Quantcast
Why can't Dems presidential hopefuls pull this much people for any of their rallys? <20,000+

Forums - Politics Discussion - Why can't Dems presidential hopefuls pull this much people for any of their rallys? <20,000+

the-pi-guy said:
eva01beserk said:

Did you read the article? It was very short. The very first paragraph says what I stated, it leads in mass shootings. Lower death rate with guns was not my statement. 

Yes, but the number of mass shootings is a bit misleading if you don't take into consideration per capita.  

If a state has twice as many people, you'd expect them to have twice as many shootings.  

https://www.statista.com/statistics/811541/mass-shootings-in-the-us-by-state/

Per capita, Florida has more mass shootings.  

eva01beserk said:

QOL is not rated low due to only social and environmental factors. it mentions it takes those 2 factors into consideration and there is no one on earth that would suggest the environment is bad in California. Its still called one of the most beautiful places and one of the best climates. QOL being so low is due to a lot of other factors, some mentioned in the other rankings, one of them being that while it has the most money due to the big tech giants that are there, the opportunity is also one of the lowest, cuz as mentioned before, that money does not trickle down and the elites live in gated communities while the middle class vanishes and massive poverty strikes the state. 

From the article that you have used:

"Quality of Life is broken down into the “social environment” category, which includes community engagement, social support and voter participation. The second subcategory is “natural environment,” which includes drinking water quality, low industrial toxins, low pollution health risk and urban air quality."

So, no, QoL in that measurement isn't because of a poor opportunity score, because it wasn't part of the qol score.  

From the usnews article that shows the rankings,

See under opportunity, California does poorly in affordability, and it does fairly well under everything else.

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/california

From the affordability article, this is what gets ranked:

"One-third of the weight in the opportunity ranking goes to measures of a state’s basic affordability – examining the costs of daily life and housing against the money households have available"

Californians actually make more than most states, the problem is that things like housing are incredibly expensive.  

One reason why housing is so expensive is because the number of people looking for houses outpaces the number of houses.  California literally doesn't build enough houses.  

You're right that the money doesn't trickle down, but that's literally a problem pretty much everywhere.  

In your article is not high in everything else, its only high in health care, natural enviorment and economy. then its middle of the road on education and crime and then piss poor on everything else. 

And you do know why affordability is so low right? Because they refuse to build affordable housing. It has been up for debate many times and always gets shot down. basically meaning that the elites dont want poor people around them. California maybe getting payed more, but they spend on living alone more than what they are receiving extra. like I said before, shouldn't the state leading the race in social programs be doing better with the wealth inequality? the middle class is shrinking by the day and poverty increasing. And a problem that is everywhere but nowhere is it as bad as in california. 



It takes genuine talent to see greatness in yourself despite your absence of genuine talent.

Around the Network
eva01beserk said:
Torillian said:

California leads in mass shootings when you don't account for population. Which is one of the stupidest ways to compare different areas. If I told you China had 8 mass shooting in 2018 and Belgium had 7 would you really just say "welp that's interesting, China had the most mass shootings, they need to get their shit together" and move on with your day?

From your article: "With another mass shooting in California, number 19 since 1984, the state leads the nation in most deaths from these kinds of violent killings—but only because it is by far the most populous state."

It's no. 20 in economic opportunity, the reason opportunity in general is so low is because of affordability. https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/california

So were gona have to put buts and exceptions then? ok. then illegal immigrants are the most violent and do the most crimes if you account for per capita  do you agree with that?

Again, with the affordability, with california leading the way in social programs, how is affordability the worst than any other state?

No.  Because every study on the subject states they do less violent crime per capita than regular citizens.

Do you just make this stuff up or get from far right media?



Massimus - "Trump already has democrat support."

SpokenTruth said:
eva01beserk said:

So were gona have to put buts and exceptions then? ok. then illegal immigrants are the most violent and do the most crimes if you account for per capita  do you agree with that?

Again, with the affordability, with california leading the way in social programs, how is affordability the worst than any other state?

No.  Because every study on the subject states they do less violent crime per capita than regular citizens.

Do you just make this stuff up or get from far right media?

It must be far right media.



It takes genuine talent to see greatness in yourself despite your absence of genuine talent.

SpokenTruth said:
eva01beserk said:

So were gona have to put buts and exceptions then? ok. then illegal immigrants are the most violent and do the most crimes if you account for per capita  do you agree with that?

Again, with the affordability, with california leading the way in social programs, how is affordability the worst than any other state?

No.  Because every study on the subject states they do less violent crime per capita than regular citizens.

Do you just make this stuff up or get from far right media?

show me please



eva01beserk said:

And you do know why affordability is so low right? Because they refuse to build affordable housing. 

I've literally said this exact thing in the past 2 or 3 posts towards you...  

eva01beserk said:

like I said before, shouldn't the state leading the race in social programs be doing better with the wealth inequality? the middle class is shrinking by the day and poverty increasing. And a problem that is everywhere but nowhere is it as bad as in california. 

And again:

>Social programs don't tend to spend very much on housing.  A lot of it goes towards things like food. 

>California isn't leading in social programs per capita.  They are getting more than any other state, but they also have 40 million people to share it with.  They are not even in the top 10 for most spent per capita.  



Around the Network
gamingsoul said:
SpokenTruth said:

No.  Because every study on the subject states they do less violent crime per capita than regular citizens.

Do you just make this stuff up or get from far right media?

show me please

This article links to 7 studies and criminal statistics to back up my claim.

But here's a couple of simple charts for quick reference.

Last edited by SpokenTruth - on 24 June 2019

Massimus - "Trump already has democrat support."

eva01beserk said:
tsogud said:

Well obviously people have to come to compromises but that's not really what I was talking about and it's completely different from the "with us or against us" attitude, which most people can agree is not a good attitude to have. I guess I should've been more clear, my issue is that you can't be "in the middle of the road" on issues/topics because that's not really a stance, you're just luke warm. You can be on one side of the argument and still see the other side but ultimately you have to make a definitive stance and then compromise from there.

That proverb applies to trade skills but it doesn't apply here because you literally can't teach the man anything if he's dead due to him not having access to the healthcare he needed. These social programs like universal healthcare and tuition-free education have been proven to work. People still work when their basic needs like healthcare, education, food and shelter are met because they want a more luxurious life. You don't suddenly become lazy because now you have a place to sleep at night.

No, i refuse to believe that I have to be in one extreme or the other on any topic,  no matter what it is. Thats a lousy excuse for people to say im ultimately right and you dont agree cuz you are evil. 

And yes, the proverb does apply, you just have to reach the man before he is on that condition. When he still has options. And the only people who will put the effort if all their needs are met are only going to be the ones who have a chance to reach the very top. If they fail they will give up and settle for free living. Most people dont have a shot at the big leagues so the majority will just accept it and just let life and opportunity pass them by. 

I never said you had to be at an extreme, all I said was that being on the fence or "in the middle" on issues is not a definitive stance. You can be on the fence on things but ultimately, once you hear both sides of the argument, you have to come to your own conclusion on who/what you believe is right and then compromise from there IF you feel it's an issue worth compromising on. You can't be on the fence your whole life.

@bolded: Did you not understand what I wrote?? That's what those social programs do! That's us reaching out to the man before he's in that condition, so he has options. Not everyone is born with a roof over their heads, food on the table, and good health. And the best part is that these programs have been proven to work.

I honestly think you need to take a step back and look at the facts, apart from everyone else, and come to your own conclusion on what you believe. It seems you don't have your political beliefs all ironed out yet and that's fine but you at least need to have some idea on where you stand and where you draw the line. Maybe you'll end up admitting to yourself that maybe you're more conservative/liberal than you previously thought.

Last edited by tsogud - on 24 June 2019

 

Immersiveunreality said:
PortisheadBiscuit said:

You're in the middle eh?? Lol

Mocking the left does not make someone automatically rightsided.

It doesn't NOT mean it either...



Simple, Trump has a cult of people following him who will forgive any racist and sexist things he does.



eva01beserk said:
vivster said:

Dems run on social programs, which isn't the same as full on socialism. If what the dems are fighting for is Socialism then Germany is a fully socialist country. Even if Bernie had all of his wishes they'd still be merely catching up with other developed western countries. What Americans call "Socialism", every other developed nation calls "human decency" or "common sense".

I don't know what that has to do with anything though. All democratic candidates want the same thing. And even if some don't agree, the policies that are being pushed need approval from the whole party to get through, so it's not like that a radical Democrat would be able to push all of his radical agendas. That's how democracy works.

I think the best example that I could show you is California. You cant tell me that they are nt trying their best to as you call it"catch up to the EU". Its the worst ranking state in the US and before the insanity they where the best. Now the have the highest wealth inequality. The middle class shrinks every day. Homelessness as far as the eye can see. Rich neighborhoods gated. Thats what to many "social programs" do to an economy. The state has not yet taken the resources of the big corporations like google there cuz they know they will just flee to either another state, or out the country if need be.  Radical leftist have full reign in California and nobody stops they crazzy policies they put up and look what they have. 

Look, social programs are not a bad thing, dont get me wrong. But you have to realize that good intentions is not all takes to lead a nation. Inequality is a law of nature as all people are inherently different and as such different outcomes will result from it. Sadly because of it, some will end rich some poor. But its impossible to completely fix that gap that nature made. If all needs for the poor where met, like guaranteed housing, health care and food and education, they would not need to even get off the bed in the mourning. The more the needs are met, the less people will work to improve themselves. I say we do have to help the most needed out of some hardships, but never completely remove all hardships from them. 

The example you bring up is just as stupid as calling universal healthcare bad because it failed in the US. Let me fill you in on some secret.

Social policies only work if they're applied UNIVERSALLY. Not on a state level, not on a class level or any other division that doesn't include 100% of the population of a country. That's why it works in Europe and Canada and that's why it doesn't work in the US. Not only is every try in the right direction terribly sabotaged by Republicans who gut the bills out as much as possible, but it's only ever insular and has giant loopholes. Insurance doesn't work if not everyone is paying into it. Especially people who DON'T need insurance right now. That's the whole basis of any insurance or any social policy. EVERYONE has to pay in. But that concept is apparently too hard to grasp for Americans and is the first thing that gets gutted in the process of implementing it. OF COURSE YOUR SHIT DOESN'T WORK IF YOU REMOVE ALL OF THE FUNCTIONING PARTS. Coincidentally also the exact same reason why gun control won't ever work in the US.

Inequality exists because the naturally egotistic nature of humans strives for it. But everyone knows that. That's why we invented government and politics. Because most people are assholes and need to be reigned in. It's the government's sole job to work specifically against human urges in an attempt to achieve as much wealth for everyone as possible. Of course that doesn't work if the work of the government is constantly demonized and "taking from the rich" is considered a bad thing.

You're talking absolute nonsense here. If what you said about poor people not wanting to work then Europe would have collapsed by now. In Germany everyone gets housing and basic welfare all sponsored by the government. The vast majority of unemployed people want to work to improve their live, even though they already get paid plenty to just live without working. Germany has an unemployment rate of 3%. How do you explain that in a country that cannot stop itself from sending loads of money to unemployed people. Basic income will become a necessity in the future but that's another topic with a lot more going on than just being a "social program".

I'll leave you with this.



If you demand respect or gratitude for your volunteer work, you're doing volunteering wrong.