• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Democrats are the party of the rich in Congress

I don't think anyone thinks that. Liberals actually tend to be a bit wealthier than conservatives. We're generally more educated, which is a pretty good indicator of economic class.

However, averages can be misleading. The tiny super rich are overwhelmingly conservative, as are their poorer, more fundamentalist religious electorate. That's how we get an average income of about $32,000 in this country, but if all income were divided evenly, it would be around $220,000. Context makes a big difference. Those House districts have wealthier communities, while the super rich tend to live wherever they want, not even with the regular upper class.

Either way, simply discussing the 10 wealthiest districts is a very small sample size.
 
I don't think anyone thinks that. Liberals actually tend to be a bit wealthier than conservatives. We're generally more educated, which is a pretty good indicator of economic class.

Lean: Socialist

Bookmarked for reference for the next time liberals are accused of being socialists and claim that they never identify as such and that the connection exists solely as a rhetorical ploy by conservatives.
 
Lean: Socialist

Bookmarked for reference for the next time liberals are accused of being socialists and claim that they never identify as such and that the connection exists solely as a rhetorical ploy by conservatives.

All Sploogs are Terks. All Terks are Marps. True or false: All Marps are Sploogs.

Answer correctly to understand why your statement was silly.
 
How does this go along with "All blacks vote Democrat?" Unless black people are on the whole richer than white people, and tend to live in nicer neighborhoods....

Basically, BOTH parties represent the interests of the rich.

It's probably a myth that republicans are the evil rich, that is, in congress, it looks like rich democrats are outnumbering republicans, as being rich.

I'm not sure where you want to go with this black skin thing mentioned.

According to this media outlet, blacks overwhelmingly voted democrat, supporting Obama's reelection.

I do not know if this media outlet is biased or not, I'm not that familiar with media biases.

The wide racial gap in Obama’s presidential elections, in 2 charts

I'm not sure about your analogy of black vs white voters, the link in the Original Post (OP) states congressional democrats, not voters.
 
It's probably a myth that republicans are the evil rich, that is, in congress, it looks like rich democrats are outnumbering republicans, as being rich.

I'm not sure where you want to go with this black skin thing mentioned.

According to this media outlet, blacks overwhelmingly voted democrat, supporting Obama's reelection.

I do not know if this media outlet is biased or not, I'm not that familiar with media biases.

The wide racial gap in Obama’s presidential elections, in 2 charts

I'm not sure about your analogy of black vs white voters, the link in the Original Post (OP) states congressional democrats, not voters.

So the Members themselves are rich. Which really shouldn't come as any kind of surprise.

I'm going off of this statement, which talks about the voters of the district:

But in Congress, the wealthiest among us are more likely to be represented by a Democrat than a Republican.

This doesn't really seem to jive with the idea of blacks voting Democrat - minorities are usually less wealthy than whites.

But I think what it really says is that party affiliation cuts across economic lines, and with gerrymandering, a rich Democratic neighborhood is less likely to be in the same district as the rich Republican neighborhood a few blocks over.
 
So the Members themselves are rich. Which really shouldn't come as any kind of surprise.

I'm going off of this statement, which talks about the voters of the district:



This doesn't really seem to jive with the idea of blacks voting Democrat - minorities are usually less wealthy than whites.

But I think what it really says is that party affiliation cuts across economic lines, and with gerrymandering, a rich Democratic neighborhood is less likely to be in the same district as the rich Republican neighborhood a few blocks over.

You might have meant to say redistricting, which both parties do.
 
Why the liberal's redistribution of wealth scheme is unbiblical:

Obama vs. the Bible – Redistribution of Wealth « The Righter Report

Rubbish.

What did the Biblical Jesus do? He hung around people considered to be taboo by the religious establishment, asked his followers to give up everything they had, and then used that to help the poor. Jesus said that it's almost impossible for a rich person to be saved. This loon says that Jesus really meant that god wants the most hardworking and deserving to be rich.

Guys like these are the money changers that Jesus flipped out on.
 
Most of these rich congress critters got rich while they were in congress. That is the big issue here.

Which is why Constitutional amendment #28 should be about term limits for the House and Senate. Will that ever happen - of course not, but it needs to.
 
Lean: Socialist

Bookmarked for reference for the next time liberals are accused of being socialists and claim that they never identify as such and that the connection exists solely as a rhetorical ploy by conservatives.
Seriously? Socialism is a liberal concept. If you're a socialist, you can conveniently identify yourself as liberal because socialism is, well, liberal. If you're a liberal, that does not mean you're a socialist. Most liberals don't identify themselves as socialist. Now, are you still going to use this single event as evidence that supports what you believe and use it to generalize all liberals?
 
Jesus would never advocate giving money to someone who hadn't EARNED that ****!

Nope but he did support charity which according to all reports republicans give more money to charity than liberals do. they also tend to be happier.
 
Uuugghhh. Isn't that what I just said?

Let me pinch myself, I might not be awake yet.

It's two different words for the same thing unfortunately. I meant to say gerrymander rather than redistrict because it is possible to redistrict without gerrymandering. Neither party wants that though.
 
It's two different words for the same thing unfortunately. I meant to say gerrymander rather than redistrict because it is possible to redistrict without gerrymandering. Neither party wants that though.

Neither party want's what?
 
Rubbish.

What did the Biblical Jesus do? He hung around people considered to be taboo by the religious establishment, asked his followers to give up everything they had, and then used that to help the poor. Jesus said that it's almost impossible for a rich person to be saved. This loon says that Jesus really meant that god wants the most hardworking and deserving to be rich.

Guys like these are the money changers that Jesus flipped out on.

The fact is that redistribution of wealth is a self-serving liberal scheme centered in greed and covetousness for other people's money, rather than exercising personal initiative and responsibility and earning it themselves. The lack of personal initiative and responsibility are hallmarks of the liberal left, which is why they want a government nanny to take care of them.

Jesus said a man should reap what he sows, not what other people sow. And I stand by the rest of what was in the article.
 
Neither party wants to redistrict without gerrymandering.

Both parties redistrict for a reason, demographics. It works in some areas, but not all. Both parties redistrict thinking it will give them an edge in elections.

My experience with redistricting is that now, I have to drive farther to a polling place than I did two years ago. Politicians use redistricting as a tool to inconvenience some voters. Voters who might cast a ballot for an opponent. If the voter cannot get to the redistricted polling place, they might say, the heck with it, it's too far to travel. In some areas, public transportation to the redistricted areas isn't available.

It could be said that redistricting is a form of gerrymandering, or that gerrymandering is a form of redistricting. Gerrymandering takes place at legislation offices, usually bills submitted to a state's congress. If a majority of the state's congress vote for the gerrymandering bill, such as redistricting, the bill is passed. Other forms of gerrymandering is fraud committed at polling places, voter registrations and so forth, but these are illegal practices.
 
I don't think anyone thinks that. Liberals actually tend to be a bit wealthier than conservatives. We're generally more educated, which is a pretty good indicator of economic class.

However, averages can be misleading. The tiny super rich are overwhelmingly conservative, as are their poorer, more fundamentalist religious electorate. That's how we get an average income of about $32,000 in this country, but if all income were divided evenly, it would be around $220,000. Context makes a big difference. Those House districts have wealthier communities, while the super rich tend to live wherever they want, not even with the regular upper class.

Either way, simply discussing the 10 wealthiest districts is a very small sample size.

FACT #2: The Racial/Ethnic Groups That Are the Least Educated Are the Fastest Growing.

decline-fig5.jpg


Don't you also have the least educated voters too?
 
Both parties redistrict for a reason, demographics. It works in some areas, but not all. Both parties redistrict thinking it will give them an edge in elections.

My experience with redistricting is that now, I have to drive farther to a polling place than I did two years ago. Politicians use redistricting as a tool to inconvenience some voters. Voters who might cast a ballot for an opponent. If the voter cannot get to the redistricted polling place, they might say, the heck with it, it's too far to travel. In some areas, public transportation to the redistricted areas isn't available.

It could be said that redistricting is a form of gerrymandering, or that gerrymandering is a form of redistricting. Gerrymandering takes place at legislation offices, usually bills submitted to a state's congress. If a majority of the state's congress vote for the gerrymandering bill, such as redistricting, the bill is passed. Other forms of gerrymandering is fraud committed at polling places, voter registrations and so forth, but these are illegal practices.

I think you should check your definition of "gerrymander." It's all about redistricting. It refers specifically to drawing district boundaries to sway the result one way or the other. Fraud committed at a polling place could only occur after the district has been drawn, and while usually there's some gerrymandering involved in drawing the boundaries, that's long over with before a voter gets to a polling place.
 
Back
Top Bottom