Yes, I "twist" what someone says by quoting their own exact words. What a sad, clownish post. You should take up the bet on just the deportation of millions of American citizens. What utter nonsense.
I never said anything about destroying highways - that's a bold faced lie and you know it. You just can't debate honestly. You are really way too upset that I wouldn't bet you. And I wouldn't bet you the sun will rise tomorrow - and your conclusion is that I am not sure the sun will rise.
Well, I will be damned, you learned something and now you understand what I was saying....good for you.... DD
You said, "End of education, of any kind of environmental control, bye bye medicare, medicaid, and social security. Bye bye Interstate highway system, NOAA, and pretty much most of what the federal gov't does. Millions of US citizens deported." Those aren't my words, they are yours. You can pretend you didn't say them, but I just quoted your own post. I always debate honestly. You don't want to stand behind your own words. I don't blame you, they were r****ded, which is why I offered the bet. I'm not upset at all. The point of offering the bet wasn't to get you to give me money, it was to prove you knew your statement was a pile of horseshit and that you wouldn't put your money where your mouth (typing fingers, whatever) is. The whole, 'I just don't bet on the Internet' thing is a deflection. I would never offer that side of the bet. It would be stupid.
Village idiot, you said NOTHING about illegal immigration which is the problem AND you don't think it's a problem. Nope. You said it was, "a talking point".
The end of the "interstate highway system" does not mean destroying the highways. How do you make that leap? I pulled all of what I said from Project 2025 - ending Federal grants for highways is what funds a big chunk of the interstate system. Education the same. I didn't mean they would ban education. You know better. But it's much better to radicalize what I am saying so you can attack it, which is what you are doing here and dishonest.
The next U.S. president will inherit a booming economy The ooming, yet stable, economy will be an opportunity for the next president to actually focus on the policies on which they campaigned, By contrast, both former President Barack Obama and Biden took office during a time when “stabilizing the economy would have to come before any of their normal governing priorities,” . “What they got to do was put out the recessionary fire rather than pursue their programs.” Obama inherited a bankrupt ecinomy from Bus 43, with huge job losses, Biden inherited an economy in partial-shut down mode, with huge job losses his predessor lost 2 million job in his 4 years in office, and started a global trade war, creating supply chain bottleneck that planted the seeds for inflation
There is a reason birth rates are dropping. Our system is broken on so many levels and it turns out when men and women are in control of their reproductive systems in a late stage capitalist world, they don't won't to bring 2.2 new kids into the world. It's not exactly a dystopia, more of a malaise of meh. Bringing in immigrants will not solve the problem. Their generation of kids will feel the same way. Low birth rates isn't a problem, it's a symptom. Immigration isn't a solution, it's a band-aide. The problem is late stage capitalism kinda sucks and we need to figure that out first. The "we need more people" line of thinking bothers me to no end, because it's like pondering more ways to sell more buggy whips while taking the bus to work.
I'm bullish on adapting to a shrinking population. As you allude to, the burden on the earth is eased. Our economies are built on the assumption of secular growth, but I think that can change with the times. Over roughly the last century and a half, GDP per capita (in the US and the world) has grown 10-fold with industrialization. We should, very roughly, be able to support an aged population that is ten times the size of what we supported 150 years ago. And our pace of innovation hasn't slowed. We have robots replacing workers and we're on the cusp of an AI revolution. The problem I foresee is a growing population of able-bodied and sharp-minded young workers who can't find a way to meaningfully contribute value to an economy run by computers and machines. In the interim and transition, immigration might be the band-aid, but we don't need to 'solve' the shrinking population economic problem. Innovation and productivity solves it. And it might even be less painful with incrementally fewer disgruntled people who will be displaced.
Birthrates are important and this subject is not new. Its been around for centuries. Additionally, birthrates in the US have been cyclical. During the 1920 and 1930's, birthrates were lower and the age women were having their first child are right about the same as we are now. We are not living in an exceptional time. Countries who have higher birthrates tend to do better over time vs countries who have shrinking population. India's population has had a massive spike and it should be no surprise Indians are commonly found in high levels of global governments and companies. Its not a binary discussion. It depends if someone is more concerned about their countries longevity and success vs the species as a whole. We have technology to support much larger populations, however they must be productive and not wasteful. IMO, the bigger issue is the global population is not very productive and the vast majority of productivity comes from a much smaller populace. An idle human is a waste and often more detrimental to the greater good.
