....how did you see a stat about men murdering their wives and decide that feminism is to blame?
Because divorce dynamics...
Cherrypicked study is irrelevant and cherrypicked.
How is it cherrypicked?
Disgusting.
You picked the one most favoring your position out of friggin not so right wing wikipedia's selection.
Yes you are.
Have you heard of the developed countries' universal fertility crisis or is that missing from your news feed for some strange reason?
Big words coming from someone who supports immigration policy transforming it into one anyway.
I hope you realize how dangerous it is to restrict yourself to sources of data that are ideologically aligned with you? Science has no biases, it's just what it is.
Says the fellow that's trying to victim blame women who got murdered by their husbands.
Who hasn't? I, along with my fellows, believe that immigration is a safer option to raising population. Milton Friedman has already laid out how beneficial illegal immigration is to host countries.
Once again, read up on Milton Friedman. And yes, as someone who has sisters, nieces, and a mother, I do support the protection and fair rights of women.
Science has no biases, but shitty leftist scientists do, and boy there are many of those these days.
Victim blame my ass, keep the leftist attack terms to yourself and read what i quoted again, it's well explained.
Are you playing tactical libertarian?
www.adamsmith.org
How did most of the world in the past not have an eternal recession before feminism and mass immigration? In fact most of the countries that got rich, got rich before that.
So no rights that men don't have, so no feminism, no affirmative action, no women's rights, only citizen's rights. Otherwise you are a feminist, and so on, a leftist useful idiot.
Yes, and leave them feminism to.
That's what we need to target. As on most things, I have a nuanced view of the welfare state. I want to see it destroyed.
Glad to see we agree.
So do you have a realistic way to get a majority of voters in the typical western country willing to see half of "asylum seekers" starve in front of their tent cities to keep them in line and the more useful rest working yet behaving themselves (and young leftists too) away from crime and rioting in protest of that, presumably by threat of extreme and immediate violence by the police, or is it just a pie in the sky to distract us?
If you want to see how growing is not something that makes a society rich or nice to live in, i'll point you to Bangladesh, India and Pakistan.
Likewise.
But they won't starve. Immigrants, at present, are duly joining the workforce and are integral to the economies of several states. They demand less than the Unions.
All three are much richer than they once were BECAUSE of growth, so I don't see what you're even trying to accomplish here.
On the contrary, they demand free housing, which even unions don't, and you know how expensive housing is now.
Again, even more pie in the sky and things to do in long term. Meanwhile the Friedman plan which you throw around specifically requires getting rid of welfare state first, and then having the migrants come and be minimally compensated for profit of local businesses.
They are much richer because of growth per capita, not growth in population. There are still countries with tiny population that are very nice to live in just because they have high GDP per capita. They are also countries that had insane population growth and are even more miserable than before.
Degrowth is a green thing, fuck that. We should grow in machines, not in poor menial labor, even China is done with that and moves it to their de facto colonies in third world, and we don't want to be dumber than China or one of its colonies.
People who are willing to tolerate infinite migrants for bullshit about population growth being the ultimate goal to be pursued at any cost are the same as "no borders, no nations, no deportations" true believer internationalist leftists, who are even less able to run a country than Stalin, who actually did run one, however shitty.
... you do realize that it was possible to get a divorce before the "no fault" divorce thing, right?
Ironic since it was literally invented by a wife beater of a senator whose wife was suing for divorce on the grounds of wife beatingIncidentally, no fault divorce caused a slight increase in man-on-woman homicides, IIRC: Turns out that if your wife is a cheating whore and you know she's going to steal basically half your shit for being a whore as a golden parachute, putting a 9mm in her head becomes an option to some people, especially ex-cops.
That's not the US, that's France.
Once again, what's your point? Are you seriously trying to imply economic growth isn't a good and desirable thing?
If you're American, it does and always did. The country is built on immigration, and you wouldn't even be here if the anti-immigrant voices of older days were given more weight.
TIL outsourcing to save money and avoid Unions is leftist.
Don't worry about that. At present, immigrants are involved in menial jobs in the agricultural sector, as well as menial laborers.
Bro, nobody gets fucked over in trade. You only get as much as your goods are worth. At present, the US gets lots of cheap lower level manufactured goods thanks to trade with poorer nations, while getting to sell higher value manufactured goods back to them. All fair and above board, and completely voluntary on both sides.
And now we are strawmanning. You basically have the same ideals as Stalin, in that you want a controlled economy where all property is traded according to the diktats of a centralized bureaucracy, and all movement is strictly controlled. You want to make abortion illegal, to persecute homosexuals, to make divorce as difficult as humanely possible, to push women into domestic roles.
You have a near worshipful level of regard for Friedman, and that is where the disconnect comes in between your view and the view of much of the modern Right.
It makes everyone richer. A higher tide lifts all boats. That's the entire point of free trade: that people who can make goods for cheaper should get to do so, because it will benefit consumers.
Yes, because at that point they're just Communists and should stop pretending to be conservatives. Leave that class warfare rhetoric to the losers of the Cold War.
Do you even track recent news? You think it's different in US?
nypost.com
Economic development is good. Number scams that technically are growth but not in a normal economic sense are not good. Go yell at the greens not the immigration control advocates.
It was called age of colonialism, not age of immigration you victim of leftist education.
It's unpatriotic and in the end doesn't solve the problem of leftists, just escapes from it leaving the country to them.
They won't for long, and you will pay for helping them not do that.
www.edweek.org
China.
No, i never said i want that. If you think wanting to have borders stop movement of random people from all over the world is stalinism , i recommend a psychiatrist.
Nah, that's stereotypical CNN watcher vision of traditional conservatism, which i don't even support, but your CNN rotten brain mistakes my views for just for touching the immigration controversy.
That's not conservatism, hate to break it to you bro, by that description you are a left-liberal internationalist, you are lying to yourself and others by claiming to be a conservative, nevermind a real one.
Not wanting free trade with countries that do not return the favor is having a brain, not communism. It's something actual communist countries do to our idiot leadership in fact.
In an ideal world, yes; in reality, not really.
Unions existed because of corpo abuses and things like Upton Sinclairs 'The Jungle' exposing the Gilded Age for what it was.
So you are one of those who think Rooseveltian policies are just 'commie' policies, and that anything but 'Friedman approved free trade' is 'becoming Stalin'.
Both were good, both are admirable, and both are examples the GOP should look to more than Reagan.
...you realize I am talking about the 19th century waves of immigration, right? The Irishmen, the Germans, the Italians, the Jews etc etc?
Oh, that squatter guy? He's getting arrested.
And what does this mean? Do you want growth or do you not want growth?
China.
....what are you conserving, then, if not the rights of the citizenry to liberty and property?
There we agree. The rules must be reciprocal. China must be made to open up further.
And that will have the effect of making the US weaker in the same way the Qing Dynasty was. It will deprive the consumer of cheap electronics, of cheap lower value goods, of workers to reap the crops, and of IT workers to run the services we have grown used to.
Unions existed for the same reason gangs did. The working classes realized that they can get money with violence, without actually doing the work to earn it.
Proudly so.