While I’m aware of the ‘Lettergate’ scandal and have different conclusions than you on the matter, upon reflection, I’m being tetchy above and beyond even what I normally am because I’m in pain today. That’s no excuse for my dismissive rhetoric, and I do apologize.

No, because the people who like renewable energy are the same ones who are either:

A. Already voting for him

OR

B. Saying “It’s not enough!” and using that as a justification to usher fascism into power.

deleted by creator

deleted by creator

Oh I’m sorry I should have said the past 3 months of your terminally online ass

Eight Biden posts over the course of three months - what a horrific torrent of spam! Lmao.

A personal screw you for putting Pakistan on the wrong rail for this one:

Aw, you think the Republican Party will be sweeter on Pakistan than the Democrats? How adorable.

It fucking stuns me that we still use coal in this day and age.

Some days I just try not to think about it.

Colonization of the 16th-18th centuries consisted of organized groups of people under the authority of a state arriving in a land without a central government, seizing territory for a new settlement, carrying on their own ways with an intent to do so indefinitely, and extend the reach of the monopoly of force of their mother state over the surrounds.

Immigration of the 19th-21st centuries consists of individuals or small groups outside of the context of a state-sanctioned expedition being accepted in by the authority of the native state already exercising a monopoly of force over the area, and in doing so, renouncing other loyalties either implicitly or explicitly, arriving in settlements already dominated by the majority ethnicity, assimilating, and participating in upholding the social contract between government and citizens.

You will note, I hope, that colonization necessarily excludes the prospect of the colonizers joining the settlements of the pre-existing majority ethnicity of the land, that colonizers set up a state or an extension of a state that is non-native, explicitly refuse the prospect of assimilating into the majority ethnicity of the area (though to be entirely fair, there were few places with a true ‘majority’ ethnicity that managed to be colonized - that’s another discussion entirely, though), and that colonizers do so in the form of organized groups seeking a collective gain for the group, not individuals and their families or small social circles seeking individual gain.

You’re really not getting it. Sending aid, even with strings attached as to what it’s used for, is not even close to the same as an internal decision by the national government of the country of origin to change their investment priorities.

I’m not really sure you understand the difference in the paradigm between 16th-18th century colonization and 19th-21st century immigration.

So, you’re really not talking about permanent immigration, you’re talking about training.

… no, that’s literally the opposite of what was said. The country of ORIGIN is driven to invest in their education system by this, not the country of DESTINATION.

All true, but who is going to force change in those countries?

Material conditions. Like the continued issue of emigration of skilled workers. That’s… that’s what the quote is getting at.

Of course nurses are needed in the US, but are they not needed in those countries too?

… yes. That’s why the emigration causing investment in the country of origin to create a supply in the local labor market is counted as a positive in this analysis.

As the link I posted notes:

Emigration can alleviate unemployment in origin countries by reducing the labor pool and decreasing competition for scarce jobs. Between 2000 and 2007, unemployment rates in Central and Eastern Europe dropped by as much as 50 percent, in part because of increasing migrant outflows from these countries.

(Basic market principles, this - freedom of movement for labor is vital to achieving efficient labor distribution)

Successful emigration of skilled workers can sometimes encourage more investment in education, potentially raising a country’s overall skill level. Migration opportunities associated with nursing led to the development of a private education system in the Philippines that provides low-income women with career opportunities. Large numbers of nurses remain in country after completing their education, and as a result, the Philippines has more trained nurses per capita than some wealthier countries, such as Greece and Malaysia.

The idea that trapping people in their own country thinking that if they have nowhere to go, that will be better for the country than sustainable improvements in retention methods for skilled workers is just… not backed up by evidence.

Okay, so other than the issue of American immigration and economics, what else did he touch on? Refresh my memory. Because the only other thing that sticks out to me is the implication that some nebulous elite is ‘tricking’ people into having empathy to cause ‘damage’ to social services.

Franco Colombu, a fellow bodybuilder and close friend of Schwarzenegger’s

My great-uncle used to play chess by mail.

So now you are admitting that the video discusses American immigration and economics, great. Glad we could clear up that much. Perhaps the next step should be “How many of those people want to move to the US?” or “What are the effects of emigration on the countries who they are emigrating from?”

For some reason, people are convinced that Bernie would have won if it wasn’t for the DNC putting a gun to the head of millions of Democratic voters and making them vote for Joe Biden instead.

I’m a Bernie voter. Biden was like, third to last pick for me, not exactly rooting for him. If people my age spent as much time and effort actually fucking voting like the suburban fucking soccer moms that shored up Biden’s support during the primary, we COULD have had Bernie.

Your link has to do with the US economy, which is fine but only true as of right now.

However, the link I provided isn’t about that.

Oh, it’s NOT about America despite the speaker discussing American immigration and American immigration limits, and EXPLICITLY MENTIONS economic and infrastructure pressure as for a reason why America absolutely could not take in 2 million people per year. Yes. That’s definitely a believable take from someone who watched the video.

Are you even trying?