A military man with a blue collar background and liberal ideas and they're all set.

A military man with a blue collar background and liberal ideas and they're all set. — Benkei

Yea, that could definitely work, excellent point. Let's hope they can find someone like that.

Here's your daily dose of paranoia fodder:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/dec/18/sealed-v-sealed-robert-mueller-mysterious-case-subpoena?CMP=fb_gu&fbclid=IwAR1FGFD-VplVZ_ARG1At381qN2akFTa-EXI946zaaXSYJC5ylSYedvyn4Gk

Further frantic looking for reds under the bed led me to this:

https://hillreporter.com/fall-trump-power-rise-rosneft-deal-17323

It's a funny old world where 'commission' amounts to hundreds of millions, and can be just awarded to someone for 'no reason'...

A military man with a blue collar background and liberal ideas and they're all set. — Benkei

Hey, General Mattis just bailed out of the Trump administration, leaving the Sec Of Def job. NPR has been doing some stories on him as a result and first impression he sounds like a reasonable guy. Maybe him?

"I am afraid Bill Gates is misled when he pushes for education for computer technology over education for being humans living in human communities" Indeed Athena. This is the main shortcoming of the philantropic tradition. An individual wants to donate in the direction of what he or she knows best and understand; which is not necessarily what is needed. It is good that rich people donate; but those donations can not be a diversion of money from rational social and environmental investment.

I understand that sponsorship and philantropy in (still) English-speaking countries is important, with a religious justification, and opposed to giving all the money to politicians. But there is a better way, which is to allow citizens to decide what to do with the funds. Very often, much less money, but managed through democratic and professional filters is more efficient and useful than obscene quantities pushed into what the philantropist think it is best. Contrary to what religion teaches us, is not "intention" what counts, but the real outcome.
I learnt this in my youth, as a volunteer for a development NGO associated to the Catholic Church. I also taught in schools for a decade and we also had to manage a budget.

Fortunately, Bill Gates donates to so many things that he gets it right sometimes too, asking for strategies and projects worth funding, not letting his personality get in the way.

Democrats, like the Left in Europe, gave up reason and civilization to survive. In Europe, the only flourishing left-wing parties are those against the very idea of Western civilization, and a strong reliance on identity politics and angry ethnicities. They live on massive influx of immigrants, who get help in return for NOT integrating; Muslims (because Muslim votes are easy to secure through buying imams) and young people who weren´t allowed to mature well and seek desperately some vital ground by becoming an incarnation of some "oppressed" tribe.

The problem with renouncing to a national and democratic vision and embracing tribalism, is that the Democratic Party can no longer produce rational candidates or candidates with light skin and Christian or post-Christian background. That is why Clinton did not win: she did not have the support of Democrat voters because her skin was too pale and she was too rational, despite her efforts to show otherwise that ended up taking a real toll on her mind. Her votes were really anti-Trump votes, they did not vote for her.

Democrats can only now produce tribal candidates, which is not the way to win a national election where you need to charm citizens of all colours and trades.

first impression he sounds like a reasonable guy. — Jake

Yep.

Mattis just get fed up with Agent Trumpov. His resign letter tells it clearly: no "Thank You" for Trumpov, who obviously doesn't care about US allies. But Putin is happy; not only the US is withdrawing from Syria, but also diminishing troops in Afghanistan.

And perhaps now Trumpov can finally hold one of his campaign pledges, to reinstate torture, or "enhanced interrogation techniques” like waterboarding and "worse than that". His supporters will surely like that. Whopee!

I predict that John Bolton will be the next secretary of defence.

I predict that John Bolton will be the next secretary of defence. — ssu

Interesting. Hadn't thought of that.

Many were taken by surprise and are arguing against Trump's position on Syria but to be fair isn't he just doing what he said he was going to do?

isn't he just doing what he said he was going to do? — Blubarb

Actually no. He said he was going to defeat ISIS and basically he is withdrawing well before that has been truly accomplished.

(cnbc) Just days before submitting his resignation, U.S. special envoy Brett McGurk, who heads the global coalition to defeat the Islamic State, said in an exclusive interview that putting an end to ISIS will be a long-term, multiyear effort.

"We're on track now over the coming months to defeat what used to be the physical space that ISIS controlled," McGurk told CNBC's Hadley Gamble. "That will not be the end of ISIS."

"Nobody is naive," McGurk said less than a week before Trump's decision. "The small clandestine cells, the individual terrorist attacks, will remain a threat for some time. That is why we have to remain together as a global coalition to keep the pressure on."

But guess who was naive? Naturally the stupid bullshitter decided otherwise.
Hence McGurk resigned.

As the media focuses on the war of words between President Trump and the Democrats, we the citizens of Arizona, continue to try to keep the flow of illegal immigrants off the streets, safe and health issues taken care of.
Since October of this year, over 10,000 illegal immigrants have been released by ICE at the Grey Hound bus station with nothing but a bus pass, picked up by faith groups, cared for until they can contact a family member already in the USA or they can chose to leave and live on the streets of our state.
Illegal or not, our community cannot handle the influx at the rate that we are looking at.
Is there a community in the USA that we can direct some of those seeking political asylum?
They are not able to legally work in your community but the government will process their claim ASAP.

April 2016, Trump said, ""We're gonna beat ISIS very, very quickly, folks. It's gonna be fast. I have a great plan. It's going to be great. They ask, 'What is it?' Well, I'd rather not say. I'd rather be unpredictable."

He did keep part of this promise: he was unpredictable.

In May 2017, he said that in 2 weeks, he would announce his plan. It never happened.

What I don't get is voting for celebrities. He's still "Elite".

He wants 0% interest rates. I think we should save money.

Haven't been keeping up on him much.

What's with his hair? He looks orange...

I'm watching this documentary about the history of New York City. It's available on Amazon Prime, and apparently also on YouTube. It's called "American Experience: New York" and appears to have been directed by family of Ken Burns. The film is in that style, and is directed by Ric Burns.

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLDTIEcvzXSDS3aDN95U4jPEdPHIL9OGJi

This has really helped put Trump in context for me. So much of Trump's perspective arises right out of the history of NYC. As example...

NYC was established by the world'd leading corporation at the time specifically for the purpose of making money. Profit has been the focus of NYC from the very beginning.

Also, note how the first elected office that Trump ran for was the very highest office. That's very much a NYC mindset, think big.

Also, immigration was an ongoing issue for NYC given that tidal waves of new arrivals from both within and beyond the U.S. continually threatened to swamp the city's ability to serve it's population. Thus, Trump's obsession with immigration does not arise from nothing, but a long history in NYC.

This is not to suggest that all New Yorkers are like Trump, only that Trump appears far less strange when put in to the context he has arisen in.

Since October of this year, over 10,000 illegal immigrants have been released by ICE at the Grey Hound bus station with nothing but a bus pass, picked up by faith groups, cared for until they can contact a family member already in the USA or they can chose to leave and live on the streets of our state.
Illegal or not, our community cannot handle the influx at the rate that we are looking at. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

First, it's important for me to ask this crucial question...

Where is my $%^&%# latte!!!! :smile:

Of less importance is the obvious question which we never seem to get around to asking, let alone answering.

What is the appropriate population for America?

As example, the population of the United States has doubled in my life time. Is that good or bad, a problem or a solution? How much is enough, how much is too much?

The population of Florida where I live is now 4 times larger than it was in 1960, rising from around 5 million to around 20 million.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/206109/resident-population-in-florida/

Is that good or bad, a problem or a solution? How much is enough, how much is too much etc?

I don't see how we get where ever it is we're trying to go population-wise if we have no idea what that is.

Illegal or not, our community cannot handle the influx at the rate that we are looking at. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

You mean, a bunch of people within the community cannot handle it psychologically, or...? Over here at least, the stats show that immigration results in a net contribution in terms of the economy and the NHS. Reduce immigration and you reduce the economic benefits and the benefits to healthcare as a consequence. Is it really so different across the pond?

Is it really so different across the pond? — S

Latinos are the largest minority in the US. We have a very long and happy tradition of absorbing Latinos. At present, Central America is disintegrating, especially in Honduras. This has been going on for about 4 years.

Over here at least, the stats show that immigration results in a net contribution in terms of the economy — S

Ok, but what are the limits of this? Should the goal be that the U.S. or Great Britain have as many people as China? More is better, without limit?

Shouldn't we be aiming for some specific population goal which we hope strikes the best compromise between economic benefit and over crowding?

Latinos are the largest minority in the US. We have a very long and happy tradition of absorbing Latinos. — frank

In the wise words of Kelly Osbourne, if you kick out all of the Latinos, then who is going to be cleaning your toilets, Donald Trump? :lol:



That's one of those statements which is kind of right, but kind of wrong. Like: ooh, did you really just say that? And right after Rosie Perez, herself a Latino, said that making racist comments does not help. :gasp:

Imagine a long list of beautiful images of American Latinos that I can't post because this forum is crap.

Ok, but what are the limits of this? Should the goal be that the U.S. or Great Britain have as many people as China? More is better, without limit?

Shouldn't we be aiming for some specific population goal which we hope strikes the best compromise between economic benefit and over crowding? — Jake

I'm not sure, but that seems like a more distant concern. Right now, we could do with more nurses, wherever they happen to come from and a better economy to make better pay and working conditions for nurses more achievable. I don't see how self-harm will help.

Is that good or bad, a problem or a solution? How much is enough, how much is too much etc?

I don't see how we get where ever it is we're trying to go population-wise if we have no idea what that is. — Jake

1 billion in 1870s, 2 billion 1920s, 3 billion 1960s, 4 billion 1970s, 5 billions 1980s, 6 billion 1999, 7 billions 2009, 7.7 billion 2018...

No one and everyone are individually responsible for global population and resource depletion. No individual American is responsible for our high rate of resource use, but we all are. Individually and collectively we are guilty of too much reproduction, too much resource consumption, and too much CO2. That's the problem: we make critical decisions individually and can't effectively deal with them collectively.

People individually decide to leave Mexico or Nigeria or Syria and walk or paddle, if need be, all the way to Los Angeles, Rome, or London. No one can blame people for wanting to leave shit holes and trying to find a better life somewhere else, but there are global consequences. 327 million Americans use up a hell of a lot of stuff, and 14% or 45 million of us are foreign born. Native-born Americans are fairly close to replacement rate reproduction, so most of our growth -- and increased resource demand -- is from immigration.

But some countries, like Italy, are at or below replacement levels. Good or Bad? For the planet, that's good. Over the long run (if there is a long run) we very much need to lower world population. A good deal fewer than 8 billion of us are more than enough. For individual countries, a shrinking population presents problems: too few young people to do the heavy lifting (production, agriculture, distribution, etc.) and to care for the elderly. Eventually a new equilibrium is established, though. In the meantime...

The northern half of the planet is growing more slowly (or the population is shrinking) than the southern half. As soon as you think of some way to get the southern half to stop breeding... let them know.

First, it's important for me to ask this crucial question...

Where is my $%^&%# latte!!!! :smile: — Jake

:lol: Not yet brewed. Waiting on the frost to melt with a little sunshine before I am venturing out into the desert which is sitting at 35*f.

Of less importance is the obvious question which we never seem to get around to asking, let alone answering.
What is the appropriate population for America? — Jake

That is an excellent question for the macro level thinkers but what I am speaking of is our ability, as a state which is a collective of communities, to deal with the influx of those in need. We are a giving community but we have our limits.

As example, the population of the United States has doubled in my life time. Is that good or bad, a problem or a solution? How much is enough, how much is too much? — Jake

If you could entertain this idea for me, it might show representatively, what I believe is "too much".
If we think of a stable base of a community as a dried out sponge, we are capable of absorbing many, many drops of water without reaching the sponges capacity. Once the sponge has reached it's capacity to absorb even one more drop of water, when one droplet hits the sponge it sends off hundreds of little droplets in every direction of the saturated sponge. The only way for the sponge to absorb more water is to wring it out and then and only then, can the sponge begin the absorption process again.
So to answer your question, how much is too much for my community, my state? It is when one more droplet of water sends of thousands of little droplets out in ever direction with no plan on how to wring it out.

You mean, a bunch of people within the community cannot handle it psychologically, or...? — S

Not psychologically and you can leave that notion in your head, from which it stems and stop trying to project it onto others. No matter how many times you try, the spaghetti is not going to stick to the wall. :roll:
What I mean is our resources to provide physical care, medical care, provide mental health care, education and to protect the influx of our Southern neighbors, in addition to the needs of our own citizens who are in their own dire straits has reached capacity.
We have citizens in need like the California community of Paradise, where 196 of their 200 high school athletes, were made homeless overnight. Where the teachers and senior citizens who have nothing and I do mean NOTHING and no time left in life to rebuild. Do they not deserve the financial help and attention that they paid into our society for their whole lives to keep them, the poor elderly off the streets?

Imagine a long list of beautiful images of American Latinos that I can't post because this forum is crap. — frank

This seems a bit out of sorts for you frank, is everything okay?

I'm depressed, not like that's an excuse. :smile:

If you could entertain this idea for me, it might show representatively, what I believe is "too much".
If we think of a stable base of a community as a dried out sponge, we are capable of absorbing many, many drops of water without reaching the sponges capacity. Once the sponge has reached it's capacity to absorb even one more drop of water, when one droplet hits the sponge it sends off hundreds of little droplets in every direction of the saturated sponge. The only way for the sponge to absorb more water is to wring it out and then and only then, can the sponge begin the absorption process again.
So to answer your question, how much is too much for my community, my state? It is when one more droplet of water sends of thousands of little droplets out in ever direction with no plan on how to wring it out. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

Send all the newcomers to Montana and Wyoming. There are only two persons per square kilometer in those states, hence a lot empty area for people to fit there. And basically there are so few people now in those states that their objections don't matter (as elections go). And the foreigners wanting to come to the US will think twice before coming to Montana and Wyoming (as New York and California are off limits). And if people Still want to come, well, the two states are in for an economic boom as they have to basically build new cities for the newcomers.

My country is filled with people as there are 16 persons per square kilometer, and Tiff's Arizona (right?) has a whopping 23 per square km. God, you have it so cramped with people there, Tiff.

So you're suggesting that fewer nurses makes for a better healthcare system? :roll:

As the U.S. braces for a wave of aging patients, and an exodus of retiring nurses, foreign nurses are expected to be needed as much as ever.

"Nurses that migrate to this country have made a significant impact on helping to improve health outcomes, particularly for hospitals that tend to have challenges in terms of building their own nurse capacity," says Yolanda Ogbolu, a neonatal nurse practitioner and director of the University of Maryland School of Nursing Office of Global Health.

Foreign-born nurses make up about 15 percent of registered nurses in the U.S., according to a June 2016 report by the Institute for Immigration Research at George Mason University and the Immigrant Learning Center. — Lisa Esposito, U.S. News

From an article titled 'Immigrant Nurses: Filling the Next U.S. Shortage'.

So you're suggesting that fewer nurses makes for a better healthcare system? — S

What an odd question. The immigrants who speak English and are prepared to go to nursing school come in legally.