• 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!

WSJ: Rich people far more likely to vote Republican than working-class.

Alternate headline: "Dumbs and Poors far more likely to vote Democrat than the average person."

Those numbers are actually more disproportionate than the ones in the OP.
 
So how do "rich Dems" get rich if they don't "earn their wealth"?

I would like to know.

What about McCain? Did he "earn his wealth" (or did he marry it...)? I seem to recall a lot of Right-leaning media calling John Kerry a "gigolo" because he married into wealth. But I noticed that McCain got little mention or criticism from the right for doing the same thing in 2008 (only worse, because his wife was sick and had supported him post-Vietnam).

Did George W. Bush "earn his wealth", or did he inherit it?

Did the Koch Brothers "earn their wealth", or inherit it?

What about all those damn Waltons who are all over the Forbes list? They work to earn it, or did they inherit it?

Very few of the Uber-rich worked their way from the ground up. There are some great examples of people who did work hard or presented a great idea that carried them to wealth and they are to be applauded. But I would note that several of those who did work their way up to the Forbes list instead of inheriting their way there are known to be more politically left of those who inherited all or part of their wealth. Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, Steve Jobs, Mark Zuckerberg, Jay-Z, to name a few.

The big issue is that rich republicans aren't going around demanding others pay more and more taxes in a shallow effort to kill of their competition or ingratiate themselves into the class envy of their minions.

Bush doesnt bash others for being wealthy

Many of The uber rich want power and a more intrusive government is a machine they can use to gain t hat power
 
of course the rich are getting richer? where's that coming from? there is a finite amount of wealth available.



what happens when people can't afford tv's and houses and boats and all of these products the wealthy are selling, because their wealth was slowly leaked to teh upper class? its called a recession, its what we are in now.


even the upper class suffer at that point. take all you want, but know that without people buying the economy goes to ****.....the value of your dollar is worth more if the middle classes have money. but if you constantly take, eventyually take a hit too. its a systemic check on greed/.

That is the biggest bull**** statement of economics ever made. If that were true, no one would be wealthy, because no new wealthy could be made.
 
So how do "rich Dems" get rich if they don't "earn their wealth"?

I would like to know.

What about McCain? Did he "earn his wealth" (or did he marry it...)? I seem to recall a lot of Right-leaning media calling John Kerry a "gigolo" because he married into wealth. But I noticed that McCain got little mention or criticism from the right for doing the same thing in 2008 (only worse, because his wife was sick and had supported him post-Vietnam).

Did George W. Bush "earn his wealth", or did he inherit it?

Did the Koch Brothers "earn their wealth", or inherit it?

What about all those damn Waltons who are all over the Forbes list? They work to earn it, or did they inherit it?

Very few of the Uber-rich worked their way from the ground up. There are some great examples of people who did work hard or presented a great idea that carried them to wealth and they are to be applauded. But I would note that several of those who did work their way up to the Forbes list instead of inheriting their way there are known to be more politically left of those who inherited all or part of their wealth. Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, Steve Jobs, Mark Zuckerberg, Jay-Z, to name a few.

well, according to the OP, the wealthy vote Republican. like soldiers who serve on the front line of our foriegn policy, small business owners serve on the front line of economic policy. both are the first to suffer from stupid policies; which is probably why they generally don't vote Democrat. the vast majority of the wealthy, in turn, are self-made and first-generation.
 
Alternate headline: "Dumbs and Poors far more likely to vote Democrat than the average person."

Those numbers are actually more disproportionate than the ones in the OP.

If that is what you obtained from the article you might want to go back and read it again. Your comment about "Dumbs" is out of line with the facts. The findings showed that among the highest educated group of voters - those with post graduate work or degrees - the Democrats were the choice of those voters by a margin of 52 to 46%. In 2008 it was even more lopsided with the highest educated opting for Democratic candidates.
 
Last edited:
If that is what you obtained from the article you might want to go back and read it again. Your comment about "Dumbs" is out of line with the facts. The findings showed that among the highest educated group of voters - those with post graduate work or degrees - the Democrats were the choice of those voters by a margin of 52 to 46%. In 2008 it was even more lopsided with the highest educated opting for Democratic candidates.

that is skewed by the fact that the most common graduate degrees in the USA are those held by major dem constituencies-lawyers and teachers. add in the fact that many people with PhDs work at state supported institutions such as universities or government sector jobs. those who actually use their education to create wealth often do not have PhDs or even masters but the insinuation that they are less intelligent is a false one. Those in the "education" departments of most universities are generally among the lowest scoring members of a student body.

The programs that are the most difficult to enter and lead to the highest salaries (medicine for example) tend to generate Republican voters.

I would note that one of the main types of dem voters are those who are well educated but not particularly well compensated such as teachers and even public sector Phd.s Those people tend to envy those who are highly compensated and I believe that one of the reason why those well educated types are "liberals" is because they are mad they aren't as well compensated as they think their education and supposed intelligence should entitle them to.
 
blah blah blah
for heavens sake why can't you just admit that some ally of yours got it wrong? MAN UP!!!!
 
If that is what you obtained from the article you might want to go back and read it again. Your comment about "Dumbs" is out of line with the facts. The findings showed that among the highest educated group of voters - those with post graduate work or degrees - the Democrats were the choice of those voters by a margin of 52 to 46%. In 2008 it was even more lopsided with the highest educated opting for Democratic candidates.

Except you're badly missing the point. I'm not talking about what people with graduate degrees do, I'm talking about what DUMB people do.

Local Exit Polls - Election Center 2008 - Elections & Politics from CNN.com

Vote by Education:

No High School: Obama 63%, McCain 35%

And you didn't dispute it, but here's the numbers for income:

Under $15k: Obama 73%, McCain 25%
$15-$30k: Obama 60%, McCain 37%.

So like I said, "Dumbs and Poors far more likely to vote Democrat than the average person. Those numbers are actually more disproportionate than the ones in the OP."
 
Nice try to attempt to use smoke and mirrors to change your intent.

Here is what you said

Alternate headline: "Dumbs and Poors far more likely to vote Democrat than the average person."

the article clearly states that the highest level of educated persons in the sample voted Democratic. Hardly the "Dumbs" that you sneer at down the bridge of your upturned nose.

Why can't you simply man up and admit you blew it?
 
Last edited:
Nice try to attempt to use smoke and mirrors to change your intent.

Here is what you said



the article clearly states that the highest level of educated persons in the sample voted Democratic. Hardly the "Dumbs" that you sneer at down the bridge of your upturned nose.

Why can't you simply man up and admit you blew it?

Because he didn't. Assume for the moment that all the above-average smart people vote for Democrats. (Yes, yes, I try hard not to laugh.)

That doesn't preclude majorities of below-average dumb people from voting Democrat.
 
Drawing the ideological wagons in a circle yet again to protect the gang. It never stops does it?
 
I suspect the real problem here is that right wingers have read so many dishonest and outright false headlines in places like Drudge, Breitbart and on FOX that some actually believe such an "alternate headline" as foisted by RightnNYC is actually proper. The fact that it refers to "dumbs" voting Democratic while the actual numbers reveal that the highest educated people vote Democratic also, means nothing to them next to a good cheap partisan shot directed at the non believers.
 
Is there anybody here who isn't simply defending their turf when it comes to the intelligent/stupid debate?
 
Nice try to attempt to use smoke and mirrors to change your intent.

Here is what you said

the article clearly states that the highest level of educated persons in the sample voted Democratic. Hardly the "Dumbs" that you sneer at down the bridge of your upturned nose.

Why can't you simply man up and admit you blew it?

Because I didn't. Do you really not understand how this works?

Imagine that people over 6'3 vote Democrat by a 70-30 margin. Imagine that people under 5' also vote Democrat by a 70-30 margin.

If an article was titled "Tall people more likely to vote Democrat than average," an alternate headline would be "Short people more likely to vote Democrat than average."

The fact that one is true does not mean that the other is not.


I suspect the real problem here is that right wingers have read so many dishonest and outright false headlines in places like Drudge, Breitbart and on FOX that some actually believe such an "alternate headline" as foisted by RightnNYC is actually proper.

Or maybe it's just that we can read.
 
Imagine that people over 6'3 vote Democrat by a 70-30 margin. Imagine that people under 5' also vote Democrat by a 70-30 margin.

Leave it to RINY to find a way to make us all Republicans.

Everybody but Spud, anyway.
 
Last edited:
Because I didn't. Do you really not understand how this works?

Imagine that people over 6'3 vote Democrat by a 70-30 margin. Imagine that people under 5' also vote Democrat by a 70-30 margin.

If an article was titled "Tall people more likely to vote Democrat than average," an alternate headline would be "Short people more likely to vote Democrat than average."

The fact that one is true does not mean that the other is not.




Or maybe it's just that we can read.

How far will you go with this absurdity just to attempt to save face if only in your own eyes? This is getting pretty unbelievable.
 
How far will you go with this absurdity just to attempt to save face if only in your own eyes?

It's less "trying to save face" and more "trying to explain a concept to someone who is being willfully ignorant." You've still not explained how one word I said was inaccurate.

This is getting pretty unbelievable.

That it is.
 
The fact that it refers to "dumbs" voting Democratic while the actual numbers reveal that the highest educated people vote Democratic also, means nothing to them next to a good cheap partisan shot directed at the non believers.

it is actually an accurate depiction. Democrats tend to break into two approaches: those who think that they can make decisions for others better than they can themselves; and those who believe that others can make better decisions for them than they can.

that great middle who thinks that we can make our own decisions better than anyone else tend to vote Republican. the academic would-be-elite and the incapable would-be-serfs tend to vote Democrat.


when in doubt: remember Florida 2000. Democrats furious because their own ballots turned out to be too confusing for their voters. you don't see Republicans going around saying that it's-just-not-fair-because-everyone-knows-our-voters-are-senile-or-illiterate. ;)
 
Last edited:
what we saw in Florida was orchestrated mobs of rude and angry paid people who stole the election.
 
No - just a truth teller who has a good memory of the historical record.
 
what we saw in Florida was orchestrated mobs of rude and angry paid people who stole the election.

ah the BDS is still infecting dem operatives.

Al Gore tried to steal the election but he failed despite the best effort of Bugsy Daily and a bunch of third rate partisan hack jurors on the SCOFLA. And the MSM did its best by calling the state for Gore before the heavy pro Bush Panhandle (in the CTZ) polls had closed.

GOre couldn't even win his own home state. That alone demonstrated he shouldn't be president
 
it is actually an accurate depiction. Democrats tend to break into two approaches: those who think that they can make decisions for others better than they can themselves; and those who believe that others can make better decisions for them than they can.

that great middle who thinks that we can make our own decisions better than anyone else tend to vote Republican. the academic would-be-elite and the incapable would-be-serfs tend to vote Democrat.


when in doubt: remember Florida 2000. Democrats furious because their own ballots turned out to be too confusing for their voters. you don't see Republicans going around saying that it's-just-not-fair-because-everyone-knows-our-voters-are-senile-or-illiterate. ;)

that is so true

there are basically three kinds of dems

1) the rich elites who use class envy and income redistribution as a means of gaining office and with it power and wealth

2) the dependent minions who look to that first group to feed and clothe them and take care of them

3) the wannabee elites-often those in the teachers unions and the ivory towers who resent the fact that they are "well educated" and "intelligent" yet aren't making as much money as they should. this is the typical liberal on boards like this. the group 2 types aren't into political message boards and the elites don't have time for them.
 
that is so true

there are basically three kinds of dems

1) the rich elites who use class envy and income redistribution as a means of gaining office and with it power and wealth

2) the dependent minions who look to that first group to feed and clothe them and take care of them

3) the wannabee elites-often those in the teachers unions and the ivory towers who resent the fact that they are "well educated" and "intelligent" yet aren't making as much money as they should. this is the typical liberal on boards like this. the group 2 types aren't into political message boards and the elites don't have time for them.

You writing about the Democratic Party reminds me of something Oscar Wilde wrote

I do not approve of anything that tampers with natural ignorance. Ignorance is like a delicate exotic fruit; touch it and the bloom is gone. The whole theory of modern education is radically unsound. Fortunately in England, at any rate, education produces no effect whatsoever. If it did, it would prove a serious danger to the upper classes, and probably lead to acts of violence in Grosvenor Square."

I suspect Oscar would have gotten a good laugh at your so-called analysis.
 
Last edited:
indeed, he and oscar appear to be on the same page.

gotta keep the masses ignorant of what us superior elites are doing; else whoooooo there'd be hell to pay.
 
Back
Top Bottom