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+

tsogud said:
eva01beserk said:

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.

I think you have to do some research. The Issue with the US is the regulation of the cost of care. Hospitals here cost an insane amount compared to other nations. Covering the entire nation 100% would raise taxes higher than what other nations would pay for equal coverage. Until the US regulates health care facilitys to charge what ever they want, as soon as free health care is applied, prices will go up, but you wont see it, they will bill the government then the government will raise taxes to pay for it. Cant say that I know, but im sure a country like germany does not the health care facility's to just jack up prices to the extend of the us facility's. You seem to think the only reason this is not working in the US is just because we are unwilling to, but there are other barriers. 



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

Around the Network
Torillian said:
eva01beserk said:

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. 

Yea you are right I miss read some data. But still 1/5 still to much. It is still the highest poverty rate in the US. And it is still disproportionate. 



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

eva01beserk said:
Torillian said:

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. 

Yea you are right I miss read some data. But still 1/5 still to much. It is still the highest poverty rate in the US. And it is still disproportionate. 

I think that has more to do with average housing costs in California than any social programs. SPM takes into account housing costs which is why California is so much worse in the SPM stat than in the general poverty stat. 



...

eva01beserk said:

Thats the issue right there. Its only in highly populated states where the is a severe need for theese social programs. Like I said in the previous post, california has 1/9 the US population but has 1/3 the poor of the US. Its disproportionate. Thats the point of the electoral college. So all the resources are not drained from smaller states to feed the bigger states for the issues they created. 

Math errors aside (which others have discussed with you already), that's not actually a function of or the reason for the EC. Looking at what we have from the actual record at the Constitutional Convention that pertains to discussion over the nature of the presidency, there doesn't appear to be anything suggesting that the Framers by and large felt that an EC was necessary to protect small states from big states. Rather, the EC came about through pure politics. The Framers disagreed on everything when it came to structuring the new government that would be formed by the Constitution, and that included how the executive was to be chosen.

Some of them wanted the president to be chosen by the Congress, similar to how presidents are selected in most parliamentary republics. Others objected to that on the basis of separation of powers, as it would make the presidency dependent on the legislature.

Some of them wanted the president to be elected directly by the people. Others objected to that largely because of... certain sectional interests. As James Madison put it:

"There was one difficulty however of a serious nature attending an immediate choice by the people. The right of suffrage was much more diffusive in the Northern than the Southern States; and the latter could have no influence in the election on the score of Negroes. The substitution of electors obviated this difficulty and seemed on the whole to be liable to the fewest objections."

In other words, delegates from slave states in the South felt that their slaves not counting towards the selection of the president would disadvantage them (the same attitude that led to objections over congressional apportionment, which led to the Three-fifths Compromise). This made a plan for the direct popular election of the president a non-starter at the Convention.

So, neither election by the legislature nor direct election by (free, male, land-owning) citizens at large were politically viable. The eventual compromise was the Electoral College. It's existence has little to nothing to do with some noble desire to protect small states from large states (though the Senate was intended to put all states on even footing by giving them equal representation in at least one house of our national legislature, whose structure as outlined in the Constitution was itself a product of compromise), and everything to do with with a bunch of disagreeable men finding a solution that ruffled the fewest feathers.

Everything written since then in support of the EC are just a bunch of post-hoc rationalizations for maintaining the status quo... a status quo that in the present clearly benefits one political party more than it does another. "Federalism" is a poor excuse for retaining it, as is quaint notions like "big states vs. small states." In reality, states are divided more along partisan lines than by population size in modern America. Vermont and Hawaii have more in common politically with California and New York than they do with Wyoming or Nebraska. Meanwhile, Idaho and Kansas have more in common politically with Texas and Georgia than they do with Delaware and Rhode Island.

There have long been a desire to replace the EC with a national popular vote. The closest we came to that was the Bayh—Celler Amendment from the early 70s, which was proposed in response to the contentious outcome of the 1968 election. It had the support of an overwhelming majority of Americans across all political identities (Gallup has done multiple polls on the EC at least since 1966, which is the source for my numbers here in this paragraph) and it passed the House by a massive margin, but it was filibustered to death in the Senate, with the filibuster being led mostly by segregationist senators like my state's own Strom Thurmond. By 1980, most Americans still supported a national popular vote, the outcome of the 1968 election likely still fresh in most people's minds. Since then, there haven't been any amendments to abolish the EC to make it to a vote in either chamber of the Congress, and it has become an increasingly partisan issue, but one where an overwhelming majority of Democrats have been consistently in favor of a popular vote (as they were in 1980 and before), whereas Republicans waffled back and forth in their support of the EC.

Another poll wouldn't be done until after the 2000 election, and suddenly we see a majority of Republicans support the EC (56%, vs 41% supporting a national popular vote). Then Barack Obama becomes president eight years later, and most Republicans went back to wanting to see a national popular vote, with support peaking at 61% in Jan. 2013. In fact, some Republican politicians in several states pushed for those states to use the Nebraska—Maine rule of allocating electoral votes (statewide vote winner gets two votes; the rest are awarded by congressional districts), apparently because they felt the EC as is wasn't fair to them. Perhaps not coincidentally, those states were mainly states like Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania that were perceived as being reliably Democratic in voting for president. We never saw Republicans propose anything similar for red states like Texas or Tennessee. Then after the 2016 election Republicans suddenly reversed course yet again, with Republican support for a national popular vote declining from the aforementioned 61% to only 19%. Trump himself went from calling the EC "a disaster for democracy" to singing its praises.

It seems to me that most Republicans don't care about the EC because they think it's a genuinely good and fair institution, but rather because they feel it gives them an advantage since it got Trump the win despite him losing the national popular vote. They like the rules when the rules work for them. Otherwise, they will seek to alter or abolish the rules or find some loophole to exploit.

Meanwhile, the vast majority of Democrats and Democratic-leaning citizens have always supported a national popular vote regardless of whether or not the EC was perceived as working for them (support for abolishing the EC never dipped below 66% for Dems, and was usually in the 70-80% range for at least the past 20 years), showing that most of them have simply felt the EC was a bad institution period, even if it got Obama huge electoral landslides.

This is yet another example of the asymmetry in partisan politics, and why those who want to retain the EC and oppose a national popular vote do so for largely cynical reasons. It doesn't have a damn thing to do with "big states vs. small states" or other more abstract philosophical notions.



RolStoppable said:
Azuren said:

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.

And I do hope this post as intentionally satirical, but I won't hold my breath. Synonyms for a name he chose aren't insults.



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

Check out my Twitch Channel!:

www.twitch.tv/AzurenGames

Around the Network
Azuren said:
RolStoppable said:

I hope this post was intentionally ironic.

And I do hope this post as intentionally satirical, but I won't hold my breath. Synonyms for a name he chose aren't insults.

What I couldn't get out of mind is that there's an active user in political threads who goes by the name of SpokenTruth. Since you are fixated on a user's name to determine their quality as a poster, I imagined the following scenario.

SpokenTruth: "Machiavellian is one of the best contributors in political threads."

Machiavellian: "Don't trust what SpokenTruth says."

That would really mess with your head.



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

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

RolStoppable said:
Azuren said:

And I do hope this post as intentionally satirical, but I won't hold my breath. Synonyms for a name he chose aren't insults.

What I couldn't get out of mind is that there's an active user in political threads who goes by the name of SpokenTruth. Since you are fixated on a user's name to determine their quality as a poster, I imagined the following scenario.

SpokenTruth: "Machiavellian is one of the best contributors in political threads."

Machiavellian: "Don't trust what SpokenTruth says."

That would really mess with your head.

I suppose you would also trust a user named "NintendoIsGarbage" on why Horizon: Zero Dawn is a better game than Breath of the Wild. Good luck with that.



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

Check out my Twitch Channel!:

www.twitch.tv/AzurenGames

Azuren said:

I suppose you would also trust a user named "NintendoIsGarbage" on why Horizon: Zero Dawn is a better game than Breath of the Wild. Good luck with that.

Depends on the posting history as well as the content of the post in question. People choosing ironic usernames is a thing.



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

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

RolStoppable said:
Azuren said:

I suppose you would also trust a user named "NintendoIsGarbage" on why Horizon: Zero Dawn is a better game than Breath of the Wild. Good luck with that.

Depends on the posting history as well as the content of the post in question. People choosing ironic usernames is a thing.

Again, good luck with that. 



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

Check out my Twitch Channel!:

www.twitch.tv/AzurenGames

Shadow1980 said:
o_O.Q said:

under what political system would you place the authoritarian redistribution of resources in this way? beyond that can you quote for me where she has mentioned another business?

You do know the government has broken up monopolistic businesses before, right? In 1911 Standard Oil was split up into multiple smaller companies, which went on to become oil companies familiar to us today like Chevron, Exxon, Mobil, and Amoco. Then in 1982 AT&T (the original version of the company) was required to divest itself of the Bell System, which was broken up into seven regional "Baby Bells." In both instances the breakup of a major corporation resulted in the creation of multiple smaller corporations, capitalistic entities all. The proposed breakup of certain tech giants today would be no different. It wasn't socialism then, and it wouldn't somehow be socialism today. So, you ask "under what political system would you place the authoritarian redistribution of resources in this way?", and I answer: "The same one we've always had, the same one that existed under Taft and Reagan." There is nothing inherently socialistic about anti-trust policies. And all governments redistribute wealth and property through their policies. Even the most simple changes in the tax code will necessarily redistribute some wealth. Supply-side tax cuts redistribute wealth upward by concentrating it into the hands of those who are already wealthy, but nobody considers that to be "socialism" even though it is redistributive. Redistribution is not socialism.

which is a completely irrelevant red herring

How so? All other advanced nations have a universal public health insurance system. All other nations have not forcibly nationalized all health insurance providers, and private for-profit insurance companies still exist in those nations. A single-payer system does not inherently involve the nationalization of private businesses. What makes you believe the situation will be any different in the U.S., assuming we ever do move to a truly universal single-payer system? Do you think Medicare and Medicaid are socialist?

When all of the private options are consolidated into a centrally controlled system then yes, yes it does

So public roads, police, emergency services, military defense, and other government services are socialism? Are you sure you're not one of those "Socialism is anything the government does" types?

I'm curious btw if you're going to jump as far as claiming its only socialism when there is no state

No. If the state nationalizes the means of production, I consider that a form of socialism. And no mainstream U.S. politician has advocated nationalizing any extant private for-profit business. I've seen them advocate for better regulation (of pollution, etc.), more progressive taxation, and expansion/improvement of services already provided by the government that may or may no compete with similar services offered by the private sector, but that's not socialism because there's no transfer of ownership of a private entity to the public.

but is gaining traction which was my point

No more traction than it had a century ago, which even then wasn't much. It's not a mainstream thing.

the nazis controlled all of the businesses in germany, they decided how they would operate and only allowed businesses inline with their agenda to survive, that can hardly be considered a mixed economy and especially not a capitalist economy as many dishonest people have claimed

What does privatization of state enterprises say about their economy? What do the continued existence of large corporations like Thyssen, Krupp, IG Farben, Daimler-Benz, Junkers, Messerschmitt, Siemens, and Volkswagen say about their economy? How is the active promotion of private for-profit business not capitalism? Does it cease to be capitalism when the state says corporations have to toe the party line, even if those corporations do so willingly and happily because it helps their bottom lines? No, it does not.

what does this say about their policies? I thought we were talking about policy?'

Hitler hated socialism and viewed it as a Jewish plot, and that informed his policies. But I guess since he was a statist he actually didn't really hate socialism, right? All statists are socialists by definition, and only libertarians are true "anti-socialists," huh? That whole "socialism is whatever the government does" bit really does seem to be your general attitude.

https://www.jacobinmag.com/2019/05/workplace-democracy-policy-bernie-sanders

"Bernie Sanders’s embrace of worker ownership and control aims to extend democracy from the political sphere to the economy."

"As revealed Tuesday by the Washington Post, the Sanders presidential campaign is currently working on two proposals designed to win American workers a greater share of profits and give them a bigger say in company decisions.

While details are forthcoming, the first will involve requiring large businesses to put a portion of their stock into employee-controlled funds, which would in turn pay out dividends to workers — potentially turning them into owners."

what do you think the ultimate goal of the proposals made here is?

Giving the employees of big businesses some say in what goes on in said businesses in this era we live in where employees are mostly "wage-slaves" existing in an the authoritarian power structure that is the modern corporation and have lost almost all means of unionizing thanks to Orwellian-named "right to work" laws gutting the power of labor. The employees as a group being a shareholder doesn't necessarily fundamentally alter the nature of that business, that being a private for-profit corporation selling its goods and services in an open market and selling stock to current and potential investors. I suppose you're concerned that these measures are an incrementalist thing that will ultimately result in forced conversion of those businesses into worker co-ops, but that's not what's actually being pushed for.

I understand your desire to caricature my argument in this way, but I've clarified how you are wrong

Sure doesn't seem like that. You've pointed to any government intervention in the economy or government-provided service and have insinuated it was somehow socialistic. How else am I suppose to interpret that except as "socialism is everything the government does."

which is what democrats are calling for in some areas as I've clarified

I don't think you understand what "public ownership" means. If the federal government one day passed a law nationalizing, say, auto manufacturing or the oil industry, that would be socialism. If they passed a law forcing Bank of America, JP Morgan Chase, Wells Fargo, etc., to become credit unions, that would be socialism. And that's not what the Democrats are pushing for. The Democrats by and large are moderates and capitalists, though you occasionally get a social democrat like AOC (Sanders is running as a Democrat for president, but he is not a member of the party). Even if they don't necessarily believe in the nominally laissez faire "vulture capitalism" the GOP ascribes to, the Democratic mainstream are not intent on fundamentally restructuring our economy, especially not along socialistic lines. Democrats get their re-election campaigns financed by big private for-profit capitalist entities. That comes with a certain tacit quid pro quo. They aren't going to challenge that relationship. They want to moderate capitalism and tone down its excesses. They don't want us to start resembling

who exactly are you arguing with? are you doing the thing where someone makes a point you disagree with and so therefore you just lump them in with everyone you disagree with and assume they are saying the exact same thing?

I think you even at one point suggested I'm right wing lol

Are you just unfamiliar with right-wing talking points? Do you not know anyone that spends all day listening to conservative talk radio and/or Fox News? Right-wing propagandists have spent decades lumping everybody that disagrees with them together and calling them "socialists," "Marxists," and "communists," and now there's the whole "argumentum ad Venezuela" strawman that's making the rounds. It's farcical to the extreme and lacks any factual basis, but this red-baiting works to agitate the base, and (to get back to the main topic of the thread) that's one reason why Trump supporters are so fervent in their love of the man. They've been fed this stead line of garbage that the Democrats are (among other things) Stalin incarnate, and they believe Trump is the ultimate embodiment of everything the Democrats hate, which makes him awesome in their book. I hear this red-baiting garbage all the time and I'm honestly sick of it. I don't know what you believe, but it's clear that you've at least picked up on some right-wing talking points through simple cultural osmosis if you think the Democrats are in any way socialist.

why do people say that?

Because they're either right-wing propagandists or people who spend all day listening to right-wing propaganda. Again, do you not know anyone who spends all day listening to right-wing radio talking heads like Rush Limbaugh and Michael Savage? CNN doesn't kiss Trump's ass and, more broadly, they don't kiss the GOP's ass and mindlessly spew right-wing talking points and condemn the Democrats every chance they get, so they're the enemy, and the enemy must be tarred with whatever slurs are deemed appropriate, up to an including insinuating that they're communists.

""under what political system would you place the authoritarian redistribution of resources in this way?", and I answer: "The same one we've always had, the same one that existed under Taft and Reagan.""

so for you policies can only be socialist when all means of production are publicly owned and the state is abolished?

"Redistribution is not socialism."

what is the goal of socialism?

"All other nations have not forcibly nationalized all health insurance providers, and private for-profit insurance companies still exist in those nations."

"If the state nationalizes the means of production, I consider that a form of socialism. And no mainstream U.S. politician has advocated nationalizing any extant private for-profit business."

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/23/health/private-health-insurance-medicare-for-all-bernie-sanders.html

"At the heart of the “Medicare for all” proposals championed by Senator Bernie Sanders and many Democrats is a revolutionary idea: Abolish private health insurance."

 

"No more traction than it had a century ago"

they were calling for the abolition of private charter schools a century ago?

"What does privatization of state enterprises say about their economy?"

"Does it cease to be capitalism when the state says corporations have to toe the party line, even if those corporations do so willingly and happily because it helps their bottom lines?"

http://www.ub.edu/graap/nazi.pdf

"On one hand, the intense growth of governmental regulations on markets, which heavily
restricted economic freedom, suggests that the rights inherent to private property were destroyed."(the ultimate goal of socialism, anyone who understands what socialism is understands this)

" “the State in fact divested itself of a great deal of its previous direct participation in
industry….But at the same time state control, regulation and interference in the conduct of the
economy affairs was enormously extended.”"

"Consistent with Sweezy’s approach, Merlin (1943, p. 207) states that the Nazi Party was
looking not only for business support, but also for increased control over the economy."

"Hitler hated socialism and viewed it as a Jewish plot, and that informed his policies"

he had a weird way of showing it when you consider that most of his policies are the same policies socialists are advocating for today

"But I guess since he was a statist he actually didn't really hate socialism, right?"

look socialists as far as i've seen are stupid, they largely don't even understand their own ideology and how it doesn't make sense

they'll argue on the one hand that they want to abolish the state and private property, but then on the other hand they don't know how they'll manage to stop people from acquiring private property without a ridiculously authoritarian government

"That whole "socialism is whatever the government does" bit really does seem to be your general attitude."

ok what is socialism from your perspective? since nothing is ever socialism, nazi germany was not socialist, venezuela was not socialist, cuba, soviet union etc etc etc whenever socialists or communists fuck things up and end up fucking up a whole lot of people its never socialism right?

so what is socialism then? you tell me

"Giving the employees of big businesses some say in what goes on in said businesses in this era we live in where employees are mostly "wage-slaves" existing in an the authoritarian power structure that is the modern corporation and have lost almost all means of unionizing thanks to Orwellian-named "right to work" laws gutting the power of labor."

lol let me guess, you've read marx?

how else would a business work outside of a structure where the owner has authority over how the business is run? oh, by being owned and run by the workers? well that's bernie's argument, wasn't your whole point here that this was't being argued for?

" I suppose you're concerned that these measures are an incrementalist thing that will ultimately result in forced conversion of those businesses into worker co-ops, but that's not what's actually being pushed for."

what is actually being pushed for?

"You've pointed to any government intervention in the economy or government-provided service and have insinuated it was somehow socialistic."

""And a service provided by the government does not socialism make"

When all of the private options are consolidated into a centrally controlled system then yes, yes it does"

"If the federal government one day passed a law nationalizing, say, auto manufacturing or the oil industry, that would be socialism."

but for some reason not if its private health insurance?

"and now there's the whole "argumentum ad Venezuela" strawman that's making the rounds."

"If the federal government one day passed a law nationalizing, say, auto manufacturing or the oil industry, that would be socialism."

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-venezuela-election-nationalizations/factbox-venezuelas-nationalizations-under-chavez-idUSBRE89701X20121008

"

OIL

* In 2007, Chavez’s government took a majority stake in four oil projects in the vast Orinoco heavy crude belt worth an estimated $30 billion in total.

Exxon Mobil Corp and ConocoPhillips quit the country as a result and filed arbitration claims. Late last year, an arbitration panel ordered Venezuela to pay Exxon $908 million, though a larger case is still ongoing.

France’s Total SA and Norway’s StatoilHydro ASA received about $1 billion in compensation after reducing their holdings. Britain’s BP Plc and America’s Chevron Corp remained as minority partners.

* In 2008, Chavez’s administration implemented a windfall tax of 50 percent for prices over $70 per barrel, and 60 percent on oil over $100. Oil reached $147 that year, but soon slumped.

* In 2009, Chavez seized a major gas injection project belonging to Williams Cos Inc and a range of assets from local service companies. This year, the energy minister said the government would pay $420 million to Williams and one of its U.S. partners, Exterran Holdings, for the takeover.

* In June 2010, the government seized 11 oil rigs from Oklahoma-based Helmerich & Payne Inc."

"Because they're either right-wing propagandists or people who spend all day listening to right-wing propaganda."

what would you consider to be left wing propaganda? or does that not exist?