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+

eva01beserk said:
the-pi-guy said:

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

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.  

Yea I noticed late that you did multiple responses. 

Thats still not a good thing considering that they have 1/9 of the US population but have 1/3 the poor of the entire country. Thats still insanely dis proportionally.  They just cant be the ones who spend the most per capita, the funds are just not there. 

Try 1/8th the population of the US, and slightly higher than 1/8th (13.6%) of the poor.  Not insanely disproportionate. 

Poverty measures vary immensely, and don't tend to include things like food stamps and housing assistance.  

Some poverty measures look worse because they'll take into account housing costs.  Which again, has a whole host of problems that have nothing to do with California's social programs.  

> They just cant be the ones who spend the most per capita, the funds are just not there. 


California is one of the states that pays more in taxes, than they get in benefits.  



Around the Network
Torillian said:
eva01beserk said:

Yea I noticed late that you did multiple responses. 

Thats still not a good thing considering that they have 1/9 of the US population but have 1/3 the poor of the entire country. Thats still insanely dis proportionally.  They just cant be the ones who spend the most per capita, the funds are just not there. 

What numbers are you using in which California has 1/3 of the US's poor population?

Census Bureau’s Supplemental Poverty Measure



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

the-pi-guy said:
eva01beserk said:

Yea I noticed late that you did multiple responses. 

Thats still not a good thing considering that they have 1/9 of the US population but have 1/3 the poor of the entire country. Thats still insanely dis proportionally.  They just cant be the ones who spend the most per capita, the funds are just not there. 

Try 1/8th the population of the US, and slightly higher than 1/8th (13.6%) of the poor.  Not insanely disproportionate. 

Poverty measures vary immensely, and don't tend to include things like food stamps and housing assistance.  

Some poverty measures look worse because they'll take into account housing costs.  Which again, has a whole host of problems that have nothing to do with California's social programs.  

> They just cant be the ones who spend the most per capita, the funds are just not there. 


California is one of the states that pays more in taxes, than they get in benefits.  

True,but that makes the report faulty to remove the people receiving help from that measure. taking into consideration how many people are on benefits according to the Census Bureau’s Supplemental Poverty Measure, then california has 1/3 of the total poor of the country.



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

eva01beserk said:
Torillian said:

What numbers are you using in which California has 1/3 of the US's poor population?

Census Bureau’s Supplemental Poverty Measure

Nah, according to that metric they have a supplemental poverty rate of 23.8% compared to the overall SPM of the US of 16%. So California has about 1.5x the national average (for this particular version of the poverty rate) and 12% of the population of the US. Therefore, they would have 18% of the country's "poor" or less than 1/5.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territories_by_poverty_rate

Unless you have different numbers or different math. 

Going more explicitly: California has a population of 39.8m and 23.8% of those are within the SPM designation or 9.401m. USA has a population of 327.2m and 16% of those are within SPM or 52.35m. That means California has 9.401/52.35*100% or 18% of the "poor". 

Works out the same but I felt like checking my original guesstimate math. 



...

eva01beserk said:
tsogud said:

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.

Well thas something you took cuz you refuse to accept what im saying. In no way am I indecisive or in the fence. I stated clearly what I believe should be done. You for some reason think that the only two options are get rid of all social programs or 100% free everything. I say we keep the social programs but only to those that really need it and never 100% everything, give them the need to work for the rest. Its quite simple, if you refuse to accept that than thats on you.

Then you have shown your willful ignorance on the matter entirely and you should educate yourself on the subject before you start posting nonsense on forums, or at least actually listen when people try to tell you that you have the situation misunderstood. These types of social programs can only work if we go "100% everything" as you put it. You can't just choose who gets what for free, for example this healthcare reform that I've been referencing is an all or nothing deal. Everyone has to pitch in and be covered in order for it to work the way it's intended, otherwise it's just another Obamacare. I completely understood what you said and meant but you have it wrong and you need to work on accepting constructive criticism.

Last edited by tsogud - on 25 June 2019

 

Around the Network
Azuren said:
SpokenTruth said:
gamingsoul said:
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

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.

The real question is why do the crime rates of native-born citizens matter in a discussion about immigrant crime rates? What immigration policies will prevent native-born citizens from committing crime?

Ask eva01beserk.  He made the claim illegal immigrants do the most crimes per capita and were violent. I should showed he was wrong.  If you want to debate why we're discussing native born crime in a discussion of immigration, you'll need to ask him.

Azuren said:

1). Except they do still bring crime at a much higher rate than legal immigrants, 2). crime that would happen much less if immigration policies were addressed and improved. The point made by those discussing crime committed by illegal immigrants does include the disingenuous claims that they commit crime at a higher rate than citizens, but the point that people who are acting in good faith would point out is much of this is 3). crime wouldn't even be in the country in the first place if there was better border security.

1). Rates are skewed because this includes gang and criminal activity.  By that I mean the majority of illegal immigrants common immigrants who can't wait for our antiquated immigration system to push their asylum case (because we got rid of our case worker program...ooops).

2). You're actually correct on this.  We do need to modernize our immigration system.  But as such, it's irrelevant to the crime rate of illegal and legal immigrants given that gangs and criminals won't give a damn what we do regarding immigration policy.

3). You still seem to be under the impression criminals intend to obey our immigration laws.

And.....4). Since you asked the question, "why do the crime rates of native-born citizens matter in a discussion about immigrant crime rates?" Looking at the thread topic...we are all way off course for the actual discussion.

Last edited by SpokenTruth - on 25 June 2019

Massimus - "Trump already has democrat support."

Machiavellian said:

EricHiggin said:

So let me get this straight. You clearly dislike pretty much everything about him and everything he does as President, and yet he's just an idiot puppet to the elite pro con artists who are conning him into doing that they want done?

So why are you so mad at Trump then if he's a victim in this situation? The elites just keep ruining his life. Where's the support for this survivor?

Nope, I actually do not dislike Trump at all.  I do not have to like or dislike someone to have an opinion of them.  As I have stated, some of the stuff Trump tackles are legit issues, it's the fact that he is incompetent as the person to tackle those issues is the problem. 

Not sure why you believe I am mad at Trump just because I believe he is an idiot.  Why should I feel sorry for him when he plays the game just like any player.  Hell, I wouldn't even care if he goes another 4 years.  If he is this glorious leader you believe, I would definitely want you to get the full experience.  Trump has been the most entertaining President in a long time.  People who probably never followed politics know about positions and the people in those positions due to Trump more than any other President.  

The problem with you is that you always try to make even the most bone headed thing Trump do or say into something positive which is fun just seeing you work your magic.  I haven't notice any analogies from you lately but I am sure you will throw out a few once you get back up to speed.

Machiavellian said:

Its the same situation with your example of "Grab her by the _____".  The media did not claim anything because anyone who was interested heard exactly what Trump stated since they all but Fox News played the whole tape.  Yes, we did here him say "They let you grab them"  We also heard how he just goes in and kiss them without consent stating they let you do it because you are rich.  The complete context was a man who decided to brag about taking advantage of women because he was rich.  Just think about it, sleeping with some Porn star while your wife has just delivered your child.  Hell, Trump has cheated on each one of his wives, that is pretty much what he does.


The thing is you are trying to make Trump out to be this moral person which he is definitely not.  You only have to do moderate research on Trump to see that he has always been a grifter.  Does that mean he would be a bad President, actually no it doesn't.  None of the moral stuff Trump has done would actually be a knock on him as a leader.  The knock on Trump as a leader is that he is an Idiot.  You can look throughout his pass and see that he has always been this big BS artist who has lied about his wealth and his business prowers but in reality he is just a con man and not a very good one.  

Well based on your, 'showing people who they are' logic, If you don't dislike Trump, then are you condoning the things he's said and done, like the things stated above? Talking about woman like that, cheating on his wives, conning and swindling people, etc?

These things don't necessarily make him a bad leader as you mentioned, so does it make him a bad unlikable person, or do you find that acceptable and attractive? If his immorality doesn't make you mad or upset, I don't know why you would bring them up as points against him, if you're really being honest in your rebuttals.



The Canadian National Anthem According To Justin Trudeau

 

Oh planet Earth! The home of native lands, 
True social law, in all of us demand.
With cattle farts, we view sea rise,
Our North sinking slowly.
From far and snide, oh planet Earth, 
Our healthcare is yours free!
Science save our land, harnessing the breeze,
Oh planet Earth, smoke weed and ferment yeast.
Oh planet Earth, ell gee bee queue and tee.

RolStoppable said:
Azuren said:

And then the lowest form of wit from the lowest form of political commentator. Appropriate. Good luck with convincing anyone who knows what the word means that you're trying to have a discussion about politics in a rational manner. You'll need it when you take into consideration half your argument is insults and the other half is sarcasm.

I don't think he needs good luck when his posts speak for themselves.

They really don't. They're mostly insults, and an insult is not replacement for making an actual point.



Watch me stream games and hunt trophies on my Twitch channel!

Check out my Twitch Channel!:

www.twitch.tv/AzurenGames

SpokenTruth said:
Azuren said:

The real question is why do the crime rates of native-born citizens matter in a discussion about immigrant crime rates? What immigration policies will prevent native-born citizens from committing crime?

Ask eva01beserk.  He made the claim illegal immigrants do the most crimes per capita and were violent. I should showed he was wrong.  If you want to debate why we're discussing native born crime in a discussion of immigration, you'll need to ask him.

Azuren said:

1). Except they do still bring crime at a much higher rate than legal immigrants, 2). crime that would happen much less if immigration policies were addressed and improved. The point made by those discussing crime committed by illegal immigrants does include the disingenuous claims that they commit crime at a higher rate than citizens, but the point that people who are acting in good faith would point out is much of this is 3). crime wouldn't even be in the country in the first place if there was better border security.

1). Rates are skewed because this includes gang and criminal activity.  By that I mean the majority of illegal immigrants common immigrants who can't wait for our antiquated immigration system to push their asylum case (because we got rid of our case worker program...ooops).

2). You're actually correct on this.  We do need to modernize our immigration system.  But as such, it's irrelevant to the crime rate of illegal and legal immigrants given that gangs and criminals won't give a damn what we do regarding immigration policy.

3). You still seem to be under the impression criminals intend to obey our immigration laws.

And.....4). Since you asked the question, "why do the crime rates of native-born citizens matter in a discussion about immigrant crime rates?" Looking at the thread topic...we are all way off course for the actual discussion.

1) Native-born citizens also include gang activity. I'm honestly not sure what point you're attempting to make here, but I would suggest rethinking or paraphrasing it since it seems more like you're suggesting there are a disproportionate number of gang members among illegal immigrants.

2) Again, it seems like you're suggesting there is a disproportionate number of gang members among illegal immigrants, which would lend to the idea that more strict and controlled borders are necessary.

3) Immigration policy doesn't simply include laws, it includes enforcement of the laws. In addition to needing a reform for naturalization, asylum claims, and general immigrant processing we need a stronger presence at the border to prevent and/or discourage illegal immigration.

4) I was simply observing this discussion and chimed in. The fault of the course deviation lies on you and gamingsoul.



Watch me stream games and hunt trophies on my Twitch channel!

Check out my Twitch Channel!:

www.twitch.tv/AzurenGames

Azuren said:
RolStoppable said:

I don't think he needs good luck when his posts speak for themselves.

They really don't. They're mostly insults, and an insult is not replacement for making an actual point.

I hope this post was intentionally ironic.



Legend11 correctly predicted that GTA IV (360+PS3) would outsell SSBB. I was wrong.

A Biased Review Reloaded / Open Your Eyes / Switch Gamers Club