Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
MAGA is not too far away from it.
Biden Out of Race
Started by DirtDocMD
Well that's really nice of you- unhinged, extremist, chauvinist, degenerative pig.
We shall in fact, all praise you for not forcing your wife to birth more children.
Wow... what a statement!!! Goes right to the center of who you are as a person.
Make sure you make a few extra for me and the rest of us who don't give AF about anything you are saying.
You really need some meds Champ. 🖕
I wonder if the average MAGA knows this can't happen without Congress's approval...I'm not sure the Republicans would go for this.
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
Desperation manifests itself in strange ways.
cittykat
Full Member
I think you’re an outlier in your morality maybe because this is largely an American forum. Your thinking may be more aligned with Orthodox Jewish or Amish communities who are also outliers. There are moral reasons not to have kids too. My uncle who grew up impoverished in postwar Korea believed it was immoral to keep house pets and “waste” resources on them.
Last edited:
@Account1 Do you resent your wife for not wanting to make lots of babies? 🤔
cittykat
Full Member
In reality both liberals and conservatives are having very few kids. There’s really not much difference. We’re far left liberals but we’re still above the conservative average of 1.4 kids. Thats not hard.
I don’t disagree with the article.
www.dailysignal.com
A new report from the Institute for Family Studiesstates that a fertility gap has opened up between the Left and the Right. Based on a survey of 7,000 Americans, age 18 to 54, the study found that conservative respondents had, on average, 1.4 children, compared to 1.09 for liberals.
A birth rate of 2.1 children per woman is the minimum to sustain a population. More than half of liberal respondents reported having no children at all, compared to 40% of conservatives.
“Progressives are more likely to look at marriage and parenthood as decent options to consider but not necessarily as primary vocations,” Brad Wilcox, IFS senior fellow, told the Daily Signal. “Conservatives are more likely to see marriage, motherhood, and fatherhood as core parts of their identity.”
Religion likely plays a key role.
“In the U.S. and in other parts of the world, political conservatives tend to be more religious than political liberals, and more religious people tend to have more kids,” Tom Vogl, an economics professor at the University of California, San Diego, told the Daily Signal.
I don’t disagree with the article.
Politics and Parenthood: Why Liberals Are Having Fewer Kids Than Conservatives - The Daily Signal
America’s cultural divide now extends to parenthood.
www.dailysignal.com
A new report from the Institute for Family Studiesstates that a fertility gap has opened up between the Left and the Right. Based on a survey of 7,000 Americans, age 18 to 54, the study found that conservative respondents had, on average, 1.4 children, compared to 1.09 for liberals.
A birth rate of 2.1 children per woman is the minimum to sustain a population. More than half of liberal respondents reported having no children at all, compared to 40% of conservatives.
“Progressives are more likely to look at marriage and parenthood as decent options to consider but not necessarily as primary vocations,” Brad Wilcox, IFS senior fellow, told the Daily Signal. “Conservatives are more likely to see marriage, motherhood, and fatherhood as core parts of their identity.”
Religion likely plays a key role.
“In the U.S. and in other parts of the world, political conservatives tend to be more religious than political liberals, and more religious people tend to have more kids,” Tom Vogl, an economics professor at the University of California, San Diego, told the Daily Signal.
Last edited:
What is a 'far left' liberal as opposed to a vanilla liberal?
Heh. Maybe it's due to my conservative upbringing and the southern baptist/missionary religion's imprint on my brain, but I love kids. I place myself in the liberal camp for these types of discussions, but I'm probably more of a left-leaning moderate.
We can't properly fund Social Security and Medicare.
And they don't suddenly get more money for more kids, either (aside from income tax savings). Assuming no significant pay raises, having more kids means dividing the same resources more ways.
I don't live in the past. This is not 1950. The reality is that kids are more expensive to raise than before, college is more expensive than ever, childcare can cost thousands a month, and most families cannot support their kids without two incomes. You need to get outside your wealthy bubble and get a grip with reality. Most people don't have the resources to have several kids. Those who do are often living in poverty. It has little to do with desire.
Do you lecture your wife on her inferior morality? Shouldn't women want to stay at home and be a baby factory? Two kids? You can do better.
I have another take on this. A good university education exposes you to many diverse viewpoints you may not have considered or encountered in life. This is why colleges lean liberal - they encourage debate and exchange of ideas, expanding a person's horizons. College opened my mind to a world beyond my conservative upbringing.
I recall my psychology professor talking about something along those lines. He said that women who earn a nursing education, when they are already married to an uneducated spouse, often become unhappy in their marriages. I can't remember his reasoning, but I think the psychology of this makes sense. He probably said that because Intro to Psychology was largely full of pre-nursing students. The same concept probably applies to women who obtain degrees in other fields and become financially independent.
100%
A narcissist can't understand any viewpoint other than their own and has an inability to understand their own hypocrisy.
Bro, you chose to be an evolutionary cul de sac. Who cares what you think about anything?
Last edited:
At this point, even his supporters should know he’s FOS on a $5k check, right?
So you did address this more in a later post but still worth mentioning. Yes, large families where kids have more responsibility can be a good thing IF (and that's a huge if here) the parents are very involved and make sure everything is appropriate.
But that isn't always the case. I have cousins who grew up in a family with 5 kids. They all turned out well, still care about each other, have massive vacations (all married, all but 1 with more than 1 kid). Its great for them.
Best friend growing up married a guy who was the oldest of 5. His parents were kinda checked out and so he did a lot of child raising including dropping out of college to get a job to help pay basic bills.
My experience as an FP is that its about 50/50 as to which dynamic you get in larger families.
His supporters are most likely going to vote Republican anyway. Maybe he hopes to woo undecided people and moderates. But I agree, it smells like desperation.
I am here to announce that I am no longer a hardliner on immigration.
Want to cut a tree in the backyard of one of my homes and everyone was charging 5.5-6k. Someone refers to me a Hispanic dude that will do it for 2.4k.
Give these people a path to citizenship if they did not commit any crime.
Want to cut a tree in the backyard of one of my homes and everyone was charging 5.5-6k. Someone refers to me a Hispanic dude that will do it for 2.4k.
Give these people a path to citizenship if they did not commit any crime.
Are you kind of saying that illegal immigrants are stealing Americans’ (arborist) jobs?
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
Is anybody following this James Talarico situation? I guess the FCC pressured the network not to show his interview from Jimmy Kimmel? I caught just a few seconds of the clip on Instagram and Kimmel mentions that the FCC also pressured NBC not to show his other interview with Stephen Colbert?
What is the ostensible reason for the government to get involved in this kind of censorship? For those of you that vote Republican, what is the defense of this?
What is the ostensible reason for the government to get involved in this kind of censorship? For those of you that vote Republican, what is the defense of this?
I am saying American arborists are charging people thru their nose. Lol
It's ok because Trump did it.
Make Arborists Great Again..
cittykat
Full Member
Talk shows have to govern equal air time. If they broadcast the Talarico interview, Kimmel would also need to broadcast a Paxton interview.
The interesting thing is that if you hired the 5.5-6k contractor guess what happens? A group of Hispanic dudes show up, do the work, and at the end of the job your contractor shows up to collect the check.
And Paxton would never go on Kimmel. Funny how that works right? Paxton is totally fine sitting on FoxNews answering questions like ‘what do you think of Trump giving all Americans $5k if your party wins the midterms?’ as opposed to Kimmel asking him about all the corruption in his past.
Republicans used to be against this government censorship BS. Then they gave their party to Trump so now they do whatever he says. Honestly it looks to me like they’re far more socialist than any Democrat claims to be.
Exactly. That happened to me many times in FL before. I can pay the Hispanic dude/crew directly and give a nice tip and save a few bucks.
I wonder if that includes kids.
Yes it is.
That's at least a reasonable explanation. I wonder if Kimmel has invited Paxton.
Maybe that poll is an outlier.
This is just smart politics by Paxton. Why make an aggressive chess move when you win if there's a stalemate? Kamala did the same thing 2 years ago except she didn't win in a stalemate.
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
You think Paxton who does not want to debate Talarico will go on Jim Kimmel.
I think you haven't talked to many conservatives who have told you their feelings on family if you think I'm an outlier akin to Amish or Orthodox Judaism.
The last decade has shown that time and time again you can’t really poll the maga. They don’t pick up the phone. They definitely aren’t doing a poll over the phone. But I assure you they’ll show up to vote. Sc is a done deal. Shame really, bc the D candidate is solid and Nordone is a total joke.
cittykat
Full Member
Actions not words. Conservatives in their child rearing years have 1.4 kids on average. Liberals average 1.09 kids. Conservatives hate kids almost as much as liberals by your metric. I would argue that both conservatives and liberals aren’t having many kids because they can’t afford housing, food, childcare, healthcare, etc. This is yet another manufactured culture war issue. Conservatives and liberals aren’t that far apart. Don’t be a sheep, don’t submit to propaganda.
Last edited:
Maybe in 10 years, Conservatives will be hating kids as much as liberals do now if trends continue.
Almost as much? It’s a 25% difference over millions of people. P value < .0000000001
1.4 is exceptionally different for a society than 1.09 too. One is borderline unmanageable. The other is totally catastrophic
cittykat
Full Member
0.31 child difference. Both are far below replacement and demographically disastrous. It’s not like conservatives are having 4 kids on average while liberals are having 0-1.
But maybe you’re right that conservatives hate children 25% less than liberals do. Neither are having a lot of kids. Both hate kids according to your logic.
Last edited:
Since it was enacted, this "equal time" rule had only been meant for and applied to news programs, and excluded comedy and late night shows. The rule changed in 2026 under the guidance of trump's FCC (eg: CBS pulling the Talarico interview on the Colbert Show).
Also, if anyone watched Paxton speak a couple days ago at their midterm convention, I think it'd be pretty obvious why he won't agree to a debate or go on any talk shows.
Elite athletes are outliers.
I wouldn't accept data that showed "normal" men who've transitioned are "the same" as women, to mean that a male athlete who transitions is "the same" as a woman athlete.
Because "the same" really means statistically similar, with error bars. And when we're talking competitive sports everyone on the podium is an outlier.
So, no. Men can play in men's sports. Men who transition can play in open or men divisions. They can **** right off out of women events.
And yeah, this is a fringe issue that actually affects very few people, and me not at all - except to the extent that I'm being asked to listen to lies and bull**** and pretend it's true.
By today's standards, I was positively neglected as a child.
10-year-old me would go outside around 10 AM and the next time my parents really knew where I was and saw me was 10 hours later when the street lights came on.
I turned out OK.
If I'd parented my own kids like that the state would've put them in foster care and me in front of a judge.
You can get a lot of work done cheap if you don't care if the labor is licensed or bonded.
Cheap tree work is great until someone drops a couple tons of wood on your fence, car, or house.
I've cut down a lot of big trees in my life but when we moved into Ash Tree Apocalypse Central and had some within range of our new house ... I paid a guy.
Good tree work is expensive and worth it.
There ain't nothing wrong with a bunch of Hispanics doing the work as laborers or owning the business.
It's the liability and insurance that's a problem with lone cut rate operators.
If you think that liability isn't real, just cut it down yourself. Wear PPE.
And Kimmel offered Paxton to come on and interview right in the opening monologue. Paxton is MIA and won't even debate Talarico
I agree 'elite' athletes are an outlier. I don't consider high school or even the majority of college athletes are elite. College and high school are probably where trans athletes are most controversial. As I said, I think schools and colleges should be free to set their own policy about this.
Trans women playing in men's sports probably doesnt make sense. Trans women on estrogen experience a decrease in muscle mass and strength. To what degree is unknown. This is where performance data would be helpful. Such data would help inform school/athletic association policy decisions on transgender athlete participation. If the data showed that the decrease in performance isn't significant, it might serve to limit transgender participation in women's sports. I think that any differences in trans athletes performance would be less apparent in sports compared to individual sports like swimming or running. Absent any data, I think keeping trans women from participating in individual women's sports is probably sensible.
I've never been athletic so it doesn't affect me, either. And dude, chill out. Not sure what you mean by pretending it's all true, but I've made no claims that should lead you to conclude I'm promoting lies. I said I don't know what my position, only that I wish there was more data. Trust me, my uncertainty about this issue isn't popular among a lot of trans people I know.
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
Agree. In my previous home, the pecan tree in the bak yard had limbs growing over the house. Raccoons were getting in the attic from the tree. A guy was doing work on my neighbors yard and I asked him to take a look. I talked him down to a pretty low price, but told him I wanted to think on it. I asked him if he was bonded and insured and he said yes. He said he could send me that information. I gave him my contact info but never heard back. I suspect he wasn't bonded. Gotta be careful.
That's an issue - why?
How do you know those Hispanics aren't bonded or covered under the contractors credentials? How do you know they aren't working legally? You're making a lot of assumptions based on skin color.
I'm not annoyed at you. 🙂
Lia Thomas was nominated for NCAA Woman Of The Year - that's the kind of lie I'm talking about, the kind of emperor's clothing no one should have to pretend to see.
There's a whole wardrobe of that out there, and I'm annoyed at the expectation that I pretend too. (Again, that's not you.)
I would argue that ALL athletes from high school up who are good enough to win events or get bumped out of finals by the (very rare) m-to-f trans athlete is enough of an outlier ("elite" enough, if you will) to skew the data and render irrelevant the studies showing average people trans people are just average.
It wouldn't take an elite male or female or trans athlete to beat me or my wife at most any sport. How the average trans person's hormone levels and muscle mass compare to mine or hers is absolutely irrelevant to the discussion at hand: whether trans athletes who went through male puberty before transitioning have an unfair advantage.
