By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

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

eva01beserk on 25 June 2019
vivster said:
eva01beserk said:

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.

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. 

And  Ill give you that humans are naturally egotistical. As much as we evolved we still carry that in us to just horde as much as possible for ourselfs only. I dont think theres going to be a fix for that anytime soon. 

As much as I dont believe that about germany, its great if true. Do you really believe that if we do the same as germany it will work just the same? We have 4x the population and a higher GDP per capita. It tends to be that the higher the population the lower the GDP per capita, so We must be doing something a lot better than germany.

Edit: Just wish there was a different response from a little criticism than being called a republican or far right.

Last edited by eva01beserk - on 25 June 2019

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

Around the Network
eva01beserk on 25 June 2019
MrWayne said:
eva01beserk said:

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

Venezuela did not started by nationalizing all the industry, they did  some at a time, and at the beginning none where taken over. When ever they needed more money cuz they destroyed the first buisnes they took over, they move on to the next one. The latest things they took over was personal homes to turn a area into a turist atraction.

The same will be with berni and the rest of the democrats runing on socialism. When its ovbious that they cant pay for it, another sector will suffer and so on and so on, just like venezuela.

So Venezuela didn't immediately went socialist the moment Chavez was elected, I got it. 

Look I'm not a Socialist and I don't want to defend Socialism nor Maduro and Chavez, they are awful but it's incredibly dishonest fear mongering to say the "far left" democratic candidates will turn the US into a failed socialist country like Venezuela. Bernie, Warren and co have very moderate policies which have been in force in other countries for decades without turning those countries into "shithole countries".

Hell Germany has a form of universal healthcare since 1883 and I'm unaware that Germany is known for ruining its economy or that Germans are known to be lazy.

All im saying is that there is the potential for the slippery slope. Once the doors is open for moderate socialist programs. Like vivster said before, Unless the full nation wide its not gona have even a chance of working. But there is no way the US will just take in all of germanys policies in that manner. It will have to be a few a a time, slowly. but if you leave programs half ass like that they are bound to fail one by one and by the time you could get to where germany is it will all be a clusterf**k.



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

Torillian on 25 June 2019
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. 

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



...

eva01beserk on 25 June 2019
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.

eva01beserk on 25 June 2019
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.

Around the Network
Torillian on 25 June 2019
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. 



...

tsogud on 25 June 2019
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

 

EricHiggin on 26 June 2019
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.



Azuren on 26 June 2019
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

Azuren on 26 June 2019
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