US Politics Thread 2016-2020

[Rockstar]

Feel the Bern.


Though I am for the most against abortion. I am on the other hand glad to see someone actually come right out and breach the subject about population control and pollution. Though there are I think alternatives to abortion that reduces population like a global economy, living wages, jobs and access to decent health care.

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2...ation-control/

[Skybird]

Ha, first time ever I hear Sanders saying something reasonable - and Rockstar beats me to it. Maybe you were as surprised as I was...?!

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-49601678


As I use to say since years: We. Are. Too. Many.


Right now around 6 to 7 billions too many, I estimate. And its not just about climate, it goes far beyond that. Natural sustainability on all levels, in all regards.

[Platapus]

Originally Posted by Bera

To my american friends here...


I follow Trump´s account on Facebook. And, judging by everything he´s posting, he´s going to win the next US Presidential election by a landslide.


Is this true? How is his popularity?

No one can predict how the voters will vote.



Just being the incumbent gives a president a good percentage of votes.



It will ultimately come down to who the Democrats select as their candidate. Last election, they chose unwisely.



Secondly, the democratic candidate has to motivate the democrats to get out and vote.

[Mr Quatro]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Ha, first time ever I hear Sanders saying something reasonable - and Rockstar beats me to it. Maybe you were as surprised as I was...?!

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-49601678


As I use to say since years: We. Are. Too. Many.


Right now around 6 to 7 billions too many, I estimate. And its not just about climate, it goes far beyond that. Natural sustainability on all levels, in all regards.

Perhaps Bernie is suggesting that we limit the population with selective breeding of just blond, blue eyed, white people

Where have we heard that before?

[Rockstar]

Mr. Quatro it was a concern beginning in the early 70's. You can read the declassified National Security Study Memorandum or NSSM-200 to get an idea where government is thinking we need to go in the future. I just never dreamed a politician would actually come right out and say those two words "population control'.

[Mr Quatro]

Originally Posted by Rockstar

Mr. Quatro it was a concern beginning in the early 70's. You can read the declassified National Security Study Memorandum or NSSM-200 to get an idea where government is thinking we need to go in the future. I just never dreamed a politician would actually come right out and say those two words "population control'.

Thank you I was not aware of this ... I remember the TV politicians in the 70's came right out and approved of abortion to save the state money from welfare moms for life. True story, but only my ears heard it.

What society needs is a new population control of men and women that need to go to re-education centers on how to raise their children. This I would approve of

[Buddahaid]

This is going to be about Soylent Green isn't it....

[em2nought]

Originally Posted by Buddahaid

This is going to be about Soylent Green isn't it....

Fresh water might be more precious so maybe they'll squeeze our sixty year old non social security collecting dead bodies for our water as in Frank Herbert's "Dune" instead.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Mr Quatro

Perhaps Bernie is suggesting that we limit the population with selective breeding of just blond, blue eyed, white people

Where have we heard that before?

From what I have collected in inputs and readings over the years, from various people and academical branches, I assume this planet's ressources and natural rebuilding potentials can sustain a human population of 1 to 1.5, but under no circustamce more than 2 billion people, if we take suststainability, social justice for all and same consummation standards for everybody and on a modest level serious. 1.5 bn is the number that I red most in various books. That is slightly more than the globla population at the beginning of the 20th century.



We are approaching 8 billion. Projections show most liekly we will exceed 11 billion over the going of this century.



Witty jokes like yours do not change anything in this.

1. We are too many, globall.
2. We have too low birth raTe s in countries that could help to support the planet and global economy and society, and we have too hugh birth rates in countries that do not add to the global wellbeing.

3. Finally, the consummation habits in the developed world are too intense beside the lower population, and the available consummation to people in the third world is too low.



These three issues all have to be tackled. Else this world will end as a hellhouse. We stupidly repeat the same mistakes that civilization before us got wirped out by. In times of wealth, we poush growth and expand beyond the limits of sustainability, we build no reserves instead and we seek no stability (of a dynamic, slightly fluctuating kind). When times less welathy, when emergencies finally reahc us, we are not poreoared and everythig collapses. Or we allwoed to expand beyiond the limits of what cna be supported, and we collapse for that reason.



We are immune to learning. Not even in our stupidity we are crativity, although there should be some many things, so many diverse ways in whcih we could express stupdity. But no, we stobbornly do the same stupid old thing again and again and again.


This indicates a fundamental defect on the geneticla level, a basic flawed design, may it be by somethign broken, may it be by some unqelcome dimplication. It prevents our survival and probaly will lead us to extenction.


Thats why I think humans are a dead end of evolution. Of course, nobody wants to hear that.We are the crown of creation, aren't we? Made to subjugate the rest of nature, right? Its all laid out before us just for us, isn't it?



A crown that by its weight crashes the skull wearing it.


Before debating environmental protection, sustainability of economic management schemes, ressource preservation and so on, form a consensus that globla population must be brought down by 80% - minimum. Until then, all other debates are just noise and hot air.


If we do not find solutions to get there by our own choosing and under controlled circumstances, then nature will push us there, not matter our choosing, and under totally uncontrolled circumstances. Time is running out. Nature is not sentimental. The cosmos does not care one bit for mankind.

[Mr Quatro]

If you don't like witty jokes then you can't see the truth behind them pointing out the evil thoughts of men in last generations and now it is being suggested by educated members of our present society that we need to limit the population with perhaps they did not say so, but selective breeding will be one of their options along with birth control and of course late term abortions.

If you don't like witty jokes then ignore the fact that the world we live in processes over fifty (50) thousand nuclear weapons and at any given moment are ready to be launched at the offending party or parties.

That will limit the populations of the world and usher in selective breeding

[Skybird]

You replied with an extremist reference to debunk a statement on an obvious truth. I called that a "witty joke", but that was just an euphemism for the sake of politeness.

There is no way around it: we are too many. Like a rafting boat for rescue that could hold 30 passengers, but is loaded with 100+ already, and water already sipping in over the upper rims. In that case I would say the same: there are too many.

There are ~ 5-6 times as many humans on this planet than the planet can sustain over the long term. Period. Like it or not, imply I am an evil Nazi or not, pray to divine idols for even greater fertility or not, call having many children a blessing or not - it does not matter. Too many is too many. That is the only fact there is, and that is the only thing that decides the issue. Consumerism, waste, ressource management, all that in the end comes down to simple rules of basic mathematics, and physically limited habitats can sustain so and so many life forms only, and not more. Period. Too many is too many. Too much is too much.

And please, just in case: no word on space colonization and other scifi esoteric. I would only laugh.

[u crank]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Nature is not sentimental. The cosmos does not care one bit for mankind.

Absolutly right. But then again, most of mankind does not care about the cosmos. Nature has a way of taking care of things. It may be an unlucky hit by an asteroid or it may be a natural culling of the herd. Happens all the time.

What is remarkable to me is the outright arrogance that the present generation has about certain things. What is the ideal temperature and climate for the earth? And for who? What is the ideal population of the earth and for who? And who in end will get to decide?

And of course the answer is nobody. There is no power or consensus on earth at present to control the climate or the population. The cosmos will have the final say.

[Rockstar]

Originally Posted by Mr Quatro

Thank you I was not aware of this ... I remember the TV politicians in the 70's came right out and approved of abortion to save the state money from welfare moms for life. True story, but only my ears heard it.

What society needs is a new population control of men and women that need to go to re-education centers on how to raise their children. This I would approve of

I think its reasonable to believe there have been other studies since the Kissinger Report which are still classified. But after reading this one I can see some things mentioned in the report being attempted today. I suppose one day in the far distant future if the population swings too far in the other direction and is in need of increase. Abortion and homosexuality will once again be frowned upon or even illegal.

[em2nought]

Originally Posted by Rockstar

I suppose one day in the far distant future if the population swings too far in the other direction and is in need of increase abortion and homosexuality will once again be frowned upon or even illegal.

It's so odd how the sides align on the abortion issue. The side dead set against it probably wouldn't even be able to get 33% of the vote if there was no abortion. There would be so many more "products" of a liberal education system walking around out there and voting for Bernie Sanders and AOC.


The side that's pro abortion wouldn't even need to worry about making "open" borders in order to add to their voter rolls if there was no abortion.

[Platapus]

Trump made a decision I can get behind. Hey, even a broken clock is right twice a day


He dumped Bolton. This isgood news for our country. War mongers like Bolton are pretty free with advising the use of the military and putting other lives at risk, but when he was eligible for duty in Vietnam, like a lot of cowards, he had his father pull some strings and get him in the MD Guard. I can't stomach that hypocrisy.



Beware of old men eager to send young men/women off to battle.



Good riddance and I hope this will be the last we hear of Bolton.