US US Politics General - Discussion of President Biden and other politicians

Status
Not open for further replies.
BidenGIF.gif
 
Last edited:
Birth rate collapse in South America is a fascinating subject. I don't have the report on me right now, but I remember that a graph showed in 30 years between 1990-2020, which tracked the decline, showed that Asia experienced a 41% birthrate decline, while South America experienced something like 39% (don't quote me on that number but I remember those two were fairly close on the graph, enough that it surprised me)

Exactly why is the mystery, but one of the big factors is that young mothers under 25 have basically vanished as a cohort. A lot of developing nations could in a way cheese their fertility rates through irresponsible young people, but by now birth control has effectively removed that group. Even in what you would assume a more family orientated Catholic region we see widespread birth control usage. Coupling that with your aforementioned feminism, the women wanting to wait longer bares out in the data.

There is perhaps a point to be argued here among pro-natalists, as while you would ideally want each family to be ready and the children to have the best their parents can offer, irresponsible sex is an easy way to juice the numbers, and you can even make the argument that perhaps some parents who would be great parents but would never feel ready or want to might have profoundly different experiences when a kid suddenly appears to force unexpected choices. The point here is the clash between every child should be planned for and wanted so you can give it the best, versus analysis paralysis means that you have children later, but might have been able to support and handle more if you'd started earlier and had to adapt on the fly.

There's a lot of truth in this. We do have additional pressures in the modern West in that no-skill jobs, such as entering the factory workforce at age 18, do not exist or do not pay enough. Wages and salaries in general are not enough these days with the current expectations people have been conditioned to have.

However, as someone that does happen to have children the pressure and feeling of "not being ready" was very real and pushed on me by everyone. Even my own parents. Hindsight being 20/20 I know for 100% fact I could have had kids earlier then I did at 30 and I would have survived. One of the things I wish I did as part of the coulda, shoulda, woulda files.

Young and irresponsible is definitely less of an issue because we have now spent 3 generations pounding it into the heads of our youth to always use contraceptives, always abort, always. But never to actually even consider responsibility for fucking around and that living a life of hedonism is what you need to preserve rather than what you should be avoiding. People also have far grander expectations of what a normal life is.

Most boomer parents lived in a 2 bedroom/1 bathroom house on average and houses were way smaller in general. Sharing a room with your brother(s) or whatever was the norm. This shifted during and by the 80s you needed a 3 bedroom/2 bathroom house just for yourself and two kids because everyone needs their own space! My grandfather was an attorney who made decent money. Nonetheless my father spent his entire childhood into graduating from highschool sharing a room and bunkbed with his younger brother.

All of these exist to create more and more pressure to wait until the time is right. Leading to having children far later in life when having kids in your 20s and having them out of the house by your 40s is really the most ideal you could ask for.
 
I hope Trump demolishes Kameltoe so bad in the debate, that her stuttering will make Biden look like he was Stephen Fry and she'll get so mad that she'll actually throw hands on stage before Trump knows her the fuck out.
Better she actually tries to go after Trump, and forces the secret service to tackle her ass to the ground on national television. She wants to call herself black, well why not live up to the stereotype of the violent black felon always getting arrested?
 
I hope Trump demolishes Kameltoe so bad in the debate, that her stuttering will make Biden look like he was Stephen Fry and she'll get so mad that she'll actually throw hands on stage before Trump knows her the fuck out.
Nah she won’t throw hands, she’s a woman. Instead she’ll nag him to death on stage.
 
Has anyone studied this in depth to determine to what extent societal urbanization has had on fertility rates?

Urbanization and Fertility

There are very few exemptions of this rule

Also not just cities but urban density is also a greater indicator of fertility decline. One of the main issues that east asia has their urban planning is literally stack as many people per square kilometer and this is why you bellow zero fertility.

Here is urban density and fertility.


More Crowding, Fewer Babies: The Effects of Housing Density on Fertility

Area density does have some negative relationship to fertility. In the least dense parts of the U.S., fertility rates in 2006-2022 were 1.85-1.95 children per woman, after controlling for background traits for women. In the most dense areas, fertility rates were 1.65-1.85

But other measures of density are even more important. Unit crowding, for example (that is: people per bedroom), is very important. Women in less-crowded units had TFRs of 2-2.1, but women in more crowded units have TFRs of 1.55-1.8. So, there’s a bigger difference in fertility between women in “crowded vs. not-crowded” units than between women in “more dense vs. less dense” areas
 
Wages and salaries in general are not enough these days with the current expectations people have been conditioned to have

A total of 134.9 million households — roughly 77% of all U.S. households — cannot afford this median-priced new home based on a mortgage rate of 6.5%

NAHB has updated its housing affordability graph for 2024, and the latest data show that 66.6 million households, 49% out of a total of 134.9 million, are unable to afford a $250,000 home


No house no family simple as
 
I fully support investing all of your time and money into your children. But we also push heavily that children simply eat up your hard earned dollars. Which they do yes.

This contrasts heavily with the Influencer Age and retard shit prioritizing endless travel and whatever else. So women end up using their prime years making powerpoints and TPS reports rather than investing their time and energy in creating a family. Meanwhile we have adolescence pushing into our late 20's now on top of that so nobody takes a step back and comes to the conclusion the average person does about things like travel.

Yes, travel is fun but at the end of the day you are spending thousands of dollars to go to the ends of the earth to sit around at restaurants, drink shitty beer and cheap drinks, and sit on beaches you could have done for far cheaper without leaving the USA to the same effect. There are always some things worth traveling to I am not saying that. But making it your top priority and feeling like you're missing out if you don't have the Influencer Life is brain poison.

A total of 134.9 million households — roughly 77% of all U.S. households — cannot afford this median-priced new home based on a mortgage rate of 6.5%

NAHB has updated its housing affordability graph for 2024, and the latest data show that 66.6 million households, 49% out of a total of 134.9 million, are unable to afford a $250,000 home


No house no family simple as
Agreed. What I mean is that the affordable house of the Boomer generation was usually less than 1000 SQFT across the United States. Nowadays the "small starter home" is closer to 1500 SQFT. My first house was built in 2006 and I paid $180k for it in the 2010's (Texas). This house was just a little under 1500 and is considered small or starter by today's standards. A simple 3 Bed/2 Br on 3/4 of an acre in Central Texas. Nothing fancy, nothing special.

You are starting to see it now but the smaller more affordable house that reflects the sizes of the previous generation are popping up to meet this need. It's something that Chicago really got right in the 20th century.

 
Last edited:
they didn't have sex ed in your school? imagine never learning about periods. judging by the textbooks i think everyone under 50 learned about it. same thing with MLK and slavery, thats what boomers don't realize because i guess school was just daycare but health class was all about periods. I

Periods, yes.

Did you ever hear the words "luteal phase" in your sex ed class? We sure didn't. Did you ever talk about ovulation pain, or the spikes of sexual desire around ovulation, or the idea that if the luteal phase is too short you're going to have a hard time getting pregnant, or that long cycles mean your ovulation is coming late, not that your luteal phase is super long?

I'm going to guess none of this came up. The idea that the cycle is "Halfway through you ovulate, at the beginning/end your period comes," that's taught. The other stuff, nah. And it's all taught in context of "this is how you get a period," not "this is how you get a baby."

I say this not only as someone who of course had sex ed classes, but whose relative taught sex ed for years (so I've gotten to see the materials). If you can find me any sets of materials that include any info about these issues, show me! Even the ultra-lib "Our Whole Lives" (OWL) curriculum promoted as super duper educational by the entire leftist apparatus completely shies away from any discussion of luteal phases or their impact on fertile windows.
 
You are starting to see it now but the smaller more affordable house that reflects the sizes of the previous generation are popping up to meet this need. It's something that Chicago really got right in the 20th century.
It is something of a manufactured choice, though. We could have larger houses, better houses, if mass immigration wasn't used to push up house prices and rents and to suppress wages. Maybe expectations have gotten a little crazy but doesn't mean they shouldn't be higher than they were in the 1950s. Hell, most people would be happy if they merely matched the 1950s which they no longer do.
 
Since it was asked--why do conservatives want to ban abortion? (sorry I couldn't quote you):

Life begins at conception. The only reason that changed was to make abortion more palatable, and changing the definition of life was brought to us by the same institutions now saying that men are women, women are men, and it's okay to permanently sterilize and damage children. If your pro life and try to protect the unborn, your treated like a lunatic or religious zealot, arrested for praying across from a clinic, or sent to prison at 72 years old, but how nice of them to let you take your walker with you. Then there's the slippery slope everyone likes to make fun of. Abortion devalues an unborn life. If that's okay, then those annoying living people who take up resources--disabled, mentally challenged, old people, those who don't agree with the collective--can be gotten rid of too. Isn't MAID now the number one cause of death in Canada? (If I'm wrong about that please correct me).

But there's good news for abortion advocates--they've been so successful brainwashing and punishing dissent that even the church, which has been the primary source of pro-life, has bent the knee. Many Catholics and Protestants (as been pointed out above) now believe killing babies isn't that big of a deal anymore.

As a pro-lifer, the DNC's obsession with baby killing was horrifying, and having Planned Parenthood giving abortions and vasectomies on the fly broke my heart. I can't imagine there wouldn't be some complications since those procedures were done out of a big RV/bus. And what about the after care? Or the possibility of the vasectomy not working? That might be by design so they can have more customers. Because it's not about the baby, mother, or father. It's all about the money and the cult.
 
Since it was asked--why do conservatives want to ban abortion? (sorry I couldn't quote you):

Life begins at conception. The only reason that changed was to make abortion more palatable, and changing the definition of life was brought to us by the same institutions now saying that men are women, women are men, and it's okay to permanently sterilize and damage children. If your pro life and try to protect the unborn, your treated like a lunatic or religious zealot, arrested for praying across from a clinic, or sent to prison at 72 years old, but how nice of them to let you take your walker with you. Then there's the slippery slope everyone likes to make fun of. Abortion devalues an unborn life. If that's okay, then those annoying living people who take up resources--disabled, mentally challenged, old people, those who don't agree with the collective--can be gotten rid of too. Isn't MAID now the number one cause of death in Canada? (If I'm wrong about that please correct me).

But there's good news for abortion advocates--they've been so successful brainwashing and punishing dissent that even the church, which has been the primary source of pro-life, has bent the knee. Many Catholics and Protestants (as been pointed out above) now believe killing babies isn't that big of a deal anymore.

As a pro-lifer, the DNC's obsession with baby killing was horrifying, and having Planned Parenthood giving abortions and vasectomies on the fly broke my heart. I can't imagine there wouldn't be some complications since those procedures were done out of a big RV/bus. And what about the after care? Or the possibility of the vasectomy not working? That might be by design so they can have more customers. Because it's not about the baby, mother, or father. It's all about the money and the cult.
Religious reasons partially. There are also long standing rules against it due to encouraging women promiscuity and bad behavior. There is a model that almost all stable societies follow and women going that causes societal collapse. (Look at Rome and how the "barbarian" cultures had a more stable relationship with its sexes, see the echoes with the west and Islam)

For a practical reason birth rate collapse kills civilizations.
 
There are also long standing rules against it due to encouraging women promiscuity and bad behavior. There is a model that almost all stable societies follow and women going that causes societal collapse
Not saying that you don't think this, but men also have to promote that model and engage with it. It takes both sexes following traditional sexual and familial conduct in order to keep society and civilization running and thriving. And I'm not ignoring the rhetoric of women shouting that it's their bodies and men don't have a say. Men have as much of a say as women do. Conceiving life is a 50/50 activity.

Back on politics--while I hope Walz's brother decides to spill more tea or even endorse Trump, I'd understand if he didn't, considering it's not just him but his family that's at risk. What garbage humans Walz et. al. are for not wanting to protect his relatives, even if he's at odds with them.
 
Back on politics--while I hope Walz's brother decides to spill more tea or even endorse Trump, I'd understand if he didn't, considering it's not just him but his family that's at risk. What garbage humans Walz et. al. are for not wanting to protect his relatives, even if he's at odds with them.
Its always the democrats that either put their family in harms way or are willing to cast them aside for some ridiculous cause, or hell, even keep them at an arms length simply because of differences. Malik and now Walz's brother. Are there any other notable democrats that have estranged relatives that hate their career?
 
Lmao, the apartment building is in Denver. You think any jury of progies is gonna let some "murderer" of our sacred brown immigrants off the hook?
It's not the UK (yet) and in this political climate, they absolutely would as long as it is in self-defence. Maybe I'm too optimistic but if push comes to shove, I'd be more afraid of the gangs than the judges.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back