Real Repub/Democrat values-Page 2: Off-topic discussion forum: Grassroots Motorsports Magazine

Subscribe get a full year for only $23.95 Sample Free Test Drive—no strings attached

1 2

Nov. 3, 2008 12:04 p.m. Xceler8x HalfDork

Jensenman wrote: The weird thing about the Democrats: they were the party of racism here in the South for many years. They were in power in many of the Southern cities during the race riots and the FBI investigations of the Klan, yet now they are viewed as being the opposite.

Duke wrote:

I've never been able to figure that out. The Southern Democrats were repressive and racist for decades, yet no, for some reason, black people go Democrat for something like 90% of all votes.

A whole other topic but an interesting one nonetheless. I'll chime in if you guys want to start another thread so we don't thread-jack this one.

I've lived in Richmond, VA all my life. Capital of the Confederacy. An interesting mix here too. Keep in mind that we're also talking about Dixiecrats if you reach some ways back. The Dixiecrats had more in common with Republicans than the West Coast or Northern style Democrats.

A good link explaining Dixiecrats.
Nov. 3, 2008 12:15 p.m. Salanis SuperDork

I rather like a lot of California Republicans. They tend to have a lot of the progressive social views from our state, coupled with the Republican sense of fiscal conservatism.

Or maybe I just like our governator. I was really really pleased with him when he said, "We're cutting 10% (or some number) across the board. To everything." And then when the legislature got pissed off saying "but you can't cut [education/pensions/whatever I'm big on]", he shot back with "If you guys want to keep the same level of funding to that, find a way to work it into the budget that still cuts spending. If you can't reach an agreement, it's getting cut back."

And then he proposed to raise taxes to increase revenue to balance the budget. And refused to sign anything but the most important legislation until the budget was passed.

Not popular actions, but I really admire the fact that he decided to be the shiny happy person this state needs right now.
Nov. 3, 2008 12:22 p.m. Osterkraut Reader

walterj wrote:

ddavidv wrote: I think you'll have to do some history homework. The Democratic party pre-FDR was vastly different than the one we have now. FDR was really a socialist, and was surrounded by a bunch of Marxists who were all excited about the new grand experiment we know as the Soviet Union. The Depression gave them the ability to pass a bunch of entitlement programs that probably never would have seen the light of day otherwise, and the modern Democratic party does all it can to preserve these and make more.

Where the Republicans went wrong is less clear to me, but somehow 'government conservative' got tied up in 'religious and social conservative' and has made a mess of their platform.

I think the Libertarian party platform is probably the best illustration of what the Republicans used to be.

Do you really think FDR as a socialist? I saw that whole "New Deal" as a way to give just enough to the poor and working class to get control of the militant, angry populace and squash what was a very socialist thinking movement that was growing in popularity. I mean - he could have nationalized everything at the time but he chose to save capitalism. He looked to be giving them what they wanted but used it to create public schooling that trained kids as patriots, kept the poor on the government payroll building the empire and then used the support and patriotic upswing to lead us into war.

Yes. His Four Freedoms:

Freedom of speech and expression

Freedom of religion

Feedom from want

Freedom from fear

Government-sponsored wish-fufilling.

aircooled said:I believe the solid Republican tie to the "Religious Right" occurred with the Bush II election (maybe earlier?). They discovered this relatively untapped, rather large block that (pretty much by definition of what they are) will follow each other like sheep with little regard for self thinking. Basically the holy grail for a political campaign.
<

They really started coming out of the woodwork in 1980.
Nov. 3, 2008 1:26 p.m. Jensenman SuperDork

The Republican Party was responsible for the ending of slavery under Lincoln. He started as a Whig, but was dissatisfied with their stand on slavery and so he helped create the Republican party. I guess that means yes third parties can have a place in American politics.
Nov. 3, 2008 2:27 p.m. carguy123 HalfDork

Jensenman wrote:

The Republican Party was responsible for the ending of slavery under Lincoln. He started as a Whig, but was dissatisfied with their stand on slavery and so he helped create the Republican party. I guess that means yes third parties can have a place in American politics.

But that Republican party is the present day Democratic party. It gets confusing as you follow the genealogy.

Also at that time the political parties were less entrenched than they are today. It would be next to impossible to create a viable 3rd party in todays world.

Also keep in mind that the election of Lincoln was the precipitating factor in the start of the Civil War. And NO it wasn't over slavery, but over states rights, which Lincoln didn't favor. Had Lincoln not been elected the War of Northern Aggression would not have started, well at least not right at that moment.

Things appeared to be working out until Lincoln's election at which time the South, which did have the right to secede, decided to throw in the towel. Wasn't Lincoln's election one of those where the person with the most popular votes didn't get elected?

It was the founding fathers that gave most of the voting and political power to the northeast to preserve their strangle hold on the power that created the environment that caused the unrest that caused the war.
Nov. 3, 2008 2:32 p.m. walterj HalfDork

MGAMGB wrote:

Wow, 50% smug, 50% self-righteousness, and 50% ignorance. Impressive..ly sad.

HAHAHA! Thats like 2 million percents.