|
Post by n00b on Nov 14, 2020 16:58:13 GMT -5
Oh, you mean smart and successful people like Buffet and Walter Scott. Noted. i Democrats love rich people. It really is funny. They run on fighting income inequality, yet the states where this is the biggest issue are Democrat-run.
|
|
trojansc
Legend
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_yellow.png) ![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_yellow.png) ![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_yellow.png) ![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_yellow.png) ![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_yellow.png) ![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_yellow.png) ![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_yellow.png)
All-VolleyTalk 1st Team (2022, 2021, 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017), All-VolleyTalk 2nd Team (2016), 2021, 2019 Fantasy League Champion, 2020 Fantasy League Runner Up, 2022 2nd Runner Up
Posts: 29,004
|
Post by trojansc on Nov 14, 2020 17:32:07 GMT -5
i Democrats love rich people. It really is funny. They run on fighting income inequality, yet the states where this is the biggest issue are Democrat-run. Yet, the rich Republican Senate members have been, for months, preventing a stimulus bill to struggling Americans in need. And struggling Americans doesn't divide among party lines -- these people need relief regardless of political affiliation. (Republican Senators are STILL divided among themselves). I find it hilarious how people say such simplistic statements like "Democrats love rich people". Like, what? I mean, I know it's HH, the same person who says things like Democrats hate religion. I don't say (or condone people who say) Republicans hate poor people. Or maybe a better example, gay people. I can say however based on my life experiences that Republicans are more likely to be anti-gay. Kind of related, I think it's disgusting how people involve politics in natural disasters. Like, encouraging to withhold emergency funds for California wildfires because they're Democrat-run. OTOH, I saw a post the other day from a Democrat saying 'Good, karma, they deserve it' when there was a hurricane projected to head towards South Florida. Uh, nearly half of those residents voted Democrats even though they lost the election. Also, as far as income inequality, how are those Democrat-run states enabling and or increasing income inequality in their states? I'd imagine raising the minimum wage has helped bridge the gap, even slightly, in states like New York and California. It would also make sense to me that the biggest cities in America (NYC and LA) would have the biggest issues with income-inequality.
|
|
|
Post by c4ndlelight on Nov 14, 2020 17:33:39 GMT -5
i Democrats love rich people. It really is funny. They run on fighting income inequality, yet the states where this is the biggest issue are Democrat-run. 6 of the 10 states with the highest income inequality are red. The blue states with high inequality are all among the wealthiest with CA, NJ, NY and CT all their because of their massively successful economies. Inequality comes from the high end and the massive wealth generated by NYC and Silicon Valley. 4 of those red states also make up the Top 7 states with highest poverty (LA, MS, AL, KY). Red states make up 9 of the top 10, so I guess we can say Republicans are true to the word in not wanting to fight poverty. But sure, great point.
|
|
|
Post by dc on Nov 14, 2020 17:50:16 GMT -5
It really is funny. They run on fighting income inequality, yet the states where this is the biggest issue are Democrat-run. 6 of the 10 states with the highest income inequality are red. The blue states with high inequality are all among the wealthiest with CA, NJ, NY and CT all their because of their massively successful economies. Inequality comes from the high end and the massive wealth generated by NYC and Silicon Valley. 4 of those red states also make up the Top 7 states with highest poverty (LA, MS, AL, KY). Red states make up 9 of the top 10, so I guess we can say Republicans are true to the word in not wanting to fight poverty. But sure, great point. You’d think if he (she) was going to cherry pick stupid points, they’d at least be correct on the cherry picked irrelevancies
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Nov 14, 2020 19:37:08 GMT -5
It really is funny. They run on fighting income inequality, yet the states where this is the biggest issue are Democrat-run. 6 of the 10 states with the highest income inequality are red. The blue states with high inequality are all among the wealthiest with CA, NJ, NY and CT all their because of their massively successful economies. Inequality comes from the high end and the massive wealth generated by NYC and Silicon Valley. 4 of those red states also make up the Top 7 states with highest poverty (LA, MS, AL, KY). Red states make up 9 of the top 10, so I guess we can say Republicans are true to the word in not wanting to fight poverty. But sure, great point. I agree. They should campaign on and work to fight poverty. Instead, many Democratic politicians worth millions choose to fight income inequality to get votes by inciting class warfare.
|
|
|
Post by mervinswerved on Nov 14, 2020 19:43:53 GMT -5
There is no class warfare in America, because there is no class consciousness in America.
|
|
|
Post by cindra on Nov 14, 2020 19:49:21 GMT -5
There is no class warfare in America, because there is no class consciousness in America. Class warfare is when you try to give working people healthcare and the cheaper the healthcare is the more class warfare it is.
|
|
|
Post by volleylearner on Nov 14, 2020 22:54:58 GMT -5
I agree. [Democrats] should campaign on and work to fight poverty. Instead, many Democratic politicians worth millions choose to fight income inequality to get votes by inciting class warfare. I think you are missing the connection between fighting poverty and reducing income inequality, and you left out the part of the story where Republican politicians have been inciting class warfare for decades by destroying unions, demonizing the poor, and worshipping the super-rich ("job creators"). Sure, some Democrats are trying to get support for policies they believe will help reduce income inequality--that's their approach to fighting poverty.
|
|
|
Post by HOLIDAY on Nov 15, 2020 0:21:36 GMT -5
I agree. [Democrats] should campaign on and work to fight poverty. Instead, many Democratic politicians worth millions choose to fight income inequality to get votes by inciting class warfare. I think you are missing the connection between fighting poverty and reducing income inequality, and you left out the part of the story where Republican politicians have been inciting class warfare for decades by destroying unions, demonizing the poor, and worshipping the super-rich ("job creators"). Sure, some Democrats are trying to get support for policies they believe will help reduce income inequality--that's their approach to fighting poverty. Are you for real? This is not at all what the Democrats are now. They used to be. If they cared so much about the poor and inequality, they would have passed the stimulus bill or tried like hell to do it Instead of holding out for political purposes. Your party is nothing but a bunch of cheaters who accomplish nothing.Now you’re nothing but a bunch of rich celebrities, obnoxious sanctimonious media people, and elitist. The workingman now belong to the republican party
|
|
|
Post by cindra on Nov 15, 2020 0:27:13 GMT -5
I think you are missing the connection between fighting poverty and reducing income inequality, and you left out the part of the story where Republican politicians have been inciting class warfare for decades by destroying unions, demonizing the poor, and worshipping the super-rich ("job creators"). Sure, some Democrats are trying to get support for policies they believe will help reduce income inequality--that's their approach to fighting poverty. Are you for real? This is not at all what the Democrats are now. They used to be. If they cared so much about the poor and inequality, they would have passed the stimulus bill or tried like hell to do it Instead of holding out for political purposes. Your party is nothing but a bunch of cheaters who accomplish nothing.Now you’re nothing but a bunch of rich celebrities, obnoxious sanctimonious media people, and elitist. The workingman now belong to the republican party Biden won the under 50k and 50-100k income brackets this election.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 15, 2020 0:37:28 GMT -5
6 of the 10 states with the highest income inequality are red. The blue states with high inequality are all among the wealthiest with CA, NJ, NY and CT all their because of their massively successful economies. Inequality comes from the high end and the massive wealth generated by NYC and Silicon Valley. 4 of those red states also make up the Top 7 states with highest poverty (LA, MS, AL, KY). Red states make up 9 of the top 10, so I guess we can say Republicans are true to the word in not wanting to fight poverty. But sure, great point. I agree. They should campaign on and work to fight poverty. Instead, many Democratic politicians worth millions choose to fight income inequality to get votes by inciting class warfare. No. Stop. You don't get to create a spurious talking point and then when confronted with the inaccuracies of what you've said, strawman away. Since you brought income inequality into this conversation, please address this (without resorting to 'whataboutism'):
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Nov 15, 2020 1:39:14 GMT -5
There is no class warfare in America, because there is no class consciousness in America. Class warfare is when you try to give working people healthcare and the cheaper the healthcare is the more class warfare it is. ![](https://blog.seattlepi.com/davidhorsey/files/2011/03/Class-war-3-8-11-color-640x472.jpg)
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Nov 15, 2020 2:13:56 GMT -5
I agree. They should campaign on and work to fight poverty. Instead, many Democratic politicians worth millions choose to fight income inequality to get votes by inciting class warfare. No. Stop. You don't get to create a spurious talking point and then when confronted with the inaccuracies of what you've said, strawman away. Since you brought income inequality into this conversation, please address this (without resorting to 'whataboutism'): First google result for income inequality by state: Most equal (using Gini coefficient): 1. Utah 2. Alaska 3. New Hampshire 4. Wyoming 5. Hawaii 47. California 48. Connecticut 49. Louisiana 50. New York 51. Washington DC New Hampshire and Louisiana are purple. Hawaii is the only outlier in that group. Where was the inaccuracy?
|
|
|
Post by geddyleeridesagain on Nov 15, 2020 2:21:37 GMT -5
No. Stop. You don't get to create a spurious talking point and then when confronted with the inaccuracies of what you've said, strawman away. Since you brought income inequality into this conversation, please address this (without resorting to 'whataboutism'): First google result for income inequality by state: Most equal (using Gini coefficient): 1. Utah 2. Alaska 3. New Hampshire 4. Wyoming 5. Hawaii 47. California 48. Connecticut 49. Louisiana 50. New York 51. Washington DC New Hampshire and Louisiana are purple. Hawaii is the only outlier in that group. Where was the inaccuracy? Those numbers are from 2010.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 15, 2020 2:49:36 GMT -5
Louisiana’s purple?
|
|