Separate names with a comma.
Wanting to join the rest of our members? Feel free to sign up today.
Discussion in 'GMD Social Forum' started by Zephyrus, Jan 20, 2015.
Reminds me of this gem:
She a strong, independent woman who don't need no man
Not a mischaracterization at all bro. Democrats are minorities, illegals, prisoners, (and children).
I'm fine with your train of thought connecting the population of illegals to slaves; they are being imported to man the Democratic Party voter plantation. Can we at least continue the analogy and A. Actually count them B. Count them as 3/5s a person and C. Not allow them to vote?
InCel hunted down a girl he was obsessed with online, lured her away from a party and almost cut her head off, then took photos and shared them to Instagram. Later he tried to kill himself by cutting his own neck but survived.
Insane fucking story.
I see your point and don't necessarily disagree with what you're getting at, but I wouldn't say they're shoehorning it. The vast majority (like over 90%) of immigrant and legal resident aliens are 'non-white.'
Uh, ships filled with people were unloaded in the US with very little restrictions until after WWI (Chinese Exclusion Act and small regulatory measures regarding the passenger/square footage to restrict the Irish aside). The welfare state and taxing of undocumented immigrants is a related, but nonetheless different problem.
I love how your willingness to buy into conspiracy theories stop when language from the Hofeller files, which directly noted the points you quoted, finds its way copy and pasted into the Justice Departments push to add the question to the census. I get that you're triggered any time the white elephant in the room gets pointed at, but come on.
And yeah, thanks again for that factually obtuse and historically blind remark on the Democratic party.
It's a different problem best addressed through the executive being able to enforce immigration law and enact new administrative policy to deter specific kinds of immigration. "Arbitrary and capricious" is applied quite arbitrarily; courts and "experts" are willing to shut down a census question, an ending of DACA, and a pre-Obama redefinition of grounds for asylum, all of which create massive incentives for illegal immigration. But by contrast, suits are very rarely filed when the incentives are first given out. It's not just immigration either; New England and California sue when Trump ends a tax benefit that specifically advantages those living in expensive urban areas, but afaik you never had suits from rural non-beneficiary regions when the tax benefit was passed to begin with. Though the executive branch in theory is much more powerful through gradual expansions of agencies as well as greater war powers, the presidency itself is gradually becoming a ceremonial position with respect to domestic issues thanks to a ratchet effect of infinitely-building regulations. Trump being a notably dumb and incompetent president doesn't help, of course. The result is a permitted open-borders situation, in clear defiance to both law and long-term economic health, in deference to voting blocs and partisan pandering.
The Salon article specifically agrees with Hofeller. Democratic politicians want people who should not have political representation to have it, because they rightly expect that those ignorant people will vote for the gibs. They also are aware of the demographics of the <18 crowd, which they have been pumping through terrible immigration policy for decades. Republicans, a mixed bag of well-meaning nitwits and neocon charlatans, let it happen, and are now trying to play catch-up. Most likely too late, but at least some are making an effort. You're setting a low bar for conspiracy, but at that bar yes, these are "conspiracies." Both parties conspire.
The lack of available nature might explain part of the mental health issues found in major urban areas. Give it another 20 years and probably a physical health issue disparity too.
It's a dodgy conflation.
I highly doubt the latter, especially given that people in rural areas are currently more likely to be victims of the five leading causes of death.
There's a significant reason for that: people in urban areas walk and cycle. And plenty of them leave the city to spend time in extra-urban environments.
I specifically put the time frame I did because of the age differential. Rural people are more likely to be victims because of age. Give another 20 years and a lot of rural boomers will be dead. It's certainly true that a lot of white urban professionals walk and cycle within certain enclaves. That misses the obesity epidemic happening everywhere else and all the problems that come with it even earlier than the boomer population faced them.
It sounds like you're saying that urban residents walk and cycle and that there's an obesity problem in rural areas. I don't see how that reverses in twenty years because boomers are dying off.
Additionally, what I've read suggests that people in rural areas are more likely to suffer from depression and other mental health issues than urban residents.
There are quite a few contingent factors such as age, IQ, education and income (correlates with IQ), and race. Holding those constant, urban environments are bad for mental health. I'm suggesting that outside of some age and IQ related exceptions, they are bad for physical health as well. Urban environments have a much higher static mental load and decrease natural opportunities for physical exertion. I do want to be clear when I say urban I don't mean your average 100kish city or near sister, I mean the major urban areas. NYC, Boston, LA, Houston, etc.
Edit: Also natural opportunities for nature exposure, which is the point of the linked study.
Lead (chemical) theory of criminality boost in the US at least partially disproven. Theory of Warren Court enabling of crime gains probability.
Watching the Watchdogs: Lillian Gish and Bowling Green State University
How did the Warren Court enable crime? afaik most of the relevant decisions made then (desegregation, Miranda rights, tainted evidence, etc) are still in effect today.
Tack on additional criminal law to keep repeat and violent offenders locked up. Not perfectly applied, but enough.