U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Elections
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 04-15-2015, 06:35 PM
 
20,611 posts, read 12,952,210 times
Reputation: 5904

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiddlehead View Post
Since our parents presided over the greatest expansion in American economic, military, educational, intellectual, scientific, and infrastructural achievement in our country's history, it might be worth considering whether their views are sound. The democratic party was in power during this explosive expansion in virtually everything it means to be a modern American.

Modern conservatives have presided over a period of income and opportunity stratification, crumbling of the achievements of their parents, furthering of lick up and kick down social policies, the explosive expansion of anti-intellectual dogma, fiscal insolvency, greed and selfishness as virtues, the decline of the middle class, and erosion of our scientific, infrastructural, and economic superiority. They did it in a generation, showing to all but the most brainwashed their ideas hold no promise.

I think the early to mid century Irish, Italians, Poles, and other diehard ethnic and blue collar democrats championed the rise of the middle class and the emergence of America as a multifaceted superpower. They have nothing to be ashamed of. You neoconservatives might want to give that some thought.

They did a hell of a lot more to make this country great than you have. Compare 1950-1980 with 1980-2010. I think they look better and better with each passing year.
Uh; if talking about the POTUS: Ike was a Repub from 1952 to 1960, Nixon and Ford from 1968 to 1976. Kennedy, Johnson as well as Carter were Dems. That's 16 of your 28 years between 1952 to 1980 for the Repubs. Throw in Truman the Dem for 2 years to 1952 to even things out. Looks like an even split to me and, I ain't real good at math.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-15-2015, 07:30 PM
 
231 posts, read 293,434 times
Reputation: 240
Quote:
Originally Posted by Packard fan View Post
Uh; if talking about the POTUS: Ike was a Repub from 1952 to 1960, Nixon and Ford from 1968 to 1976. Kennedy, Johnson as well as Carter were Dems. That's 16 of your 28 years between 1952 to 1980 for the Repubs. Throw in Truman the Dem for 2 years to 1952 to even things out. Looks like an even split to me and, I ain't real good at math.
I didn't intend for this to become a partisan debate and when we look towards politicians of the past we gave to remember that times were much different and political pasties were more of a "big tent" with ideologically diverse candidates sometimes even on opposites sides of the spectrum within parties. For instance the Democratic Party at one time had everything from strong segregationists in the south, Midwestern revolutionary communists, and middle of the road/reform minded FDR types. There was no "party whip" like now to make sure all elected member rode the party line. Back then, you joined a party based on what region of the U.S. you came from, your race, whether you were Catholic or Protestant or Jewish etc. and not because of ideology. For instance an Irishman from Chicago would be a Democrat regardless if he was a rich capitalist with a Lakefront mansion, or an illiterate worker in the Union Stock Yards living in a Southsidd slum with Marxist leanings. A black man was always a republican. Back then you voted for the person, not the party and in most local elections the party primary was the real winner selection.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-15-2015, 09:55 PM
 
20,611 posts, read 12,952,210 times
Reputation: 5904
Quote:
Originally Posted by SIJ95 View Post
I didn't intend for this to become a partisan debate and when we look towards politicians of the past we gave to remember that times were much different and political pasties were more of a "big tent" with ideologically diverse candidates sometimes even on opposites sides of the spectrum within parties. For instance the Democratic Party at one time had everything from strong segregationists in the south, Midwestern revolutionary communists, and middle of the road/reform minded FDR types. There was no "party whip" like now to make sure all elected member rode the party line. Back then, you joined a party based on what region of the U.S. you came from, your race, whether you were Catholic or Protestant or Jewish etc. and not because of ideology. For instance an Irishman from Chicago would be a Democrat regardless if he was a rich capitalist with a Lakefront mansion, or an illiterate worker in the Union Stock Yards living in a Southsidd slum with Marxist leanings. A black man was always a republican. Back then you voted for the person, not the party and in most local elections the party primary was the real winner selection.
My post was quoting Fiddlehead tho I catch what you mean.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-16-2015, 11:45 AM
 
Location: Pluto's Home Town
9,995 posts, read 11,636,401 times
Reputation: 5579
Quote:
Originally Posted by SIJ95 View Post
I have absolutely no problem with people voting for their beliefs. This is a democracy and if the majority of Americans agree with the current political platform of the Democratic Party then that's that. However if a person is anti gun control, anti gay marriage, a Zionist, a believer in hawkish foreign policy, and strongly pro-life, does it make sense for them to vote Democrat? You've made it clear where you stand which is fine and I am sure you do not mind people voting democratic, but does it make any sense for them to vote for a party who has a platform that does not represent their views?


This isn't the Politics forum, it's the Elections forum. I was discussing an electoral issue, I was not trying to get into a pissing contest. I would have the same opinions and the tables were flipped and we had a bunch of socially liberal, pro-choice, anti-tradition, pacifist foreign policy believing people voting for the GOP because of some sense of loyalty or tradition.

Do you understand what I am saying? Also please do keep in mind that the platforms of both parties have changed drastically since the Lyndon Johnsok administration and even moreso since the Nixon and Reagan campaigns and the "Southern Strategy", the political landscape of today bares no resemblance to the landscape of the time of the greatest generation/baby boomers. For instance, the Democratic party was synonymous with conservative southern politics and segregation. Robert Byrd was a high ranking KKK member and the Democratic Senator for West Virginia, similarly Jesse Helms, Strom Thurmond, and George Wallace were all Democrats and President Eisenhower was a republican even though on many issues he was a liberal for his time.


Do you support low information voting just for the sake of furthering your own ideological stance? Or do you believe in true democracy where the government represents the values of the voting populace regardless on if you disagree with the current administration?
I see your point. However, I think you might find that a person could be pro-gun, pro-life, anti-gay marriage, and still believe the Democrats have a better system for running the country, as proven by your own life experience. Southern Democrats espoused just these values for many decades, and those were good decades largely. One's personal values and one's rational view of a sensible governance approach are two different things.

I have a hard time reconciling the Ayn Randian social Darwinism and hawkish foreign policy with the Christian ethic which so many conservatives seem to support these days. Not trying to excoriate the GOP, but to point out that conflicting and nonsensical ideologies occur in the political bases of both big parties.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-24-2015, 06:20 AM
 
7 posts, read 3,304 times
Reputation: 11
Yes I agree with your point this is the forum where we discuss about the election campaign. There is the discussion about the provision to choose deserving candidate for the betterment of nation. For the fair result, there should be the impartial management of election equipment in which there is the involvement of best transportation, suitability with high security.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Elections
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:32 PM.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. | Please obey Forum Rules | Terms of Use and Privacy Policy

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top