Thread: American Politics
+
Add Report
Results 5,071 to 5,085 of 18154
-
09-19-23 03:08 #13084Oh yes he has. Both are world class liars. And Biden's a world class plagiarizer too.
Originally Posted by EihTooms
[View Original Post]
-
09-19-23 03:05 #13083I saw it the first time Marquis. I have no problem with this guy. He appears to be anti-war, unlike Romney, which is a plus in my book. It sounds like his background, in finance and management consulting, is a lot like Romney's. He has business experience which is also plus. He advocated universal COVID testing for schoolchildren. He says he's molding himself on Mike Lee, who is truly the taxpayer's friend. Based on policy preferences I might like him a little more than Romney. Originally Posted by MarquisdeSade1
[View Original Post]
Now, what you're getting at, does he buy into Trump's election denialism? My suspicion is that in his heart of hearts he does not. Unlike Romney however, he won't say it. In Utah it doesn't matter. The Republican, whoever he is, will win the general election.
If you want to get into an argument bring up Jeff Flake instead.
-
09-19-23 02:49 #13082
Has the long term Fux Fake News Liar problem gotten worse lately? Yes, much worse.
It's difficult to find a more current assessment. Originally Posted by Tiny12
[View Original Post]
But the pattern in any Google Search I have made on the topic puts Fux News clearly in the lead among Fake News Liars, MSNBC far behind in 2nd Place and CNN the least Fake News Liar of those three:
https://www.politifact.com/article/2...-meter-scorec/
That being the case, it is then worth seeing what the Best Truth-Teller of the 3 has to say about Fux News quite recently:(regarding Fux News)
That means about 60 percent of the claims weve checked have been rated Mostly False or worse. Heres how it breaks down (as of Jan. 27, 2015): see chart.
....
At MSNBC and NBC, 44 percent of claims have received a rating of Mostly False or worse. The full breakdown: see chart.
....
And as for CNN? It has the best record among the cable networks, as 80 percent of of the claims weve rated are Half True or better. see chart.
Analysis: Fox News has been exposed as a dishonest organization terrified of its own audience.
February 17, 2023
https://www.cnn.com/2023/02/17/busin...ies/index.html
Fox News has been exposed like never before.
A trove of newly-released text messages and emails have laid bare how the right-wing media giant operated with little regard for fact in the weeks and months following the 2020 presidential election. The correspondence reveals that the networks senior-most executives and highest-profile hosts chose not to disclose what they believed to be the truth of the election out of fear that that the facts would alienate Fox News audience and throw the highly profitable business into ruin.
-
09-19-23 00:55 #13081
Great foto of Our Lord and Savior and the turd
Utah and the Mormons can recover their reputation that the dirtbag destroyed.
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2...rst-candidate/
-
09-19-23 00:50 #13080I collectively watch more MSNBC and CNN than Fox. All three lie to me. MSNBC lies the most, 24 hours a day, every day. However, during the evenings Fox does a pretty good job of matching them, lie for lie. And no, I don't mind it. It's hilarious! Originally Posted by Spidy
[View Original Post]
-
09-18-23 19:45 #13079
1/100th of 1%
Do they ever make sense? (...kkkk!) Originally Posted by Tiny 12
[View Original Post]
That link just doesn't make sense. Originally Posted by MarquisdeSade1
[View Original Post]
BTW, FWIW, here's a good tip, just think of MdS1's links\posts, like your "I'd estimate way, way under 1/100th of 1%", of ever making sense. (...kkkk!) Originally Posted by Tiny 12
[View Original Post]
-
09-18-23 19:32 #13078
Politics Girl Rocks! ... Dear Media, Do Your Job!
Boy the truth must really sting! Must I remind you that, "the greatest trick the devil ever pulled was to convince the world he didn't exist." Originally Posted by Tiny 12
[View Original Post]
So when "the polls" (...again I personally don't follow the polls or believe them), have the arch-insurrectionist, 4x indicted, "pussy grabbing" ex-president with odds, of no more than a supposed "coin-flip", away from the White House and the Presidency, you'll see why Politics Girl, is every bit spot-on and again...just nails it.
Still watching FOXY News, I see. Well since it seems you definitely don't mind being lied to on a daily basis...carry on!
Dear Media, Do Your Job! What is Going on with our Media?
https://crooksandliars.com/2023/09/d...ia-do-your-job
I wouldn't cover/report on pretenses, lies and utter nonsense either, only to detract from the great job Biden is doing running the America and getting the country back on track, domestically and internationally. Originally Posted by Elvis 2008
[View Original Post]
House Republicans frustrated as Hunter Biden witness keeps ghosting them...
https://www.rawstory.com/republicans...iden-ghosting/
Perhaps when there's actual evidence off wrongdoing, it will be worth reporting. Till then, continue being lied to by MAGA politicians (with ghosting problems), smelly fishing expeditions or FOXY News (spewing more lies) or is it Newsmax now?
-
09-18-23 14:46 #13077
Stop sending meds to the 3rd world only send birth control
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...al-growth.html
The lefts solution to global warming.
No more reproduction.
OPINION.
The World's Population May Peak in Your Lifetime. What Happens Next?
Share full article.
129.
The global human population has been climbing for the past two centuries. But what is normal for all of us alive today — growing up while the world is growing rapidly — may be a blip in human history.
Children born today will very likely live to see the end of global population growth.
A baby born this year will be 60 in the 2080's, when demographers at the you. And. Expect the size of humanity to peak. The Wittgenstein Center for Demography and Global Human Capital in Vienna places the peak in the 2070's. The Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation at the University of Washington puts it in the 2060's. All of the predictions agree on one thing: We peak soon.
And then we shrink. Humanity will not reach a plateau and then stabilize. It will begin an unprecedented decline.
Because most demographers look ahead only to 2100, there is no consensus on exactly how quickly populations will fall after that. Over the past 100 years, the global population quadrupled, from two billion to eight billion. As long as life continues as it has — with people choosing smaller family sizes, as is now common in most of the world — then in the 22nd or 23rd century, our decline could be just as steep as our rise.
By Dean Spears.
Graphics by Sara Chodosh.
Dr. Spears is an economist at the University of Texas, Austin, and a research affiliate at its Population Research Center.
Most people now live in countries where two or fewer children are born for every two adults. If all people in the United States today lived through their reproductive years and had babies at an average pace, then it would add up to about 1. 66 births per woman. In Europe, that number is 1. 5; in East Asia, 1. 2; in Latin America, 1. 9. Any worldwide average of fewer than two children per two adults means our population shrinks and in the long run each new generation is smaller than the one before. If the world's fertility rate were the same as in the United States today, then the global population would fall from a peak of around 10 billion to less than two billion about 300 years later, over perhaps 10 generations. And if family sizes remained small, we would continue declining.
What would happen as a consequence? Over the past 200 years, humanity's population growth has gone hand in hand with profound advances in living standards and health: longer lives, healthier children, better education, shorter workweeks and many more improvements. Our period of progress began recently, bringing the discovery of antibiotics, the invention of electric lightbulbs, video calls with Grandma and the possibility of eradicating Guinea worm disease. In this short period, humanity has been large and growing. Economists who study growth and progress don't think this is a coincidence. Innovations and discoveries are made by people. In a world with fewer people in it, the loss of so much human potential may threaten humanity's continued path toward better lives.
Whenever low birthrates get public attention, chances are somebody is concerned about what it means for international competition, immigration or a government's fiscal challenges over the coming decades as the population ages. But that's thinking too small. A depopulating world is a big change that we all face together. It's bigger than geopolitical advantage or government budgets. It's much bigger than nationalistic worries over which country or culture might manage to eke out a population decline that's a little bit slower than its neighbors'.
Fewer and fewer countries have high birthrates.
Total fertility rates and populations for countries with at least 1 million people.
Population.
1 billion.
100 million.
100,000.
Total fertility rate654321 The total fertility rate is the number of births a woman would have if she followed the average patterns of births in her country during her lifetime. Over the past two centuries, birthrates have fallen everywhere. Africa is the only higher-fertility region remaining. A rate of about 2. 1 is known as replacement fertility because the population would stabilize if every two people had two children (plus additional births to account for childhood deaths and imbalances in sex at birth). Most people now live in places with below-replacement fertility. Europe crossed the threshold in 1975, China in the early 1990's, Brazil in the early 2000's. India crossed below 2 in its most recent population survey. Mali.
6. 0 Niger.
6. 8 Nigeria.
5. 2 China.
1. 2 Hong Kong.
0. 7 India.
2. 0 Italy.
1. 3 REPLACEMENT FERTILITY.
Source: you. And. World Population Prospects 2022.
Sustained below-replacement fertility will mean tens of billions of lives not lived over the next few centuries — many lives that could have been wonderful for the people who would have lived them and by your standards, too.
Perhaps that loss doesn't trouble you. It would be tempting to welcome depopulation as a boon to the environment. But the pace of depopulation will be too slow for our most pressing problems. It will not replace the need for urgent action on climate, land use, biodiversity, pollution and other environmental challenges. If the population hits around 10 billion people in the 2080's and then begins to decline, it might still exceed today's eight billion after 2100. Population decline would come quickly, measured in generations, and yet arrive far too slowly to be more than a sideshow in the effort to save the planet. Work to decarbonize our economies and reform our land use and food systems must accelerate in this decade and the next, not start in the next century.
This isn't a call to immediately remake our societies and economies in the service of birthrates. It's a call to start conversations now, so that our response to low birthrates is a decision that is made with the best ideas from all of us. Kicking the can down the road will make choices more difficult for future generations. The economics and politics of a society in which the old outnumber the young will make it even harder to choose policies that support children.
If we wait, the less inclusive, less compassionate, less calm elements within our society and many societies worldwide may someday call depopulation a crisis and exploit it to suit their agendas — of inequality, nationalism, exclusion or control. Paying attention now would create an opportunity to lay out a path that would preserve freedom, share burdens, advance gender equity, value care work and avoid the disasters that happen when governments try to impose their will on reproduction.
Or perhaps we don't need to concern ourselves at all if fertility rates self-correct to two. But the data shows that they don't. Births won't automatically rebound just because it would be convenient for advancing living standards or sharing the burden of care work or financing social insurance programs. We know that fertility rates can stay below replacement because they have. They've been below that level in Brazil and Chile for about 20 years; in Thailand for about 30 years; and in Canada, Germany and Japan for about 50.
In fact, in none of the countries where lifelong fertility rates have fallen well below two have they ever returned above it. Depopulation could continue, generation after generation, as long as people look around and decide that small families work best for them, some having no children, some having three or four and many having one or two.
Nor can humanity count on any one region or subgroup to buoy us all over the long run. Birthrates are falling in sub-Saharan Africa, the region with the current highest average rates, as education and economic opportunities continue to improve. Israel is an example of a rich country that, as of today, has above-replacement fertility rates. But there, too, fertility rates have been falling over the decades, from 4. 5 in 1950 to 3. 0 today. Israel may not be above 2. 1 for many more generations.
As living standards increased, birthrates fell.
Total fertility rates and G. The. P. Per capita for countries with at least 1 million people.
$1,000 $10,000 G. The. P. Per capita $100,000123456 Total fertility rate719912021.
1991.
2021.
Sources: you. And. World Population Prospects 2022, World Bank.
The main reason that birthrates are low is simple: People today want smaller families than people did in the past. That's true in different cultures and economies around the world. It's what both women and men report in surveys.
Humanity is building a better, freer world with more opportunities for everyone, especially for women. That progress deserves everyone's greatest celebration — and everyone's continued efforts. That progress also means that, for many of us, the desire to build a family can clash with other important goals, including having a career, pursuing projects and maintaining relationships. No society has solved this yet. These tradeoffs bite deep for parents everywhere. For some parents, that means struggle. For others, that means smaller families than they hoped for. And for too many, it means both.
In a world of sustained low birthrates and declining populations, there may be threats of backsliding on reproductive freedom — by limiting abortion rights, for example. Some will inexcusably claim that restricting reproductive choice is a way to curb long-run population decline. Some already do.
No. Low birthrates are no reason to reverse progress toward a more free, diverse and equal world. Restricting reproductive rights — by denying access to critical health care and by denying the basic freedom to choose to parent or not to parent — would harm many people and for that reason would be wrong whether or not depopulation is coming. And it would not prevent the population from shrinking. We know that because fertility rates are below two both where abortion is freely available and where abortion is restricted. Any policymaker asking how to respond to global depopulation should start by asking what people want and how to help them achieve it rather than by asking what they might take away.
There are many ways to live a life or be a family, and having that freedom and diversity is good. If an inclusive, compassionate response to population decline emerges someday, it need not be in conflict with those values. If one in every four pairs of American adults would choose to have one more child, that would be enough to stabilize the USA Population. In that future, there would still be many ways to live a life or be a family; two kids on average doesn't mean two kids for everyone.
Nobody yet knows what to do about global depopulation. But it wasn't long ago that nobody knew what to do about climate change. These shared challenges have much in common, which gives humanity some shared experience to build on.
As with climate change, our individual decisions on family size add up to an outcome that we all share. No people are making mistakes when they choose not to have children or to have small families. (Although we might all be making a mistake, together, when instead of taking care of one another, we make it hard for people to choose larger families.) It's in no one's hands to change global population trajectories alone. Not yours, whatever you choose for your life, not one country's, not one generation's. Nor is it in your hands personally to end all carbon emissions even by ending your own emissions. And yet our personal choices add up to big implications for humanity as a whole.
It's not too early to take depopulation seriously. The New York Times reported on the threat of climate change in 1956. A scientist testified about it before Congress in 1957. In 1965 the White House released a report calling carbon dioxide a pollutant, warning of a warming world with melting ice caps and rising sea levels. That was nearly six decades ago.
Six decades from now is when the you. And. Projects the size of the world population will peak. There won't be any quick fixes: Even if it's too early today to know exactly how to build an abundant future that offers good lives to a stable, large and flourishing future population, we should already be working toward that goal. Waiting until the population peaks to ask how to respond to depopulation would be as imprudent as waiting until the world starts to run out of fossil fuels to begin responding to climate change.
Humanity needs a compassionate, factual and fair conversation about how to respond to depopulation and how to share the burdens of creating each future generation. The way to have that conversation is to start paying attention now.
Methodology.
Historical data for the top line chart came from Our World in Data. The projections are by Dean Spears, Sangita Vyas, Gage Weston and Michael Geruso.
-
09-18-23 14:19 #13076
Repub lord and savior's serious and dangerous Cogitive Impairment, Part Infinity
Not just once, not just twice, but THREE TIMES, the Repub Party's far and away most beloved iconic leader, major frontrunner for the 2024 presidential nomination and representative of their core values and agenda, referenced Barack Obama as the candidate he defeated in a previous election and will face again in 2024.
He also declared that if we are not careful we will surely enter World War II any minute now:
Donald Trump warns of threat of World War II, mixes up names of Joe Biden and Barack Obama in Washington speech.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-09-...tion/102866974
Imagine how many early morning and primetime hours for weeks Fux News Channel would devote to playing an endless loop of Joe Biden saying just those two sentences below in rapid succession as Trump did in order to analyze how the poor POTUS is losing it. LOL:
"I know this; I don't even know that.": Trump pressed on classified documents.
https://www.msnbc.com/morning-joe/wa...s-193025093997
Trump says he's pleased by Putin's praise: 'I like that he said that'.
Russian President Vladimir Putin recently said he was "happy" to hear Trump's promise to "resolve all burning issues within several days" including the war in Ukraine.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/don...ess-rcna105298
Oh, so Grab Her By The Covefe Trump will resolve and end the war in Ukraine within 24 hours, will he? Funny, by my calculation and owing to the fact that there was an extra day in February in Leap Year 2020, the United States of America was actively engaged in a ground war for every hour of every 24 hour day of Commander in Cheat Donald J. Trump's disastrous so-called presidency, all 1461 of those days, and he never resolved shit.Trump readily claimed in the interview that if re-elected president, he would resolve the war within 24 hours, though he provided few details about how he would end a conflict that has dragged on for more than 18 months. The former president has asserted several times that he could quickly end the war.
Then again, it is not out of the question to suspect Trump thought of himself more as president of Russia then as now rather than president of the USA and had more interest in its affairs rather than in resolving the horrific problems he was creating for America.
Cue the typically pro-Repub MSM Bothsiderism shrugging all this off as something old folks like Trump and Biden do all the time despite the fact that Joe Biden has never sounded that confused and blithering in the 50+ years he has been a public figure.
-
09-18-23 13:39 #13075
Globalism 101 aka Dirty Joe and Romney Hunger Games for all
"So why are people moving from blue states to red states?
https://ktla.com/news/california/5-c...ed-in-the-u-s/
https://www.businessinsider.com/cali...-bureau-2021-9".
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/09/14/t...s-in-rome.html
-
09-18-23 11:42 #13074
United States Constitution
Section 3.
The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof, for six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote.
-
09-18-23 05:23 #13073No, I didn't go anywhere to find a job or secure cheaper housing. Originally Posted by MarquisdeSade1
[View Original Post]
Thanks in large part to my family having the smarts to get the hell out of a Ruby Red state when I was 10 years old and move to California, I was blessed with the opportunity to live, work, earn and invest there to the happy outcome that I have not needed to be gainfully employed or spend one hour in a job or doing most anything else that does not please me since I was 58.
I could have comfortably remained where I was in the 2nd most popular / populace metropolitan area in the USA in the most popular / populace state in the USA.
I certainly could have taken my pick of any Red state to retire. If I was excited about sitting on the porch with Jethro and Aunt Bea counting tumble weeds blowing by, maybe spend Saturday nights watching them unload the trucks at Wal-Mart or kept busy fending off some of the deadliest and most dangerous weather conditions in the country. That is, if Jethro, Aunt Bea and I managed to defy being victims of their highest murder rates in the country.
Instead, I chose to enjoy the great fun, comfort, variety and pleasure of residing in the most popularly visited city on the Planet. And justifiably so.
Thanks again, USA, California, Franklin, JFK / LBJ, Jimmy, Bill, Barack and Joe.
-
09-18-23 04:57 #13072In a 3-Card Monte scam, all three cards you see on the table are part of the scam. Only a rube thinks he has a legitmate 1 in 3 chance of pointing to the money card. Oh, better than that as long as the scammer is making it so easy to keep his eye on it, right? LOL. Originally Posted by Tiny12
[View Original Post]
You would lose a lot of $20 bills at the table.
California's 54 EC votes are every bit as much a part of the scam "illusion" that there is some numerical fairness about the EC system that was specifically designed to help the candidate with fewer votes than his opponent win anyway as all those Red states' 3, 4, 5, 6 or more EC votes.
Another part of the scam that defies numerical fairness or in any way supports or honors a majority vote by the American electorate or the concept of democracy is the Winner-Take-All element of it. Let's call that another part of the 3-Card Monte scam you might not have noticed yet:
Let's say California or Texas or Florida has 20,000,000 registered voters (set aside for now how difficult the deceitful and dishonest Repub governors of Texas and Florida might make it for likely Dem voters to cast a ballot). And let's further say that for whatever reason 10,000,001 of California's (or Texas or Florida, if likely Dem voters can find a working polling place machine or a drop box anywhere in their area) voters go stark raving lunatic in 2024 and vote for Trump or DeSantis and the rest vote for Biden.
What happens to those 9,999,999 Biden votes? They evaporate into thin air, right? Just like the money card in that 3-Card Monte scam that you could swear you saw land right where you pointed.
They do not roll over into Biden's votes anywhere else, not Texas, not Florida, not even Wyoming where the sum of them might still mean he could get Millions more votes in the country than Trump / DeSantis.
Since Reagan's former VP was defeated in 1992, the American electorate has only once chosen a Repub over a Dem to occupy the White House. And if the pro-Repub rigged EC system scam had not put that Repub in the WH the first time despite a majority of the electorate not wanting him there, he would not have been in position to deceitfully and dishonestly lie himself into a "wartime president" advantage in order to squeak out a win the second time around either.
An EC system that was specifically designed to thwart the majority will of the American electorate is always rigged to favor the candidate the country does not want. And "today", since 1992, that has overwhelmingly been the Repub candidate.
-
09-18-23 04:06 #13071
Maybe now with Scumbag Romney leaving
Utah and the Mormons can recover their reputation that the dirtbag destroyed.
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2...rst-candidate/
-
09-18-23 03:42 #13070So am I supposed to list the population of red states Texas and Florida and question why they only get the same number of Senate seats as small blue states? OK, well, by damn, I'll do it! Originally Posted by EihTooms
[View Original Post]
Texas 30,029,572
Florida 22,244,823
Vermont 647,064
Delaware 1,018,396
Rhode Island 1,093,734
Maine 1,385,340
New Hampshire 1,395,231
Hawaii 1,440,196
Democrats are just as bad as Republicans when it comes to trying to game the system. You seem to have difficulty recognizing that, just as you have difficulty recognizing that there are red states with large populations and blue states with small populations.
Reply With Quote
Posting Limitations
- You may not post new threads
- You may not post replies
- You may not post attachments
- You may not edit your posts
