Bonam

1) And Bangladesh has double the population of Germany with less than half the land area. Should we all strive to be Bangladesh? And no, I won't spare the urban sprawl "nonsense". Take a look at how the world looks like: In the developed world, Canada is one of the few places where you can get away from the lights. In densely populated countries, you have a sea of humans, with islands of protected parks or wild areas. In Canada, we have a pristine natural ecosystem with islands of human civilization. That is worth preserving, rather than blithely eradicating in some social-economic experiment. 2) Why are you comparing the population of Canada to that of the US? And good luck predicting anything in 2100. There is only one thing that can be predicted about 2100: that every prediction someone makes today will almost certainly be wrong. What could you have predicted in 1916 about the year 2000?

In the last 30 years (that is, counting from 1986 to today), the overwhelming driver of worldwide growth has been the computer/internet revolution. All other factors pale to complete insignificance in comparison.

The point is that, contrary to your claims, there are other options to consider besides population growth to fuel a functioning economy. Japan is but one example, and there is no reason to assume its debt is related to a lack of immigration. Many nations will be grappling with the problem of a stagnant or declining population in the years to come, and each will find their own solutions. The world's population is going to reach a plateau, but the world will not end when it does. Instead of vainly scrambling to scoop up people, depriving developing nations of their few most promising individuals, and tripping over ourselves to bulldoze Canada's pristine wilderness to make room for more urban sprawl, we should be looking to become the leaders in developing the economy of the future which will prosper with a stable population. There is room for some immigration in Canada, and I support and believe in the ability of people to be able to move around the world (as I myself have done several times) and not be locked in their country of birth, but there is no reason to continue apace the current breakneck rate of immigration to Canada, let alone raise it even higher.

What the graph clearly tells me is that Japan's model works in delivering economic growth without population growth. If there is a modest difference in growth rate as compared to Canada, a modestly lower growth rate is acceptable, and something all of the world is tending towards. The point is that the hysterical yammering we hear from some that if we decrease immigration the economy will collapse has no basis in fact. It's nothing more than a talking point repeated so often that people have come to believe it, but which has no real evidence behind it.

The guy in those videos has the most annoying voice ever.

"Gender identity" has existed for a couple decades (since social justice people invented it) and you talk about the "dawn of time"? In the opinion of who is Hillary "out of place"? Not once did I see any statement from anyone with any mainstream relevance attacking Hillary for running for president because she is a woman. Not once, and that's out of a whole lot of whacky idiocy that got said this election. People want to find their bogeyman of racism and sexism around every corner, but it is in fact only around a distinct few corners, not every one. The very same pervasive and often (though not always) baseless accusations of racism and sexism are what caused the backlash that won Trump the election. Doubling down on the same rhetoric will only strengthen Trump's support by illustrating how out of touch liberals really are.

Having predicted a Trump victory early is hardly a sign of prescience. He was one of 2 candidates for president. It's like all the people that predict the market will go up or that the market will go down. When it does, they claim that they had special insight. But really, when you have many people predicting something that only has a finite set of outcomes, some of them are bound to get it right. In fact, there are people on this very forum who predicted a Trump win, long before July... 20 such predictions from January in fact, in this very thread. Plenty of people besides Moore pointed to the alienation of the rural working class from the coastal city dwellers, as well as many of the reasons for said alienation.

I don't know but the way the system is set up it could most certainly happen.

Why are you latched onto the "popular vote". Everyone knows exactly how the system works. Just like in Canada, it's not pure popular vote that matters, and for good reason.

Imagine if Canada's prime minister was selected based on who won various regional votes rather than a nationwide popular vote. Oh wait... All the complaints about the electoral college are absurd. Every side knows the rules of the game going in. Without the EC, why would anyone bother campaigning outside (or addressing the issues of) anything but the biggest population centers? As for "voter suppression"... in which state do you think "voter suppression" was decisive to the outcome?

Won't this be the first time in quite a while that the Republican party will control the White House, Senate, House, and Supreme Court all at the same time?

So two women (kimmy and bcchick) are telling you they don't think the election was driven by sexism so much as other factors. And here you are being all like "don't worry your pretty little heads about it, I know better". Mansplain some more?

As I already said, I agree it's their right to (peacefully) protest. Similarly, it's my right to point out that protesting the outcome of an election is dumb. I absolutely 100% support it if they go protest when he actually tries to implement policies that "remove the rights of minorities". That would be abhorrent, unacceptable, and should be protested. But right now he isn't doing that... he is not even the president yet, in fact. All they are protesting right now is the lawful outcome of a democratic election, which is dumb.

The DHS budget is ~65 billion/year. Assuming the wall was to be built at a price of $30 billion over let's say, 8 years, that's $3.75 billion/year. The agency has broad leeway to use ~$45 billion of it's budget in a discretionary way, as it best sees fit to meet the goals set for it. Could Trump simply order that some of the existing funding be used to build a wall, as part of the department's normal operations under its existing goals and laws?

$30 billion? That's just a rounding error compared to the money being thrown around in US budgets these days. Besides, can't he build the wall by executive order? You don't need legislation to build it... it's just a method of enforcing existing laws.

Interesting, thanks. Does a president have the power to un-pardon someone that was pardoned by a previous president?

I doubt the Democrats could prevent a new Supreme Court justice from being appointed for the next 4 years.

I understand he could pardon someone for murder or any other specific crime someone is charged with. But I thought he can't pardon her for crimes that she might be charged with in the future. Or can he? If so, got a link supporting that?

Yes, I'm sure Trump will get right on that...

Only if she's actually charged with crimes before he leaves office though, right? He can't preemptively pardon her for crimes she might be charged with later under a Trump administration.

Indeed. I mean they're free to protest of course with whatever message they want, but the message they've chosen is just dumb.

Millenial turnout dropped by the same % from the last election as overall turnout. So millenials made up the same fraction of overall votes. But 40% of them voted for Trump. Hillary didn't inspire millenials just as she didn't inspire many others that voted for Obama last time around.

People don't like arguments that don't line up with their preconceived notions. Right now the narrative on the left is that the Trump victory is the fault of a bunch of racist sexist uneducated knuckle-dragging neanderthals. They don't want to look past that, they just want to talk to each other about how progressive they are and how bad everything is.

Racism and sexism may have influenced some voters but they aren't what swung the election. But the bigger way in which they affected the election was the left-wing narrative of the Trump supporter as racist and sexist, which caused major major backlash. Again, the Republican nominee got the same amount of votes as the Republican nominee always gets. It's the Democrats that stayed home. Why did the Democrats stay home? Because they had an uninspiring nominee, and a campaign that had no real message, just "the other guy is worse". Why did Republican voters turn out for Trump despite how horrible he is? Because the left spent the last 2 years calling them racists and sexists and bigots and deplorables, and you're only gonna listen to insults for so long before you decide to spit back in their face. Rural white people are tired of being the butt of everyone's derision and condescension and disdain and contempt and, frankly, hatred. So much hatred right now on social media for "uneducated white men".

If I respected someone before, i.e. if they were a real friend as opposed to a casual acquaintance, then a political disagreement will not break that respect. Presumably there was a reason for me to respect them, enjoy their company, etc. And the fact that some idiot won an election shouldn't affect that. Most people, when you talk to them in person, are much more reasonable than the hyper-partisan positions you see espoused in the media. As for family members, these are the very few people in the world from which you should be able to expect unconditional love. Isn't much of a family if some jerk on TV can break it up. If people really split up with their families because of the partisan divide, then the hatred and enmity is only a spark away from all out civil war.