneWimsey He did that with a Republican Congress that reined him in and kept spending under control.
@Trajan61 yeah,right....wanna buy abridge?
Excuse us for discounting the opinion of an adult who doesn't understand the proper use of the apostrophe.
LovinLarge
Level 8
Feb 6, 2021
2
That's minor compared to not understanding history and public policy.
@Paul4747 Sorry Paul, I have deleted my comment to you because I misread it thinking it was from the OP. 100% agree with both of your comments in this thread, knowing them to be true from my own research. I just won't put much time into responding to posts like this because I know the OP is uneducable.
My point is that someone ignorant of elementary school punctuation is unlikely to be able to comprehend complex issues.
@LovinLarge I don't reply to the op so much as to not leave the opinion out there unchallenged. If there's not a reasoned response, by silence those opinions may seem more influential.
@Trajan61 If you'd gone to college, you'd know how to use the apostrophe and how to support your factual claims with evidence. No one who knows what they're talking about takes you seriously.
@Trajan61 If you majored in history, either you didn't understand it or you're ignoring it.
You say that Democrats are "far worse at running up massive deficits". Well, I suppose in the strictest sense that is true, because Democratic administrations have not run up massive deficits with nearly as much success as Republican. Democrats have eliminated deficits instead. Sorry, that's just what we do.
Deficits went up during the Nixon and Ford administrations (R ); down during 3 out of 4 years under Carter (D ). Up massively under Reagan (R ), where they reached 6% of GDP, and stayed steady until a decline in '88; then rose again under Bush I (R ). Deficits steadily declined every year under Clinton (D ) until we actually had 4 years of budget surpluses, which were immediately squandered by Bush II (R ), who passed massive tax cuts for the wealthy before 9/11, and declined to ask for tax increases or domestic spending cuts to finance our simultaneous wars in Afghanistan and Iraq; the deficit shot up to then-record levels in response to the financial crisis of 2008 before, once again, declining nearly every year of President Obama's two terms (D ).
During the 2016 campaign, Donald Trump said he'd be able to wipe out the national debt in eight years. Instead, in his first three years in office, he oversaw a nearly 50 percent increase in the deficit, to a record $984 billion; before the pandemic. In 3 years, Trump added more to the debt than G. W. Bush did in 8 years. Need I remind you, Trump ran as a Republican. And the entire Republican party voted for his tax cuts and record spending.
Republicans talk big about deficits- when a Democrat is in office. But they routinely fail to walk the walk when one of their own is sitting in the Oval.
History major you may have been, but you know flatly nothing about history. History shows that deficits go down with Democrats in office, and you can't change that; you can just lie about it.
Nor do you seem to know much about climate science, since overpopulation will have exactly the same effect regardless of where those people live. It's what those people are doing that counts. Immigration has exactly zilch to do with climate change.
Bye now.
@Paul4747 If the democrats are so frugal why did the national debt double under President Obama? The last time the budget was balanced was under Clinton when he had a Republican Congress reining him in to control spending.
The economy under Trump was the strongest it ever been in the last 50 years.
@Trajan61 The Republicans predicted doom when Clinton signed a budget that raised taxes on the very wealthiest Americans, and fought him all the way. It was Bill Clinton who wanted to balance the budget and understood that revenue is part of the equation. And if you consult your history books, you will see that Democrats controlled both branches of government for the first 2 years of Clinton's presidency, when his most important budget reforms were put in place.
And, I reiterate, global overpopulation will have exactly the same effect regardless of where those people live. The climate crisis is a global phenomenon, it doesn't matter a whit whether there are an extra 50 thousand people north of the Rio Grande or south of it. Make whatever excuses you wish for your nativism, but they're more and more transparent when you come up with pseudoscience like this.
@Trajan61 Trump can take some credit for a strong (pre-pandemic) economy, but he's mainly like the relief pitcher who comes in during the 9th inning with a seven-run lead, then boasts about winning the game. The economy was already strong under Obama for 7 years of the 8, the trend merely continued (and actually decelerated).
By almost any metric, Trump's economy was nowhere near the strongest in our history. GDP was higher in both Bush administrations, the Clinton administration, the Reagan administration, the Carter administration, MUCH higher during the Kennedy/Johnson administrations and Eisenhower administration... one year of the Obama administration... Trump GDP did not even reach 4%, his campaign pledge for yearly growth. But confining ourselves to your claim of "the last 50 years": almost every president in the last 50 years has had a stronger economy.
@Trajan61 Even if that was true, the stock market is not the economy, Einstein.
@Trajan61 At a risk of repetition, the stock market is not the economy.
The stock market tends to like Republican administrations because they foresee a period of deregulation, lower capital gains taxes, and lowering taxes on corporations. But, as we've seen, the stock market can go up even when the rest of the economy is in shambles. The stock market has been going up during the pandemic, because investors are gambling on future earnings.
And you have only to look up the history of GDP growth to see what I told you is right, but, since that contradicts what you're trying to say, you won't do that; you'll just come up with more counterarguments to the truth that the economy overall does better under Democrats.
@Leetx Says the guy without the knowledge and capacity to understand the historical necessity and benefit of regulation and taxation.
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
Share this post
Categories
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.