Return to CreateDebate.comjaded • Join this debate community

Joe_Cavalry All Day Every Day



Welcome to Joe_Cavalry All Day Every Day!

Joe_Cavalry All Day Every Day is a social tool that democratizes the decision-making process through online debate. Join Now!
  • Find a debate you care about.
  • Read arguments and vote the best up and the worst down.
  • Earn points and become a thought leader!

To learn more, check out the FAQ or Tour.



Be Yourself

Your profile reflects your reputation, it will build itself as you create new debates, write arguments and form new relationships.

Make it even more personal by adding your own picture and updating your basics.


FB
Facebook addict? Check out our page and become a fan because you love us!


pic
Report This User
Permanent Delete

Allies
View All
pic
pic
pic
pic


Enemies
View All
None

Hostiles
View All
None

RSS Rotbart

Reward Points:101
Efficiency: Efficiency is a measure of the effectiveness of your arguments. It is the number of up votes divided by the total number of votes you have (percentage of votes that are positive).

Choose your words carefully so your efficiency score will remain high.
94%
Arguments:230
Debates:3
meter
Efficiency Monitor
Online:


Joined:
10 most recent arguments.
1 point

Based on the things people are saying, I’m pretty sure most of you don’t even know what socialism is.

It always amazes me how many uneducated people think their opinions matter over things that they don’t understand.

Go read some Marx, and take some history classes; then come back and we’ll have a better conversation about this.

1 point

Teddy Roosevelt is the only President in history that I'd be afraid to get into a fist fight with. I'm pretty sure Teddy could kick my ass.

1 point

I must question your chosen area of study, or at least your ability to remain objective in your profession.

What is your profession? Please do question it, but I'd like to know what background you have? Do you have a PhD in American History?

For the record, I pride myself in my objectivity, but thank you for questioning it. I always welcome questions.

Southern Democrats were Democrats because they were for Unionization,

Southern Democrats were actually democrats because Democrats were for states rights (earlier in history), and small federal government. Essentially, the Democrats of the late 19th century were the small government "conservative" party. FDR did not sign an anti-lynching law because he had to keep the Southern Democrats in his coalition. In that context of history, the Republican Party had not yet adopted that line (small government, states rights, support big business, etc) fully, and so many in the South were still Democrats. It did not change fully until the Civil Rights era, when the Republicans were against the Civil Rights act (as seen in Strom Thurmonds historic filibuster).

Southern Democrats were Democrats because they were for Unionization, which was racist in nature since it kept low wage minorities (whom they viewed as scabs) out of work.

Are you aware that the south was still not nearly as industrialized as it was in the North, and still isn't? Unions are typically for industrial trades. The Democratic Party and Unions have NOT always been tied together. That is new. Don't confuse the old Democratic Party with the new one.

The southern democrat was historically racist.

You're right! I would go further to say that the Southern Democrat was typically in favor of perpetuating systemic Jim Crow racism in the south, which is why signing the anti-lynching bill into law would have alienated them, and FDR still needed them.

What's interesting about the Roosevelt Coalition is that it had so many different (often diametrically opposed) groups under the same banner. You had hardcore leftists, unions, and minorities ALONG with basically the "Tea Party" of the day. It was a motley crew to be sure.

The Democrat party became the party supposedly for the minority only after JFK helped out MLK for reasons of political expedience.

Well, kind of, but it was in that era that the switch was complete. Both parties swapped places. It began in the early 20th century, and completed during the civil rights era. You're right though, basically!

Remember, in the early 20th century, it was assumed that if an African-American was walking into a polling booth, he was voting Republican. It is not like that now.

Thank you for your input!

1 point

I know for example, that the broad consensus among economists (you'll never get full agreement) is that WWII got us out of the depression with it's increased demand for labor and simultaneous decrease in supply.

Most economists I know (and the books I read) actually attribute us getting out of the depression to the increased demand created by people having money from having jobs essentially. If people do not have money to spend, the economy stays in a state of depression (as history has shown repeatedly). It is true that FDRs programs worked slowly, and the end of the war was a major contributor, but if we went back to how we were before the FDRs programs, our middle class would have dwindled much earlier. That is evidenced in how we did not really have a middle class for most of our history.

FDR's policies were what most economists would call "Keynesian Economics," and many economists actually support that school of thought. It just does not support the "conservative" narrative, so many "conservatives" reject it.

I know that it's bad for the economy to burn crops while people starve.

That was not FDR's policy. That was the greed of big business (I'm assuming you're talking about the crop burning in California, where Upton Sinclair was running for governor on the platform of preventing that). If you have a problem with crop burning, talk to agribusiness.

Or lock people up for trying to work past the legally allotted hours.

Do you have a primary historical source that corroborates this claim? I'd be interested to know why someone would WANT to work longer when they are protected by law to not be forced to do so.

I don't know how conservatives viewed things back then, but even if they pushed his bad economics, he was at the helm.

The Republicans back then thought the way they do now. They thought, like Herbert Hoover, that if the government just sat back and did nothing, eventually the market would fix itself (which, of course is not true, and has never been true). FDR's policies were actually doing something, so thank God for that, or God knows how long the depression would have lasted.

So, if by "bad economics" you mean, "economic policies that pulled us out of the great depression and created the middle class," you'd be right.

If by "bad economics" you mean programs that took our country from a 28% unemployment rate to a 2% unemployment rate, you'd be right.

I wouldn't call them "bad economics" and neither did my grandfather, or any of his brothers and sisters.

I know that it's easier to get votes when your government work programs are targeted where you need support.

Exactly. They government should actually work for the people of this country.

I know that everyone loved him so much that just as soon as the he died they put term limits on the presidency.

This is how much they loved FDR:

In the 1932 Election:

-FDR had 57% of the popular vote, and carried 42 states.

In the 1936 Election:

-FDR had over 60% of the popular vote, and carried 46 states.

In the 1944 Election:

-FDR had 54% of the popular vote, and carried 36 states.

In other words, FDR never had a close election. People loved him, in general terms. Of course, there were still "conservatives" back then that wanted to deregulate the markets again, and they were responsible for getting that amendment passed. It was not (obviously) because people did not like FDR. In truth, the idea of creating a limit of Presidential Terms, has been talked about since the early 19th century, most specifically, Thomas Jefferson, talked about it.

In truth, it probably scared Republicans and "conservatives" that a President like FDR, who was left-of-center (but not much, in the context of those times, actually), would break the previously held de-facto rule of only holding two terms, and potentially keep a President from being a Republican for decades. Remember, there was no written rule for that. So, in short, the 22nd Amendment was passed for political reasons, but I like what it does.

I'm not saying he was terrible, times were hard and much of the economic manipulation was untested. It's not like he was President Jackson, but he sure as hell wasn't the best.

I can't think of a better President, frankly. He wasn't perfect, he had his problems, but I think he did the most for the country when it needed someone to step-up and do something. Hoover and the "conservatives" certainly weren't doing anything.

EDIT: PS. My Grandmother was not a fan.

There are always some people who are the exception, not the rule.

Rotbart(101) Clarified
1 point

You know, everyone in history is human, and everyone made mistakes, or decisions that we don't like with our modern sensibilities.

One thing FDR did was refuse to sign an anti-lynching bill. Back then though, there were racist "conservatives" from the south who were still Democrats and thus part of the Roosevelt coalition. So, to keep the coalition together, FDR had to appease them. We look at that now, and say, "that was a crappy thing to do," but it made sense in that time in history.

Most anyone in history did bad things, or made bad decisions. Ghandi did bad things. MLK is the only guy I can't really say anything bad about.

1 point

Yes. Yes I did. I'm not sure what your point is. Are you trying to insinuate that I am wrong? Or are you agreeing with me by pointing out that I DO in fact know my history because history is my life (and it would be wierd if I did not know history)?

If you are trying to cross swords with me over history, I would love for you to actually try to.

Rotbart(101) Clarified
1 point

Thank you. You said basically what I was going to say. There is a reason people who lived back then loved FDR.

1 point

FDR. FDR was the most beloved President in US History. He gave people hope, he got people working when corporate industry wouldn't. He governed in the interest of the people. He put safety nets in place to ease the suffering of people in the future (social security, unemployment insurance, welfare programs, etc). FDR lead the US, a disillusioned broken country, our of the depression, gave the people hope, and lead them to fight against the Fascists in Europe and the Empire of Japan simultaneously; he did it all from a wheel chair. There is a reason that if you ask any person who was alive back then (if you're lucky enough to find one anymore), that they will tell you how great FDR was, and how much they hated Hoover (the Republican who wanted to "let the market fix itself"). My Grandfather was a Democrat till the day he died because of FDR, and he was an NRA member.

1 point

I don't know if you're aware, but the US is probably the most un-communist country in the developed world. Many of the problems our country has stem from our inability to accept that the "free market" is not actually a 100% benevolent force.

He also didn't really start the country. He was a figure that was often put in charge of things because his image was bigger than the man because he was at places like the Battle of Bunker Hill, or Yorktown (he was not a great military commander, and lost more battles than he won). What made Washington Great is he would step up and take charge when other people shirked the responsibility. So, his name was out there a lot. He wasn't a large contributor to the ideological wing of the Independence Movement, and he didn't contribute much in the drafting the Constitution (although he was the President of the Convention, again, his image was important to have associated with it).

1 point

I just want you to know that I spent 20 minutes typing a very well-cited, well formed counter argument to yours, and the website went down as I posted it. I am not going to type that again, but just know I did respond.

Rotbart has not yet created any debates.

About Me


I am probably a good person but I haven't taken the time to fill out my profile, so you'll never know!


Want an easy way to create new debates about cool web pages? Click Here