why aren't Democrats sweeping all elections?

Jul 10, 2007
12,041
3
0
theirs is a platform of wealth distribution in which their constituents are the beneficiaries of these entitlements.
and there are far fewer rich people than poor, so why aren't they winning in just about every district in the US?
 

TerryMathews

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
11,464
2
0
theirs is a platform of wealth distribution in which their constituents are the beneficiaries of these entitlements.
and there are far fewer rich people than poor, so why aren't they winning in just about every district in the US?

Not all poor people are thieves
 

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
33,540
17,056
136
That's quite a claim there OP, would you like to back it up with facts or can we just call this a troll thread?
 

boomerang

Lifer
Jun 19, 2000
18,883
641
126
Whatever the reason, I can tell you with certainty that it's not the fault of Democrats. Republicans, yes. Bush, yes. Reagan - you bet! The vast right wing conspiracy, very possible.
 

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
33,540
17,056
136
How about a local example?
Democratic mayor of NYC wants to tax the wealthy to fund his pre-K program.

Nope sorry that doesn't address the claim you made in your first scentence. You need to show that government programs typically benefit democratic voters. Local anecdotes don't really mean much when your question deals with nationwide politics.
 

JTsyo

Lifer
Nov 18, 2007
12,035
1,134
126
theirs is a platform of wealth distribution in which their constituents are the beneficiaries of these entitlements.
and there are far fewer rich people than poor, so why aren't they winning in just about every district in the US?

Guess the right found enough social issues to have enough votes of those that would vote against their self-interest.
 

berzerker60

Golden Member
Jul 18, 2012
1,233
1
0
Here's a ridiculous premise on which I'm dead-set and immune to critical thinking about. Why don't things operate as if my ridiculous premise were reality? Checkmate, libtards!
 

poofyhairguy

Lifer
Nov 20, 2005
14,612
318
126
Guess the right found enough social issues to have enough votes of those that would vote against their self-interest.

You act like that is a new thing, but the "moral majority" voting block dates back to Reagan.
 
Oct 30, 2004
11,442
32
91
theirs is a platform of wealth distribution in which their constituents are the beneficiaries of these entitlements.
and there are far fewer rich people than poor, so why aren't they winning in just about every district in the US?

A great many Americans are morons and will vote against their self interest since they have been indoctrinated to believe in the free market religion and they are absolutely terrified of sochulusm. A good chunk of that crowd also fears gay marriage and 'bortion.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
87,989
55,398
136
People rarely vote on issues. American politics is tribal; just look at this board as an example.
 

Anarchist420

Diamond Member
Feb 13, 2010
8,645
0
76
www.facebook.com
maybe because some dont support theft. others see that HUD housing sucks, that food stamps dont buy the best food, and that they cant get better. or that even if govt services could get better, they would run out because less can be produced the more that is consumed.

even more people can see that the Democrats, at least many of the well connected ones, often dont like to pay for others but they like to redist on the backs of the productive. congress doesnt care about us because they vote to steal for themselves. congress isnt that smart so even if they did care about us they wouldnt know how to (newt gingrich pointed out that congress isnt that smart). obama is smart but he is concerned only with saving his life from the cia. look at how much more mitt romney and ron paul gave away of their own money than obama gave away of his own. look at how much more obama has taken than ron paul did. look at how much more of ron paul's own money and services he was willing to give away and how much more he didnt take from others than his son has given and not taken from others.

others who arent rich but who work very hard dont like being stolen from.

some people dont want to see more stagnation which is what happens when more people are consuming food stamps instead of being able to make investments in resources that would allow production. in other words, everyone consuming a minimum of $4k worth of goods and services plus State services and materials each month with 1/3 producing nothing is not possible

finally, it is not real charity if people are being forced to do it.
 
Last edited:

Pr0d1gy

Diamond Member
Jan 30, 2005
7,774
0
76
Here's a ridiculous premise on which I'm dead-set and immune to critical thinking about. Why don't things operate as if my ridiculous premise were reality? Checkmate, libtards!

haha That's pretty funny man.

It is honestly pathetic enough that everytime I hear that type of plantation owner dreck I realize I may never vote Repugnantcan again. The people who follow that party, and whom are still following that party after both Bush Nazis served in office, are a huge problem for the rest of us at this point.

Their inability to deprogram and their insistence on regurgitating the party views, as handed down by their slave masters, has become a real disappointment for me. I really have to believe that voting is completely pointless if these are the other people that are voting.
 

piasabird

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
17,168
60
91
Higher taxes could be an incentive for change. Any time you make people lose their hard earned money you can expect to lose an election.