This is a good thoughtful post. I think you should stop with the tweets and do more of this.

That seems very weak. For instance in the US we already have political parties based on ethnicity. Republicans are the party of mainly white older richer people while Democrats are the multi ethnic "newcomers" party. It's been that was for 30+ years.

We have an election this week. The Dutch may very well indeed vote in a right wing nutjob.

This is going to be a fun posting week.

I thought you weren't posting again in content threads?

I need your permission? Lololol.

I wouldn't hold my breath.

^^ Thats what they said bout Trump#1, son

Also, I cant get over the twisted thought process non Americans have that freedom of speech deserves to be censored...pathetically weak-passive

But there is a good reason tho, diversity and being kind to everyone kumbaya. Amirite?...which in turn ultimately leads to a world gubmint

Genius conditioning

What? A post is good and thoughtful that:

1) Promotes a world government
2) Promotes/condones/forgives illegally sneaking into a country
3) Promotes amnesty for those that have commited an illegal act
4) Promotes victimhood of members of a religion that a very large percentage of which are in favor of sharia law among other inhumane practices..

https://www.atheoryofus.net/islam-statistics/ << all graphs and stats are Pew Research and have been posted previously

5) Promotes global warming propoganda with no sources listed
6) Claims "global warming" is the cause of immigration with no sources listed

Wtf? Good at being disingenuous, full of propoganda and biased as all hell imho

Sticking by what you say would at least show a measure of consistency.

If you believe this you can get 6/1 against Wilders becoming the next PM.

Go on.

But the courts that enforce these laws have flags with fringe, so that means that the court is a maritime court and the laws aren't enforceable. You know this.


Here's a beginner's source on global warming.

Why not just pay a bunch of already-here poors cash to have more babies?

Because it's more expensive and allowing immigrants improves the lives of people already alive?

Why spend money on people who will likely never pay taxes and are not, on average, as focused on their children's education when you can get eager immigrants who want a better life for their kids and will be good, tax paying citizens?

Ok, why not pay poors cash to not have babies/have abortions and let even more immigrants in?

What level of skilled labor do you think an immigrant family (say 2 30-yr-old parents and 2.5 kids) needs to have to be a net positive to the current americans if allowed to come?

Because the racism is fused with fiscal conservativism. In reality the rich hold the poor natives in not much that higher regard than immigrants but they need their votes so they let them into the in-group. See the National Review article about poor whites when they wouldn't vote the way the establishment wanted.

If people were truly worried about birth rates maternity costs would be subsidized and mothers would receive a monthly stipend for every child she had.

What I meant was this was better than the barage of Twitter posts. I don't agree with his argument.

Any level of skilled labor can get a job in this market and pay taxes. They may not make enough starting out to pay income tax, but they will pay sales tax, etc. They will also contribute to the economy by buying products, etc. After a few years, they should be able to make enough to pay income taxes. They will be much more likely to want their kids to go to college and get a better life, etc. Don't think short-term. This country was built on long-term ideals.

No one does that here. Except Missourians.

Eh no, we should be curbing population growth, not accelerating it. Especially with machines taking our jerbs. (But I'm in favor of letting immigrants in.)

I'm counting their entire lifetime. You can count the kids lifetime as well. "Pays income tax" is a hideously wrong threshold to clear though.

freedoms tho

It's not a threshold they should have to clear. It's just that they are more likely to pay taxes than a poor person who is paid to have more babies. That was the comparison i was asked to make. In other words, if the goal is to increase the population in order to help support the economy and an aging society, then bringing in new immigrants is preferable to paying poor people to have more babies.

I wasn't even talking about restricting freedoms. Someone ITT was saying we should pay poor people to produce more babies so that they can help in the labor force. Meanwhile we're about to have millions of people losing their jobs to machines.

But I'm not automatically opposed to a restriction on freedom. What good are freedoms if you're shoulder to shoulder with everyone and barely have anything to eat?