Discussion:
By The End Of This, Republicans Are Going To Wish Hillary Won.
Add Reply
arthur wouk
2017-04-08 04:51:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2017/4/5/1650568/-By-The-End-Of-This-Republicans-Are-Going-To-Wish-Hillary-Won

Jonathan Chait has a piece in New York Magazine that may lift
your spirits. Take it for what it`s worth.
--
"Religion is excellent stuff for keeping common people quiet."
~ Napoleon Bonaparte
to email me, delete blackhole from my return address
mg
2017-04-10 17:38:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by arthur wouk
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2017/4/5/1650568/-By-The-End-Of-This-Republicans-Are-Going-To-Wish-Hillary-Won
Jonathan Chait has a piece in New York Magazine that may lift
your spirits. Take it for what it`s worth.
Republicans were for Hillary before Trump won:
http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/31/politics/hillary-clinton-republican-supporters/index.html
El Castor
2017-04-10 19:25:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mg
Post by arthur wouk
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2017/4/5/1650568/-By-The-End-Of-This-Republicans-Are-Going-To-Wish-Hillary-Won
Jonathan Chait has a piece in New York Magazine that may lift
your spirits. Take it for what it`s worth.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/31/politics/hillary-clinton-republican-supporters/index.html
Then who voted for Trump?
mg
2017-04-20 03:39:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 10 Apr 2017 12:25:17 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by mg
Post by arthur wouk
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2017/4/5/1650568/-By-The-End-Of-This-Republicans-Are-Going-To-Wish-Hillary-Won
Jonathan Chait has a piece in New York Magazine that may lift
your spirits. Take it for what it`s worth.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/31/politics/hillary-clinton-republican-supporters/index.html
Then who voted for Trump?
"Donald J. Trump won the presidency by riding an enormous
wave of support among white working-class voters."
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/10/upshot/why-trump-won-working-class-whites.html?_r=0

"It was Hillary Clinton’s “blue wall” – three Great Lakes
battlegrounds that Republicans had banged their heads
against for years.

But Donald Trump stormed the blue wall Tuesday, parlaying
victories in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania into the
presidency.

Trump did it on a tide of votes from rural and blue-collar
whites."
http://www.freep.com/story/news/politics/2016/11/09/how-clinton-lost-blue-wall-states-michigan-pennsylvania-wisconsin/93572020/
El Castor
2017-04-20 20:26:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mg
On Mon, 10 Apr 2017 12:25:17 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by mg
Post by arthur wouk
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2017/4/5/1650568/-By-The-End-Of-This-Republicans-Are-Going-To-Wish-Hillary-Won
Jonathan Chait has a piece in New York Magazine that may lift
your spirits. Take it for what it`s worth.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/31/politics/hillary-clinton-republican-supporters/index.html
Then who voted for Trump?
"Donald J. Trump won the presidency by riding an enormous
wave of support among white working-class voters."
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/10/upshot/why-trump-won-working-class-whites.html?_r=0
"It was Hillary Clinton’s “blue wall” – three Great Lakes
battlegrounds that Republicans had banged their heads
against for years.
But Donald Trump stormed the blue wall Tuesday, parlaying
victories in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania into the
presidency.
Trump did it on a tide of votes from rural and blue-collar
whites."
http://www.freep.com/story/news/politics/2016/11/09/how-clinton-lost-blue-wall-states-michigan-pennsylvania-wisconsin/93572020/
Do you know any Republicans? I'm a Republican, neither rural or
blue-collar. I voted for Trump. I know Republicans who were leery of
Trump and supported someone like Kasich, but I don't know a single
Republican who even remotely considered voting for Hillary. The polls
indicate that 8% of Republicans did just that -- but the same
percentage of Democrats voted for Trump.
mg
2017-04-20 22:33:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 20 Apr 2017 13:26:23 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by mg
On Mon, 10 Apr 2017 12:25:17 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by mg
Post by arthur wouk
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2017/4/5/1650568/-By-The-End-Of-This-Republicans-Are-Going-To-Wish-Hillary-Won
Jonathan Chait has a piece in New York Magazine that may lift
your spirits. Take it for what it`s worth.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/31/politics/hillary-clinton-republican-supporters/index.html
Then who voted for Trump?
"Donald J. Trump won the presidency by riding an enormous
wave of support among white working-class voters."
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/10/upshot/why-trump-won-working-class-whites.html?_r=0
"It was Hillary Clinton’s “blue wall” – three Great Lakes
battlegrounds that Republicans had banged their heads
against for years.
But Donald Trump stormed the blue wall Tuesday, parlaying
victories in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania into the
presidency.
Trump did it on a tide of votes from rural and blue-collar
whites."
http://www.freep.com/story/news/politics/2016/11/09/how-clinton-lost-blue-wall-states-michigan-pennsylvania-wisconsin/93572020/
Do you know any Republicans? I'm a Republican, neither rural or
blue-collar. I voted for Trump. I know Republicans who were leery of
Trump and supported someone like Kasich, but I don't know a single
Republican who even remotely considered voting for Hillary. The polls
indicate that 8% of Republicans did just that -- but the same
percentage of Democrats voted for Trump.
Actually, I'm pretty much surrounded by Republicans. My
daughter who lives with me, for instance, is a staunch
Republican, but no, I don't know any Republicans that voted
for Hillary.

There are a lot of articles on the internet, however,
indicating that establishment Republicans would have
preferred Hillary over Trump.
http://www.bing.com/search?q=establishment+republicans+against+trump+for+hillary&qs=n&form=QBLH&sp=-1&ghc=1&pq=establishment+republicans+against+trump+for+hillary&sc=0-51&sk=&cvid=EA1298CE0AB74732A2E67026AFCDF44B

In Salt Lake County, in Utah, Clinton beat Trump 41.5% to
33%, while Romeny beat Obama 58% to 38%.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salt_Lake_County,_Utah
El Castor
2017-04-21 04:36:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mg
On Thu, 20 Apr 2017 13:26:23 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by mg
On Mon, 10 Apr 2017 12:25:17 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by mg
Post by arthur wouk
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2017/4/5/1650568/-By-The-End-Of-This-Republicans-Are-Going-To-Wish-Hillary-Won
Jonathan Chait has a piece in New York Magazine that may lift
your spirits. Take it for what it`s worth.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/31/politics/hillary-clinton-republican-supporters/index.html
Then who voted for Trump?
"Donald J. Trump won the presidency by riding an enormous
wave of support among white working-class voters."
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/10/upshot/why-trump-won-working-class-whites.html?_r=0
"It was Hillary Clinton’s “blue wall” – three Great Lakes
battlegrounds that Republicans had banged their heads
against for years.
But Donald Trump stormed the blue wall Tuesday, parlaying
victories in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania into the
presidency.
Trump did it on a tide of votes from rural and blue-collar
whites."
http://www.freep.com/story/news/politics/2016/11/09/how-clinton-lost-blue-wall-states-michigan-pennsylvania-wisconsin/93572020/
Do you know any Republicans? I'm a Republican, neither rural or
blue-collar. I voted for Trump. I know Republicans who were leery of
Trump and supported someone like Kasich, but I don't know a single
Republican who even remotely considered voting for Hillary. The polls
indicate that 8% of Republicans did just that -- but the same
percentage of Democrats voted for Trump.
Actually, I'm pretty much surrounded by Republicans. My
daughter who lives with me, for instance, is a staunch
Republican, but no, I don't know any Republicans that voted
for Hillary.
There are a lot of articles on the internet, however,
indicating that establishment Republicans would have
preferred Hillary over Trump.
http://www.bing.com/search?q=establishment+republicans+against+trump+for+hillary&qs=n&form=QBLH&sp=-1&ghc=1&pq=establishment+republicans+against+trump+for+hillary&sc=0-51&sk=&cvid=EA1298CE0AB74732A2E67026AFCDF44B
In Salt Lake County, in Utah, Clinton beat Trump 41.5% to
33%, while Romeny beat Obama 58% to 38%.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salt_Lake_County,_Utah
Trump was, and to an extent still is, an unknown quantity. I voted for
Reagan in the primary. Considering the twitter and confusion during
the primaries and leading up to the election, a lot of Republicans
might have preferred Donald Duck, but when push came to shove only 8%
jumped ship. I voted for him, and so far I'm glad I did. I'm still
waiting for corporate tax reform, the wall, the fat boy to be deposed,
and Ginsburg to get tired and quit -- then all will be right with the
world. (-8
mg
2017-04-21 10:17:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 20 Apr 2017 21:36:38 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by mg
On Thu, 20 Apr 2017 13:26:23 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by mg
On Mon, 10 Apr 2017 12:25:17 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by mg
Post by arthur wouk
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2017/4/5/1650568/-By-The-End-Of-This-Republicans-Are-Going-To-Wish-Hillary-Won
Jonathan Chait has a piece in New York Magazine that may lift
your spirits. Take it for what it`s worth.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/31/politics/hillary-clinton-republican-supporters/index.html
Then who voted for Trump?
"Donald J. Trump won the presidency by riding an enormous
wave of support among white working-class voters."
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/10/upshot/why-trump-won-working-class-whites.html?_r=0
"It was Hillary Clinton’s “blue wall” – three Great Lakes
battlegrounds that Republicans had banged their heads
against for years.
But Donald Trump stormed the blue wall Tuesday, parlaying
victories in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania into the
presidency.
Trump did it on a tide of votes from rural and blue-collar
whites."
http://www.freep.com/story/news/politics/2016/11/09/how-clinton-lost-blue-wall-states-michigan-pennsylvania-wisconsin/93572020/
Do you know any Republicans? I'm a Republican, neither rural or
blue-collar. I voted for Trump. I know Republicans who were leery of
Trump and supported someone like Kasich, but I don't know a single
Republican who even remotely considered voting for Hillary. The polls
indicate that 8% of Republicans did just that -- but the same
percentage of Democrats voted for Trump.
Actually, I'm pretty much surrounded by Republicans. My
daughter who lives with me, for instance, is a staunch
Republican, but no, I don't know any Republicans that voted
for Hillary.
There are a lot of articles on the internet, however,
indicating that establishment Republicans would have
preferred Hillary over Trump.
http://www.bing.com/search?q=establishment+republicans+against+trump+for+hillary&qs=n&form=QBLH&sp=-1&ghc=1&pq=establishment+republicans+against+trump+for+hillary&sc=0-51&sk=&cvid=EA1298CE0AB74732A2E67026AFCDF44B
In Salt Lake County, in Utah, Clinton beat Trump 41.5% to
33%, while Romeny beat Obama 58% to 38%.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salt_Lake_County,_Utah
Trump was, and to an extent still is, an unknown quantity. I voted for
Reagan in the primary. Considering the twitter and confusion during
the primaries and leading up to the election, a lot of Republicans
might have preferred Donald Duck, but when push came to shove only 8%
jumped ship. I voted for him, and so far I'm glad I did. I'm still
waiting for corporate tax reform, the wall, the fat boy to be deposed,
and Ginsburg to get tired and quit -- then all will be right with the
world. (-8
Sadly, I think Trump might, in the end, be forced to join
the establishment and continue the policies of wars for
regime change, cutting Medicare, and not paying back the SS
trust fund, and reversing himself on visas and immigration.
GLOBALIST
2017-04-21 12:05:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mg
On Thu, 20 Apr 2017 21:36:38 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by mg
On Thu, 20 Apr 2017 13:26:23 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by mg
On Mon, 10 Apr 2017 12:25:17 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by mg
Post by arthur wouk
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2017/4/5/1650568/-By-The-End-Of-This-Republicans-Are-Going-To-Wish-Hillary-Won
Jonathan Chait has a piece in New York Magazine that may lift
your spirits. Take it for what it`s worth.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/31/politics/hillary-clinton-republican-supporters/index.html
Then who voted for Trump?
"Donald J. Trump won the presidency by riding an enormous
wave of support among white working-class voters."
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/10/upshot/why-trump-won-working-class-whites.html?_r=0
"It was Hillary Clinton’s “blue wall” – three Great Lakes
battlegrounds that Republicans had banged their heads
against for years.
But Donald Trump stormed the blue wall Tuesday, parlaying
victories in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania into the
presidency.
Trump did it on a tide of votes from rural and blue-collar
whites."
http://www.freep.com/story/news/politics/2016/11/09/how-clinton-lost-blue-wall-states-michigan-pennsylvania-wisconsin/93572020/
Do you know any Republicans? I'm a Republican, neither rural or
blue-collar. I voted for Trump. I know Republicans who were leery of
Trump and supported someone like Kasich, but I don't know a single
Republican who even remotely considered voting for Hillary. The polls
indicate that 8% of Republicans did just that -- but the same
percentage of Democrats voted for Trump.
Actually, I'm pretty much surrounded by Republicans. My
daughter who lives with me, for instance, is a staunch
Republican, but no, I don't know any Republicans that voted
for Hillary.
There are a lot of articles on the internet, however,
indicating that establishment Republicans would have
preferred Hillary over Trump.
http://www.bing.com/search?q=establishment+republicans+against+trump+for+hillary&qs=n&form=QBLH&sp=-1&ghc=1&pq=establishment+republicans+against+trump+for+hillary&sc=0-51&sk=&cvid=EA1298CE0AB74732A2E67026AFCDF44B
In Salt Lake County, in Utah, Clinton beat Trump 41.5% to
33%, while Romeny beat Obama 58% to 38%.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salt_Lake_County,_Utah
Trump was, and to an extent still is, an unknown quantity. I voted for
Reagan in the primary. Considering the twitter and confusion during
the primaries and leading up to the election, a lot of Republicans
might have preferred Donald Duck, but when push came to shove only 8%
jumped ship. I voted for him, and so far I'm glad I did. I'm still
waiting for corporate tax reform, the wall, the fat boy to be deposed,
and Ginsburg to get tired and quit -- then all will be right with the
world. (-8
Sadly, I think Trump might, in the end, be forced to join
the establishment and continue the policies of wars for
regime change, cutting Medicare, and not paying back the SS
trust fund, and reversing himself on visas and immigration.
I don't think so. He hates losers.
He considers all this a challenge
He won his election without the help
of the Republican party. And some of
them or most of them owe their present
offices to him.
mg
2017-04-21 12:22:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 21 Apr 2017 05:05:32 -0700 (PDT), GLOBALIST
Post by GLOBALIST
Post by mg
On Thu, 20 Apr 2017 21:36:38 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by mg
On Thu, 20 Apr 2017 13:26:23 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by mg
On Mon, 10 Apr 2017 12:25:17 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by mg
Post by arthur wouk
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2017/4/5/1650568/-By-The-End-Of-This-Republicans-Are-Going-To-Wish-Hillary-Won
Jonathan Chait has a piece in New York Magazine that may lift
your spirits. Take it for what it`s worth.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/31/politics/hillary-clinton-republican-supporters/index.html
Then who voted for Trump?
"Donald J. Trump won the presidency by riding an enormous
wave of support among white working-class voters."
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/10/upshot/why-trump-won-working-class-whites.html?_r=0
"It was Hillary Clinton’s “blue wall” – three Great Lakes
battlegrounds that Republicans had banged their heads
against for years.
But Donald Trump stormed the blue wall Tuesday, parlaying
victories in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania into the
presidency.
Trump did it on a tide of votes from rural and blue-collar
whites."
http://www.freep.com/story/news/politics/2016/11/09/how-clinton-lost-blue-wall-states-michigan-pennsylvania-wisconsin/93572020/
Do you know any Republicans? I'm a Republican, neither rural or
blue-collar. I voted for Trump. I know Republicans who were leery of
Trump and supported someone like Kasich, but I don't know a single
Republican who even remotely considered voting for Hillary. The polls
indicate that 8% of Republicans did just that -- but the same
percentage of Democrats voted for Trump.
Actually, I'm pretty much surrounded by Republicans. My
daughter who lives with me, for instance, is a staunch
Republican, but no, I don't know any Republicans that voted
for Hillary.
There are a lot of articles on the internet, however,
indicating that establishment Republicans would have
preferred Hillary over Trump.
http://www.bing.com/search?q=establishment+republicans+against+trump+for+hillary&qs=n&form=QBLH&sp=-1&ghc=1&pq=establishment+republicans+against+trump+for+hillary&sc=0-51&sk=&cvid=EA1298CE0AB74732A2E67026AFCDF44B
In Salt Lake County, in Utah, Clinton beat Trump 41.5% to
33%, while Romeny beat Obama 58% to 38%.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salt_Lake_County,_Utah
Trump was, and to an extent still is, an unknown quantity. I voted for
Reagan in the primary. Considering the twitter and confusion during
the primaries and leading up to the election, a lot of Republicans
might have preferred Donald Duck, but when push came to shove only 8%
jumped ship. I voted for him, and so far I'm glad I did. I'm still
waiting for corporate tax reform, the wall, the fat boy to be deposed,
and Ginsburg to get tired and quit -- then all will be right with the
world. (-8
Sadly, I think Trump might, in the end, be forced to join
the establishment and continue the policies of wars for
regime change, cutting Medicare, and not paying back the SS
trust fund, and reversing himself on visas and immigration.
I don't think so. He hates losers.
He considers all this a challenge
He won his election without the help
of the Republican party. And some of
them or most of them owe their present
offices to him.
Winning an election is one thing. Fighting the
establishment, both Republicans and Democrats, and the
establishment news media is another. He already seems to
have capitulated on the war making with the missile attack
on Syria and I predict that he will start softening his
position on immigration and visas soon, if he hasn't
already. His first-quarter poll numbers are the lowest for
an elected president since WWII.
rumpelstiltskin
2017-04-21 13:54:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mg
On Thu, 20 Apr 2017 21:36:38 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by mg
On Thu, 20 Apr 2017 13:26:23 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by mg
On Mon, 10 Apr 2017 12:25:17 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by mg
Post by arthur wouk
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2017/4/5/1650568/-By-The-End-Of-This-Republicans-Are-Going-To-Wish-Hillary-Won
Jonathan Chait has a piece in New York Magazine that may lift
your spirits. Take it for what it`s worth.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/31/politics/hillary-clinton-republican-supporters/index.html
Then who voted for Trump?
"Donald J. Trump won the presidency by riding an enormous
wave of support among white working-class voters."
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/10/upshot/why-trump-won-working-class-whites.html?_r=0
"It was Hillary Clinton’s “blue wall” – three Great Lakes
battlegrounds that Republicans had banged their heads
against for years.
But Donald Trump stormed the blue wall Tuesday, parlaying
victories in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania into the
presidency.
Trump did it on a tide of votes from rural and blue-collar
whites."
http://www.freep.com/story/news/politics/2016/11/09/how-clinton-lost-blue-wall-states-michigan-pennsylvania-wisconsin/93572020/
Do you know any Republicans? I'm a Republican, neither rural or
blue-collar. I voted for Trump. I know Republicans who were leery of
Trump and supported someone like Kasich, but I don't know a single
Republican who even remotely considered voting for Hillary. The polls
indicate that 8% of Republicans did just that -- but the same
percentage of Democrats voted for Trump.
Actually, I'm pretty much surrounded by Republicans. My
daughter who lives with me, for instance, is a staunch
Republican, but no, I don't know any Republicans that voted
for Hillary.
There are a lot of articles on the internet, however,
indicating that establishment Republicans would have
preferred Hillary over Trump.
http://www.bing.com/search?q=establishment+republicans+against+trump+for+hillary&qs=n&form=QBLH&sp=-1&ghc=1&pq=establishment+republicans+against+trump+for+hillary&sc=0-51&sk=&cvid=EA1298CE0AB74732A2E67026AFCDF44B
In Salt Lake County, in Utah, Clinton beat Trump 41.5% to
33%, while Romeny beat Obama 58% to 38%.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salt_Lake_County,_Utah
Trump was, and to an extent still is, an unknown quantity. I voted for
Reagan in the primary. Considering the twitter and confusion during
the primaries and leading up to the election, a lot of Republicans
might have preferred Donald Duck, but when push came to shove only 8%
jumped ship. I voted for him, and so far I'm glad I did. I'm still
waiting for corporate tax reform, the wall, the fat boy to be deposed,
and Ginsburg to get tired and quit -- then all will be right with the
world. (-8
Sadly, I think Trump might, in the end, be forced to join
the establishment and continue the policies of wars for
regime change, cutting Medicare, and not paying back the SS
trust fund, and reversing himself on visas and immigration.
He talks to get votes. Then he gets confronted by reality.
islander
2017-04-21 16:04:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by mg
On Thu, 20 Apr 2017 21:36:38 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by mg
On Thu, 20 Apr 2017 13:26:23 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by mg
On Mon, 10 Apr 2017 12:25:17 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by mg
Post by arthur wouk
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2017/4/5/1650568/-By-The-End-Of-This-Republicans-Are-Going-To-Wish-Hillary-Won
Jonathan Chait has a piece in New York Magazine that may lift
your spirits. Take it for what it`s worth.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/31/politics/hillary-clinton-republican-supporters/index.html
Then who voted for Trump?
"Donald J. Trump won the presidency by riding an enormous
wave of support among white working-class voters."
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/10/upshot/why-trump-won-working-class-whites.html?_r=0
"It was Hillary Clinton’s “blue wall” – three Great Lakes
battlegrounds that Republicans had banged their heads
against for years.
But Donald Trump stormed the blue wall Tuesday, parlaying
victories in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania into the
presidency.
Trump did it on a tide of votes from rural and blue-collar
whites."
http://www.freep.com/story/news/politics/2016/11/09/how-clinton-lost-blue-wall-states-michigan-pennsylvania-wisconsin/93572020/
Do you know any Republicans? I'm a Republican, neither rural or
blue-collar. I voted for Trump. I know Republicans who were leery of
Trump and supported someone like Kasich, but I don't know a single
Republican who even remotely considered voting for Hillary. The polls
indicate that 8% of Republicans did just that -- but the same
percentage of Democrats voted for Trump.
Actually, I'm pretty much surrounded by Republicans. My
daughter who lives with me, for instance, is a staunch
Republican, but no, I don't know any Republicans that voted
for Hillary.
There are a lot of articles on the internet, however,
indicating that establishment Republicans would have
preferred Hillary over Trump.
http://www.bing.com/search?q=establishment+republicans+against+trump+for+hillary&qs=n&form=QBLH&sp=-1&ghc=1&pq=establishment+republicans+against+trump+for+hillary&sc=0-51&sk=&cvid=EA1298CE0AB74732A2E67026AFCDF44B
In Salt Lake County, in Utah, Clinton beat Trump 41.5% to
33%, while Romeny beat Obama 58% to 38%.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salt_Lake_County,_Utah
Trump was, and to an extent still is, an unknown quantity. I voted for
Reagan in the primary. Considering the twitter and confusion during
the primaries and leading up to the election, a lot of Republicans
might have preferred Donald Duck, but when push came to shove only 8%
jumped ship. I voted for him, and so far I'm glad I did. I'm still
waiting for corporate tax reform, the wall, the fat boy to be deposed,
and Ginsburg to get tired and quit -- then all will be right with the
world. (-8
Sadly, I think Trump might, in the end, be forced to join
the establishment and continue the policies of wars for
regime change, cutting Medicare, and not paying back the SS
trust fund, and reversing himself on visas and immigration.
He talks to get votes. Then he gets confronted by reality.
He lies to get votes. Any speculation that this kleptocrat would
somehow represent the public was seriously misplaced, IMV. His whole
history is testament to his desire to be recognized and respected by the
establishment.
mg
2017-04-21 19:09:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by mg
On Thu, 20 Apr 2017 21:36:38 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by mg
On Thu, 20 Apr 2017 13:26:23 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by mg
On Mon, 10 Apr 2017 12:25:17 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by mg
Post by arthur wouk
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2017/4/5/1650568/-By-The-End-Of-This-Republicans-Are-Going-To-Wish-Hillary-Won
Jonathan Chait has a piece in New York Magazine that may lift
your spirits. Take it for what it`s worth.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/31/politics/hillary-clinton-republican-supporters/index.html
Then who voted for Trump?
"Donald J. Trump won the presidency by riding an enormous
wave of support among white working-class voters."
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/10/upshot/why-trump-won-working-class-whites.html?_r=0
"It was Hillary Clinton’s “blue wall” – three Great Lakes
battlegrounds that Republicans had banged their heads
against for years.
But Donald Trump stormed the blue wall Tuesday, parlaying
victories in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania into the
presidency.
Trump did it on a tide of votes from rural and blue-collar
whites."
http://www.freep.com/story/news/politics/2016/11/09/how-clinton-lost-blue-wall-states-michigan-pennsylvania-wisconsin/93572020/
Do you know any Republicans? I'm a Republican, neither rural or
blue-collar. I voted for Trump. I know Republicans who were leery of
Trump and supported someone like Kasich, but I don't know a single
Republican who even remotely considered voting for Hillary. The polls
indicate that 8% of Republicans did just that -- but the same
percentage of Democrats voted for Trump.
Actually, I'm pretty much surrounded by Republicans. My
daughter who lives with me, for instance, is a staunch
Republican, but no, I don't know any Republicans that voted
for Hillary.
There are a lot of articles on the internet, however,
indicating that establishment Republicans would have
preferred Hillary over Trump.
http://www.bing.com/search?q=establishment+republicans+against+trump+for+hillary&qs=n&form=QBLH&sp=-1&ghc=1&pq=establishment+republicans+against+trump+for+hillary&sc=0-51&sk=&cvid=EA1298CE0AB74732A2E67026AFCDF44B
In Salt Lake County, in Utah, Clinton beat Trump 41.5% to
33%, while Romeny beat Obama 58% to 38%.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salt_Lake_County,_Utah
Trump was, and to an extent still is, an unknown quantity. I voted for
Reagan in the primary. Considering the twitter and confusion during
the primaries and leading up to the election, a lot of Republicans
might have preferred Donald Duck, but when push came to shove only 8%
jumped ship. I voted for him, and so far I'm glad I did. I'm still
waiting for corporate tax reform, the wall, the fat boy to be deposed,
and Ginsburg to get tired and quit -- then all will be right with the
world. (-8
Sadly, I think Trump might, in the end, be forced to join
the establishment and continue the policies of wars for
regime change, cutting Medicare, and not paying back the SS
trust fund, and reversing himself on visas and immigration.
He talks to get votes. Then he gets confronted by reality.
I consider myself to be pretty knowledgeable about politics,
but I never imagined the power of the Establishment, with
control of both parties and the legislature and the
newsmedia to do absolutely anything they want combined with
the willingness to do anything they have to, to wake Trump
up to reality.

They could have him impeached. They could threaten his
family. I think they could even have him assassinated and
get away with it. I know that sounds far-fetched, but why
not? What's going to stop them? A sense of morality? I
doubt it. The fear of reprisal from God? I doubt that, also.
The fear of getting caught? I doubt that, too.

Is it too late to clean up the swamp? I don't know, but
maybe it is.
El Castor
2017-04-22 06:07:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mg
On Thu, 20 Apr 2017 21:36:38 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by mg
On Thu, 20 Apr 2017 13:26:23 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by mg
On Mon, 10 Apr 2017 12:25:17 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by mg
Post by arthur wouk
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2017/4/5/1650568/-By-The-End-Of-This-Republicans-Are-Going-To-Wish-Hillary-Won
Jonathan Chait has a piece in New York Magazine that may lift
your spirits. Take it for what it`s worth.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/31/politics/hillary-clinton-republican-supporters/index.html
Then who voted for Trump?
"Donald J. Trump won the presidency by riding an enormous
wave of support among white working-class voters."
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/10/upshot/why-trump-won-working-class-whites.html?_r=0
"It was Hillary Clinton’s “blue wall” – three Great Lakes
battlegrounds that Republicans had banged their heads
against for years.
But Donald Trump stormed the blue wall Tuesday, parlaying
victories in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania into the
presidency.
Trump did it on a tide of votes from rural and blue-collar
whites."
http://www.freep.com/story/news/politics/2016/11/09/how-clinton-lost-blue-wall-states-michigan-pennsylvania-wisconsin/93572020/
Do you know any Republicans? I'm a Republican, neither rural or
blue-collar. I voted for Trump. I know Republicans who were leery of
Trump and supported someone like Kasich, but I don't know a single
Republican who even remotely considered voting for Hillary. The polls
indicate that 8% of Republicans did just that -- but the same
percentage of Democrats voted for Trump.
Actually, I'm pretty much surrounded by Republicans. My
daughter who lives with me, for instance, is a staunch
Republican, but no, I don't know any Republicans that voted
for Hillary.
There are a lot of articles on the internet, however,
indicating that establishment Republicans would have
preferred Hillary over Trump.
http://www.bing.com/search?q=establishment+republicans+against+trump+for+hillary&qs=n&form=QBLH&sp=-1&ghc=1&pq=establishment+republicans+against+trump+for+hillary&sc=0-51&sk=&cvid=EA1298CE0AB74732A2E67026AFCDF44B
In Salt Lake County, in Utah, Clinton beat Trump 41.5% to
33%, while Romeny beat Obama 58% to 38%.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salt_Lake_County,_Utah
Trump was, and to an extent still is, an unknown quantity. I voted for
Reagan in the primary. Considering the twitter and confusion during
the primaries and leading up to the election, a lot of Republicans
might have preferred Donald Duck, but when push came to shove only 8%
jumped ship. I voted for him, and so far I'm glad I did. I'm still
waiting for corporate tax reform, the wall, the fat boy to be deposed,
and Ginsburg to get tired and quit -- then all will be right with the
world. (-8
Sadly, I think Trump might, in the end, be forced to join
the establishment and continue the policies of wars for
regime change, cutting Medicare, and not paying back the SS
trust fund, and reversing himself on visas and immigration.
His ego will compel him to do as much as he can, but in the end he is
only one man. You worry too much about the establishment. As I've said
before, my father was born in a sod house on the Montana prairie - and
his son sits here in sunny California conversing with a guy in Utah in
a way they couldn't have dreamt of back then. Tomorrow morning I won't
have to stumble through the snow at 40 below hoping to be the second
person to the outhouse. Life could be worse. (-8

BTW -- Barring a Hell of a lot of inflation, the SS trust fund will
never be paid off -- at least not in our lifetime.
mg
2017-04-22 10:46:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 21 Apr 2017 23:07:40 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by mg
On Thu, 20 Apr 2017 21:36:38 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by mg
On Thu, 20 Apr 2017 13:26:23 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by mg
On Mon, 10 Apr 2017 12:25:17 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by mg
Post by arthur wouk
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2017/4/5/1650568/-By-The-End-Of-This-Republicans-Are-Going-To-Wish-Hillary-Won
Jonathan Chait has a piece in New York Magazine that may lift
your spirits. Take it for what it`s worth.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/31/politics/hillary-clinton-republican-supporters/index.html
Then who voted for Trump?
"Donald J. Trump won the presidency by riding an enormous
wave of support among white working-class voters."
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/10/upshot/why-trump-won-working-class-whites.html?_r=0
"It was Hillary Clinton’s “blue wall” – three Great Lakes
battlegrounds that Republicans had banged their heads
against for years.
But Donald Trump stormed the blue wall Tuesday, parlaying
victories in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania into the
presidency.
Trump did it on a tide of votes from rural and blue-collar
whites."
http://www.freep.com/story/news/politics/2016/11/09/how-clinton-lost-blue-wall-states-michigan-pennsylvania-wisconsin/93572020/
Do you know any Republicans? I'm a Republican, neither rural or
blue-collar. I voted for Trump. I know Republicans who were leery of
Trump and supported someone like Kasich, but I don't know a single
Republican who even remotely considered voting for Hillary. The polls
indicate that 8% of Republicans did just that -- but the same
percentage of Democrats voted for Trump.
Actually, I'm pretty much surrounded by Republicans. My
daughter who lives with me, for instance, is a staunch
Republican, but no, I don't know any Republicans that voted
for Hillary.
There are a lot of articles on the internet, however,
indicating that establishment Republicans would have
preferred Hillary over Trump.
http://www.bing.com/search?q=establishment+republicans+against+trump+for+hillary&qs=n&form=QBLH&sp=-1&ghc=1&pq=establishment+republicans+against+trump+for+hillary&sc=0-51&sk=&cvid=EA1298CE0AB74732A2E67026AFCDF44B
In Salt Lake County, in Utah, Clinton beat Trump 41.5% to
33%, while Romeny beat Obama 58% to 38%.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salt_Lake_County,_Utah
Trump was, and to an extent still is, an unknown quantity. I voted for
Reagan in the primary. Considering the twitter and confusion during
the primaries and leading up to the election, a lot of Republicans
might have preferred Donald Duck, but when push came to shove only 8%
jumped ship. I voted for him, and so far I'm glad I did. I'm still
waiting for corporate tax reform, the wall, the fat boy to be deposed,
and Ginsburg to get tired and quit -- then all will be right with the
world. (-8
Sadly, I think Trump might, in the end, be forced to join
the establishment and continue the policies of wars for
regime change, cutting Medicare, and not paying back the SS
trust fund, and reversing himself on visas and immigration.
His ego will compel him to do as much as he can, but in the end he is
only one man. You worry too much about the establishment. As I've said
before, my father was born in a sod house on the Montana prairie - and
his son sits here in sunny California conversing with a guy in Utah in
a way they couldn't have dreamt of back then. Tomorrow morning I won't
have to stumble through the snow at 40 below hoping to be the second
person to the outhouse. Life could be worse. (-8
I have it good; we have it good. I imagine that most
everyone on this newsgroup has it pretty good, compared to
our ancestors. And that's the truth. That's reality.

There's another reality and another truth, though. Times are
changing; the world is changing; politics is changing. The
world today is not the same as the world yesterday and the
world tomorrow won't be the same as the world today.

My natural curiosity and my concern for posterity makes me
want to understand how it is changing and what is causing
those changes. It's all just the simple, or that
complicated, depending on how you look at it.
Post by El Castor
BTW -- Barring a Hell of a lot of inflation, the SS trust fund will
never be paid off -- at least not in our lifetime.
Current projections indicate that the trust fund will be
depleted in 2034. I have grand children that are
approaching 40. So, they'll become eligible for SS in
approximately 2042.
rumpelstiltskin
2017-04-22 13:36:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sat, 22 Apr 2017 04:46:01 -0600, mg <***@none.nl> wrote:
<snip>
Post by mg
I have it good; we have it good. I imagine that most
everyone on this newsgroup has it pretty good, compared to
our ancestors. And that's the truth. That's reality.
There's another reality and another truth, though. Times are
changing; the world is changing; politics is changing. The
world today is not the same as the world yesterday and the
world tomorrow won't be the same as the world today.
My natural curiosity and my concern for posterity makes me
want to understand how it is changing and what is causing
those changes. It's all just the simple, or that
complicated, depending on how you look at it.
Post by El Castor
BTW -- Barring a Hell of a lot of inflation, the SS trust fund will
never be paid off -- at least not in our lifetime.
Current projections indicate that the trust fund will be
depleted in 2034. I have grand children that are
approaching 40. So, they'll become eligible for SS in
approximately 2042.
Future generations, if there are any, have more to
worry about than that. We're destroying the global
environment and driving species to extinction at an
alarming rate. The earth's resources are abundant
but not infinite. Islander commented some time
ago that the reason "primitive" cultures of Papua
New Guinea natives moved their villages frequently
is because they'd contaminated their existing
location (mostly with feces) so badly that they had
little choice. If we deplete the bounty of the whole
earth with our thoughtless depredations, there's
nowhere else to go.
wolfbat359
2017-04-22 15:05:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by rumpelstiltskin
<snip>
Post by mg
I have it good; we have it good. I imagine that most
everyone on this newsgroup has it pretty good, compared to
our ancestors. And that's the truth. That's reality.
There's another reality and another truth, though. Times are
changing; the world is changing; politics is changing. The
world today is not the same as the world yesterday and the
world tomorrow won't be the same as the world today.
My natural curiosity and my concern for posterity makes me
want to understand how it is changing and what is causing
those changes. It's all just the simple, or that
complicated, depending on how you look at it.
Post by El Castor
BTW -- Barring a Hell of a lot of inflation, the SS trust fund will
never be paid off -- at least not in our lifetime.
Current projections indicate that the trust fund will be
depleted in 2034. I have grand children that are
approaching 40. So, they'll become eligible for SS in
approximately 2042.
Future generations, if there are any, have more to
worry about than that. We're destroying the global
environment and driving species to extinction at an
alarming rate. The earth's resources are abundant
but not infinite. Islander commented some time
ago that the reason "primitive" cultures of Papua
New Guinea natives moved their villages frequently
is because they'd contaminated their existing
location (mostly with feces) so badly that they had
little choice. If we deplete the bounty of the whole
earth with our thoughtless depredations, there's
nowhere else to go.
You should have listened to Bill Maher on Why Mars - Not a planet we can go to without major problems. Not the whole piece but still good!:




I can't believe how many full episodes of this they put up!
wolfbat359
2017-04-22 15:19:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by wolfbat359
Post by rumpelstiltskin
<snip>
Post by mg
I have it good; we have it good. I imagine that most
everyone on this newsgroup has it pretty good, compared to
our ancestors. And that's the truth. That's reality.
There's another reality and another truth, though. Times are
changing; the world is changing; politics is changing. The
world today is not the same as the world yesterday and the
world tomorrow won't be the same as the world today.
My natural curiosity and my concern for posterity makes me
want to understand how it is changing and what is causing
those changes. It's all just the simple, or that
complicated, depending on how you look at it.
Post by El Castor
BTW -- Barring a Hell of a lot of inflation, the SS trust fund will
never be paid off -- at least not in our lifetime.
Current projections indicate that the trust fund will be
depleted in 2034. I have grand children that are
approaching 40. So, they'll become eligible for SS in
approximately 2042.
Future generations, if there are any, have more to
worry about than that. We're destroying the global
environment and driving species to extinction at an
alarming rate. The earth's resources are abundant
but not infinite. Islander commented some time
ago that the reason "primitive" cultures of Papua
New Guinea natives moved their villages frequently
is because they'd contaminated their existing
location (mostly with feces) so badly that they had
little choice. If we deplete the bounty of the whole
earth with our thoughtless depredations, there's
nowhere else to go.
http://youtu.be/8h9NFtOAu0c
I can't believe how many full episodes of this they put up!
Here is the whole piece:


rumpelstiltskin
2017-04-22 20:29:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sat, 22 Apr 2017 08:05:16 -0700 (PDT), wolfbat359
<snip>



Little oxygen, little water, temperatures ranging down
to less than 200° below zero Fahrenheit - no problem.

I recall an American comic reporting on doing a
performance in Siberia, that it was -70° Fahrenheit,
"Do you know what that means? It means it could
warm up by a hundred degrees, and it would still
be FREEZING!"
islander
2017-04-22 15:43:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by rumpelstiltskin
<snip>
Post by mg
I have it good; we have it good. I imagine that most
everyone on this newsgroup has it pretty good, compared to
our ancestors. And that's the truth. That's reality.
There's another reality and another truth, though. Times are
changing; the world is changing; politics is changing. The
world today is not the same as the world yesterday and the
world tomorrow won't be the same as the world today.
My natural curiosity and my concern for posterity makes me
want to understand how it is changing and what is causing
those changes. It's all just the simple, or that
complicated, depending on how you look at it.
Post by El Castor
BTW -- Barring a Hell of a lot of inflation, the SS trust fund will
never be paid off -- at least not in our lifetime.
Current projections indicate that the trust fund will be
depleted in 2034. I have grand children that are
approaching 40. So, they'll become eligible for SS in
approximately 2042.
Future generations, if there are any, have more to
worry about than that. We're destroying the global
environment and driving species to extinction at an
alarming rate. The earth's resources are abundant
but not infinite. Islander commented some time
ago that the reason "primitive" cultures of Papua
New Guinea natives moved their villages frequently
is because they'd contaminated their existing
location (mostly with feces) so badly that they had
little choice. If we deplete the bounty of the whole
earth with our thoughtless depredations, there's
nowhere else to go.
There was a rant on Bill Maher's New Rules segment of Real Time last
evening about the Trump $450B proposal to establish a colony on Mars.
Bill's objection was that we already have a planet with things like air
and water. Why would we want to spend that much money on a place that
is so hostile to human life? We should focus on saving what we already
have instead of trying to become a multi-planet species.

mg
2017-04-22 20:08:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by rumpelstiltskin
<snip>
Post by mg
I have it good; we have it good. I imagine that most
everyone on this newsgroup has it pretty good, compared to
our ancestors. And that's the truth. That's reality.
There's another reality and another truth, though. Times are
changing; the world is changing; politics is changing. The
world today is not the same as the world yesterday and the
world tomorrow won't be the same as the world today.
My natural curiosity and my concern for posterity makes me
want to understand how it is changing and what is causing
those changes. It's all just the simple, or that
complicated, depending on how you look at it.
Post by El Castor
BTW -- Barring a Hell of a lot of inflation, the SS trust fund will
never be paid off -- at least not in our lifetime.
Current projections indicate that the trust fund will be
depleted in 2034. I have grand children that are
approaching 40. So, they'll become eligible for SS in
approximately 2042.
Future generations, if there are any, have more to
worry about than that. We're destroying the global
environment and driving species to extinction at an
alarming rate. The earth's resources are abundant
but not infinite. Islander commented some time
ago that the reason "primitive" cultures of Papua
New Guinea natives moved their villages frequently
is because they'd contaminated their existing
location (mostly with feces) so badly that they had
little choice. If we deplete the bounty of the whole
earth with our thoughtless depredations, there's
nowhere else to go.
Yes, indeed. During the Bush years, when people were talking
about SS a lot, some people used to say that SS was Ponzi
scheme, which it isn't. However, population growth, and
economic growth based on population, is indeed a Ponzi
scheme. I also look at it as a new twist on the Tragedy of
the Commons, where people with a high reproduction rate act
contrary to the common good of all users of natural
resources.

Overpopulation, incidentally, is a subject that is obviously
taboo in our society. When I do a Google search, I don't get
very many hits. People don't like to talk about it. Here's a
website, though, that lists California as the most
overpopulated state as the state with the largest population
compared to the number of people its actually capable of
holding.
http://savvyroo.com/chart-1214380101203-five-most-overpopulated-states



----------------------------------------------------
“A crowded society is a restrictive society; an
overcrowded society becomes an authoritarian,
repressive and murderous society.”
-- Edward Abbey, Postcards from Ed: Dispatches
and Salvos from an American Iconoclast
El Castor
2017-04-22 21:46:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mg
Post by rumpelstiltskin
<snip>
Post by mg
I have it good; we have it good. I imagine that most
everyone on this newsgroup has it pretty good, compared to
our ancestors. And that's the truth. That's reality.
There's another reality and another truth, though. Times are
changing; the world is changing; politics is changing. The
world today is not the same as the world yesterday and the
world tomorrow won't be the same as the world today.
My natural curiosity and my concern for posterity makes me
want to understand how it is changing and what is causing
those changes. It's all just the simple, or that
complicated, depending on how you look at it.
Post by El Castor
BTW -- Barring a Hell of a lot of inflation, the SS trust fund will
never be paid off -- at least not in our lifetime.
Current projections indicate that the trust fund will be
depleted in 2034. I have grand children that are
approaching 40. So, they'll become eligible for SS in
approximately 2042.
Future generations, if there are any, have more to
worry about than that. We're destroying the global
environment and driving species to extinction at an
alarming rate. The earth's resources are abundant
but not infinite. Islander commented some time
ago that the reason "primitive" cultures of Papua
New Guinea natives moved their villages frequently
is because they'd contaminated their existing
location (mostly with feces) so badly that they had
little choice. If we deplete the bounty of the whole
earth with our thoughtless depredations, there's
nowhere else to go.
Yes, indeed. During the Bush years, when people were talking
about SS a lot, some people used to say that SS was Ponzi
scheme, which it isn't. However, population growth, and
economic growth based on population, is indeed a Ponzi
scheme. I also look at it as a new twist on the Tragedy of
the Commons, where people with a high reproduction rate act
contrary to the common good of all users of natural
resources.
Overpopulation, incidentally, is a subject that is obviously
taboo in our society. When I do a Google search, I don't get
very many hits. People don't like to talk about it. Here's a
website, though, that lists California as the most
overpopulated state as the state with the largest population
compared to the number of people its actually capable of
holding.
http://savvyroo.com/chart-1214380101203-five-most-overpopulated-states
Population growth in the United States is due to two things --
immigration and a higher fertility rate in previous generations that
has left us with a supply of women still of child bearing age that
cannot be sustained. The current fertility rate of 1.87 children per
woman is well below the replacement rate of about 2.2. If you want to
see where we are headed, look at Japan.

"Japan Needs More People
Japan’s Prime Minister Shinzo Abe has been trying hard to combat his
nation’s alarming demographic decline: promoting robots and other
productivity-enhancing technology, bringing more women into the
workforce, even opening the door a bit wider to foreigners. It’s
plain, however, that he needs to try harder still, especially when it
comes to immigration. Japanese companies already report they can’t
find people to hire, and the future isn’t likely to get better --
government researchers expect the country’s population to fall by
nearly a third by 2065, at which point nearly 40 percent will be
senior citizens. There’ll be 1.3 workers for every person over the age
of 65, compared to 2.3 in 2015."
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-04-17/japan-needs-people-and-a-cultural-revolution
mg
2017-04-23 01:23:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sat, 22 Apr 2017 14:46:13 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by mg
Post by rumpelstiltskin
<snip>
Post by mg
I have it good; we have it good. I imagine that most
everyone on this newsgroup has it pretty good, compared to
our ancestors. And that's the truth. That's reality.
There's another reality and another truth, though. Times are
changing; the world is changing; politics is changing. The
world today is not the same as the world yesterday and the
world tomorrow won't be the same as the world today.
My natural curiosity and my concern for posterity makes me
want to understand how it is changing and what is causing
those changes. It's all just the simple, or that
complicated, depending on how you look at it.
Post by El Castor
BTW -- Barring a Hell of a lot of inflation, the SS trust fund will
never be paid off -- at least not in our lifetime.
Current projections indicate that the trust fund will be
depleted in 2034. I have grand children that are
approaching 40. So, they'll become eligible for SS in
approximately 2042.
Future generations, if there are any, have more to
worry about than that. We're destroying the global
environment and driving species to extinction at an
alarming rate. The earth's resources are abundant
but not infinite. Islander commented some time
ago that the reason "primitive" cultures of Papua
New Guinea natives moved their villages frequently
is because they'd contaminated their existing
location (mostly with feces) so badly that they had
little choice. If we deplete the bounty of the whole
earth with our thoughtless depredations, there's
nowhere else to go.
Yes, indeed. During the Bush years, when people were talking
about SS a lot, some people used to say that SS was Ponzi
scheme, which it isn't. However, population growth, and
economic growth based on population, is indeed a Ponzi
scheme. I also look at it as a new twist on the Tragedy of
the Commons, where people with a high reproduction rate act
contrary to the common good of all users of natural
resources.
Overpopulation, incidentally, is a subject that is obviously
taboo in our society. When I do a Google search, I don't get
very many hits. People don't like to talk about it. Here's a
website, though, that lists California as the most
overpopulated state as the state with the largest population
compared to the number of people its actually capable of
holding.
http://savvyroo.com/chart-1214380101203-five-most-overpopulated-states
Population growth in the United States is due to two things --
immigration and a higher fertility rate in previous generations that
has left us with a supply of women still of child bearing age that
cannot be sustained. The current fertility rate of 1.87 children per
woman is well below the replacement rate of about 2.2. If you want to
see where we are headed, look at Japan.
"Japan Needs More People
Japan’s Prime Minister Shinzo Abe has been trying hard to combat his
nation’s alarming demographic decline: promoting robots and other
productivity-enhancing technology, bringing more women into the
workforce, even opening the door a bit wider to foreigners. It’s
plain, however, that he needs to try harder still, especially when it
comes to immigration. Japanese companies already report they can’t
find people to hire, and the future isn’t likely to get better --
government researchers expect the country’s population to fall by
nearly a third by 2065, at which point nearly 40 percent will be
senior citizens. There’ll be 1.3 workers for every person over the age
of 65, compared to 2.3 in 2015."
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-04-17/japan-needs-people-and-a-cultural-revolution
The top 40 most overpopulated countries are listed below.
Note that Japan is listed as number seven. Just because a
politician says that a country needs more people, that
doesn't necessarily make it true.
https://isa-aphumangeography.wikispaces.com/file/view/Overpopulation+Index.pdf

1 Singapore
2 Israel
3 Kuwait
4 Korea Republic
5 Jordan
6 United Arab Emirates
7 Japan
8 Lebanon
9 Iraq
10 Belgium
11 Italy
12 Netherlands
13 Switzerland
14 Egypt
15 Spain
16 Greece
17 United Kingdom
18 Portugal
19 Iran
20 Saudi Arabia
21 Sri Lanka
22 Albania
23 Korea DPRP
24 Qatar
25 Dominican Republic
26 Algeria
27 Azerbaijan
28 Armenia
29 China
30 Cuba
31 Germany
32 Poland
33 India
34 Bosnia & Herzegovina
35 United States of America
36 Libya
37 Czech Republic
38 Haiti
39 Pakistan
40 Turkey
41 Ireland
42 Mexico


---------------------------------------
Futurists don't consider overpopulation
one of the issues of the future. They
consider it the issue of the future.
-- Dan Brown
El Castor
2017-04-23 09:04:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mg
On Sat, 22 Apr 2017 14:46:13 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by mg
Post by rumpelstiltskin
<snip>
Post by mg
I have it good; we have it good. I imagine that most
everyone on this newsgroup has it pretty good, compared to
our ancestors. And that's the truth. That's reality.
There's another reality and another truth, though. Times are
changing; the world is changing; politics is changing. The
world today is not the same as the world yesterday and the
world tomorrow won't be the same as the world today.
My natural curiosity and my concern for posterity makes me
want to understand how it is changing and what is causing
those changes. It's all just the simple, or that
complicated, depending on how you look at it.
Post by El Castor
BTW -- Barring a Hell of a lot of inflation, the SS trust fund will
never be paid off -- at least not in our lifetime.
Current projections indicate that the trust fund will be
depleted in 2034. I have grand children that are
approaching 40. So, they'll become eligible for SS in
approximately 2042.
Future generations, if there are any, have more to
worry about than that. We're destroying the global
environment and driving species to extinction at an
alarming rate. The earth's resources are abundant
but not infinite. Islander commented some time
ago that the reason "primitive" cultures of Papua
New Guinea natives moved their villages frequently
is because they'd contaminated their existing
location (mostly with feces) so badly that they had
little choice. If we deplete the bounty of the whole
earth with our thoughtless depredations, there's
nowhere else to go.
Yes, indeed. During the Bush years, when people were talking
about SS a lot, some people used to say that SS was Ponzi
scheme, which it isn't. However, population growth, and
economic growth based on population, is indeed a Ponzi
scheme. I also look at it as a new twist on the Tragedy of
the Commons, where people with a high reproduction rate act
contrary to the common good of all users of natural
resources.
Overpopulation, incidentally, is a subject that is obviously
taboo in our society. When I do a Google search, I don't get
very many hits. People don't like to talk about it. Here's a
website, though, that lists California as the most
overpopulated state as the state with the largest population
compared to the number of people its actually capable of
holding.
http://savvyroo.com/chart-1214380101203-five-most-overpopulated-states
Population growth in the United States is due to two things --
immigration and a higher fertility rate in previous generations that
has left us with a supply of women still of child bearing age that
cannot be sustained. The current fertility rate of 1.87 children per
woman is well below the replacement rate of about 2.2. If you want to
see where we are headed, look at Japan.
"Japan Needs More People
Japan’s Prime Minister Shinzo Abe has been trying hard to combat his
nation’s alarming demographic decline: promoting robots and other
productivity-enhancing technology, bringing more women into the
workforce, even opening the door a bit wider to foreigners. It’s
plain, however, that he needs to try harder still, especially when it
comes to immigration. Japanese companies already report they can’t
find people to hire, and the future isn’t likely to get better --
government researchers expect the country’s population to fall by
nearly a third by 2065, at which point nearly 40 percent will be
senior citizens. There’ll be 1.3 workers for every person over the age
of 65, compared to 2.3 in 2015."
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-04-17/japan-needs-people-and-a-cultural-revolution
The top 40 most overpopulated countries are listed below.
Note that Japan is listed as number seven. Just because a
politician says that a country needs more people, that
doesn't necessarily make it true.
https://isa-aphumangeography.wikispaces.com/file/view/Overpopulation+Index.pdf
1 Singapore
2 Israel
3 Kuwait
4 Korea Republic
5 Jordan
6 United Arab Emirates
7 Japan
8 Lebanon
9 Iraq
10 Belgium
11 Italy
12 Netherlands
13 Switzerland
14 Egypt
15 Spain
16 Greece
17 United Kingdom
18 Portugal
19 Iran
20 Saudi Arabia
21 Sri Lanka
22 Albania
23 Korea DPRP
24 Qatar
25 Dominican Republic
26 Algeria
27 Azerbaijan
28 Armenia
29 China
30 Cuba
31 Germany
32 Poland
33 India
34 Bosnia & Herzegovina
35 United States of America
36 Libya
37 Czech Republic
38 Haiti
39 Pakistan
40 Turkey
41 Ireland
42 Mexico
---------------------------------------
Futurists don't consider overpopulation
one of the issues of the future. They
consider it the issue of the future.
-- Dan Brown
Look at the method behind the production of that table ...

"The Index assesses the extent to which a country can support
itself from its own renewable resources, by measuring per
capita consumption, or ecological footprint in global hectares
per capita, against per capita biologically productive capacity
(biocapacity) in global hectares."
https://isa-aphumangeography.wikispaces.com/file/view/Overpopulation+Index.pdf
Singapore ranks #1. Why? Singapore is a "state" that is just a city.
So a city is vastly over populated by this phony measure because there
is no farmland within it's borders? That is just BS. What fertility
rates do is look at the current population, and the number of children
produced per woman. If each woman over the course of her life is
producing fewer than 2 children (presumably half are female), then in
the future there will be fewer women producing fewer children and the
population will shrink. It doesn't matter if Singapore has one
backyard vegetable garden, or a million acres of farm land -- it's
population will not sustain itself without immigration.

That said, until the last 20 or 30 years some countries had a much
higher fertility rate and the resulting surplus of women caused the
population to swell, and that effect may still be near the peak, but
current fertility rates in the developed world are sub-replacement.
Here are the only countries above the 2.2 replacement rate -- which,
by the way, varies depending on female death rates and health care in
a particular country.

1 Niger 6.62 2016 est.
2 Burundi 6.04 2016 est.
3 Mali 5.95 2016 est.
4 Somalia 5.89 2016 est.
5 Uganda 5.80 2016 est.
6 Burkina Faso 5.79 2016 est.
7 Zambia 5.67 2016 est.
8 Malawi 5.54 2016 est.
9 Angola 5.31 2016 est.
10 Afghanistan 5.22 2016 est.
11 South Sudan 5.19 2016 est.
12 Mozambique 5.15 2016 est.
13 Nigeria 5.13 2016 est.
14 Ethiopia 5.07 2016 est.
15 Timor-Leste 4.90 2016 est.
16 Benin 4.86 2016 est.
17 Tanzania 4.83 2016 est.
18 Guinea 4.82 2016 est.
19 Sierra Leone 4.76 2016 est.
20 Cameroon 4.70 2016 est.
21 Congo, Republic of the 4.63 2016 est.
22 Liberia 4.60 2016 est.
23 Congo, Democratic Republic of the 4.53 2016 est.
24 Equatorial Guinea 4.48 2016 est.
25 Rwanda 4.46 2016 est.
26 Chad 4.45 2016 est.
27 Togo 4.43 2016 est.
28 Gabon 4.43 2016 est.
29 Sao Tome and Principe 4.40 2016 est.
30 Senegal 4.36 2016 est.
31 Central African Republic 4.36 2016 est.
32 Gaza Strip 4.30 2016 est.
33 Guinea-Bissau 4.16 2016 est.
34 Madagascar 4.12 2016 est.
35 Eritrea 4.07 2016 est.
36 Iraq 4.06 2016 est.
37 Ghana 4.03 2016 est.
38 Western Sahara 3.93 2016 est.
39 Mauritania 3.93 2016 est.
40 Yemen 3.77 2016 est.
41 Sudan 3.68 2016 est.
42 Gambia, The 3.63 2016 est.
43 Egypt 3.53 2016 est.
44 Zimbabwe 3.50 2016 est.
45 Comoros 3.47 2016 est.
46 Cote d'Ivoire 3.46 2016 est.
47 Namibia 3.36 2016 est.
48 West Bank 3.33 2016 est.
49 Solomon Islands 3.22 2016 est.
50 Jordan 3.18 2016 est.
51 Tonga 3.18 2016 est.
52 Vanuatu 3.16 2016 est.
53 Kenya 3.14 2016 est.
54 Papua New Guinea 3.10 2016 est.
55 Marshall Islands 3.09 2016 est.
56 Philippines 3.06 2016 est.
57 Tuvalu 2.98 2016 est.
58 Belize 2.90 2016 est.
59 American Samoa 2.87 2016 est.
60 Nauru 2.84 2016 est.
61 Oman 2.84 2016 est.
62 Guatemala 2.83 2016 est.
63 Haiti 2.79 2016 est.
64 Samoa 2.77 2016 est.
65 Laos 2.76 2016 est.
66 Swaziland 2.74 2016 est.
67 Algeria 2.74 2016 est.
68 Honduras 2.72 2016 est.
69 Bolivia 2.68 2016 est.
70 Lesotho 2.68 2016 est.
71 Pakistan 2.68 2016 est.
72 Tajikistan 2.67 2016 est.
73 Israel 2.66 2016 est.
74 Kyrgyzstan 2.64 2016 est.
75 Cambodia 2.56 2016 est.
76 Syria 2.55 2016 est.
77 Malaysia 2.53 2016 est.
78 India 2.45 2016 est.
79 Micronesia, Federated States of 2.45 2016 est.
80 Kuwait 2.44 2016 est.
81 Fiji 2.44 2016 est.
82 Kiribati 2.43 2016 est.
83 Faroe Islands 2.36 2016 est.
84 Venezuela 2.35 2016 est.
85 Djibouti 2.35 2016 est.
86 United Arab Emirates 2.33 2016 est.
87 Panama 2.33 2016 est.
88 Guam 2.31 2016 est.
89 South Africa 2.31 2016 est.
90 Dominican Republic 2.31 2016 est.
91 Botswana 2.30 2016 est.
92 Kazakhstan 2.28 2016 est.
93 Argentina 2.28 2016 est.
94 Cabo Verde 2.26 2016 est.
95 Mexico 2.25 2016 est.
96 Ecuador 2.22 2016 est.
97 Cook Islands 2.21 2016 est.
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2127rank.html

Guess which country at 0.82 has the lowest fertility rate in the
world. Singapore!

So what to do? When Africa and the Middle East have larger populations
than they can support, tell them to stay the Hell away, and don't
expect another ship load of free food. Even the premier liberal of
this group, Jim Chamblee, agreed on that point.

--
"The left is fundamentally reactionary. It is a reaction against capitalism and against America. The left are defined by what they are against, or more accurately who they hate."
... Robert Tracinski
wolfbat359
2017-04-23 11:46:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mg
On Sat, 22 Apr 2017 14:46:13 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by mg
Post by rumpelstiltskin
<snip>
Post by mg
I have it good; we have it good. I imagine that most
everyone on this newsgroup has it pretty good, compared to
our ancestors. And that's the truth. That's reality.
There's another reality and another truth, though. Times are
changing; the world is changing; politics is changing. The
world today is not the same as the world yesterday and the
world tomorrow won't be the same as the world today.
My natural curiosity and my concern for posterity makes me
want to understand how it is changing and what is causing
those changes. It's all just the simple, or that
complicated, depending on how you look at it.
Post by El Castor
BTW -- Barring a Hell of a lot of inflation, the SS trust fund will
never be paid off -- at least not in our lifetime.
Current projections indicate that the trust fund will be
depleted in 2034. I have grand children that are
approaching 40. So, they'll become eligible for SS in
approximately 2042.
Future generations, if there are any, have more to
worry about than that. We're destroying the global
environment and driving species to extinction at an
alarming rate. The earth's resources are abundant
but not infinite. Islander commented some time
ago that the reason "primitive" cultures of Papua
New Guinea natives moved their villages frequently
is because they'd contaminated their existing
location (mostly with feces) so badly that they had
little choice. If we deplete the bounty of the whole
earth with our thoughtless depredations, there's
nowhere else to go.
Yes, indeed. During the Bush years, when people were talking
about SS a lot, some people used to say that SS was Ponzi
scheme, which it isn't. However, population growth, and
economic growth based on population, is indeed a Ponzi
scheme. I also look at it as a new twist on the Tragedy of
the Commons, where people with a high reproduction rate act
contrary to the common good of all users of natural
resources.
Overpopulation, incidentally, is a subject that is obviously
taboo in our society. When I do a Google search, I don't get
very many hits. People don't like to talk about it. Here's a
website, though, that lists California as the most
overpopulated state as the state with the largest population
compared to the number of people its actually capable of
holding.
http://savvyroo.com/chart-1214380101203-five-most-overpopulated-states
Population growth in the United States is due to two things --
immigration and a higher fertility rate in previous generations that
has left us with a supply of women still of child bearing age that
cannot be sustained. The current fertility rate of 1.87 children per
woman is well below the replacement rate of about 2.2. If you want to
see where we are headed, look at Japan.
"Japan Needs More People
Japan’s Prime Minister Shinzo Abe has been trying hard to combat his
nation’s alarming demographic decline: promoting robots and other
productivity-enhancing technology, bringing more women into the
workforce, even opening the door a bit wider to foreigners. It’s
plain, however, that he needs to try harder still, especially when it
comes to immigration. Japanese companies already report they can’t
find people to hire, and the future isn’t likely to get better --
government researchers expect the country’s population to fall by
nearly a third by 2065, at which point nearly 40 percent will be
senior citizens. There’ll be 1.3 workers for every person over the age
of 65, compared to 2.3 in 2015."
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-04-17/japan-needs-people-and-a-cultural-revolution
The top 40 most overpopulated countries are listed below.
Note that Japan is listed as number seven. Just because a
politician says that a country needs more people, that
doesn't necessarily make it true.
https://isa-aphumangeography.wikispaces.com/file/view/Overpopulation+Index.pdf
1 Singapore
2 Israel
3 Kuwait
4 Korea Republic
5 Jordan
6 United Arab Emirates
7 Japan
8 Lebanon
9 Iraq
10 Belgium
11 Italy
12 Netherlands
13 Switzerland
14 Egypt
15 Spain
16 Greece
17 United Kingdom
18 Portugal
19 Iran
20 Saudi Arabia
21 Sri Lanka
22 Albania
23 Korea DPRP
24 Qatar
25 Dominican Republic
26 Algeria
27 Azerbaijan
28 Armenia
29 China
30 Cuba
31 Germany
32 Poland
33 India
34 Bosnia & Herzegovina
35 United States of America
36 Libya
37 Czech Republic
38 Haiti
39 Pakistan
40 Turkey
41 Ireland
42 Mexico
---------------------------------------
Futurists don't consider overpopulation
one of the issues of the future. They
consider it the issue of the future.
-- Dan Brown
Mexico beats the US?
wolfbat359
2017-04-22 22:07:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mg
Post by rumpelstiltskin
<snip>
Post by mg
I have it good; we have it good. I imagine that most
everyone on this newsgroup has it pretty good, compared to
our ancestors. And that's the truth. That's reality.
There's another reality and another truth, though. Times are
changing; the world is changing; politics is changing. The
world today is not the same as the world yesterday and the
world tomorrow won't be the same as the world today.
My natural curiosity and my concern for posterity makes me
want to understand how it is changing and what is causing
those changes. It's all just the simple, or that
complicated, depending on how you look at it.
Post by El Castor
BTW -- Barring a Hell of a lot of inflation, the SS trust fund will
never be paid off -- at least not in our lifetime.
Current projections indicate that the trust fund will be
depleted in 2034. I have grand children that are
approaching 40. So, they'll become eligible for SS in
approximately 2042.
Future generations, if there are any, have more to
worry about than that. We're destroying the global
environment and driving species to extinction at an
alarming rate. The earth's resources are abundant
but not infinite. Islander commented some time
ago that the reason "primitive" cultures of Papua
New Guinea natives moved their villages frequently
is because they'd contaminated their existing
location (mostly with feces) so badly that they had
little choice. If we deplete the bounty of the whole
earth with our thoughtless depredations, there's
nowhere else to go.
Yes, indeed. During the Bush years, when people were talking
about SS a lot, some people used to say that SS was Ponzi
scheme, which it isn't. However, population growth, and
economic growth based on population, is indeed a Ponzi
scheme. I also look at it as a new twist on the Tragedy of
the Commons, where people with a high reproduction rate act
contrary to the common good of all users of natural
resources.
Overpopulation, incidentally, is a subject that is obviously
taboo in our society. When I do a Google search, I don't get
very many hits. People don't like to talk about it. Here's a
website, though, that lists California as the most
overpopulated state as the state with the largest population
compared to the number of people its actually capable of
holding.
http://savvyroo.com/chart-1214380101203-five-most-overpopulated-states
----------------------------------------------------
“A crowded society is a restrictive society; an
overcrowded society becomes an authoritarian,
repressive and murderous society.”
-- Edward Abbey, Postcards from Ed: Dispatches
and Salvos from an American Iconoclast
You would not believe the Over building that is going on in Colorado!
mg
2017-04-23 00:45:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sat, 22 Apr 2017 15:07:21 -0700 (PDT), wolfbat359
Post by wolfbat359
Post by mg
Post by rumpelstiltskin
<snip>
Post by mg
I have it good; we have it good. I imagine that most
everyone on this newsgroup has it pretty good, compared to
our ancestors. And that's the truth. That's reality.
There's another reality and another truth, though. Times are
changing; the world is changing; politics is changing. The
world today is not the same as the world yesterday and the
world tomorrow won't be the same as the world today.
My natural curiosity and my concern for posterity makes me
want to understand how it is changing and what is causing
those changes. It's all just the simple, or that
complicated, depending on how you look at it.
Post by El Castor
BTW -- Barring a Hell of a lot of inflation, the SS trust fund will
never be paid off -- at least not in our lifetime.
Current projections indicate that the trust fund will be
depleted in 2034. I have grand children that are
approaching 40. So, they'll become eligible for SS in
approximately 2042.
Future generations, if there are any, have more to
worry about than that. We're destroying the global
environment and driving species to extinction at an
alarming rate. The earth's resources are abundant
but not infinite. Islander commented some time
ago that the reason "primitive" cultures of Papua
New Guinea natives moved their villages frequently
is because they'd contaminated their existing
location (mostly with feces) so badly that they had
little choice. If we deplete the bounty of the whole
earth with our thoughtless depredations, there's
nowhere else to go.
Yes, indeed. During the Bush years, when people were talking
about SS a lot, some people used to say that SS was Ponzi
scheme, which it isn't. However, population growth, and
economic growth based on population, is indeed a Ponzi
scheme. I also look at it as a new twist on the Tragedy of
the Commons, where people with a high reproduction rate act
contrary to the common good of all users of natural
resources.
Overpopulation, incidentally, is a subject that is obviously
taboo in our society. When I do a Google search, I don't get
very many hits. People don't like to talk about it. Here's a
website, though, that lists California as the most
overpopulated state as the state with the largest population
compared to the number of people its actually capable of
holding.
http://savvyroo.com/chart-1214380101203-five-most-overpopulated-states
----------------------------------------------------
“A crowded society is a restrictive society; an
overcrowded society becomes an authoritarian,
repressive and murderous society.”
-- Edward Abbey, Postcards from Ed: Dispatches
and Salvos from an American Iconoclast
You would not believe the Over building that is going on in Colorado!
Here in Utah, we had a large influx of people from
California, including Hispanics, in 1999-2002 and maybe
we're still getting them, I dunno. It looks like the same
thing is happening in Colorado.
https://durangoherald.com/articles/118903-texas-california-sending-many-new-residents-to-colorado
rumpelstiltskin
2017-04-22 22:16:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sat, 22 Apr 2017 14:08:36 -0600, mg <***@none.nl> wrote:
<snip>
Post by mg
Overpopulation, incidentally, is a subject that is obviously
taboo in our society. When I do a Google search, I don't get
very many hits. People don't like to talk about it. Here's a
website, though, that lists California as the most
overpopulated state as the state with the largest population
compared to the number of people its actually capable of
holding.
http://savvyroo.com/chart-1214380101203-five-most-overpopulated-states
That of course is because everybody who
can't stand the society where they are living
wants to live in California instead, and who
can blame them?
mg
2017-04-23 00:49:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by rumpelstiltskin
<snip>
Post by mg
Overpopulation, incidentally, is a subject that is obviously
taboo in our society. When I do a Google search, I don't get
very many hits. People don't like to talk about it. Here's a
website, though, that lists California as the most
overpopulated state as the state with the largest population
compared to the number of people its actually capable of
holding.
http://savvyroo.com/chart-1214380101203-five-most-overpopulated-states
That of course is because everybody who
can't stand the society where they are living
wants to live in California instead, and who
can blame them?
I would have liked to have stayed in California when I was
there in the 60s, but couldn't afford it. At the time, my
downtown parking bill and my cleaning bill was almost as
much as what I was making. :-)
rumpelstiltskin
2017-04-23 15:32:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mg
Post by rumpelstiltskin
<snip>
Post by mg
Overpopulation, incidentally, is a subject that is obviously
taboo in our society. When I do a Google search, I don't get
very many hits. People don't like to talk about it. Here's a
website, though, that lists California as the most
overpopulated state as the state with the largest population
compared to the number of people its actually capable of
holding.
http://savvyroo.com/chart-1214380101203-five-most-overpopulated-states
That of course is because everybody who
can't stand the society where they are living
wants to live in California instead, and who
can blame them?
I would have liked to have stayed in California when I was
there in the 60s, but couldn't afford it. At the time, my
downtown parking bill and my cleaning bill was almost as
much as what I was making. :-)
That is why people are leaving: they can't
afford it. There's a realtor's place near my
flat, with pictures of nice but not opulent
properties in the windows. It's unusual for
anything to be advertised for less than a
million dollars. If I wanted to buy a house,
I could move to the boonies east of San
Jose for a third or less of the price, but I
wouldn't want to live there.

Rents and real-estate prices are going
up in San Francisco largely because of the
influx of dot-commers. They even have
their own "Google Busses" to take them
back and forth to Silicon Valley where
they work. Their workplaces are not in
San Francisco because it would be too
expensive and the city wouldn't allow
it anyway, but they want to live in San
Francisco and I certainly can't blame
them for that. The city was always
expensive and the influx of people with
great jobs who are able and willing to
pay enormous rent is making things
more difficult for people who already
live here, though.

The new apartment buildings being
built from the dot-commers don't have
any San-Francisco personaity at all.
Lots of people mention that: "Another
box going up."
http://tinyurl.com/lk4poo9

me
2017-04-20 08:48:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Americans are going to resist cuts in free legislated stuff. But triage is unavailable no matter who is elected.
wolfbat359
2017-04-20 10:05:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by me
Americans are going to resist cuts in free legislated stuff. But triage is unavailable no matter who is elected.
Not for the rich!
me
2017-04-20 11:13:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
This is why wealth is preferable and poverty to be avoided.
me
2017-04-20 11:22:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Envy is not a virtue.
Loading...