holy shit we got an education problem
-
Friendly reminder: The politics section is a place where a lot of differing opinions are raised. You may not like what you read here but it is someone's opinion. As long as the debate is respectful you are free to debate freely. Also, the views and opinions expressed by forum members may not necessarily reflect those of GBAtemp. Messages that the staff consider offensive or inflammatory may be removed in line with existing forum terms and conditions.
[POLL] 2020 U.S. Presidential Election
- Thread starter Lacius
- Start date
- Views 258,122
- Replies 3,721
- Likes 7
I agree with Chary. Slavery would still be a thing.... Who side was it that started the civil war? It couldn’t have been Lincoln’s side, since he was a republican....
I’m confused how all those people who were against abolishing slavery ended up getting any of their votes.
I’m confused how all those people who were against abolishing slavery ended up getting any of their votes.
the parties flipped during the civil rights era, more specifically southern democrats switched to the republican party as the parties became more socially polarized
Tell us again how the electoral college brings democracy. Most of you fail to realize that a presidential candidate can win 100% of the popular vote & not win any electoral college votes because there are no laws in place that prevent electoral college votes from going against the people vote.
I see you're one of those guys who thinks that the democrats of today are the democrats of the 1800s.
Let's look at something more interesting. The first map is of the United States during the Civil War. The red states are the confederate states. The second map is of the current presidential race as I screenshotted seconds ago. Ope, looks like those confederate states arent full of democrats. Ope, looks like your argument fell apart.
Because the people living in the states that were pro slavery are now by and large conservative states.
Parties flipped. I remember being taught that in school.
Isn’t it interesting how a party represents an idea. Or they align with similar thoughts on topics?
So when people start mixing ideas, why is the entire party “flipped”. Makes no sense to me. The people who were against abortion and now are pro abortion should they leave their party to go to the other party?
Its like capitalism suddenly like communist ideas. The communist country’s wouldn’t start calling themselves capitalist.
“ A rose by any other name would smell as sweet“. A Democrat’s a democrat. A republican is a republican.
Why did the past find it necessary to call a Democrat a republican and vice verse?
I find that hard to swallow. It’s almost convenient weak excuse..... please do not take this as anything but a conversation.
I love hearing opinions. I think psychology of humans is much more interesting than politics.
Isn’t it interesting how a party represents an idea. Or they align with similar thoughts on topics?
So when people start mixing ideas, why is the entire party “flipped”. Makes no sense to me. The people who were against abortion and now are pro abortion should they leave their party to go to the other party?
Its like capitalism suddenly like communist ideas. The communist country’s wouldn’t start calling themselves capitalist.
“ A rose by any other name would smell as sweet“. A Democrat’s a democrat. A republican is a republican.
Why did the past find it necessary to call a Democrat a republican and vice verse?
I find that hard to swallow. It’s almost convenient weak excuse..... please do not take this as anything but a conversation.
I love hearing opinions. I think psychology of humans is much more interesting than politics.
The republican party was formed during Lincoln's presidency in order to abolish slavery. There was no such thing as republicans or democrats before that. The thing is, though, is that political ideologies shift all the time. When LBJ ended Jim Crow, all the democrats went republican. Racists and nationalists align themselves with whatever party supports their worldview, and the ending of segregation is what turned the south red.
You mean if it's taken away, a republican would never win. Please explain how gerrymandering is in any way representative of a democracy.
I hope you don’t believe the people and population in the 1800s even remotely come close to today’s census.
I’m not white but I’m born and raised in this nation.
How can the map from 1800 showing the southern states be relatively even remotely close to what is going on in today’s age?
Please keep this civil. I really do not care for anything but facts. I will never slander you. But don’t criticize me if i am not aware of things you are aware of.
--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
Joom... exactly all the democrats went republican. Why did they decide that changing names is best? The name should represent their ideals. Just because a large group of one side changes their mind, so instead of switching sides they switch the meaning behind being a democrat and republican?
Also.... would you want one party to always hold power??
I’m not white but I’m born and raised in this nation.
How can the map from 1800 showing the southern states be relatively even remotely close to what is going on in today’s age?
Please keep this civil. I really do not care for anything but facts. I will never slander you. But don’t criticize me if i am not aware of things you are aware of.
--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
Joom... exactly all the democrats went republican. Why did they decide that changing names is best? The name should represent their ideals. Just because a large group of one side changes their mind, so instead of switching sides they switch the meaning behind being a democrat and republican?
Also.... would you want one party to always hold power??
Last edited by RyanfromWork,
they didnt change names, in the civil rights era the parties became very polarized in social policy whereas before both parties had socially liberal and socially conservative factions so southern democrats (a huge wing of the democratic party and what controlled the entire south) switched to the republican party and socially liberal republicans switched to the democratic party, i can link a good video on it
Bwawahaha:
https://www.quora.com/Other-than-slavery-what-are-the-main-causes-that-led-to-the-American-Civil-War
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Lincoln_and_slavery
https://www.history.com/news/5-things-you-may-not-know-about-lincoln-slavery-and-emancipation
edit: Cui bono:
https://www.theusaonline.com/history/industrialization.htm
Last edited by notimp,
Could you please? That would clear up a lot of my confusion regarding the “switching”.
Or you can tell me keywords to look up in YouTube if you don’t wanna link. I’m sure I can find it.
Or you can tell me keywords to look up in YouTube if you don’t wanna link. I’m sure I can find it.
You rock. Thank you for taking your time out to educate a random internet ganagster.
https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/republican-party-founded
Are you agreeing with me, or...? *shrug* Maybe not during his presidency, but that was the purpose of it, and he was the first republican president.
Last edited by Joom,
Thats not the same as abolishing slavery. Not in intend, not in direction, not in effort, not in claim, not in proclamation, not in...
It basically was a conflict between ongoing industrialists and the landownership-nobility which operated on a conflicting business model.
Humanitarian efforts were nowhere to be seen during the 'setup' of this conflict. But they make for a good story for the after unification periods.
Last edited by notimp,
the south still believed that slavery was under threat and needed to be protected at all cost to 'preserve their way of life', no matter what lincoln indicated before and during his presidencyThats not the same as abolishing slavery. Not in intend, not in direction, not in effort, not in claim, not in proclamation, not in...
It basically was a conflict between ongoing industrialists and the landownership-nobility which operated on a conflicting business model.
Humanitarian efforts were no where to be seen during the 'setup' of this conflict. But they make for a good story for the after unification periods.
I was mostly generalizing as the party's formation eventually led to it. At least over time it became the inherent goal.Thats not the same as abolishing slavery. Not in intend, not in direction, not in effort, not in claim, not in proclamation, not in...
It basically was a conflict between ongoing industrialists and the landownership-nobility which operated on a conflicting business model.
Humanitarian efforts were no where to be seen during the 'setup' of this conflict. But they make for a good story for the after unification periods.
Yes, after unification, certainly..
(You had black people fighting on the front, you had to give them something. How about something without value to you, that you dont care about? Hey, good luck fellas! Hows that freedom treating you? What segragationist state? Sorry, cant hear you pal, the lines not so good... )edit: But then the south went na-ah. And installed a defacto segregationist system, and nobody in an important position seemed to care for another 50+ years. They did that to 'protect' their societies/their way of life. (Protect in quotes for a mountain of reasons. As in - well, powerstruggles and PR BS out of those.)
Last edited by notimp,
D
Deleted User
Guest
So... please explain to me how say idk. Popular vote wouldn't be democratic. If anything, it could be argued as more democratic than the electoral collage.
--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
the electoral collage goes against it, it allows minorities of people to be in power. If I recall correctly, back in 2016, Hillary had 3,000,000 more votes than trump. That's a fuck ton of votes to be said f you.
Similar threads
- Locked
-
- Poll
-
BunnyPinkie
- S salazarcosplay
-
K3Nv2
-
Sonic Angel Knight
-
BakerMan
The snack that smiles back, Ballsack!
