• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons 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!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Democrats Are For The Rich

aquapub

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 16, 2005
Messages
7,317
Reaction score
344
Location
America (A.K.A., a red state)
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
It began with McCain-Feingold.

Around fifty years ago, the Democrat party was controlled by sane moderates. It has since been controlled by Hollywood fanatics, Anti-American activist groups, wealthy elitist snobs, and extreme socialists. But it was never so clear until McCain-Feingold was passed. That law did two very important things:

1) It dispelled the long-lived myth that liberals somehow represent the little guy and that conservatives represent the bloodless elite. How? McCain-Feingold drastically limited the amount of money individuals could contribute to elections. (Because of this, McCain-Feingold was initially thought of by the liberal media as a victory for Democrats. The media had been an accessory in perpetuating this myth for so long that they had actually convinced themselves it was reality). But in the first month of fundraising for the 2004 presidential race, under these new restrictions, Republicans pulled in a staggering $18.9 million, while Democrats managed to come up with only $3.9 million.

If the myth were not a myth, these numbers would be reversed. In other words, when restricted to small contributions from individual citizens, Republicans thrive. When there are no restrictions and the enormously wealthy can dump tens of millions of dollars into campaigns, Democrats thrive. Month after month these figures continued to demonstrate this reality.

Democrats and their allies in the media suddenly started to realize that McCain-Feingold was exposing the real base of the Democrat party-Hollywood fanatics/millionaire elitist snobs and loonies like George Soros, Ted Turner, and Teresa Heinz-Kerry.

Of course, this reality had already been demonstrated numerous times before. You can always tell who really is on your side by who runs to your aid when you are in a crisis. In Election 2000, when Bush and Gore suddenly found themselves in need of quick fundraising, Bush limited his campaign contributions to around $500 per donor. Gore refused to put a limit on his (because his base was made up of the very rich and few). The average contribution to Bush’s legal fund was around $50. The average for Gore’s was in the thousands. Republicans rose more than twice what Democrats did. At $50 bucks a pop, this can only have happened if Republicans had vastly more supporters working out of relatively small budgets. Republicans represent the common man. The campaign finance numbers always indicate this.




2) I am generally against most campaign finance laws because no matter what gets changed, it only ever amounts to a rearranging of the loopholes. The second important thing McCain-Feingold did was prove me right about this. It left a big loophole where “independent” 527 groups were concerned. Contributors could still give UNLIMITED amounts to these groups and only these groups, so the few, the rich, the Democrats were able to make up for their inability to raise money relying on average Joe contributions by dumping their vast riches into these groups. These groups in turn created fanatical smear campaigns with MoveOn.org at center stage. George Soros and handful of other gazillionaires dumped over $78 million into these “independent” 527 groups (this is more than Bush AND Kerry were able to raise the legitimate way).

McCain-Feingold specifically stated that these groups were supposed to refrain from coordinating efforts with or even mentioning any federal candidates or party leadership in the course of their activities, but Democrats just blatantly disregarded the law in its entirety (shocker :roll: ) Ignoramus snobs like Ariana Huffington made a mockery of the honest intent of the law by telling stories about "some Texan who we will call, Buddy, lying about WMD,..." and so on.

BEFORE McCain Feingold, the Hollywood fanatics and rich elitist snobs who compose the base of the Democrat party didn’t have much direct power. They always had to give their millions to the Democratic National Committee and hope for the best. But NOW these incredibly fanatical Democrats had become the most powerful Democrats in the party with DIRECT roles in every step of the campaign.

In other words, McCain-Feingold handed all the power of the Democrat party to its most fanatical members by forcing them to channel the base of their funding- the few, the rich, the elitists-into organizations that would answer directly to the fanatics, thus removing the filter of the DNC moderates. THAT is why and how the Democrat party fell off the sanity wagon.

These 527 groups changed EVERYTHING about how campaigning will work in this country forever. Between the Hitler commercial-smear campaigns of MoveOn.org, the Deaniacs networking on line to reach untapped potential supporters, and the Michael Moore sheep coordinating efforts nationwide to get huge turnout for Moore’s now debunked propaganda flicks (this was done to generate the illusion that the little people were overwhelmingly siding with the left and rejecting Bush), it is clear that the Democrat party is now fully controlled by these ridiculous conspiracy theorists and anti-American degenerates.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jul 26, 2005
Messages
1,011
Reaction score
306
Location
Geelong, Australia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
And Bush must likely recieved substantial campaign contributions from corporations. Remember Enron?

So the Democrats get money from rich individuals, and the Republicans get money from rich corporations.....

Good to know that the guy with little money doesn't stand a chance.

Didn't these 527 gorups also fund the add campaigns that smeared John Kerry's Vietnam service during the 2004 election campaign?

Aquapub get of your soap box and stop being so hypocritical.
 

Kandahar

Enemy Combatant
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 20, 2005
Messages
20,688
Reaction score
7,319
Location
Washington, DC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
I love this bullshit populist rhetoric emanating from a CONSERVATIVE. I'm against campaign finance laws too, and generally support economic policies that socialists would consider to be "for the rich." But why is being "for the rich" valid criticism? Are you claiming that Republicans never implement policies that help the wealthy?

This is the most insincere criticism imaginable. It would be like a Democrat accusing Republicans of being too green.
 

Comrade Brian

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 18, 2005
Messages
1,239
Reaction score
0
Location
NE, Minnesota
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
t has since been controlled by Hollywood fanatics
Yes, Ronald Reagan was a dem.
[Anti-American activist groups/QUOTE]
Yeah, you know the ones who want jobs to stay in America, support minimum wage to help citizens, and try not to bite off more "terrorists" than they can chew.
wealthy elitist snobs
Yes Bush and Cheney are dirt-poor
extreme socialists
Finally someone agrees with me, Lenin was a dem.
But why is being "for the rich" valid criticism?
Because rich people are a very small minority, don't represnt no one but themselves, but unlike most they have the wealth to pay for their views, and ave. American couldn't give thousands to a party, so they can't buy prestige.
 

Caine

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 28, 2005
Messages
23,344
Reaction score
7,210
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Hrmmm... Democrats are for the Rich?????

Lets see here.....

Republican Views:

Social Security: Privatize Social Security, screw the poor man because he doesn't know how, nor does he have the time or money to learn how, to invest or work the market, nor can he afford someone to help him.

Public Schools: Abolish the public school system (Ive seen a few on this site that think this way), Screw the poor man who can't afford thousands of dollars to pay for his children's Private School Education.

Welfare: Abolish the Welfare System, Screw the poor man who is trying to keep food on the table while working some poor ass 5.15 per hour job because the Republicans won't agree to raise the Minimum Wage. Also, screw the poor woman who has been abused and beat on by her husband and is trying to get her and her children out on thier own and away from this abusive monster.

Tax Cuts: Give all the money back to the guys who can already afford to buy private islands and personal jets, they need it more than the guy whose child is eating 1/2 of what the Rich man considers a decent meal, PER DAY, the man whose child is on the Free Lunch program at the public school, and that is the kids most nutritional meal of the day. Nah, that Corporate Money Hugger needs the money for his 3rd Mercedes.

Hmmmm.......
Did I miss anything?
 

Comrade Brian

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 18, 2005
Messages
1,239
Reaction score
0
Location
NE, Minnesota
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Yes, I've heard some Republicans and Libertarians pretty much say that poor people have an easy life, they think that they don't work but still have govt. assistance.

Addition: Many of the same people think that impovershed people also want to be in their position, otherwise they wouldn't be in it, and that they're all drug addicts.

Shows how stupid some people can be.
 

Caine

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 28, 2005
Messages
23,344
Reaction score
7,210
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Comrade Brian said:
Yes, I've heard some Republicans and Libertarians pretty much say that poor people have an easy life, they think that they don't work but still have govt. assistance.

Addition: Many of the same people think that impovershed people also want to be in their position, otherwise they wouldn't be in it, and that they're all drug addicts.

Shows how stupid some people can be.
Its just a baseless prejudice against some people.

Im on Unemployment pending the start of the next Police Academy Class.

Maybe because I come from a poor background, served in the military, and am probably bound to lead a life of lower-middle class status, maybe this is why I actually care for the poor person (like my sister) who can't hardly afford food for her children and self.

I think we need another President who comes from a background like that of Abraham Lincoln or something.... of course, more modern, but you get the idea. Of course, Clinton didn't necessarily come from a rich upbringing, that is one of the things that I like about him, he worked hard to be an intellectual, even though his presidency has been surrounded by controversy, I still have respect for him for making it.

But, yeah, we need someone who actually cares about the common folk.
 

Comrade Brian

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 18, 2005
Messages
1,239
Reaction score
0
Location
NE, Minnesota
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Caine said:
But, yeah, we need someone who actually cares about the common folk.
No kidding, these days its "Democrats said this..." "Republicans said that..."
Most people don't care about those petty partisan things. Not to mention how most politicians just care more for their own wealth&power than anything else.

Why do you think I became one of those pesky communist liberal sympathizers?
 

Iriemon

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 10, 2005
Messages
19,405
Reaction score
2,187
Location
Miami
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Caine said:
Hrmmm... Democrats are for the Rich?????

Lets see here.....

Republican Views:

Social Security: Privatize Social Security, screw the poor man because he doesn't know how, nor does he have the time or money to learn how, to invest or work the market, nor can he afford someone to help him.

Public Schools: Abolish the public school system (Ive seen a few on this site that think this way), Screw the poor man who can't afford thousands of dollars to pay for his children's Private School Education.

Welfare: Abolish the Welfare System, Screw the poor man who is trying to keep food on the table while working some poor ass 5.15 per hour job because the Republicans won't agree to raise the Minimum Wage. Also, screw the poor woman who has been abused and beat on by her husband and is trying to get her and her children out on thier own and away from this abusive monster.

Tax Cuts: Give all the money back to the guys who can already afford to buy private islands and personal jets, they need it more than the guy whose child is eating 1/2 of what the Rich man considers a decent meal, PER DAY, the man whose child is on the Free Lunch program at the public school, and that is the kids most nutritional meal of the day. Nah, that Corporate Money Hugger needs the money for his 3rd Mercedes.

Hmmmm.......
Did I miss anything?
You forgot about abolishing the estate tax and eliminating the capital gains/dividend tax (they have lowered it, and want to eliminated it), so that the wealthy can inherit millions of dollars tax free and live on trust fund income tax free. Let the workers pay the taxes.
 

aquapub

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 16, 2005
Messages
7,317
Reaction score
344
Location
America (A.K.A., a red state)
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Another piece of evidence that Democrats truly represent the wealthy, elitist snobs of the world is the fundraising data from the 2004 Presidential election cited in Byron York's, "The Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy" in the 3rd chapter called, Shell Game.

64% of donations that were under $200 went to Republicans, while only 35% went to Democrats. 92% of the checks that were over $1 million went to Democrats.

The notion that Democrats represent the average Joe is nothing short of an astonishingly successful lie.
 

Caine

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 28, 2005
Messages
23,344
Reaction score
7,210
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
aquapub said:
Another piece of evidence that Democrats truly represent the wealthy, elitist snobs of the world is the fundraising data from the 2004 Presidential election cited in Byron York's, "The Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy" in the 3rd chapter called, Shell Game.

64% of donations that were under $200 went to Republicans, while only 35% went to Democrats. 92% of the checks that were over $1 million went to Democrats.

The notion that Democrats represent the average Joe is nothing short of an astonishingly successful lie.
LOL... That means nothing.
The 'average joe' doesn't contribute money. The 64% comes from the Christian people who think Bush is the second comming of Christ, and the hillbillies who are afraid liberals are going to take thier guns away or some ****.

The 92% comes from the individuals who have money and want to help endorse a Candidate that will make a change, alot of these are Hollywood people (because we know alot of them are Democrats), as well as many other individuals. Someone said it earlier, Democrats get money from rich individuals, Republicans get money from Rich Corporations.
 

aquapub

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 16, 2005
Messages
7,317
Reaction score
344
Location
America (A.K.A., a red state)
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Another great example of how Democrats represent wealthy elitists and not middle America is their position on the Patriot Act. Polls consistently put 2/3of Americans supporting its renewal.

The Democrat's postition is not the people's position, it's the position of George Soros and Arianna Huffington.
 

Caine

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 28, 2005
Messages
23,344
Reaction score
7,210
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
aquapub said:
Another great example of how Democrats represent wealthy elitists and not middle America is their position on the Patriot Act. Polls consistently put 2/3of Americans supporting its renewal.

The Democrat's postition is not the people's position, it's the position of George Soros and Arianna Huffington.
Yeah, because Bush has the country convinced that we will get attacked again if the Patriot Act is not renewed immediately.

The Democrats aren't trying to get rid of the Patriot Act, they wish to extend and reform it, since it was one of thier mistakes during the panic of post 9/11 to agree to such legislation without really debating it.

This is more partisan rhetoric in an attempt to confuse the American people and demonize the Democratic party. And sadly, most people aren't smart enough to see through it.

Bush said that..
Bush said:
BUSH: My job is to confront big challenges and lead. And I fully understand everybody is not going to agree with my decisions. But the president's job is to do what he thinks is right, and that's what I'm going to continue to do.

Secondly, if people want to play politics with the Patriot Act, it's -- well, let me just put it, it's not in the best interests of the country.
If you were to have watched the News Confrence, you would have seen him pause, then tell the country "let me just put it.... its not in the best intrests of the country." then give an evil looking half-grin, as if something is up his sleeve. I consider that a threat from within myself.
 

aquapub

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 16, 2005
Messages
7,317
Reaction score
344
Location
America (A.K.A., a red state)
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Caine said:
LOL... That means nothing.
The 'average joe' doesn't contribute money. The 64% comes from the Christian people who think Bush is the second comming of Christ, and the hillbillies who are afraid liberals are going to take thier guns away or some ****.

The 92% comes from the individuals who have money and want to help endorse a Candidate that will make a change, alot of these are Hollywood people (because we know alot of them are Democrats), as well as many other individuals. Someone said it earlier, Democrats get money from rich individuals, Republicans get money from Rich Corporations.


As lovely as it is to listen to you demonstrate my point about liberal snobbery as you trash poor people and Christians, your stereotype-based assumptions are less than convincing.

I have participated in fundraising for Republicans in Midwestern states. These people are not hillbillies, they are your average working stiffs with a strong sense of community. And before you release all this bigotry against Christians, you should know that 45% of Christians in America vote for Democrats.

And most corporations give to BOTH candidates. It is common practice to ensure favor with whoever wins. ADM Milling gave Bill Clinton $100,000 to get him to force 10% of the country to go on ethanol fuel-which made ADM millions.

You are right about one thing. Hollywood stars are one of the larger groups of millionaires who make up the left's base.
 
Last edited:

Engimo

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 19, 2005
Messages
1,042
Reaction score
0
Location
New York
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
aquapub said:
Another great example of how Democrats represent wealthy elitists and not middle America is their position on the Patriot Act. Polls consistently put 2/3of Americans supporting its renewal.

The Democrat's postition is not the people's position, it's the position of George Soros and Arianna Huffington.
I thought the whole idea of American government was to stop the tyrrany of the majority? Just because the majority of people believe something does not make it right.

For example, for a long time a majority of people believed that Saddam Hussein had ties to 9/11, which is patently untrue. Government should debate and take the side of whoever has the better arguments, regardless of the amount of people supporting it.
 

cnredd

Major General Big Lug
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 5, 2005
Messages
8,682
Reaction score
262
Location
Philadelphia,PA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Engimo said:
I thought the whole idea of American government was to stop the tyrrany of the majority? Just because the majority of people believe something does not make it right.

For example, for a long time a majority of people believed that Saddam Hussein had ties to 9/11, which is patently untrue. Government should debate and take the side of whoever has the better arguments, regardless of the amount of people supporting it.
You should've been here earlier espousing this when the "Bush's approval rating's at 35%!" threads were started...by guess who?...;)
 

Caine

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 28, 2005
Messages
23,344
Reaction score
7,210
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
aquapub said:
As lovely as it is to listen to you demonstrate my point about liberal snobbery as you trash poor people and Christians, your stereotype-based assumptions are less than convincing.

I have participated in fundraising for Republicans in Midwestern states. These people are not hillbillies, they are your average working stiffs with a strong sense of community. And before you release all this bigotry against Christians, you should know that 45% of Christians in Amderica vote for Democrats.

You are right about one thing. Hollywood stars are one of the larger groups of millionaires who make up the left's base.
I'M Trashing Poor People???
Im sorry, maybe you know nothing about me,
I AM POOR, IM ON FRIGGIN' UNEMPLOYMENT and I DON'T contribute to ANY money to ANY campaign funds. So im speaking from a position of experience. Nice retard assumptions there.

Yes, the people of this "strong sense" of community are getting confused by the retarded rhetoric of the Republican Party, spinning comments made by Kerry, Murtha, and Dean into treason.....the RNC funding an attack campaign in Ohio stating that if elected Kerry will burn all the bibles.
The 45% of Christians who vote for Democrats realize that our government needs no furthur involvement in religion, and don't follow the ignorant teachings of people like Pat Robertson and the other nut-ball evangelists who demand that if you don't support GWB then you need to get out of his Church.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-05-07-church-politics_x.htm

This frieghtens some people.
And I dont blame them.
 

Engimo

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 19, 2005
Messages
1,042
Reaction score
0
Location
New York
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
cnredd said:
You should've been here earlier espousing this when the "Bush's approval rating's at 35%!" threads were started...by guess who?...;)
I'm not quite sure what your point is. Yeah, I guess pointing to opinion polls does not provide any argument for or against going to war, but that is really irrelevant.
 

cnredd

Major General Big Lug
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 5, 2005
Messages
8,682
Reaction score
262
Location
Philadelphia,PA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Engimo said:
I'm not quite sure what your point is. Yeah, I guess pointing to opinion polls does not provide any argument for or against going to war, but that is really irrelevant.
Not just war...irrelevant for almost anything political...
 

Caine

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 28, 2005
Messages
23,344
Reaction score
7,210
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
cnredd said:
Not just war...irrelevant for almost anything political...
Of course you are to say that now.

You wouldn't be saying that if Kerry were elected and running things into the ground.
 

cnredd

Major General Big Lug
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 5, 2005
Messages
8,682
Reaction score
262
Location
Philadelphia,PA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Caine said:
Of course you are to say that now.

You wouldn't be saying that if Kerry were elected and running things into the ground.
Nice attempt at smear, but for those that know me, they know you're statement to be false...

If I think Kerry would be running things into the ground, I would say so...

I wouldn't need others' opinions to back me up...momatter how many or few...
 

Caine

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 28, 2005
Messages
23,344
Reaction score
7,210
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
cnredd said:
Nice attempt at smear, but for those that know me, they know you're statement to be false...

If I think Kerry would be running things into the ground, I would say so...

I wouldn't need others' opinions to back me up...momatter how many or few...
Whoop, I think you misunderstood me.
I didn't say you think Kerry would run things into the ground
I was assuming (making an ass of myself) that you would not agree to your comments on how polls mean nothing to politics if Kerry were the one in office with low approval ratings.

Of course, I got you confused with DeeJayH, because as I recall, you don't hug the partisan line on every issue.
 

cnredd

Major General Big Lug
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 5, 2005
Messages
8,682
Reaction score
262
Location
Philadelphia,PA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Caine said:
Whoop, I think you misunderstood me.
I didn't say you think Kerry would run things into the ground
I was assuming (making an ass of myself) that you would not agree to your comments on how polls mean nothing to politics if Kerry were the one in office with low approval ratings.

Of course, I got you confused with DeeJayH, because as I recall, you don't hug the partisan line on every issue.
I don't "hug" the partisan line on any issue...

I have my opinions..If they are similiar to what you consider "partisan lines", so be it...

But I don't work outward in...It's the other way around...
 

Caine

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 28, 2005
Messages
23,344
Reaction score
7,210
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
cnredd said:
I don't "hug" the partisan line on any issue...

I have my opinions..If they are similiar to what you consider "partisan lines", so be it...

But I don't work outward in...It's the other way around...
Like I said, I got you confused with someone else, thus making an ass out of myself.

I, like you, don't hug any partisan lines either ie (Law Enforcement Issues, Gun Control, Animal Rights) there are some really lame liberal views out there.

But I typically view similar to Democrats and liberals.

And This entire thread in itself is a baseless attack on Democrats based on Campaign Finance? That means nothing about who they are "for".
As, most blacks are Democrats, but its argued that most blacks are not rich.

Not everyone donates to Politicians, I know I don't.
 

aquapub

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 16, 2005
Messages
7,317
Reaction score
344
Location
America (A.K.A., a red state)
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Caine said:
And This entire thread in itself is a baseless attack on Democrats based on Campaign Finance? That means nothing about who they are "for".
As, most blacks are Democrats, but its argued that most blacks are not rich.

Not everyone donates to Politicians, I know I don't.

You are right about blacks block-voting for Democrats like sheep-somewhere in the 90%+ range in EVERY election.

But blacks only make up around 12% of the population. 92% of the million-dollar+ checks go to Democrats. This can't be explained away by pointing out a small minority of people ALSO voting for Democrats.

And yes, this entire thread operates on the notion that who gives you money indicates who you represent, which I don't find the least bit controversial.
 
Top Bottom