CDZ Why Socialism/Communism/Authority Driven regimes succeed so well at first.

Sunsettommy

Platinum Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2018
Messages
6,980
Reaction score
4,293
Points
1,050
Right wingers are worse; they levied war on the Union for the sake of slavery.
It was the DEMOCRATS who fought to preserve slavery, why do you lie so blatantly?
You are rewriting history. Back then the Dems were the right wingers.
Ha ha ha.....

Somehow D in 1860 is R in 2020.

Ha ha ha....

It is clear you never read the voting history of the Southern states.

=======

From my old forum

Now to the main point that it was the Democrat PARTY that dominated the deep south for over 90 years:

1860

John C. Breckingridge wins ALL of the Southern States which went to Confederacy shortly afterwards.

1868

The last time Republican candidate wins a few of the Southern states and that it was during this time into the 1870's that blacks who were then Republicans (because the Republican party wanted them to have the opportunity,while the Democrats prevented them in their areas) were winning some elections into office.

Meanwhile taking a break by pointing out that the main cause of the existence of the Republican party was to OPPOSE Slavery spreading into new territories (The Democrat party didn't try to do that) which they did through President Abraham Lincoln:

Quote:Republican Party, the younger of the two major political parties in the United States. Organized in 1854 to oppose the extension of slavery into the territories, it first captured the presidency in 1860 under the leadership of Abraham Lincoln. His election was followed by the Civil War, during which the Republican Party became the majority party.
Up into the 1920's Blacks were significant supporters of the always anti slave political party.

Quote:Until 1929 the success of the Republican Party was based on an alliance between eastern businesspeople and midwestern farmers. Most laborers and blacks also supported the party with regularity. In the wake of the Depression of the 1930s, the party lost most of its urban supporters with the exception of businesspeople. After World War II the party gained a following in the suburbs and in the South.
Back to the election roll call with 1876,bypassing the weird 1872 election

Hayes a Republican wins TWO southern states by a compromise,while it was possible would have lost them if they went the usual route of recounting the votes.

Quote:An informal deal was struck to resolve the dispute: the Compromise of 1877, which awarded all 20 electoral votes to Hayes. In return for the Democrats' acquiescence in Hayes's election, the Republicans agreed to withdraw federal troops from the South, ending Reconstruction. The Compromise effectively ceded power in the Southern states to the Democratic Redeemers.
1880

Hancock a Democrat wins All of the Southern states in his narrow loss.

From 1880 to 1924 they ALWAYS won ALL of the deep Southern States:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Stat...tion,_1884

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Stat...tion,_1888

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Stat...tion,_1892

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Stat...tion,_1896

William Jennings Bryan an avowed politically liberal and socially conservative wins All of the south and loses the election all three times from 1896-1900,1908.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Stat...tion,_1900

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Stat...tion,_1904

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Stat...tion,_1908

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Stat...tion,_1912

Liberal Wilson wins ALL of the south and most of the rest too.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Stat...tion,_1916

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Stat...tion,_1920

Democrat James Cox wins ONLY in the southern states.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Stat...tion,_1924

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Stat...tion,_1928

Republican Hoover managed to win Florida

Taking a short break here to point out what the Deep South really is:

Quote:Origins

Though often used in history books to refer to the seven states that originally formed the Confederacy, the term "Deep South" did not come into general usage until long after the Civil War ended. Up until that time, "Lower South" was the primary designation for those states. When "Deep South" first began to gain mainstream currency in print -- in the middle of the 20th century -- it applied to the states and areas of Mississippi, north Louisiana, southern Alabama and Georgia, and northern Florida. This was the part of the South many considered the "most Southern"
and that they were overwhelming supporters of the Democrat party.

Quote:politics

From 1880 to 1960 the Deep South overwhelmingly supported the Democratic Party as a legacy of the rival Republican Party's record during Reconstruction. It was known as the "Solid South".
Now back to the election roll call:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Stat...tion,_1932

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Stat...tion,_1936

Wipes out Hoover then Landon for his first two elections.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Stat...tion,_1940

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Stat...tion,_1944

Still wins the deep south again but with far fewer northern and mid western states in his last two elections.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Stat...tion,_1948

Two Democrat presidential candidates (Thurman,Truman) combined wins ALL of the deep south.Dewey the Republican didn't win any of them,not even the states right above them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Stat...tion,_1952

Eisenhower a Republican finally wins a southern state of Florida,just as Hoover did way back in 1928,it marks the ending dominant hold of the deep south for the Democrat party.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Stat...tion,_1956

He now wins Louisiana too,with Florida again as well.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Stat...tion,_1960

Florida for the third time in a row goes to a Republican.

In 1964 the South finally started voting for Republican candidates,the culmination of decades long trend of eroding Democrat party support in the deep south,where they were winning 70-80% of the votes in local and state elections to finally start losing them in the 1960's.

The voting pattern clearly shows that it was the Democrat party that held the power in the deep south for 80 years,the very span of time where Jim Crow laws and KKK held dominance.It was the Republicans who fought slavery as a party plank and it was Grant and fellow Republicans starting in the 1870's who fought against the KKK by passing laws against them.

It was also the political party that initially supported blacks to gain elective office in the 1870's only later to be stopped by the Democrats with their many tricks denying them the ability to cast votes and be allowed to run for office.

This is but a sampling of the well known anti black party Democrats used to be that was drummed out of them in the early 1960's when President Kennedy pushed for Civil Rights of Black Americans.
What you provided is absolutely true and completely besides the point. The Dems of old were what today we'd call conservatives. They were all for States Rights since that would enable them to have Jim Crow laws. As Northern liberal Democrats gained control of the party the GOP stepped in to fill the gap. The Dems were now in favor of national Civil Rights laws being applied to the States, while Goldwater's platform was the opposite.

It's true that the old Dems were for slavery and segregation but it is also true the old GOP was the party of Federal gov't supremacy over States and for reparations for Blacks. Doesn't sound like the GOP of today.
Still waiting for a refutation of my long post proving Democrats in 1860 are still the same democrats by party affiliation of the 1960's.

You didn't bother to learn about the long winded 1957 filibuster by the ALWAYS Democrat Robert Byrd, and again in 1964. Byrd was always a Democrat from the late 1940's to his death in 2010.

It was Democrats who at first tried to stop the 1964 Civil rights act from getting on the floor in the first place, then when NORTHERN Democrats led by Mike Mansfield, overcame the southern democrat opposition, it finally got on the floor for a vote where the REPUBLICANS voted yes at an 82% rate to the Democrats 69% rate.

You need to drop this party doppelgänger nonsense, since there is zero evidence of it.
You are delusional or still living in the last century. Until the end of Jim Crow, the South was solid Dem. Were those KKK supporters liberals? The South today is solid GOP, are they liberals?
Ha ha, you completely misunderstood my posts, where I made clear the South was dominated by democrats from the 1860's to the 1960's, didn't you look at the Presidential election links?

The KKK was founded by Southern Democrats, President Grant a Republican tried to destroy that racist organization.
 

forkup

Gold Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2016
Messages
5,700
Reaction score
1,101
Points
195
1-This is going to be long but here I start.

In a free society you will always have a group of radicals so hell bent on changing that society, that they spread nothing about, or greatly exaggerate the ills of that society.

Over the years they spread as far and wide as they can. They don't work a job, just to spread the gospel of Marx. Their only goal is to sow hatred and mistrust of the general population. This will go on for yrs and yrs. They are training the foot soldiers from Nursery School to Graduate School. By this time, they have society fighting each other. A false sense of class hatred and mistrust.

Slow cracks in society erode to where it implodes. Riots, substance abuse and hatred...etc.

Whew. I typed a months worth

Next we will deal with a cataclysmic event that hits every century or so.........Great Famine.......Economic Crashes....World Wars.....Disease............Regime Changes, and large scale death A big CRISIS these people have been waiting all their lives to happen

And they cannot let a huge crisis go to waste.
It wasn't all that long. What it is is nonsense. First, let me ask if you are willing or able to define the terms in your title? You mesh together Socialism, Totalitarianism and Communism. Those things are not simply interchangeable.

Second who says it works well at first. Soviet Russia was a mess from its conception. Plenty of dictators rule only for a bit before they are replaced.

On the other hand Social Democracies are universally stable. The point is you can't broad brush and without a clear definition of terms what you are saying is meaningless.
Yes. It's a huge difference whether you're dealing with a totalitarian dictatorship where the government rules above the law and uses a secret police responsible to nobody to terrorize the people and where all private enterprises are nationalized and state run ... or a social democracy, where the constitutions guarantee freedom for all, private companies are still in private hands, just the taxes are a tiny bit too high for your taste. :/
Yes, it is a huge difference. That's why I asked you to define your terms. Another one you should define is "work well". What is working well in your book? Is it stability? I could argue that Soviet Russia was stable for about 60 years. Is it being able to provide for your people. I could argue that China a Communist country that allows limited free enterprise has steadily been increasing the standard of living for its people. Thereby destroying your premise. Or is it to be like Western society? How do you, for the purpose of this OP define the terms you use?

As for Social Democracies and taxation. I'm European my wife is American, I know how it is in the States and I know how it is in my country. Yes, I do pay very high taxes, on the other hand, I've got access to services that all but rich Americans can afford. If you want to talk about that in another OP let me know? I'll gladly start one.
 

Bernhard

Active Member
Joined
Nov 25, 2020
Messages
118
Reaction score
104
Points
43
Location
Berlin, Germany
1-This is going to be long but here I start.

In a free society you will always have a group of radicals so hell bent on changing that society, that they spread nothing about, or greatly exaggerate the ills of that society.

Over the years they spread as far and wide as they can. They don't work a job, just to spread the gospel of Marx. Their only goal is to sow hatred and mistrust of the general population. This will go on for yrs and yrs. They are training the foot soldiers from Nursery School to Graduate School. By this time, they have society fighting each other. A false sense of class hatred and mistrust.

Slow cracks in society erode to where it implodes. Riots, substance abuse and hatred...etc.

Whew. I typed a months worth

Next we will deal with a cataclysmic event that hits every century or so.........Great Famine.......Economic Crashes....World Wars.....Disease............Regime Changes, and large scale death A big CRISIS these people have been waiting all their lives to happen

And they cannot let a huge crisis go to waste.
It wasn't all that long. What it is is nonsense. First, let me ask if you are willing or able to define the terms in your title? You mesh together Socialism, Totalitarianism and Communism. Those things are not simply interchangeable.

Second who says it works well at first. Soviet Russia was a mess from its conception. Plenty of dictators rule only for a bit before they are replaced.

On the other hand Social Democracies are universally stable. The point is you can't broad brush and without a clear definition of terms what you are saying is meaningless.
Yes. It's a huge difference whether you're dealing with a totalitarian dictatorship where the government rules above the law and uses a secret police responsible to nobody to terrorize the people and where all private enterprises are nationalized and state run ... or a social democracy, where the constitutions guarantee freedom for all, private companies are still in private hands, just the taxes are a tiny bit too high for your taste. :/
Yes, it is a huge difference. That's why I asked you to define your terms. Another one you should define is "work well". What is working well in your book? Is it stability? I could argue that Soviet Russia was stable for about 60 years. Is it being able to provide for your people. I could argue that China a Communist country that allows limited free enterprise has steadily been increasing the standard of living for its people. Thereby destroying your premise. Or is it to be like Western society? How do you, for the purpose of this OP define the terms you use?

As for Social Democracies and taxation. I'm European my wife is American, I know how it is in the States and I know how it is in my country. Yes, I do pay very high taxes, on the other hand, I've got access to services that all but rich Americans can afford. If you want to talk about that in another OP let me know? I'll gladly start one.
Uhm... is it possible you are confusing me with someone else on this thread?
 

forkup

Gold Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2016
Messages
5,700
Reaction score
1,101
Points
195
1-This is going to be long but here I start.

In a free society you will always have a group of radicals so hell bent on changing that society, that they spread nothing about, or greatly exaggerate the ills of that society.

Over the years they spread as far and wide as they can. They don't work a job, just to spread the gospel of Marx. Their only goal is to sow hatred and mistrust of the general population. This will go on for yrs and yrs. They are training the foot soldiers from Nursery School to Graduate School. By this time, they have society fighting each other. A false sense of class hatred and mistrust.

Slow cracks in society erode to where it implodes. Riots, substance abuse and hatred...etc.

Whew. I typed a months worth

Next we will deal with a cataclysmic event that hits every century or so.........Great Famine.......Economic Crashes....World Wars.....Disease............Regime Changes, and large scale death A big CRISIS these people have been waiting all their lives to happen

And they cannot let a huge crisis go to waste.
It wasn't all that long. What it is is nonsense. First, let me ask if you are willing or able to define the terms in your title? You mesh together Socialism, Totalitarianism and Communism. Those things are not simply interchangeable.

Second who says it works well at first. Soviet Russia was a mess from its conception. Plenty of dictators rule only for a bit before they are replaced.

On the other hand Social Democracies are universally stable. The point is you can't broad brush and without a clear definition of terms what you are saying is meaningless.
Yes. It's a huge difference whether you're dealing with a totalitarian dictatorship where the government rules above the law and uses a secret police responsible to nobody to terrorize the people and where all private enterprises are nationalized and state run ... or a social democracy, where the constitutions guarantee freedom for all, private companies are still in private hands, just the taxes are a tiny bit too high for your taste. :/
Yes, it is a huge difference. That's why I asked you to define your terms. Another one you should define is "work well". What is working well in your book? Is it stability? I could argue that Soviet Russia was stable for about 60 years. Is it being able to provide for your people. I could argue that China a Communist country that allows limited free enterprise has steadily been increasing the standard of living for its people. Thereby destroying your premise. Or is it to be like Western society? How do you, for the purpose of this OP define the terms you use?

As for Social Democracies and taxation. I'm European my wife is American, I know how it is in the States and I know how it is in my country. Yes, I do pay very high taxes, on the other hand, I've got access to services that all but rich Americans can afford. If you want to talk about that in another OP let me know? I'll gladly start one.
Uhm... is it possible you are confusing me with someone else on this thread?
yea I just noticed. I was talking to the OP. Sorry about that.
 

danielpalos

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2015
Messages
63,171
Reaction score
2,905
Points
1,855
Location
Alta California, federalist.
Right wingers are worse; they levied war on the Union for the sake of slavery.
It was the DEMOCRATS who fought to preserve slavery, why do you lie so blatantly?
You are rewriting history. Back then the Dems were the right wingers.
Ha ha ha.....

Somehow D in 1860 is R in 2020.

Ha ha ha....

It is clear you never read the voting history of the Southern states.

=======

From my old forum

Now to the main point that it was the Democrat PARTY that dominated the deep south for over 90 years:

1860

John C. Breckingridge wins ALL of the Southern States which went to Confederacy shortly afterwards.

1868

The last time Republican candidate wins a few of the Southern states and that it was during this time into the 1870's that blacks who were then Republicans (because the Republican party wanted them to have the opportunity,while the Democrats prevented them in their areas) were winning some elections into office.

Meanwhile taking a break by pointing out that the main cause of the existence of the Republican party was to OPPOSE Slavery spreading into new territories (The Democrat party didn't try to do that) which they did through President Abraham Lincoln:

Quote:Republican Party, the younger of the two major political parties in the United States. Organized in 1854 to oppose the extension of slavery into the territories, it first captured the presidency in 1860 under the leadership of Abraham Lincoln. His election was followed by the Civil War, during which the Republican Party became the majority party.
Up into the 1920's Blacks were significant supporters of the always anti slave political party.

Quote:Until 1929 the success of the Republican Party was based on an alliance between eastern businesspeople and midwestern farmers. Most laborers and blacks also supported the party with regularity. In the wake of the Depression of the 1930s, the party lost most of its urban supporters with the exception of businesspeople. After World War II the party gained a following in the suburbs and in the South.
Back to the election roll call with 1876,bypassing the weird 1872 election

Hayes a Republican wins TWO southern states by a compromise,while it was possible would have lost them if they went the usual route of recounting the votes.

Quote:An informal deal was struck to resolve the dispute: the Compromise of 1877, which awarded all 20 electoral votes to Hayes. In return for the Democrats' acquiescence in Hayes's election, the Republicans agreed to withdraw federal troops from the South, ending Reconstruction. The Compromise effectively ceded power in the Southern states to the Democratic Redeemers.
1880

Hancock a Democrat wins All of the Southern states in his narrow loss.

From 1880 to 1924 they ALWAYS won ALL of the deep Southern States:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Stat...tion,_1884

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Stat...tion,_1888

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Stat...tion,_1892

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Stat...tion,_1896

William Jennings Bryan an avowed politically liberal and socially conservative wins All of the south and loses the election all three times from 1896-1900,1908.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Stat...tion,_1900

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Stat...tion,_1904

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Stat...tion,_1908

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Stat...tion,_1912

Liberal Wilson wins ALL of the south and most of the rest too.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Stat...tion,_1916

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Stat...tion,_1920

Democrat James Cox wins ONLY in the southern states.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Stat...tion,_1924

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Stat...tion,_1928

Republican Hoover managed to win Florida

Taking a short break here to point out what the Deep South really is:

Quote:Origins

Though often used in history books to refer to the seven states that originally formed the Confederacy, the term "Deep South" did not come into general usage until long after the Civil War ended. Up until that time, "Lower South" was the primary designation for those states. When "Deep South" first began to gain mainstream currency in print -- in the middle of the 20th century -- it applied to the states and areas of Mississippi, north Louisiana, southern Alabama and Georgia, and northern Florida. This was the part of the South many considered the "most Southern"
and that they were overwhelming supporters of the Democrat party.

Quote:politics

From 1880 to 1960 the Deep South overwhelmingly supported the Democratic Party as a legacy of the rival Republican Party's record during Reconstruction. It was known as the "Solid South".
Now back to the election roll call:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Stat...tion,_1932

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Stat...tion,_1936

Wipes out Hoover then Landon for his first two elections.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Stat...tion,_1940

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Stat...tion,_1944

Still wins the deep south again but with far fewer northern and mid western states in his last two elections.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Stat...tion,_1948

Two Democrat presidential candidates (Thurman,Truman) combined wins ALL of the deep south.Dewey the Republican didn't win any of them,not even the states right above them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Stat...tion,_1952

Eisenhower a Republican finally wins a southern state of Florida,just as Hoover did way back in 1928,it marks the ending dominant hold of the deep south for the Democrat party.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Stat...tion,_1956

He now wins Louisiana too,with Florida again as well.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Stat...tion,_1960

Florida for the third time in a row goes to a Republican.

In 1964 the South finally started voting for Republican candidates,the culmination of decades long trend of eroding Democrat party support in the deep south,where they were winning 70-80% of the votes in local and state elections to finally start losing them in the 1960's.

The voting pattern clearly shows that it was the Democrat party that held the power in the deep south for 80 years,the very span of time where Jim Crow laws and KKK held dominance.It was the Republicans who fought slavery as a party plank and it was Grant and fellow Republicans starting in the 1870's who fought against the KKK by passing laws against them.

It was also the political party that initially supported blacks to gain elective office in the 1870's only later to be stopped by the Democrats with their many tricks denying them the ability to cast votes and be allowed to run for office.

This is but a sampling of the well known anti black party Democrats used to be that was drummed out of them in the early 1960's when President Kennedy pushed for Civil Rights of Black Americans.
What you provided is absolutely true and completely besides the point. The Dems of old were what today we'd call conservatives. They were all for States Rights since that would enable them to have Jim Crow laws. As Northern liberal Democrats gained control of the party the GOP stepped in to fill the gap. The Dems were now in favor of national Civil Rights laws being applied to the States, while Goldwater's platform was the opposite.

It's true that the old Dems were for slavery and segregation but it is also true the old GOP was the party of Federal gov't supremacy over States and for reparations for Blacks. Doesn't sound like the GOP of today.
Still waiting for a refutation of my long post proving Democrats in 1860 are still the same democrats by party affiliation of the 1960's.

You didn't bother to learn about the long winded 1957 filibuster by the ALWAYS Democrat Robert Byrd, and again in 1964. Byrd was always a Democrat from the late 1940's to his death in 2010.

It was Democrats who at first tried to stop the 1964 Civil rights act from getting on the floor in the first place, then when NORTHERN Democrats led by Mike Mansfield, overcame the southern democrat opposition, it finally got on the floor for a vote where the REPUBLICANS voted yes at an 82% rate to the Democrats 69% rate.

You need to drop this party doppelgänger nonsense, since there is zero evidence of it.
You are delusional or still living in the last century. Until the end of Jim Crow, the South was solid Dem. Were those KKK supporters liberals? The South today is solid GOP, are they liberals?
Ha ha, you completely misunderstood my posts, where I made clear the South was dominated by democrats from the 1860's to the 1960's, didn't you look at the Presidential election links?

The KKK was founded by Southern Democrats, President Grant a Republican tried to destroy that racist organization.
Why would the South have rebelled if they were the same party as Lincoln?
 

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top