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

[vivster]

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.