- Joined
- Jan 6, 2010
- Messages
- 4,031
- Reaction score
- 2,800
- Location
- MA.
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
Me too, and now the years feel like weekends.So he was from South Jersey?
I am a few months away from turning 50.
Me too, and now the years feel like weekends.So he was from South Jersey?
I am a few months away from turning 50.
You are right that he was from New Jersey. That I am not denying.So he was from South Jersey?
I am a few months away from turning 50.
Me too, and now the years feel like weekends.
Smartest thing the guy ever said"Days turn to minutes and
minutes to memories"
- John Mellenchamp
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.
Wilson was a man of the South? Seriously?
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.
So the South was full of dirty Progressives in 1912? :lol:
It was full of democrats before there was legislation involving segregation, then it went republican.
sorry, i meant progressive as in the Progressive Movement in general, of which Wilson is a central figure.
not in the party sense.
So the South was full of dirty Progressives in 1912? :lol:
“Be ready to take up the goddamned nigra bill again.”
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:
I would say the Teddy Roosevelt was the first to be a true progressive.
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.
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.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:
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.except for the environmentalism-conservationism on the part of Teddy, I loathe most everything else about the man lol.
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?
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.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?
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.
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).
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.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.
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.
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.
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".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.