The all things Poltical topic - We bear our banners aloft, boots like Drums Our Cadence quick, our countenance dire.

[ComradeYellow]

This could be the next German chancellor, she's the current front runner.  Green Party, fiercely opposes Nord Stream 2 for environmental and Russophobic reasons, late stage Gen-Xer, and pretty hot.

If she wins expect Germany to be firmly in the Western camp if any conflict breaks out between major powers.  IF not directly than extremely indirectly.

Edited May 25, 2021 by ComradeYellow

[BruceVC]

2 hours ago, ComradeYellow said:

This could be the next German chancellor, she's the current front runner.  Green Party, fiercely opposes Nord Stream 2 for environmental and Russophobic reasons, late stage Gen-Xer, and pretty hot.

If she wins expect Germany to be firmly in the Western camp if any conflict breaks out between major powers.  IF not directly than extremely indirectly. 

Isn't Germany already firmly in the " Western  " camp, the EU is one of the worlds bastions and examples of  economic success, human rights and equality. That is why so many people want to immigrate their from non-Western countries 

[ComradeYellow]

Just now, BruceVC said:

Isn't Germany already firmly in the " Western  " camp, the EU is one of the worlds bastions and examples of  economic success, human rights and equality. That is why so many people want to immigrate their from non-Western countries 

Well see the thing is Merkel wasn't as rabidly Russophobic as the U.S. and British governments were.  I mean yeah she was no friend of Russia by any stretch but she always seemed to leave one channel open, especially in regards to Nord Stream 2.  If Baerbock wins then expect Germany/EU to be as Russophobic as the U.S. but with much farther left wing politics, even by Euro standards!

She does seem a bit young though, at the end of the day I wouldn't be surprised if they just went with Sholz.  We will see.

[BruceVC]

1 minute ago, ComradeYellow said:

Well see the thing is Merkel wasn't as rabidly Russophobic as the U.S. and British governments were.  I mean yeah she was no friend of Russia by any stretch but she always seemed to leave one channel open, especially in regards to Nord Stream 2.  If Baerbock wins then expect Germany/EU to be as Russophobic as the U.S. but with much farther left wing politics, even by Euro standards!

She does seem a bit young though, at the end of the day I wouldn't be surprised if they just went with Sholz.  We will see.

Its good to have an open diplomatic relationship with Russia and other countries that disrupt global peace and sustainability

Russia is an important country and sits on the UN security council, no country is unequivocally Russophobic. Governments  in most Democracies object and have issues with Russia's constant illegal activities like the assassination of Russian dissidents in the UK and their state sponsored hacking similar to  the SolarWinds example 

So the sanctions and criticism towards Russia is not unwarranted but self-inflicted by Putins choices around certain geopolitics decisions 

[ComradeYellow]

1 minute ago, BruceVC said:

So the sanctions and criticism towards Russia is not unwarranted but self-inflicted by Putins choices around certain geopolitics decisions 

Incorrect for the most part.  All of this started when the west decided it was a good idea to try to incorporate Ukraine into NATO (and probably the EU), which would nullify Ukraine as (largely) neutral buffer state and would have pitted NATO right on Russia's door step.

How would Americans react if Russia decided to plant missles into Mexico and made them a puppet state?  Catch my drift?  Sometimes you have to consider what you yourself would do in a similar situation.

[BruceVC]

6 minutes ago, ComradeYellow said:

Incorrect for the most part.  All of this started when the west decided it was a good idea to try to incorporate Ukraine into NATO (and probably the EU), which would nullify Ukraine as (largely) neutral buffer state and would have pitted NATO right on Russia's door step.

How would Americans react if Russia decided to plant missles into Mexico and made them a puppet state?  Catch my drift?  Sometimes you have to consider what you yourself would do in a similar situation.

Much of the sanctions against Russia are not just about Ukraine, its about human rights abuses and illegal activities like assassinations  on UK soil

https://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/uk-sanctions-russians-saudis-magnitsky-powers-71631946

https://www.politico.eu/article/eu-council-cyber-sanctions-russia-china-hackers/

And never forget the important Magnitsky legislation 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnitsky_Act

 

[Gorth]

2 hours ago, BruceVC said:

Isn't Germany already firmly in the " Western  " camp, the EU is one of the worlds bastions and examples of  economic success, human rights and equality. That is why so many people want to immigrate their from non-Western countries 

I think Comrade may have some misgivings about Merkel, as she's a conservative (i.e. right wing) leader. Elitist, Capitalist, Bourgeoisie Western countries are not the same as "Western" countries led by a green party

 

[BruceVC]

1 minute ago, Gorth said:

I think Comrade may have some misgivings about Merkel, as she's a conservative (i.e. right wing) leader. Elitist, Capitalist, Bourgeoisie Western countries are not the same as "Western" countries led by a green party

 

Just on Merkel, I am  a huge supporter of her and Germany. They have demonstrated that a country and its people can recreate their image and their identity after a very violent and dark past. If you look at Germany now compared to how the world viewed them  after WW2 they are the perfect example of how  any country  can become a wealthy and admired country through political will, Democratic values and sustainable economic policies

I think Merkel has done an excellent job as the German chancellor and nowadays Germany is considered one of the most influential countries in the EU and they did this without military hegemony

The only " mistake " Merkel made was the original, well meaning but disastrous policy around the uncontrolled immigration policy  around Syrian and other immigrants 

But this has now been addressed and immigration to the EU is now better managed 

[Pidesco]

28 minutes ago, BruceVC said:

The only " mistake " Merkel made was the original, well meaning but disastrous policy around the uncontrolled immigration policy  around Syrian and other immigrants 

 

 

Or rather, how was that a mistake?

[BruceVC]

16 minutes ago, Pidesco said:

 

What mistake?

The initial policy that Germany would welcome 1.5 million immigrants and this then changed to suddenly hundreds of thousands of immigrants,  outside of the initial offer from Germany,  arrived on EU borders with expectations they would automatically become citizens 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/oct/08/refugee-crisis-germany-creaks-under-strain-of-open-door-policy

Also expecting all EU counties to  accept immigrants lead to the rise of anti-immigration and right wing  parties that nearly lead to countries like France leaving the EU under the control of bigots like Le Penn. This also was one of the primary reasons for Merkel stepping down this year

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-46020745

I am genuinely surprised you would ask  " what mistakes " because the immigration policy implemented by Germany in 2015 was a disaster for the stability of the EU 

Edited May 25, 2021 by BruceVC

[Pidesco]

Just now, BruceVC said:

The initial policy that Germany would welcome 1.5 million immigrants and this then changed to suddenly hundreds of thousands of immigrants,  outside of the initial offer from Germany, suddenly arrived on EU borders with expectations they would automatically become citizens 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/oct/08/refugee-crisis-germany-creaks-under-strain-of-open-door-policy

Also expecting all EU counties to  accept immigrants lead to the rise of anti-immigration and right wing  parties that nearly lead to countries like France leaving the EU under the control of bigots like Le Penn. This also was one of the primary reasons for Merkel stepping down this year

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-46020745

I am genuinely surprised you would ask  " what mistakes " because the immigration policy implemented by Germany in 2015 was a disaster for the stability of the EU 

 

Extreme right wing parties were already on the rise since, at the very least, the 2009 crisis. I don't think this rise was significantly affected by the actual intake of refugees, given that the growth continued, more or less unabated, in almost all European countries, regardless of whether they took in a significant number of refugees or not. Racists going to racist, basically, and it is really easy to appeal to them, as they were feeling disenfranchised for a long time.

The problem wasn't Germany accepting refugees, but rather almost all other countries balking at even the idea of it, thus putting too much pressure on Germany's resources in a very short time. In any case, Europe's population replacement rate isn't high enough to maintain populations without immigration, so it is actually necessary for the European economy. Severely limiting the intake of people from outside Europe is essentially condemning Europe to dying a slow death.

 

[BruceVC]

7 minutes ago, Pidesco said:

 

Extreme right wing parties were already on the rise since, at the very least, the 2009 crisis. I don't think this rise was significantly affected by the actual intake of refugees, given that the growth continued, more or less unabated, in almost all European countries, regardless of whether they took in a significant number of refugees or not. Racists going to racist, basically, and it is really easy to appeal to them, as they were feeling disenfranchised for a long time.

The problem wasn't Germany accepting refugees, but rather almost all other countries balking at even the idea of it, thus putting too much pressure on Germany's resources in a very short time. In any case, Europe's population replacement rate isn't high enough to maintain populations without immigration, so it is actually necessary for the European economy. Severely limiting the intake of people from outside Europe is essentially condemning Europe to dying a slow death.

 

You make some good points and I agree with several of them

But we cannot or shouldn't underestimate how the initial immigration policy of 2015 increased the support for anti-immigration parties and their influence on the real survival of the EU. I agree that racists have always existed in the EU and euro-skepticism and anti-EU sentiment has been around for decades but this was different

The frustration from many people in many EU countries due to being told by the EU, " you must accept immigrants in the interests of diversity and human rights " ( or similar arguments ) led to many people who are not racists or right wing simply rejecting it and voting against the status quo because they felt unfettered immigration was leading directly to an erosion of EU culture and identity. Whether we agree with this sentiment or not the voting success of anti-immigration parties demonstrates this is a real view on the ground in the EU

Just take this forum and ask our EU forum members how they feel about immigration to the EU and was the implementation of it in 2015 something they support ? And this forum has got very few racist or right wing members IMO

And finally I am not opposed to immigration at all especially when it comes to the EU requirement you mentioned for certain skills. But it must be managed properly and cannot be forced down on all EU countries 

[Agiel]

On 5/22/2021 at 2:20 PM, Zoraptor said:

In any realistic scenario of significant conflict the west would be in the aggressor role, ie the fighting will be near places like Smolensk or Fuzhou, not over a neutral featureless plain. Any western plane will not be fighting 1 on 1* with its Chinese or Russian equivalent, it will be fighting against a shed load of ground based opponents as well.

And they will also be fighting against a combined arms force utilising not just stealth aircraft, but also highly sophisticated offensive ECM craft equipped with top-of-the-line jammers further augmenting LO aircrafts' ability to remain undetected and untargetable, hordes of air-launched decoys (some of them also having OECM capability), support assets in numbers and sophistication they can only dream of, HARM shooters on the prowl for enemy emitters which at the minimum forces early warning and fire control radars to have to switch off and reposition, and swarms of air and sea-launched cruise missiles flying below the horizon on top of LO stand-off glide bombs. Unlike fanboys, serious people do not consider the A2/AD problem even remotely insurmountable.

Specifically with 'stealth'** that is a big deal because Russian ground based radar can definitely detect 'stealthed' planes even if their airborne systems cannot.

Predicated on the use of long-wavelength radars that at best give a big area of uncertainty for an airborne CAP to do its best to sniff out and are extraordinarily easy to deceive with ECM to begin with. 

 

In any realistic scenario of significant conflict the west would be in the aggressor role, ie the fighting will be near places like Smolensk or Fuzhou, not over a neutral featureless plain

If anything, rough terrain confers a bigger advantage to an attacking force due to terrain masking. See Operation Mole Cricket 19. 

[Guard Dog]

3 hours ago, Pidesco said:

 

Extreme right wing parties were already on the rise since, at the very least, the 2009 crisis. I don't think this rise was significantly affected by the actual intake of refugees, given that the growth continued, more or less unabated, in almost all European countries, regardless of whether they took in a significant number of refugees or not. Racists going to racist, basically, and it is really easy to appeal to them, as they were feeling disenfranchised for a long time.

The problem wasn't Germany accepting refugees, but rather almost all other countries balking at even the idea of it, thus putting too much pressure on Germany's resources in a very short time. In any case, Europe's population replacement rate isn't high enough to maintain populations without immigration, so it is actually necessary for the European economy. Severely limiting the intake of people from outside Europe is essentially condemning Europe to dying a slow death.

 

You are correct that nationalism was on the rise and had been in "slow burn" mode for a while. But immigration did help spur it along. Not so much THAT it was happening, rather it was the behavior of some of the immigrants.  In Germany and especially France immigrants from the middle east in particular showed little interest in assimilating into the French, German, or "European" culture. Instead they set themselves up in insular communities and became little nations in themselves, both foreign  and somewhat hostile to the people who welcomed them in. That was bad. Worse was when the German and French governments are telling their own natural citizens  to accommodate themselves to that behavior. Germany in particular refusing to prosecute assaults. In France the police will not even enter some of these "communities". 

It strikes me that the immigrants to the US, illegal and refugee not the legal immigrants, don't get enough credit. This doesn't happen here that I've noticed. Or heard of.  This is purely anecdotal. In all the years I lived in South Florida you could not miss the fact that folks were self segregating. West of Downtown Miami is 99% Cuban. East 79th St and 81st St is mostly Hattian. Opa-lacka was largely Dominican. Coconut Grove was a Latin American melting pot. But none of those made anyone feel uncomfortable or like you didn't belong there. The dangerous parts of Miami like Overtown and Liberty city the folks were near 100% born in the USA. 

This may be an unfair comparison though. The immigrants drifting into the USA are 95% from South & Central America. Yes the language and culture are different. But not THAT different. Particularly Mexico and the US the differences are more details than gulfs. A lot of folks in Mexico speak some English and a lot of Americans speak some Spanish. That certainly eases things. But the folks from the middle east moving to Europe are sometimes so different they might as well be from another planet. But cultural intransigence and refusing to become part of your new country, or even worse, demanding your new country accommodate YOU only exacerbates hostility. And the national government allowing it breeds right wingers like mushrooms after a rain. 

Edited May 25, 2021 by Guard Dog
spelling

[Pidesco]

6 minutes ago, Guard Dog said:

You are correct that nationalism was on the rise and had been in "slow burn" mode for a while. But immigration did help spur it along. Not so much THAT it was happening, rather it was the behavior of some of the immigrants.  In Germany and especially France immigrants from the middle east in particular showed little interest in assimilating into the French, German, or "European" culture. Instead they set themselves up in insular communities and became little nations in themselves, both foreign  and somewhat hostile to the people who welcomed them in. That was bad. Worse was when the German and French governments are telling their own natural citizens  to accommodate themselves to that behavior. Germany in particular refusing to prosecute assaults. In France the police will not even enter some of these "communities". 

It strikes me that the immigrants to the US, illegal and refugee not the legal immigrants, don't get enough credit. This doesn't happen here that I've noticed. Or heard of.  This is purely anecdotal. In all the years I lived in South Florida you could not miss the fact that folks were self segregating. West of Downtown Miami is 99% Cuban. East 79th St and 81st St is mostly Hattian. Opa-lacka was largely Dominican. Coconut Grove was a Latin American melting pot. But none of those made anyone feel uncomfortable or like you didn't belong there. The dangerous parts of Miami like Overtown and Liberty city the folks were near 100% born in the USA. 

My experience here in Sweden is that assimilation and integration takes at least 10 years, there's really no two ways about it. I was here in '98 when the "ghettos" were by and large filled with people from the Balkans. They weren't particularly well accepted, they were insular, crime rates were higher and, to a degree, they had brought their conflicts along with them. Right wing rhetoric was pretty much the same back then. Nowadays, however, they are a completely accepted and integrated part of Swedish society. Now the issue with the 2015 refugee crisis is that it was huge, and the cultural differences between the Middle East and Europe are much starker. So all these problems have been exacerbated, which, coupled with the right wing rise is creating a volatile situation. Personally I'm more worried about future refugee crisis. I can only assume the coming population displacements will be much larger, dwarfing the Syrian numbers. If right wing parties are even more influential by then, we will be in for interesting times.

I don't think the behavior of immigrants affected the situation all that much. It definitely doesn't help, but in this age of extreme confirmation bias, people are going to think what they want to think. Even if by some freak coincidence recent Muslim immigrants had been behaving exceedingly well(they haven't), people would still be finding reasons to complain about immigration. Here in Sweden the number of reported crimes per capita has been stable since 2008, by the way. Not sure at all if that's an effective measure of how much the refugee crisis has affected criminality here. Drug crimes have increased significantly for example. Thefts have decreased.

I presume the integration factor is still different for people who emigrate to the US. American cultural hegemony and its weight in the minds of people who move to the States, has to still soften the blow of integration, despite Republican efforts to make the US as immigrant unfriendly as possible. A lot of people who move to the US actively want to be American and feel integrated.

[Darkpriest]

4 hours ago, Pidesco said:

 

Extreme right wing parties were already on the rise since, at the very least, the 2009 crisis. I don't think this rise was significantly affected by the actual intake of refugees, given that the growth continued, more or less unabated, in almost all European countries, regardless of whether they took in a significant number of refugees or not. Racists going to racist, basically, and it is really easy to appeal to them, as they were feeling disenfranchised for a long time.

The problem wasn't Germany accepting refugees, but rather almost all other countries balking at even the idea of it, thus putting too much pressure on Germany's resources in a very short time. In any case, Europe's population replacement rate isn't high enough to maintain populations without immigration, so it is actually necessary for the European economy. Severely limiting the intake of people from outside Europe is essentially condemning Europe to dying a slow death.

 

Perhaps change the mind of natives and promote having families and kids? One thing that i hold a distain for a modern feminism is that from going for equal rights and opportunitiea, they made it 'unfashionable', 'weak', 'servile' to be a mother in a regular family unit, and that it promotes promiscuity among women (have fun, you have plenty of time), when in fact the one thing that women don't have, is time as the biology does not care about what you believe in. 

 

The second nail in the coffin is the rise of social media and promoting shalow and dumb behavior. Dumb things on the internet get more clicks and views and likes and you get rewarded for that with money. This means that responsibility and family life are not rewarding for the 'me me me' braindeads

Edited May 25, 2021 by Darkpriest

[Hurlshort]

2 hours ago, Guard Dog said:

This may be an unfair comparison though. The immigrants drifting into the USA are 95% from South & Central America. Yes the language and culture are different. But not THAT different. Particularly Mexico and the US the differences are more details than gulfs. A lot of folks in Mexico speak some English and a lot of Americans speak some Spanish. That certainly eases things. But the folks from the middle east moving to Europe are sometimes so different they might as well be from another planet. But cultural intransigence and refusing to become part of your new country, or even worse, demanding your new country accommodate YOU only exacerbates hostility. And the national government allowing it breeds right wingers like mushrooms after a rain. 

Good point. They are also predominantly catholic, so you have very little religious strife. Plus we all eat the same unhealthy foods, for the most part. Plus we all drink the same cheap light lagers.

[Pidesco]

1 hour ago, Darkpriest said:

Perhaps change the mind of natives and promote having families and kids? One thing that i hold a distain for a modern feminism is that from going for equal rights and opportunitiea, they made it 'unfashionable', 'weak', 'servile' to be a mother in a regular family unit, and that it promotes promiscuity among women (have fun, you have plenty of time), when in fact the one thing that women don't have, is time as the biology does not care about what you believe in. 

 

The second nail in the coffin is the rise of social media and promoting shalow and dumb behavior. Dumb things on the internet get more clicks and views and likes and you get rewarded for that with money. This means that responsibility and family life are not rewarding for the 'me me me' braindeads

That is not happening, as societies get richer and more stable overall, people just stop wanting to have that many kids. In Europe this has been happening for like 40 or 50 years. The internet or "the promotion of dumb behavior" has nothing to do with it. I mean you either are so poor that you need extra kids as a work force, or you are rich enough that having kids stops being a financial and emotional burden. If you are in between (read "almost everyone in advanced economies"), you just aren't going to have that many kids. The fact of the matter is that the entrance of women into the work force has not increased families purchasing power as much as it should, especially considering that during the 20th century in advanced economies, kids went from being potential family income to dead weights (this is a good thing, in case you are wondering).

People aren't having kids later because feminism is promoting it. People are leaving their parents' houses later and later because they can't afford it, they aren't having kids earlier because they can't afford it, and they aren't having more kids because they can't afford it. Real wages haven't kept pace with the growth of advanced economies in the past 50 years. That's it. If you want people to have more kids they have to make more money. Big companies across the board are making loads and loads more money every year, but that money isn't entering the economy in a real way.

The Swedish government has been promoting having more kids for years, by the way. More money paid to families with more kids, more time at home with newborns, free child dental care, free college.  Anecdotally, I can say that upper middle class families appear have more kids now. It is not uncommon for me to see 3+ kids families around. Still, they are not having 6+ kids, which I imagine would be necessary to offset all the families that have between 0 and 2 kids. There's only so much one can do if wages are low.

 

https://www.epi.org/publication/charting-wage-stagnation/

[Darkpriest]

12 minutes ago, Pidesco said:

That is not happening, as societies get richer and more stable overall, people just stop wanting to have that many kids. In Europe this has been happening for like 40 or 50 years. The internet or "the promotion of dumb behavior" has nothing to do with it. I mean you either are so poor that you need extra kids as a work force, or you are rich enough that having kids stops being a financial and emotional burden. If you are in between (read "almost everyone in advanced economies"), you just aren't going to have that many kids. The fact of the matter is that the entrance of women into the work force has not increased families purchasing power as much as it should, especially considering that during the 20th century in advanced economies, kids went from being potential family income to dead weights (this is a good thing, in case you are wondering).

People aren't having kids later because feminism is promoting it. People are leaving their parents' houses later and later because they can't afford it, they aren't having kids earlier because they can't afford it, and they aren't having more kids because they can't afford it. Real wages haven't kept pace with the growth of advanced economies in the past 50 years. That's it. If you want people to have more kids they have to make more money. Big companies across the board are making loads and loads more money every year, but that money isn't entering the economy in a real way.

The Swedish government has been promoting having more kids for years, by the way. More money paid to families with more kids, more time at home with newborns, free child dental care, free college.  Anecdotally, I can say that upper middle class families appear have more kids now. It is not uncommon for me to see 3+ kids families around. Still, they are not having 6+ kids, which I imagine would be necessary to offset all the families that have between 0 and 2 kids. There's only so much one can do if wages are low.

This will be a bit unpopular, but the whole point of enabling women into the workforce, was to keep the wages low. Suddenly you have more people competing for various level white collar jobs. You will notice that it in the white collar, most post uni jobs stall in growth of wages (you can see this now as more and more people are entering stem/tech jobs, the pace of money making is stalling) 

On the other hand, jobs with vast overrepresentation of men (construction, plumber, electrician, truck driver, mariner) are keeping up with cost growths if not even outpacing them, and they have no burden of debt. 

The guy, who was placing tiles in my house was earning much more than some asaociates or even senior associates of simple desk jobs in a bank. Heck, he was making more than supervisors and junior managers. 

 

EDIT: and unfortunately social media do matter, if the current high schooler girls select their profession of choice to be an "influencer". They don't get that most of those 'careers' have a hard expiration date and often do not bring much money other than a season or two of novelty. 

People are urged to go in debt, consume and not delay any gratifications. 

I do agree, that we probably should not grow in numbers and more likely even contract to give some breathing space to mother earth, however our debt driven economy model, which requires continous growth of consumption and by extension populace, would simply collapse on its face if we cannot keep up minimal growth at or slightly above the replacement rate. 

People should have kids in mid 20s at the latest, but hook up cultures, 'self-gratification' and destruction of a family unit as a base line unit in the society make the future really bleak. 

Fun fact - China, which empowered women the most in the past and had one child policy is now figjtining 'feminism' and is urging people to couple up and have 2 childre per family

Edited May 25, 2021 by Darkpriest

[BruceVC]

7 minutes ago, Darkpriest said:

This will be a bit unpopular, but the whole point of enabling women into the workforce, was to keep the wages low. Suddenly you have more people competing for various level white collar jobs. You will notice that it in the white collar, most post uni jobs stall in growth of wages (you can see this now as more and more people are entering stem/tech jobs, the pace of money making is stalling) 

On the other hand, jobs with vast overrepresentation of men (construction, plumber, electrician, truck driver, mariner) are keeping up with cost growths if not even outpacing them, and they have no burden of debt. 

The guy, who was placing tiles in my house was earning much more than some asaociates or even senior associates of simple desk jobs in a bank. Heck, he was making more than supervisors and junior managers. 

Dark how many women  in Poland are brick layers or work in construction?

If its like SA then very few, this is SEXIST and another example of the patriarchy !!! We need to pass laws to ensure we see proper representation and transformation in this sector 

[Darkpriest]

3 minutes ago, BruceVC said:

Dark how many women  in Poland are brick layers or work in construction?

If its like SA then very few, this is SEXIST and another example of the patriarchy !!! We need to pass laws to ensure we see proper representation and transformation in this sector 

Not many, although there is a load of them going into architecture and interior design (they overrepresent there) 

[BruceVC]

1 minute ago, Darkpriest said:

Not many, although there is a load of them going into architecture and interior design (they overrepresent there) 

Yes, that I can easily believe because those jobs exist in sectors that women want to work in 

[Hurlshort]

1 hour ago, Darkpriest said:

 

People should have kids in mid 20s at the latest, but hook up cultures, 'self-gratification' and destruction of a family unit as a base line unit in the society make the future really bleak. 

 

This is really just standard 'back in my day, things were better' rubbish. Back in what day, exactly? Do you really think the 60's and 70's had less promiscuity and self gratification? 

People are definitely waiting longer to have kids in the US. It has way more to do with financial implications than any hokey 'cultural decline'. Wake up sheeple, kids are expensive and the middle class is shrinking!  

[Malcador]

4 minutes ago, Hurlsnot said:

This is really just standard 'back in my day, things were better' rubbish

Only when it's not about cRPGs. 

[ComradeYellow]

2 minutes ago, Hurlsnot said:

This is really just standard 'back in my day, things were better' rubbish. Back in what day, exactly? Do you really think the 60's and 70's had less promiscuity and self gratification? 

More, much more.

What I find hilarious about some of these "born again conservative" boomers is that they were very hard on their millennial kids only because they themselves were the scum of the Earth when they were growing up.