First "real" Republican/Democrat presidents (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
June 12, 2024, 01:46:18 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2004 U.S. Presidential Election
  First "real" Republican/Democrat presidents (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: First "real" Republican/Democrat presidents  (Read 8976 times)
12th Doctor
supersoulty
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 20,584
Ukraine


« on: November 21, 2004, 02:27:24 PM »

FDR? Are you kidding?

To be honest, I'd say Truman.

Are you kidding?

The modern Democratic Party is pratically the antithisis of everything Truman stood for.
Logged
12th Doctor
supersoulty
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 20,584
Ukraine


« Reply #1 on: November 21, 2004, 02:33:08 PM »

Truman was practically economically socialist by today's standards, and he won the 1948 election by playing up class warfare, accusing Dewey of being the candidate of the wealthy and elite (which is actually not true, Dewey was a liberal Republican, but it's still how he campaigned). He was far more populist than today's Dem party.

When Truman said it, it was still true.

Although, all thgis became irrelevant by the 60's.
Logged
12th Doctor
supersoulty
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 20,584
Ukraine


« Reply #2 on: November 21, 2004, 02:41:11 PM »

I have no clue what that means.

Regardless, that is far from the antithesis of today's Democratic party, unless you mean it has moved too far to the right economically, which I agree with.

What I meant is that there was still some undue exploitation of the working class by the wealthy.  Though, by the 60's, that belief became outdated.

Anyway, the Democratic party no longer cares about the working class.  They have become the party of the perpetually unemployed and the wealthy elite.
Logged
12th Doctor
supersoulty
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 20,584
Ukraine


« Reply #3 on: November 21, 2004, 02:44:51 PM »

how was he the antithesis then?

That means he'd be the equivalent of Jesse Helms today. Yeah right!

Did you even read my post?
Logged
12th Doctor
supersoulty
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 20,584
Ukraine


« Reply #4 on: November 21, 2004, 02:58:00 PM »

yes, and it's wrong. The wealth gap is greater today than in the 60s.

Aside from that, you said he was the antithesis. That would make him exactly like Jesse Helms. That's a very tough claim to prove.

Also using this logic you could argue Eugene Debs would be a right winger today.


Regardless of what class you are in, the standard of living has greatly increased since the turn of the 20th century.  Throughout the 50's, 60's and 70's, the Unions enjoyed more political power than, well, pretty much any other organization in the world and their corruption was totally unchallenged.

Did I ever say that Truman was a "right-winger"?  I don't recall saying that.  I just said that in acctuallity, the Democrats represent an outfit that Truman would fail to recongnize as his party today.

And acctually, Jesse Helms probably does more nearly represent Truman than Kerry.
Logged
12th Doctor
supersoulty
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 20,584
Ukraine


« Reply #5 on: November 21, 2004, 03:16:52 PM »

ha ha that's funny. Especially since Dewey was closer to Kerry than Jesse Helms, proving the shift has been to right, not left.

Well you're basically saying Truman was unhappy with the conditions of the working class at his time, but you're sure he would be today, so he'd hate the Democrats. Then I could say Eugene Debs was unhappy about it but only because of his time, he'd be satisfied today. That's a big leap of assumption.

No, that is not what I am saying at all.  I'm saying the the modern Democrats don't care about the issues Truman cared about.
Logged
12th Doctor
supersoulty
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 20,584
Ukraine


« Reply #6 on: November 21, 2004, 05:56:11 PM »

I'll agree that FDR is a better example than Truman.

For Republicans, I'd say McKinley, although his VP definately wouldn't be a Republican today.

I know you didn't mean it as a compliment, but McKinley was a good man, so I will take it as one.
Logged
12th Doctor
supersoulty
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 20,584
Ukraine


« Reply #7 on: November 21, 2004, 06:36:38 PM »

McKinley was very laissez-faire and pro-business, and was very imperialistic. And I don't mean that as a compliment since I  hate McKinley.

Ha, who told you that idiocy?

McKinely wept in his office when he gave the order to deploy troops in the Spanish-American War.  He didn't want to fight.  It was Roosevelt who was responsible for the war.  Open a real hisoty book, instead of a public school text book.

Logged
12th Doctor
supersoulty
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 20,584
Ukraine


« Reply #8 on: November 21, 2004, 06:40:37 PM »

an anarchist, although it was mostly for attention to the anarchist cause.

Roosevelt was a hawk, but there are plenty of modern day hawkish Democrats ("Scoop" Jackson, Lieberman). There is no way he could be in the party of big business.

Peopel think that TR was this great promoter of Socialism.  That is a myth.  He had a concern for the poor, but he was very reluctent to take on big-bussiness in several situations.

Taft... yeah that's right, Taft one of the most hated Presidents in US history busted up more trusts and put more restritions on big business than TR did.  Oh, but how history has been changed in the hands of the peopel who should be gaurding it.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.026 seconds with 13 queries.