This is silly. You refuse to stick to the original discussion, while accusing me of that.
This is why things get tedious....
The following, from you, is the first post to reference Wilson or FDR:
Wilson was as much a pacifist as you could find in his campaign days. Roosevelt was antiwar. Nixon campaigned on ending the war. Once you actually have the responsibility, you take a more realistic view of things.
[/color]
No one previously had mentioned Wilson, FDR or Nixon. Your post quoted no one, but did immediately follow a comment from Tico about how Obama's presidency in many regards was a continuation of the Bush presidency:
Sorry, but there's not as big a difference between Bush and Obama as you'd like to pretend. All the major stuff that Obama campaigned against Bush on... can you tell me what's changed?
Now, let's look again at what
you wrote:
Wilson was as much a pacifist as you could find in his campaign days. Roosevelt was antiwar. Nixon campaigned on ending the war. Once you actually have the responsibility, you take a more realistic view of things.
[/color]
War was not an issue at all in the 1912 election, nor in the FDR elections of 1932 or 1936. The only elections for either of them where they were "anti-war" or "pacifists" was the election immediately before they asked Congress to declare war. THAT is what I have focused on in every post. You now contend that I "refuse to stick to the original discussion." Could you cut and paste any quote any language from me in this exchange where I have done that? Now, while I did focus my initial comments entirely on the elections when each of the presidents you mentioned did campaign as anti-war (the elections of 1916, 1940 and 1968) and the year or in Nixon's case the years immediately after that election, YOU came back with your second comment in the exchange saying you saw "
no evidence that either Wilson or FDR wanted to go to war when they were first elected,
" and asking if I could cite any. Knowing that you are prone to typos, but generally think straight, I continued to focus my response on the elections when FDR and Wilson actually took campaign positions on war and peace and not to the utterly irrelevant elections of 1912 and 1932, and I also made clear what I was doing and why.
While I would still like to see your reference to why I was straying off topic, the only way YOU were staying ON topic was if in your original post you actually were referencing the elections of 1912 and 1932.... in which case you were utterly wrong about Wilson running as a "pacifist" and FDR as "anti-war" and your entire comment was nonsense.
I will let you sort out which it was. Forgive me for assuming you actually knew what you were talking about and were making sense but had made what amounted to a typo if in fact you did not know what you were talking about and were not making what amounted to a typo.
It is my opinion that Wilson and FDR changed their minds when faced with a changing situation. It is your opinion that they did not. I do not submit evidence to support my position, other than to say that it seems more reasonable than the alternatives. You do not submit evidence to support your position, other than to say that it is more reasonable to you than the alternatives.
Excuse me, but I DID submit evidence that each changed their positions from the ones they campaigned on in the relevant elections, the elections less than a year before they asked Congress to declare war. Their positions in 1912 and 1932 are both irrelevant and unknown, at neither time was war even an issue.
There does't seem to be much to discuss, so you are probably right when you say that I am not much interested in your idea of a discussion. If you refuse to respond to my posts, and instead ask questions that are irrelevant to the discussion, it is probably time to give it up.
You want to discuss a change in their positions from 1912 and 1932?
REALLY?
Let's start by offering anything from 1912 or 1932 to
establish their positions in those years.
I have responded to your original post in the only form in which it offered a modicum of sense, applying your contention to the elections of 1916 and 1940 when each did make their war and peace positions central to their campaigns. Actually applying your contention to the years of 1912 and 1932 makes no sense whatsoever, though I will be very happy to look at anything you can find which suggests otherwise, that either of them actually ran as a "pacifist" or "anti-war" candidate in their initial campaigns as presidential candidates, the campaigns when they were elected to office.