• 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!

My age is

I am between

  • Total voters
    92
LuckyDan said:
So he was from South Jersey?

I am a few months away from turning 50.
Click to expand...
You are right that he was from New Jersey. That I am not denying.

Before Wilson began his studies at Johns Hopkins in what states did he grow up and spend the vast majority of his life in? When you figure out the answer to that question, then you should understand why I think it is a stretch to call him a northerner.
 
Spaceman_Spiff said:
You are right that he was from New Jersey. That I am not denying.

Before Wilson began his studies at Johns Hopkins in what states did he grow up and spend the vast majority of his life in? When you figure out the answer to that question, then you should understand why I think it is a stretch to call him a northerner.
Click to expand...

Wilson was a man of the South? Seriously?
 
LuckyDan said:
Wilson was a man of the South? Seriously?
Click to expand...

I won't go so far as to say that Wilson "wasn't a northerner," but he spent much of a his formative years in the South, and his parents identified with the Confederacy.
 
800px-1912_Electoral_Map.png


Looks like Woody was the guy in '12. And yes, I admit, I did not look back far enough into his background, but it's not like the north was much different from the south in their support of him.
 
Last edited:
LuckyDan said:
800px-1912_Electoral_Map.png


Looks like Woody was the guy in '12. And yes, I admit, I did not look back far enough into his background, but it's not like the north was much different from the south in their support of him.
Click to expand...

So the South was full of dirty Progressives in 1912? :lol:
 
StillBallin75 said:
So the South was full of dirty Progressives in 1912? :lol:
Click to expand...

It was full of democrats before there was legislation involving segregation, then it went republican.
 
megaprogman said:
It was full of democrats before there was legislation involving segregation, then it went republican.
Click to expand...

sorry, i meant progressive as in the Progressive Movement in general, of which Wilson is a central figure.

not in the party sense.
 
StillBallin75 said:
sorry, i meant progressive as in the Progressive Movement in general, of which Wilson is a central figure.

not in the party sense.
Click to expand...

Much, if not of the entire election was the differing visions of progressivism, actually.
 
I would say the Teddy Roosevelt was the first to be a true progressive.
 
StillBallin75 said:
So the South was full of dirty Progressives in 1912? :lol:
Click to expand...

Glancing over the results, it looks like TR and Taft split the anti-Woody vote. Woody got 42.5% of the pop vote and all but 8 of the electoral college, while Taft and TR split the difference. (Commie Debs got 6%)

My larger point remains - dems are not the party of racial equality they like to think they are.

Which party might you guess the speaker of this sentence belongs to:

“Be ready to take up the goddamned nigra bill again.”
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
LuckyDan said:
Glancing over the results, it looks like TR and Taft split the anti-Woody vote. Woody got 42.5% of the pop vote and all of the electoral college, while Taft and TR split the difference. (Commie Debs got 6%)

My larger point remains - dems are not the party of racial equality they like to think they are.

Which party might you guess the speaker of this sentence belongs to:
Click to expand...

NOBODY was the party of racial equality back then. Political platforms aren't static at all.

This is the problem with equating ideology to party.
 
Last edited:
StillBallin75 said:
NOBODY was the party of racial equality back then. Political platforms aren't static at all.

This is the problem with equating ideology to party.
Click to expand...

I am saying SB, perhaps not as forcefully as I should, that Republicans have a better record on race than do Democrats. Am I wrong?
 
LuckyDan said:
Glancing over the results, it looks like TR and Taft split the anti-Woody vote. Woody got 42.5% of the pop vote and all but 8 of the electoral college, while Taft and TR split the difference. (Commie Debs got 6%)

My larger point remains - dems are not the party of racial equality they like to think they are.

Which party might you guess the speaker of this sentence belongs to:
Click to expand...
I believe in that day they were called Dixiecrats and where very much for racial segregation, although many of these Dixiecrats changed party affiliation and became Republican. Although republicans in the past have always been progressive but not in terms we think of today. Also I believe in 1964 it was the republicans who petition for racial equality and the democrats attempted filibuster. All this said politicians do not act as a party unless there is a silver lining some where to be had.
 
StillBallin75 said:
except for the environmentalism-conservationism on the part of Teddy, I loathe most everything else about the man lol.
Click to expand...
Even his attempt at national healthcare(although I would disagree). TR was a naturalist so to speak and refused to be stepped on by the arrogant Europeans of the day and S.A. was a washed with revolutionaries. It was a different time and era. TR had many faults but the love of his country and the people in it wasn't one of them.
 
LuckyDan said:
I am saying SB, perhaps not as forcefully as I should, that Republicans have a better record on race than do Democrats. Am I wrong?
Click to expand...

Honest answer? I don't know.

I view this as a flawed way of looking at the issue. Democrats and Republicans didn't stand for the same things, the same ideas 100-150 years ago as they do now. It's kind of like a sports fan saying, "Well the Cowboys are one of the most dominant NFL teams ever!" To which I would reply "Yeah, well so what? They are mediocre NOW." (no offense as I see you are from that area). The Democratic and Republican parties of yesteryear didn't look at all like the Dems and Reps of today.

Personally I don't even identify myself with the party that much to begin with. I am a liberal first, and a Democrat only for the sake of voting. Not to mention that there are a significant portion of Dems who don't even identify themselves as liberals.
 
Last edited:
LuckyDan said:
I am saying SB, perhaps not as forcefully as I should, that Republicans have a better record on race than do Democrats. Am I wrong?
Click to expand...
The Republican name may have a better record on race, sure (although I would dispute this as well). However, the ideology and base behind that name has changed considerably over time. During Lincoln's era, blacks supported the Republican Party overwhelmingly, now blacks support the Democratic Party overwhelmingly. That should tell you something right there.

(That party shift began during the New Deal and was cemented during the Civil Rights movement when most anti-integration Democrats went to the Republican Party).
 
deltabtry said:
I believe in that day they were called Dixiecrats and where very much for racial segregation, although many of these Dixiecrats changed party affiliation and became Republican. Although republicans in the past have always been progressive but not in terms we think of today. Also I believe in 1964 it was the republicans who petition for racial equality and the democrats attempted filibuster. All this said politicians do not act as a party unless there is a silver lining some where to be had.
Click to expand...

Yet the likes of Lyndon "“Be ready to take up the goddamned nigra bill again” Johnson, and Sam "I’m on your side, not theirs” Ervin, are dem heroes of the civil rights movement.
 
theplaydrive said:
The Republican name may have a better record on race, sure (although I would dispute this as well). However, the ideology and base behind that name has changed considerably over time. During Lincoln's era, blacks supported the Republican Party overwhelmingly, now blacks support the Democratic Party overwhelmingly. That should tell you something right there.

(That party shift began during the New Deal and was cemented during the Civil Rights movement when most anti-integration Democrats went to the Republican Party).
Click to expand...

Years ago, in my poli sci studies, I noticed the same. I now think dems gained the upper hand only in terms of selling their brand to minorities, who (forgive me) may not bother into checking the actual track record.
 
LuckyDan said:
Yet the likes of Lyndon "“Be ready to take up the goddamned nigra bill again” Johnson, and Sam "I’m on your side, not theirs” Ervin, are dem heroes of the civil rights movement.
Click to expand...
Those quotes don't negate the historical facts that I just pointed out - just go read the history of the Republican Party. Here's a link to the wiki page for a start.

History of the United States Republican Party - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Republican name was attached to Lincoln's party but its base and ideology had moved to the Democratic Party by the 60s although the transition started during the New Deal. There's not much more to say about it really.
 
LuckyDan said:
Years ago, in my poli sci studies, I noticed the same. I now think dems gained the upper hand only in terms of selling their brand to minorities, who (forgive me) may not bother into checking the actual track record.
Click to expand...

Like I said Dan, comparing the Dems of today to even the Dems of the sixties is fallacious. Same for Repubs. Again, using a sports analogy, I could say that [fill in sports team here] has never had a track record of winning...until now. Well, the team today consists of different players, different management, different coaching staff than it might have had 20 yrs ago. Saying "well, this team has never won in its entire history, why would it win now?" would be stupid.
 
StillBallin75 said:
Like I said Dan, comparing the Dems of today to even the Dems of the sixties is fallacious. Same for Repubs. Again, using a sports analogy, I could say that [fill in sports team here] has never had a track record of winning...until now. Well, the team today consists of different players, different management, different coaching staff than it might have had 20 yrs ago. Saying "well, this team has never won in its entire history, why would it win now?" would be stupid.
Click to expand...

Alright, where is the GOP wrong on race? What is their racist history?

PS - Can we agree dems actually do have a racist history?
 
Last edited:
LuckyDan said:
Years ago, in my poli sci studies, I noticed the same. I now think dems gained the upper hand only in terms of selling their brand to minorities, who (forgive me) may not bother into checking the actual track record.
Click to expand...
Right, but history doesn't support the idea that the Republican Party is better for minorities than the Democratic Party - like I said, MANY racist Democrats left the party and went to the Republican Party during the civil rights movement - that's not an accident. Furthermore, the current Republican Party has a penchant for pulling the "race card card" which systematically ignores the experiences many blacks have with racism in this country by reducing them to mere attempts at "pulling the race card".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom