PDA

View Full Version : How Would You Have Voted? (Americans)



IMPress Polly
08-19-2012, 10:43 AM
Out of boredom I've decided to draft a list of which I feel that I would have voted in each U.S. presidential election to date had I somehow magically been of my current age, overall worldview, and eligibility to vote (after all, women weren't allowed to vote in presidential elections in my state until 1920) at the time. (I will presume, in each case, to have only the historical knowledge available in the context of the times referenced, not 21st century knowledge. That way this exercise will be more authentic.)

I'd like to see you all draft lists of your own! Note here that by "similar", I DON'T mean that you have to list a hypothetical vote for each election cycle. If you'd like to participate, simply list such a vote for those cycles you are familiar with and which interest you. I don't care if that means you list a vote for more or less each cycle (like me) or for just one or two. This is simply intended to help us get to know each other better (...and temporarily cure my personal boredom, as mentioned before).

(I will skip the 1789 and 1792 elections since they were non-contested.)

1796: Thomas Jefferson (Democratic Republican)

1800: Thomas Jefferson (Democratic Republican)

1804: Thomas Jefferson (Democratic Republican)

1808: James Madison (Democratic Republican)

1812: DeWitt Clinton (Federalist)

1816: Rufus King (Federalist)

1820: Non-contested election.

1824: John Quincy Adams (Democratic Republican)

1828: John Quincy Adams (National Republican)

1832: William Wirt (Anti-Mason)

1836: Daniel Webster (Whig)

1840: James G. Birney (Liberty)

1844: Henry Clay (Whig)

1848: Zachary Taylor (Whig)

1852: John Parker Hale (Free Soil)

1856: John C. Fremont (Republican)

1860: Abraham Lincoln (Republican)

1864: Abraham Lincoln (National Union)

1868: Ulysses S. Grant (Republican)

1872: Ulysses S. Grant (Republican)

1876: Rutherford B. Hayes (Republican)

1880: James Weaver (Greenback Labor)

1884: Benjamin Franklin Butler (Greenback/Anti-Monopoly)

1888: Alson Streeter (Union Labor)

1892: James Weaver (Populist)

1896: William Jennings Bryan (Democrat/Populist fusion ticket)

1900: William Jennings Bryan (Democrat)

1904: Eugene Debs (Socialist)

1908: William Jennings Bryan (Democrat)

1912: Theodore Roosevelt (Progressive)

1916: Allan Benson (Socialist)

1920: Eugene Debs (Socialist)

1924: Robert LaFollette (Progressive)

1928: Norman Thomas (Socialist)

1932: William Z. Foster (Communist)

1936: Franklin Roosevelt (Democrat)

1940: Wendell Willkie (Republican)

1944: Franklin Roosevelt (Democrat)

1948: Henry Wallace (Progressive)

1952: Dwight Eisenhower (Republican)

1956-88: Democrats

1992: Ross Perot (Independent)

1996: Ross Perot (Reform)

2000: Ralph Nader (Independent)

2004: John Kerry (Democrat)

2008: Barack Obama (Democrat)

2012: Barack Obama (Democrat)

As you can sense, my voting pattern I feel would/will usually be left wing, but not fringe left. Practical or semi-practical left. Left but still relevant and conceivably capable of either winning or at least getting a measurable percentage of the vote. Not always though. As astute observers will notice, there are a few protest votes for candidacies that were clearly hopeless sprinkled here and there simply because I feel that contextually I would have found the major candidates totally unacceptable.

As an aside, I actually was eligible to vote from 2002. I did, in fact, vote for Kerry in 2004 but skipped the 2008 election because I was on my idealist ultra-left, elections-are-futile kick at the time. That's why I specified at the start that the above list reflects how I believe I'd have voted in each given cycle if I was of my current (2012) age and worldview.

Anyhow, as stated before, I invite you to craft a list of your own! That way we can get to know each other better.

Peter1469
08-19-2012, 11:22 AM
1964: Barry Goldwater

1968: Barry Goldwater

1980: Ronald Reagan

1984: Ronald Reagan

1988: Jack Kemp

1992: Jack Kemp

2008: Ron Paul

2012: Ron Paul

IMPress Polly
08-19-2012, 11:32 AM
Very creative! Most of the candidates you listed there were not official presidential nominees. Do you mean to imply that you'd have written their names in? Or were you just indicating that you'd have only voted in party primaries rather than in the general election in some cases?

Peter1469
08-19-2012, 11:48 AM
I dislike the GOP establishment slightly less than I hate the democrat establishment.

roadmaster
08-19-2012, 12:36 PM
Ross Perot, Ronald Reagan, Ron Paul, Herman Cain.

Peter1469
08-19-2012, 12:40 PM
Hey, why isn't my name in that list? :smiley:

IMPress Polly
08-22-2012, 06:52 AM
Aww, only two people wanna participate? :embarrassed::wink:

Peter1469
08-22-2012, 06:09 PM
Aww, only two people wanna participate? :embarrassed::wink:

Your question required heavy thinking.

Goldie Locks
08-22-2012, 08:29 PM
Your question required heavy thinking.

No, it doesn't. You vote for freedom and liberty and the original meaning of the founding fathers....see that wasn't so hard was it???

KC
08-24-2012, 02:06 AM
1988- Ron Paul (Libertarian)

1992- Bill Clinton (Democrat) x2

2000-2004- Ralph Nader (Green/Indep.) x2

2008- Ron Paul

2012- Tough choice between Johnson and Stein. This will be my first time I'm old enough to vote in a Presidential election, want to get off to a good start.

Peter1469
08-24-2012, 03:34 PM
No, it doesn't. You vote for freedom and liberty and the original meaning of the founding fathers....see that wasn't so hard was it???

I mean knowing who ran in all those prior elections.

IMPress Polly
08-26-2012, 09:08 AM
kathaariancode wrote:
1988- Ron Paul (Libertarian)

1992- Bill Clinton (Democrat) x2

2000-2004- Ralph Nader (Green/Indep.) x2

2008- Ron Paul

2012- Tough choice between Johnson and Stein. This will be my first time I'm old enough to vote in a Presidential election, want to get off to a good start.

Interesting! I sense that your vote is essentially determined by cultural issues, and namely by a preference for those who take an individualist position on cultural issues. If that's the case, then concerning your choice between Johnson and Stein...it doesn't particularly matter. Both take similarly libertarian positions on social matters.

But frankly, I would only choose a third party candidate if one of the major candidates doesn't reflect your views to any substantial degree. A third party vote is a protest vote. It is not a practical vote. Under the current electoral rules and political atmosphere, third party candidates don't have a snowball's chance in hell of winning the presidency. If you understand that and still feel inclined to support Johnson or Stein anyway, then vote that way. But experience has taught me to have no illusions as to the possibility of a third party (or independent candidate) victory, or even relevance, in contemporary politics (particularly at the national level), barring some cataclysmic unforeseen development or truly exceptional case.

Ivan88
09-07-2012, 08:37 PM
It is amazing that one who sees that the Constitution was created to rig things in favor of the commercial elite, would vote for Lincoln and both Roosevelts, all devoted to serving that same commercial elite that have plundered America for so long.

Lincoln, in the process of waging a Communist Revolution that killed over a million Americans, encouraged General Sherman to make the following policy statement, the rule for the US military that has caused so much shame to America:

"We are not fighting against enemy armies, but against an enemy people, both young and old, rich and poor, and they must feel the iron hand of war in the same way as organized armies."

BTW, When one votes, he consents to be bound by the outcome.
Hence, the sheep is outvoted by the wolves.

Trinnity
09-08-2012, 09:54 PM
This will be my first time I'm old enough to vote in a Presidential election, want to get off to a good start.Oh my goodness! So you're between 18 and 21. WOW~

How old are you?

Trinnity
09-08-2012, 10:04 PM
1880: James Weaver (Greenback Labor)
1884: Benjamin Franklin Butler (Greenback/Anti-Monopoly)
1888: Alson Streeter (Union Labor)
1892: James Weaver (Populist)
1904: Eugene Debs (Socialist)
1912: Theodore Roosevelt (Progressive)
1916: Allan Benson (Socialist)
1920: Eugene Debs (Socialist)
1924: Robert LaFollette (Progressive)
1928: Norman Thomas (Socialist)
1932: William Z. Foster (Communist)
1936: Franklin Roosevelt (Democrat)
1944: Franklin Roosevelt (Democrat)
1948: Henry Wallace (Progressive)
2008: Barack Obama (Democrat)
2012: Barack Obama (Democrat)

As you can sense, my voting pattern I feel would/will usually be left wing, but not fringe left. :facepalm: I'm simply stunned and left speechless by your statement. :smilie_thud:

KC
09-08-2012, 10:45 PM
Oh my goodness! So you're between 18 and 21. WOW~

How old are you?

20



Interesting! I sense that your vote is essentially determined by cultural issues, and namely by a preference for those who take an individualist position on cultural issues. If that's the case, then concerning your choice between Johnson and Stein...it doesn't particularly matter. Both take similarly libertarian positions on social matters.

But frankly, I would only choose a third party candidate if one of the major candidates doesn't reflect your views to any substantial degree. A third party vote is a protest vote. It is not a practical vote. Under the current electoral rules and political atmosphere, third party candidates don't have a snowball's chance in hell of winning the presidency. If you understand that and still feel inclined to support Johnson or Stein anyway, then vote that way. But experience has taught me to have no illusions as to the possibility of a third party (or independent candidate) victory, or even relevance, in contemporary politics (particularly at the national level), barring some cataclysmic unforeseen development or truly exceptional case.

My vote is driven primarily by my pessimism about American politics. I don't think there are any good options when it comes to most elections. The two parties generally have increased the power of the president in unprecedented ways in the twenty first century, which should be really worrying to voters. So yeah, I guess social/cultural issues are important to me.

I don't agree with progressives about the best way to manage the economy, but I agree with them that it is best for us to protect the environment. It's an interesting contradiction I haven't quite come to terms with yet. On the one hand I think federal power is out of control and we'd be best with a libertarian who would scale down the role of the federal government, on the other I think that state protections of the environment are insufficient.

Trinnity
09-08-2012, 11:11 PM
I think that state protections of the environment are insufficient.Like how?

IMPress Polly
09-09-2012, 07:44 AM
Trinnity wrote:
:facepalm: I'm simply stunned and left speechless by your statement. :smilie_thud:

Guess you're not familiar with all the options that are on the table in any given election. There are ALWAYS extreme left candidates running for president. There are like two dozen Marxist parties in this country, for example, about a third of which field presidential candidates in each election cycle. Yet, despite the fact that I identify myself as a Marxist, you will note that, on my list in the OP, I feel that I would have only actually voted for a communist party in one election cycle. I don't just pick the most extreme ideological candidate I can find. I'm more pragmatic than that. My first choice is to look within the range of major parties and candidates for one I deem acceptable. That basically means looking to the two major parties, though some election cycles have afforded a viable third option that I'd doubtless consider better (e.g. the Progressive ticket in 1912 and 1924, Ross Perot's candidacy in the '90s (1992 especially)). However, yes between Reconstruction and 1950, there were a lot of cycles in which I don't feel that any of the major candidates would be acceptable in my book. This is especially true during what we often term the Gilded Age (the late 1800s). A lot of my votes in that said period simply represent protest votes, although I do try to be as pragmatic as possible even with protest votes, selecting the MOST viable of the left wing third party candidates. That's why, for example, in several elections in the earlier part of the 20th century, I feel that I'd have voted for the Socialist Party ticket rather than say a Marxist ticket like that of the fringe Socialist Labor Party. The former could register 3 to 6 percent of the total vote from time to time. The latter was lucky to ever register more than 0.1 percent. My vote for Wallace in 1948 similarly constitutes a protest vote against the Truman Administration over its foreign policy toward the Soviet Union (which, despite its faults, as a socialist and a Marxist, I feel that I would have sympathized with up to a point, particularly in the immediate post-WW2 context wherein they had been a crucial Ally).

Allow me to briefly sum up the meaning of some of my other votes:

1796: Thomas Jefferson (Democratic Republican) = A vote against excessive centralization of power in general, including in the hands of the financial aristocracy.

1800: Thomas Jefferson (Democratic Republican) = A vote against the Alien and Sedition Acts and in protest of the then-recent undeclared sea war with then-republican, revolutionary France.

1804: Thomas Jefferson (Democratic Republican) = Although I would have opposed the Louisiana Purchase and subsequent military forays into the said territory by virtue of opposing imperialism, it wasn't a contested issue in the 1804 presidential election. Therefore my vote here would basically be a sign of support for the pardons Jefferson had offered to victims of the Alien and Sedition Acts and a vote for victory in the Barbary War.

1808: James Madison (Democratic Republican) = A vote in support of the Embargo Act, the international slave trade ban, and to register support for victory in the Barbary War.

1812: DeWitt Clinton (Federalist) = A vote against the frankly suicidal War of 1812, which we were extremely lucky to survive as an independent nation and only did as a result of France's defeat in the European theater.

1816: Rufus King (Federalist) = Basically just a vote in favor of the candidate I believe more anti-slavery.

1824: John Quincy Adams (Democratic Republican) = A vote in favor of active nation-building and in favor of supporting the independence revolutions going on in Latin America.

1828: John Quincy Adams (National Republican) = Ditto above, plus in support of the Tariff of 1828, which benefited manufacturers at the expense of slave-holders.

1832: William Wirt (Anti-Mason) = The Anti-Masons by this point weren't really an anti-Masonic party anymore (Wirt himself was a Mason, for instance), but rather a more assertive version of the new Whig Party. Wirt was the attorney who had defended the Cherokees against their then-current forcible removal in the "trail of tears" affair in court.

1836: Daniel Webster (Whig) = The Whigs ran multiple candidates in 1836. This is a vote in favor of the most assertive Whig ticket. Webster favored a ban on all further westward expansion and had supported Andrew Jackson's Force Bill as the proper means of resolving the then-recent threat of secession on the part of South Carolina.

1840: James G. Birney (Liberty) = This is an abolitionist vote in protest of the fact that neither of the main two candidates in this cycle would be acceptable to me.

1844: Henry Clay (Whig) = A vote against the annexation of Texas, the expansion of the American slave system, and the war with Mexico that was to inevitably follow.

1848: Zachary Taylor (Whig) = A vote against further expansionist wars and in the hopes of admitting California to the Union as a free state rather than as a slave state.

1852: John Parker Hale (Free Soil) = A protest vote against further extension of slavery's reach.

1856: John C. Fremont (Republican) = A practical vote against the further extension of slavery's reach.

1860: Abraham Lincoln (Republican) = Ditto above.

1864: Abraham Lincoln (National Union) = A vote for a Union victory in the American Civil War and to register support for the Emancipation Proclamation.

1868: Ulysses S. Grant (Republican) = A vote in support of continuing Reconstruction.

1872: Ulysses S. Grant (Republican) = Ditto above, including to register support for the crushing of the Ku Klux Klan.

1876: Rutherford B. Hayes (Republican) = Ditto above (in vain, as it turned out).

1940: Wendell Willkie (Republican) = This basically amounts to a vote for the Equal Rights Amendment since the Republicans became the first major party to include it in their platform in 1940. (The Democrats would follow suit in 1944.) I feel I would have supported Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal, but it's progress was stalled by 1940 anyway.

1952: Dwight Eisenhower (Republican) = A vote against the Korean War mainly. Ike's support for the New Deal programs wouldn't hurt matters either.

1956-88: Democrats = Basically these were practical votes to expand the social welfare system and in favor of aggressive civil rights positions.

1992 & '96: Ross Perot = Votes in favor of protectionism and against lobbying, as well as in favor of e-town halls and for balancing the budget by way of tax increases on the wealthy.

2000: Ralph Nader (Independent) = Generic left wing protest vote.

2004: John Kerry (Democrat) = A desperate bid to get George W. Bush out of office in view of how terrible his foreign and domestic social policies were.

2008 & '12: Barack Obama (Democrat) = Votes in support of health care reform, campaign finance reform, relative protectionism, and nation-building in general, as well as against torture and, in the case of the current election cycle, in favor of actually ending the Afghanistan War (or starting to), cutting the military budget, and raising taxes on the wealthy.

Make no mistake, there are at least half a dozen candidates running for president that I like better than President Obama (some Marxist, some not). But none of them stand a snowball's chance in hell of winning and President Obama has brought forward, and is proposing, some important things I think are genuinely worth supporting against the alternative anyway.


kathaariancode wrote:
My vote is driven primarily by my pessimism about American politics. I don't think there are any good options when it comes to most elections. The two parties generally have increased the power of the president in unprecedented ways in the twenty first century, which should be really worrying to voters. So yeah, I guess social/cultural issues are important to me.

I don't agree with progressives about the best way to manage the economy, but I agree with them that it is best for us to protect the environment. It's an interesting contradiction I haven't quite come to terms with yet. On the one hand I think federal power is out of control and we'd be best with a libertarian who would scale down the role of the federal government, on the other I think that state protections of the environment are insufficient.

People on both sides of the proverbial political aisle (the right and the left) both have their key long-term issues that they consider especially important. The right has the national debt. The left has the condition of the natural environment (particularly global warming). Both of these are real issues that the other side would do well to acknowledge. Within this, I find it interesting to note that the political right focuses on the more subjective problem (debt), while the left focuses on the more objective problem (ecology). I wonder why that is. I suspect it has something to do with a difference in psychology that may correspond to being essentially individualist (right wing) or essentially collectivist (left wing). Individualists mostly focus on themselves (subjective) while collectivists tend to be more holistic in their thinking (objective). But anyhow, I would also observe that it's mostly the more affluent people belonging to each camp that are focused on that said camp's long-term issue (debt or ecology, as applicable). The poorer members cannot afford to. They're more concerned about short-term problems like finding work and just staying alive. It seems to me that having a principal focus on the long haul is symptomatic of having the option; of NOT having to worry about the more basic and immediate socio-economic concerns that poorer people have to.

Trinnity
09-09-2012, 08:27 AM
I stand on my contention that you vote fringe or far left, however you with to phrase it. I think you're a very nice person, but incredibly naive.

IMPress Polly
09-09-2012, 08:40 AM
Well then you stand on ignorance. Obama is NOT a "far left" candidate, for instance. There are at least a half dozen fringe candidates (none of which will get even 1% of the vote) running this year opposing him from his left (such as Jill Stein of the Green Party and, on the fringier-still side, Peta Lindsay of the Party for Socialism and Liberation). Your politics are just sufficiently right wing as to see ANY left wing candidate, however moderate in reality, as extreme.

Trinnity
09-09-2012, 08:53 AM
I'm not the ignorant one here, nor am I brainwashed like you.
I wish you luck, common sense and wisdom in your future.

Captain Obvious
09-09-2012, 09:02 AM
Well then you stand on ignorance. Obama is NOT a "far left" candidate, for instance. There are at least a half dozen fringe candidates (none of which will get even 1% of the vote) running this year opposing him from his left (such as Jill Stein of the Green Party and, on the fringier-still side, Peta Lindsay of the Party for Socialism and Liberation). Your politics are just sufficiently right wing as to see ANY left wing candidate, however moderate in reality, as extreme.

The issue is really - does Obama have a far-left agenda?

Obama is an appeaser, and fringe ideology is collectively frowned upon which is why, generally few extremist politicians are popular. He will only get away with what he can get away with.

IMPress Polly
09-09-2012, 09:04 AM
Trinnity:

And by "common sense", you mean agreement with you.

I like you as a person as well. You're one of the nicest rightists I've met. But there are some things on which we're just not going to agree. I can see that there's no reasoning with you on certain things, like your conspiracy theories. You don't even present an argument here. You just claim things over and over again, as if doing so makes the claims more true. *shrugs*


Captain Obvious wrote:
The issue is really - does Obama have a far-left agenda?

And the answer is no. Every actual leftist in this country knows that. Rightists are the only people who don't seem to be able to figure that out. The president's politics are simply those of a nationalistic capitalism rather than a pure type of capitalism.

Captain Obvious
09-09-2012, 09:08 AM
And the answer is no. Every actual leftist in this country knows that. Rightists are the only people who don't to be able to figure that out.

I didn't realize the left was omnipotent.

IMPress Polly
09-09-2012, 09:10 AM
Captain Obvious wrote:
I didn't realize the left was omnipotent.

Hm? Not sure what you mean.

Did you mean omniscient (all-knowing)?

Captain Obvious
09-09-2012, 09:13 AM
Yeah, sure - that works.

IMPress Polly
09-09-2012, 09:19 AM
I never claimed to be or that leftists as a group were. I just figure it common sense that progressives tend to have a better idea as to what progressive politics and agendas are and aren't than opponents thereof would. Most progressives are not enthusiastic about Obama because he's considered to be too conciliatory for many. There probably won't be as many voting for him as in 2008. But it's just that that's not really the essential question here. The question is whether we like him better than the alternative (Mitt Romney), and, as far as most are concerned anyway, the answer is yes.

Has it ever occurred to you that there might be such a thing as having simple, honest disagreements? That not everything might be connected to a grand conspiracy or what have you?

Captain Obvious
09-09-2012, 09:50 AM
I don't know that it has anything to do with simple disagreements.

The question is - is Obama a radical lefty? There is evidence out there suggesting he is and isn't. My point was, we don't know what someone's inner agenda is (regardless of your statement that leftists have some sort of 6th sense for this kind of thing) because many of them govern by popularity. Having said that, their inner agenda is what drives them to do what they "are allowed" to do.

wingrider
09-09-2012, 09:56 AM
Trinnity:

And by "common sense", you mean agreement with you.

I like you as a person as well. You're one of the nicest rightists I've met. But there are some things on which we're just not going to agree. I can see that there's no reasoning with you on certain things, like your conspiracy theories. You don't even present an argument here. You just claim things over and over again, as if doing so makes the claims more true. *shrugs*



And the answer is no. Every actual leftist in this country knows that. Rightists are the only people who don't seem to be able to figure that out. The president's politics are simply those of a nationalistic capitalism rather than a pure type of capitalism. could you define the phrase,, nationalistic capitalism.. I am not quite sure what you mean by it.. ?

IMPress Polly
09-09-2012, 10:02 AM
Captain Obvious wrote:
The question is - is Obama a radical lefty? There is evidence out there suggesting he is and isn't.

No there really isn't any evidence at all that Obama is a "radical" any more than there is evidence that he was born in Kenya. This is a crackpot conspiracy theory comparable, in terms of credibility, to those of the 9/11-was-an-inside-job theorists and those of the people who claim to have been abducted and probed up the ass by space aliens. Or those who claim that Elvis is still alive. Every actual Marxist in this country (myself included) knows that Obama* is not one of them. Only those who don't know what Marxism is (like Glenn Beck, for example) claim otherwise.

* That's President Hussein or "Ubama" or whatever is deemed to sound the most foreign in right wing circles, just so you know to who I'm referring.


wingrider wrote:
could you define the phrase,, nationalistic capitalism.. I am not quite sure what you mean by it.. ?

Yeah I thought about not including that particular line in my response just because it does sound kind of vague. What I meant to refer to was economic nationalism, i.e. the fact that he's relatively protectionist. President Obama is from a heavy-manufacturing state and acts accordingly, with a keen eye toward advancing American manufacturing exports.

An example of what I mean can be found in the auto industry bailout that the president and various surrogates have so loudly boasted of supporting. It is easily contrasted with Mr. Romney's position, which amounted at the time to simply letting the American auto industry collapse. That may be the more ideologically capitalist position, but it's not one that considers the national interest. America has a national interest in being an exporting power. Neither was it exactly a particularly socialistic position. (The socialist position supported by the Communist Party USA, for example, was to nationalize the auto industry. The auto bailout and restructuring one-sidedly benefited stockholders at the expense of auto workers (many of whom took a 50% pay cut, among other things) and union strength.) Again, Obama took his standpoint from a nationalistic orientation. America has a national interest in being an exporting power. Otherwise we run trade deficits and our overall status as a net debtor nation worsens. Manufacturing, and specifically the auto industry, are at the very center of our exporting ability. Without them, we would quickly become a second-rate nation economically.

Another example is the tax strategy the president supports, which seeks to incentivize businesses to invest here rather than outsource work. (Again, consider the trade balance factor.)

Still another example can be seen in the terms of the trade agreements he negotiates, which are MUCH more favorable to American manufacturers than oh say NAFTA (which was disadvantageous to American manufacturing). The recent trading agreement with South Korea provides an excellent example that is already resulting in the creation of new factories in Ohio, for example.

The Obama campaign (itself, not through Super PAC monies) also runs campaign ads like this...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vOsrXRs9eEQ

...which are clearly designed to showcase his opponents lack of loyalty to American economic interests.

If you haven't sensed a theme by now, you should be embarrassed. Obama is a representative first and foremost of American manufacturers. Mainly he advances their interests. That's been almost the whole basis of his recovery program, from the Recovery Act to the auto bailout (the latter being the main factor that got the economy itself out of spiral into a second Great Depression). That is the defining feature of his presidency in many respects. The advantage to that, from my standpoint, is that said interests (those of American manufacturers) are not always compatible with those of Wall Street, which Mr. Romney is the physical embodiment of.

Captain Obvious
09-09-2012, 10:05 AM
I disagree.

Peter1469
09-09-2012, 12:25 PM
I disagree.

With what part?

Regarding auto industry, I don't think that it is the auto industry that Obama is so concerned with, it is the unions in the auto industry that he favors. The GM bailout and bankruptcy turned traditional law on its head; secured creditors (bondholders) got screwed while unsecured creditors (the status of) unions got better deals. Non union workers also got the short end of the stick.

It is another example of Obama and his party using tax money to reward his supporters, policy be damned.

Oh, and few claimed that the auto industry should collapse. Each of our auto companies have reorganized via bankruptcy more than once in the last few generations. We have a major airliner doing it now- and it is still operating. There was a reason why the auto industry was in trouble. The worse answer was what Obama did- subsidize failure (bail outs) and then transfer wealth from non-Obama supporters to Obama supporters (the "bankruptcy").

I also think that it is fair to call Obama left wing, with the understand that his is about as far left as a politician can go and get elected in the US. When we are discussing American politics the Communist and Socialist Parties, and to a lesser extent the Greens, simply are not relevant.

Captain Obvious
09-09-2012, 12:27 PM
With this part:


No there really isn't any evidence at all that Obama is a "radical" any more than there is evidence that he was born in Kenya.

Trinnity
09-09-2012, 01:29 PM
Trinnity:
And by "common sense", you mean agreement with you. Common sense is universal and it's attained by life experience. The young rarely possess it in large amounts. So no, I didn't mean or imply that you'd have to agree with me to have common sense.

IMPress Polly
09-09-2012, 02:18 PM
Peter wrote:
Regarding auto industry, I don't think that it is the auto industry that Obama is so concerned with, it is the unions in the auto industry that he favors.

I strongly disagree. The reorganization was not exactly favorable to the auto workers, as previously pointed out. Indeed in many respects, the Democrats are on thin ice with organized labor right now. They just held their convention in a right-to-work state and in a city without a single union hotel and screened a movie (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/post/weingarten-wont-back-down-union-stereotypes-worse-than-waiting-for-superman/2012/08/28/c88857f2-f0c2-11e1-892d-bc92fee603a7_blog.html) at it demonizing teacher's unions just days before a major teacher strike is likely to be held in Obama's home city of Chicago (http://www.npr.org/2012/09/09/160821554/chicago-teachers-may-strike-teach-political-lesson), opposed from the anti-worker side by none of than Mayor Rahm Emmanuel. Believe me, the forces of organized labor notice these things! The Democrats frankly had best learn not to take organized labor quite so much for granted because they can't win much of anything without us.

Like I said, Obama's position is more essentially economic nationalist than it is pro-labor, although the two things do overlap to a certain extent.


We have a major airliner doing it now- and it is still operating.

I'm aware. My mom works for that airliner as a flight attendant. And I'm not quite dumb enough to believe that she's getting the best end of the deal.

Trinnity
09-09-2012, 02:28 PM
Thanks for the thanks, Polly. I gotta hand it to ya, you're a sweetie.

IMPress Polly
09-09-2012, 02:31 PM
You're welcome for the thanks!

Aren't we ridiculously polite? :laugh:

wingrider
09-09-2012, 02:34 PM
refreshing isn't it.. this place is a lot better than most forums,, and for that I am grateful

Trinnity
09-09-2012, 03:40 PM
You're welcome for the thanks!

Aren't we ridiculously polite? :laugh:I dunno, but it's typical of us both to be that way most of the time. But hey, we all get snotty sometimes. :smilie_catfight: People vary. You'll see it all on a forum. :yepp:

Peter1469
09-09-2012, 04:40 PM
I strongly disagree. The reorganization was not exactly favorable to the auto workers, as previously pointed out. Indeed in many respects, the Democrats are on thin ice with organized labor right now. They just held their convention in a right-to-work state and in a city without a single union hotel and screened a movie (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/post/weingarten-wont-back-down-union-stereotypes-worse-than-waiting-for-superman/2012/08/28/c88857f2-f0c2-11e1-892d-bc92fee603a7_blog.html) at it demonizing teacher's unions just days before a major teacher strike is likely to be held in Obama's home city of Chicago (http://www.npr.org/2012/09/09/160821554/chicago-teachers-may-strike-teach-political-lesson), opposed from the anti-worker side by none of than Mayor Rahm Emmanuel. Believe me, the forces of organized labor notice these things! The Democrats frankly had best learn not to take organized labor quite so much for granted because they can't win much of anything without us.

Like I said, Obama's position is more essentially economic nationalist than it is pro-labor, although the two things do overlap to a certain extent.



I'm aware. My mom works for that airliner as a flight attendant. And I'm not quite dumb enough to believe that she's getting the best end of the deal.


I'm aware. My mom works for that airliner as a flight attendant. And I'm not quite dumb enough to believe that she's getting the best end of the deal.

Of course she won't. This airline is in bankruptcy for a reason. Union commitments are a big part of that. Not the sole cause of course.

Regarding the GM bankruptcy, of course unions took a hit- everyone did. The point is that under traditional bankruptcy law they should have taken a much bigger hit than they did- and secured creditors (a legal term of art) should not have taken as much of the hit that they did. If the unions are unhappy, it only shows they are ungrateful for the extra-legal favors that they did get. It is that sort of attitude that contributed to GM failing in the first place. (Of course management did lots of stupid stuff too).

Unions can't keep their members in good paying jobs if their demands drive a company into the ground. Can pay employees after you close shop.

But that is how the "game" works. Union workers demand more money/benefits. They threaten to strike. The corp and union negotiate. If the corp gives too much away in a year or so the corp files for bankruptcy. Then the judge slashes the union benefits and lets the corp walk from other deals. Repeat cycle next year.

KC
09-10-2012, 12:40 AM
Like how?

If we were to truly adhere to the principles of states' rights (as we really ought to unless we expand the powers of the federal government under the constitution) the environment would fall under the jurisdiction of the states. However, the idea of the states individually driving environmental policy sends shivers down my spine. Economically a state would benefit from allowing more air pollution or allowing key companies to dump pollutants into water supplies, and leaving all environmental policy to the states might lead to competitive policy making at the state level. My belief is that states would progressively deregulate in order to bring investment and job opportunities to constituents, just like what happens at the international level. Some states would be winners and some losers in terms of investment, but we'd all lose the environment, which is our most important resource.

Trinnity
09-10-2012, 01:56 AM
On the one hand I think federal power is out of control and we'd be best with a libertarian who would scale down the role of the federal government, on the other I think that state protections of the environment are insufficient.


Like how?


If we were to truly adhere to the principles of states' rights (as we really ought to unless we expand the powers of the federal government under the constitution) the environment would fall under the jurisdiction of the states. However, the idea of the states individually driving environmental policy sends shivers down my spine. Economically a state would benefit from allowing more air pollution or allowing key companies to dump pollutants into water supplies, and leaving all environmental policy to the states might lead to competitive policy making at the state level. My belief is that states would progressively deregulate in order to bring investment and job opportunities to constituents, just like what happens at the international level. Some states would be winners and some losers in terms of investment, but we'd all lose the environment, which is our most important resource.Wait a minute. Your response was in hypotheticals. How are state protections of the environment insufficient?

KC
09-10-2012, 03:38 AM
Wait a minute. Your response was in hypotheticals. How are state protections of the environment insufficient?

They are not all insufficient, to the best of my knowledge, although there are some environmental policies being implemented in my own state that I take issue with. My OP was worded rather poorly it seems. I don't think that state environmental policy as it stands is inadequate. I simply think that considering the alternatives, the federal government must set environmental policy for the nation, as it has done. I also think that the federal government has to become more proactive in reducing our country's environmental impact.

A better wording might have been "state protections alone are insufficient as a means of protecting the environment, promoting healthy ecology and things of that nature."

I make this distinction mainly because I'm not sure how we justify the constitutionality of federal action on most issues.

Peter1469
09-10-2012, 04:06 AM
If we were to truly adhere to the principles of states' rights (as we really ought to unless we expand the powers of the federal government under the constitution) the environment would fall under the jurisdiction of the states. However, the idea of the states individually driving environmental policy sends shivers down my spine. Economically a state would benefit from allowing more air pollution or allowing key companies to dump pollutants into water supplies, and leaving all environmental policy to the states might lead to competitive policy making at the state level. My belief is that states would progressively deregulate in order to bring investment and job opportunities to constituents, just like what happens at the international level. Some states would be winners and some losers in terms of investment, but we'd all lose the environment, which is our most important resource.

And that is why our Founders included the amendment process in the Constitution. The environmental issues that we see today could not have been anticipated in the late 1700s. But in the mid-20th century we should have amended the Constitution to add environmental issues as an enumerated power in Art. 1, Sec. 8, U.S. Constitution.

KC
09-10-2012, 04:16 AM
And that is why our Founders included the amendment process in the Constitution. The environmental issues that we see today could not have been anticipated in the late 1700s. But in the mid-20th century we should have amended the Constitution to add environmental issues as an enumerated power in Art. 1, Sec. 8, U.S. Constitution.
Exactly what I mean by "expand the powers of the federal government under the Constitution." I would support such an amendment, but I don't think one is likely to come about. We moderns have become comfortable ignoring the Constitution.

Peter1469
09-10-2012, 07:25 AM
Exactly what I mean by "expand the powers of the federal government under the Constitution." I would support such an amendment, but I don't think one is likely to come about. We moderns have become comfortable ignoring the Constitution.

Exactly. The big split came in 1937 after FDR tried to pack the Court. Prior to that SCOTUS routinely struck down legislation as unconstitutional. After that time it was a rare event. Congress got a free pass to expand the power of the federal government.

Ivan88
09-10-2012, 10:48 AM
... the idea of the states individually driving environmental policy sends shivers down my spine.

Economically a state would benefit from allowing more air pollution or allowing key companies to dump pollutants into water supplies, and leaving all environmental policy to the states might lead to competitive policy making at the state level.

My belief is that states would progressively deregulate in order to bring investment and job opportunities to constituents, just like what happens at the international level.

Since the Communist concept of Zoning came into prominence in American life, people have almost forgotten the principle that we should not be a nuisance to our neighbors, and is the basic law of the land.

When people pollute the environment, they are harming someone, and that someone has a right to stop the harm.

Before the Constitution, each state had a remedy in the Supreme Court to stop pollution from other states.

IMPress Polly
09-10-2012, 01:29 PM
wingrider wrote:
refreshing isn't it.. this place is a lot better than most forums,, and for that I am grateful

Trinnity wrote:I dunno, but it's typical of us both to be that way most of the time. But hey, we all get snotty sometimes. :smilie_catfight: People vary. You'll see it all on a forum. :yepp:

Have to admit that I've found my stay here enjoyable overall, though, as you say Trinnity, there is some of everything here as there is everywhere. I'm just not a very aggressive person, or at least I try not to be. I have emotions like everyone else of course, certainly including frustration and anger, I just don't let them control me (usually). I prefer things that way because it earns more respect, which is something I'm not used to having. It's a good feeling.


Peter wrote:
Of course she won't. This airline is in bankruptcy for a reason. Union commitments are a big part of that. Not the sole cause of course.

American Airlines is where it is financially because they bought American Eagle. And because other airlines started "reducing labor costs" (that's bourgeois for workers) after 9/11, which has largely forced them all to follow suit such as to be able to be competitive.

I don't find there to be anything justified about how this has all gone down. The top execs have given themselves millions and millions in pay bonuses, even while demanding that their ordinary workers take a steady stream of pay cuts and slashes in benefits and that the unions accept mass layoffs. The unions were on the verge of a strike when bankruptcy was declared. IMO the declaration was arbitrary and literally intended to get around the process of serious contract negotiations, which were stalled.


Regarding the GM bankruptcy, of course unions took a hit- everyone did. The point is that under traditional bankruptcy law they should have taken a much bigger hit than they did- and secured creditors (a legal term of art) should not have taken as much of the hit that they did. If the unions are unhappy, it only shows they are ungrateful for the extra-legal favors that they did get. It is that sort of attitude that contributed to GM failing in the first place. (Of course management did lots of stupid stuff too).

I think the average auto worker right now is glad just to still be employed in a union job, even while being disappointed with the process. What I was seeking to get at before concerning the difference in approach between Mr. Romney on the one hand and Mr. Obama on the other to the question of the auto industry crisis back in 2008-9 was that it was essentially a question of whether the (American) auto industry would survive at all. GM and Chrysler were literally on the verge not so much of bankruptcy as of actual liquidation. Had it not been for federal intervention of some form (be it nationalization or the bailout), we would have but a shell of an auto industry today and, as a result, little in the way of an economic future because manufacturing (not finance) is the lifeblood of our economy and auto manufacturing specifically is at the very center of that. The proposal to "Let Detroit Go Bankrupt" would have been the end in more than one sense. I mean, even in the unlikely event that a private restructuring such as Mr. Romney formally called for (even while knowing, like everyone else, that it wasn't going to happen because nobody was interested in trying) actually happened...I mean can you even imagine what a private equity firm like oh say Bain Capital would have done to the business? I shudder to think of the consequences if THEY had been responsible for administering economic justice to the likes of GM and Chrysler! Would there have been anything left? Would liquidation have occurred anyway while the firm in question walked away with millions and millions regardless?


Unions can't keep their members in good paying jobs if their demands drive a company into the ground. Can pay employees after you close shop.

The key here is the globalization of capitalism. THAT is what forces American workers to "be competitive with" (i.e. roughly as cheap as) workers in countries like Mexico and India and China ever increasingly. That can be mitigated by things like authentic fair trade agreements on the one hand and/or bans on outsourcing and other job protections (direct or de facto) on the other. I'm not saying that we should be opposed to having a worldwide economy. I'm not for isolationism. However, I am suggesting that the ill effects of capitalist globalization can and should be mitigated. Rather than blaming American workers for being organized, we should seek to address things like massive pay disparities between First World and Third World workers in this global economy through sincere mitigation efforts.


And that is why our Founders included the amendment process in the Constitution. The environmental issues that we see today could not have been anticipated in the late 1700s. But in the mid-20th century we should have amended the Constitution to add environmental issues as an enumerated power in Art. 1, Sec. 8, U.S. Constitution.

I appreciated this interesting thought (and Thanked it accordingly). However, I think that most constitutional experts would consider this kind of thing covered under the "general welfare" clause anyway.

The U.S. Constitution was left deliberately subjective on many issues precisely in order to leave room for political debate and for new discoveries and so forth.

Peter1469
09-10-2012, 03:22 PM
Have to admit that I've found my stay here enjoyable overall, though, as you say Trinnity, there is some of everything here as there is everywhere. I'm just not a very aggressive person, or at least I try not to be. I have emotions like everyone else of course, certainly including frustration and anger, I just don't let them control me (usually). I prefer things that way because it earns more respect, which is something I'm not used to having. It's a good feeling.

***



The key here is the globalization of capitalism. THAT is what forces American workers to "be competitive with" (i.e. roughly as cheap as) workers in countries like Mexico and India and China ever increasingly. That can be mitigated by things like authentic fair trade agreements on the one hand and/or bans on outsourcing and other job protections (direct or de facto) on the other. I'm not saying that we should be opposed to having a worldwide economy. I'm not for isolationism. However, I am suggesting that the ill effects of capitalist globalization can and should be mitigated. Rather than blaming American workers for being organized, we should seek to address things like massive pay disparities between First World and Third World workers in this global economy through sincere mitigation efforts.



I appreciated this interesting thought (and Thanked it accordingly). However, I think that most constitutional experts would consider this kind of thing covered under the "general welfare" clause anyway.

The U.S. Constitution was left deliberately subjective on many issues precisely in order to leave room for political debate and for new discoveries and so forth.

I totally agree with your fair trade position and that is certainly something the US must address. Ross Perot wasn't so crazy after all.

I also agree that most constitutional "experts" lump everything under the general welfare clause. I think the general welfare clause only applies to the enumerated powers within the text of the clause, not whatever we wish to add. And SCOTUS finally agreed in the Obamacare case. However, SCOTUS divorced the taxing power from the enumerated powers which makes no sense whatsoever. It does however force Congress to call these sorts of bills taxes- and that will make them hard to impossible to pass in the future.

The Constitution has some flexibility to it, but in the end it represented States giving to the federal government only limited and enumerated powers. Nothing more- with the ability to amend the Constitution or to call a Constitutional Convention and start over.

KC
09-10-2012, 06:30 PM
In response to Polly's statement about addressing sharp disparities between the post industrial and less developed world, what if we negotiated tariffs based on the economic conditions of our trading partners. For example, China wouldn't have access to barrier free trade until it tightened environmental rules and addressed worker safety. This way consumers are either paying for the increased price due to import duties or for the increased price due to ethically produced goods. The incentive would work on both the supply and the demand side, as consumers would likely rather pay for an ethically produced good than one that was simply taxed at a high rate.

9/11 was an inside job
10-26-2012, 05:14 PM
Ross Perot, Ronald Reagan, Ron Paul, Herman Cain.

Reagan was one of the most evil and corrupt presidents ever.It amuses me how so many people are blind to his atrocities he commited against the american people.Herman Cain is corrupt as hell as well.

Peter1469
10-26-2012, 06:14 PM
Silly drivel.

BB-35
10-26-2012, 09:02 PM
Reagan was one of the most evil and corrupt presidents ever.It amuses me how so many people are blind to his atrocities he commited against the american people.Herman Cain is corrupt as hell as well.

Somehow I knew that would be your position..


You are,if anything,consistent.

GrassrootsConservative
10-26-2012, 09:19 PM
Reagan was one of the most evil and corrupt presidents ever.It amuses me how so many people are blind to his atrocities he commited against the american people.Herman Cain is corrupt as hell as well.

Ronald Reagan was the best president of the 20th century.

KC
10-26-2012, 09:51 PM
Ronald Reagan was the best president of the 20th century.

I would probably say Calvin Coolidge, but still being the best American president in the 20th century doesn't really mean a whole lot, given the pool of eligibles.

GrumpyDog
10-26-2012, 10:23 PM
I would have defected to USSR in 1959, then voted for Kruschev, then married a young Russian girl, whose uncle was KGB colonel.

Then after a couple of years of KGB indoctrination, and not revealing my CIA informant status, I would have gotten permission to return to USA, along with my KGB informant wife, as part of a KGB counter espionage effort ( unknown to me, but possibly known to her).

Upon returning to America, both myself and my non english speaking wife would be met by an affluent man describing himself as a "White Russian". This Millionaire, would set me and wife up and introduce us to other millionaires like Ruth Paine, who would eventually, let my wife live with her free of expense.

Sometime thereafter, around 1963, Mrs. Paine would inform me that a job was waiting for me in the Texas School Book Depository. She would also let me store some of my stuff in her garage, and give me access to use her car, and spend the weekends at her home with my wife.. free of charge.

On Nov 22, 1963, while I was goofing off again at my job, in the lunchroom on the 2nd floor of the Texas School Book Depository, shots would be fired from the 6th floor. As I was about to get a coke from the machine in the lunchroom, suddenly a police officer and my boss, Mr. Truly would run into me as I was about to go out to find out what the loud sound was.

A short time after this, after finding out that President Kennedy had just been killed, I suddenly realized, that all the attention from the millionaire friends, which had always seemed a little strange to me, was actually a setup and I was the patsy.

After this, I freaked out a little bit, and decided to go to my boarding room and change my clothes, because now I thought possibly either KGB or even my own CIA was going to kill me. A man drove up in a car, honked the horn, and then I got in the car. He told me not to worry, the CIA contact will meet you in the theater and give you further instructions. He let me off, and I went into the theater, forgetting to buy a ticket, since the girl was not in the booth.

Next thing I know, the entire Dallas Police force had decended on the theater, and when I stood up when the cop came to me, he hit me, then stuck a gun in my pants on the floor, then claimed it was my gun and I had assaulted him. I heard them saying I had killed a cop, and somebody said "kill the president will you?"

Before I even could figure all this out, the whole media circus was following me, and taking pictures, and it was in the hallway that I figured out that they were seriously going to blame me for both the President and some cop who got killed.

I tried to get an attorney, and to have him present when the Deputy in charge, Mr. Fritz was asking me questions, but they would not let anyone else on my behalf be present.

The next day, on my way to being transfered, I looked ahead, and wondered why Mr. Fritz was suddenly clearing out people and making a big gap between himself, and the two police guys who stood on either side of me as escorts. As I walked to the car, I saw Mr. Ruby pull a gun and while I reacted, for split second, I wondered why the 2 cops on either side of me, and Mr. Fritz in front of me, seemed totally non reactive and just let Mr. Ruby come right up and shoot me in the gut.

My spirit lingered several days around my dead body, and I saw my dead body in the morgue, and wondered why the two guys were taking palm prints from my hand. That was the last thing I remembered, and then, I was no more.

KC
10-26-2012, 10:35 PM
I would have defected to USSR in 1959, then voted for Kruschev, then married a young Russian girl, whose uncle was KGB colonel.

Then after a couple of years of KGB indoctrination, and not revealing my CIA informant status, I would have gotten permission to return to USA, along with my KGB informant wife, as part of a KGB counter espionage effort ( unknown to me, but possibly known to her).

Upon returning to America, both myself and my non english speaking wife would be met by an affluent man describing himself as a "White Russian". This Millionaire, would set me and wife up and introduce us to other millionaires like Ruth Paine, who would eventually, let my wife live with her free of expense.

Sometime thereafter, around 1963, Mrs. Paine would inform me that a job was waiting for me in the Texas School Book Depository. She would also let me store some of my stuff in her garage, and give me access to use her car, and spend the weekends at her home with my wife.. free of charge.

On Nov 22, 1963, while I was goofing off again at my job, in the lunchroom on the 2nd floor of the Texas School Book Depository, shots would be fired from the 6th floor. As I was about to get a coke from the machine in the lunchroom, suddenly a police officer and my boss, Mr. Truly would run into me as I was about to go out to find out what the loud sound was.

A short time after this, after finding out that President Kennedy had just been killed, I suddenly realized, that all the attention from the millionaire friends, which had always seemed a little strange to me, was actually a setup and I was the patsy.

After this, I freaked out a little bit, and decided to go to my boarding room and change my clothes, because now I thought possibly either KGB or even my own CIA was going to kill me. A man drove up in a car, honked the horn, and then I got in the car. He told me not to worry, the CIA contact will meet you in the theater and give you further instructions. He let me off, and I went into the theater, forgetting to buy a ticket, since the girl was not in the booth.

Next thing I know, the entire Dallas Police force had decended on the theater, and when I stood up when the cop came to me, he hit me, then stuck a gun in my pants on the floor, then claimed it was my gun and I had assaulted him. I heard them saying I had killed a cop, and somebody said "kill the president will you?"

Before I even could figure all this out, the whole media circus was following me, and taking pictures, and it was in the hallway that I figured out that they were seriously going to blame me for both the President and some cop who got killed.

I tried to get an attorney, and to have him present when the Deputy in charge, Mr. Fritz was asking me questions, but they would not let anyone else on my behalf be present.

The next day, on my way to being transfered, I looked ahead, and wondered why Mr. Fritz was suddenly clearing out people and making a big gap between himself, and the two police guys who stood on either side of me as escorts. As I walked to the car, I saw Mr. Ruby pull a gun and while I reacted, for split second, I wondered why the 2 cops on either side of me, and Mr. Fritz in front of me, seemed totally non reactive and just let Mr. Ruby come right up and shoot me in the gut.

My spirit lingered several days around my dead body, and I saw my dead body in the morgue, and wondered why the two guys were taking palm prints from my hand. That was the last thing I remembered, and then, I was no more.

You forgot the part where for the rest of your days you posted on the Political Forums, where to this day you are reconsidering where to dump.

GrumpyDog
10-26-2012, 10:39 PM
You forgot the part where for the rest of your days you posted on the Political Forums, where to this day you are reconsidering where to dump.

Where I live happily ever after, until the end of my days. There and Back Again.. A GrumpyDog"s Tale.

IMPress Polly
10-27-2012, 05:07 AM
That was awesome, GrumpyDog. I'll have to save the contents of your post. :cool2:


KC wrote:
I would probably say Calvin Coolidge, but still being the best American president in the 20th century doesn't really mean a whole lot, given the pool of eligibles.

You've got to be kidding. Coolidge's policies led us directly to the Great Depression. He was more responsible for it than Hoover!

Franklin Roosevelt was definitely the best president of the 20th century IMO. Who else can claim to have had such a lasting impact? Who else did anything comparable to pulling us OUT OF (not INTO) the Great Depression and playing a leading role in the successful fighting of World War 2 (one of only three wars we have fought in which I think our role justified)? There's no comparison. FDR is a great case against term limits, I think! These are the reasons why virtually all seasoned historians, regardless of their political ideology, consistently rank him either our best or second-best president ever, right up there with Abe Lincoln. Of course some of that is unfair. After all, FDR wouldn't have gotten nearly as much done if he hadn't had a pliant, solidly Democratic Congress to work with that would pass most of his ideas. That's how it usually goes: the presidents we consider the best are the ones who had pliant Congresses to work with, while those less popular tend to be those who didn't and thus accomplished less. But such is life. As the saying goes, life isn't fair, and you can't justly be given credit simply for having good ideas (such as Truman's desegregation and voting rights proposals, as well as his call for a national health care system). You can only really be given credit for them if you have a hand in passing them into law.

Peter1469
10-27-2012, 07:09 AM
That was awesome, GrumpyDog. I'll have to save the contents of your post. :cool2:



You've got to be kidding. Coolidge's policies led us directly to the Great Depression. He was more responsible for it than Hoover!

Franklin Roosevelt was definitely the best president of the 20th century IMO. Who else can claim to have had such a lasting impact? Who else did anything comparable to pulling us OUT OF (not INTO) the Great Depression and playing a leading role in the successful fighting of World War 2 (one of only three wars we have fought in which I think our role justified)? There's no comparison. FDR is a great case against term limits, I think! These are the reasons why virtually all seasoned historians, regardless of their political ideology, consistently rank him either our best or second-best president ever, right up there with Abe Lincoln. Of course some of that is unfair. After all, FDR wouldn't have gotten nearly as much done if he hadn't had a pliant, solidly Democratic Congress to work with that would pass most of his ideas. That's how it usually goes: the presidents we consider the best are the ones who had pliant Congresses to work with, while those less popular tend to be those who didn't and thus accomplished less. But such is life. As the saying goes, life isn't fair, and you can't justly be given credit simply for having good ideas (such as Truman's desegregation and voting rights proposals, as well as his call for a national health care system). You can only really be given credit for them if you have a hand in passing them into law.

Unsurprisingly I disagree. Calvin Coolidge was our last president who served as intended by the Constitution. FDR broke the constitution, destroyed Federalism, and set us on our path towards greater and greater Statism. The polar opposite of what our Founders intended.

Coolidge's great sin was to not embark on any vast social engineering experiments like the New Deal or the Great Society or drag the US into any major foreign wars.

The idea that Coolidge and his policies were responsible for the Great Depression are false- and a deliberate ploy to redraft, or ignore, the Constitution. The stock market crash of 1929 was caused by the monetary policy of the federal reserve. And that crash only brought us into recession- not a depression. It was the policies of Hoover, and later FDR that turned the recession into the Great Depression by causing business to stop expanding. And which caused it to last almost two decades. Had a non-Statist president been in power instead, the markets would likely have corrected within the typical 18 month cycle we see in recessions. But that is what happens when governments try to centrally manage a complex economy. The f' it up and make things worse. Humans aren't smart enough to out-guess the market.

Captain Obvious
10-27-2012, 08:07 AM
Where I live happily ever after, until the end of my days. There and Back Again.. A GrumpyDog"s Tale.

3 internets for the JRRT reference.

KC
10-27-2012, 11:29 AM
That was awesome, GrumpyDog. I'll have to save the contents of your post. :cool2:



You've got to be kidding. Coolidge's policies led us directly to the Great Depression. He was more responsible for it than Hoover!

Franklin Roosevelt was definitely the best president of the 20th century IMO. Who else can claim to have had such a lasting impact? Who else did anything comparable to pulling us OUT OF (not INTO) the Great Depression and playing a leading role in the successful fighting of World War 2 (one of only three wars we have fought in which I think our role justified)? There's no comparison. FDR is a great case against term limits, I think! These are the reasons why virtually all seasoned historians, regardless of their political ideology, consistently rank him either our best or second-best president ever, right up there with Abe Lincoln. Of course some of that is unfair. After all, FDR wouldn't have gotten nearly as much done if he hadn't had a pliant, solidly Democratic Congress to work with that would pass most of his ideas. That's how it usually goes: the presidents we consider the best are the ones who had pliant Congresses to work with, while those less popular tend to be those who didn't and thus accomplished less. But such is life. As the saying goes, life isn't fair, and you can't justly be given credit simply for having good ideas (such as Truman's desegregation and voting rights proposals, as well as his call for a national health care system). You can only really be given credit for them if you have a hand in passing them into law.

Of course I also disagree. Calvin Coolidge supported civil rights for African Americans and Catholics, signed the Indian Citizenship Act (giving citizenship while allowing them to stay on tribal land), lowered taxes, vetoed farm subsidies bills and didn't meddle with the economy much. However, if you look at his record as Lieutenant Governor and Governor of Massachusetts, he supported child labor laws, safety regulations and benefits for veterans. This is consistent with the way I think it ought to be. Government involvement in the economy if it's to protect people is necessary and called for, but there's nothing in the Constitution to day the Federal gov't should have those responsibilities.

I dislike Lincoln and FDR a lot for the same reasons I dislike most Presidents. I tend to strongly dislike the way that in many countries, governments respond to war by exerting more control over their citizens. Lincoln suspended the writ of habeas corpus, FDR illegally threw Japanese Americans in internment camps. Today our government has gotten much better at controlling citizens during war periods, now that we've got wire tapping, the Patriot Act and the NDAA.

9/11 was an inside job
10-27-2012, 04:30 PM
Silly drivel.

yep thats what that post of his was including Reagan in there,silly drivel.hee hee.

9/11 was an inside job
10-27-2012, 04:34 PM
Ronald Reagan was the best president of the 20th century.

Yeah if you like a mass murderer,a man whom loved abortion and murdering millions of babies,yeah if you like a mass murderer like that comparable to Hitler than yeah, I guess you could say he was the best president of the 20th century.hahahahahahahahahaah there are some funny posters here at this place.

BB-35
10-27-2012, 09:08 PM
Yeah if you like a mass murderer,a man whom loved abortion and murdering millions of babies,yeah if you like a mass murderer like that comparable to Hitler than yeah, I guess you could say he was the best president of the 20th century.hahahahahahahahahaah there are some funny posters here at this place.


Jesus you're cracked......get help,soon.

9/11 was an inside job
10-28-2012, 04:35 PM
Jesus you're cracked......get help,soon.


as usual you show what great rebuttals you have for facts.you should start a comedy club.In a debating hall you would not last one minute if you debated the same way there you do here not even trying to refute the facts of your opponent.You would be laughed out of the hall within one minute son.


these are always your lame duck comebacks to the facts everytime.where is that ignore list button? I am only interested in debating someone who will at LEAST try and not come back with pathetic lameduck posts like this one when cornered and cant be mature enough to admit they are wrong..

9/11 was an inside job
10-28-2012, 04:43 PM
Of course I also disagree. Calvin Coolidge supported civil rights for African Americans and Catholics, signed the Indian Citizenship Act (giving citizenship while allowing them to stay on tribal land), lowered taxes, vetoed farm subsidies bills and didn't meddle with the economy much. However, if you look at his record as Lieutenant Governor and Governor of Massachusetts, he supported child labor laws, safety regulations and benefits for veterans. This is consistent with the way I think it ought to be. Government involvement in the economy if it's to protect people is necessary and called for, but there's nothing in the Constitution to day the Federal gov't should have those responsibilities.

I dislike Lincoln and FDR a lot for the same reasons I dislike most Presidents. I tend to strongly dislike the way that in many countries, governments respond to war by exerting more control over their citizens. Lincoln suspended the writ of habeas corpus, FDR illegally threw Japanese Americans in internment camps. Today our government has gotten much better at controlling citizens during war periods, now that we've got wire tapping, the Patriot Act and the NDAA.

oh my god the patriot act and the NDAA are AGAINST us they are not for us.It allows the government to illegally spy on american citizens and illegally detain them without even a trail.Obama has expanded what Bush got started.

Even members of congress came forward admitting they regretted signing the patriot act saying they were not told the complete details about it and had they known,they would not have eagerly signed it.

wow doesnt ANYBODY around here not worship the CIA controlled mainstream media? Or I mean the Lamestream media and read alternative news sources like Media Bypass,American Free Press,or Rock Creek Fress Press for examples? Obviously not.

9/11 was an inside job
10-28-2012, 04:57 PM
Yeah if you like a mass murderer,a man whom loved abortion and murdering millions of babies,yeah if you like a mass murderer like that comparable to Hitler than yeah, I guess you could say he was the best president of the 20th century.hahahahahahahahahaah there are some funny posters here at this place.

elaborting on that some.Man this guy needs to start a comedy club.Its funny enough to say Reagan was a GOOD president, but to say that he was the best president in the 20th century? that is comedy gold.I almost fell out of my chair laughing so hard over that huge lie.hee hee.

That part on abortions is just for starters.Reagan was the first politician to make abortion legal.When he was governor of California he sighned into law the abortion bill making california the first legal state to make it legal to allow abortions to take place. Many women around the country traveled there to get abortions since they were the only state that made it legal.That mass murderer Reagan was responsible for the murders of over 500,000 babies being murdered.

Ron Paul who is against abortion who served under Reagan got out of office in washington because he saw how corrupt they all were in washington and wanted no part of it.He himself has said both parties are corrupt.He only ran under the republican ticket because the independent never wins.

thats some hysterical shit that Reagan was the best president of the 20th century.hahahahahahahahahahahaaha

He doesnt even come close to the greatness that Kennedy achieved.Hee hee

The only president we have had since Kennedy our last REAL president.real because he was not a willing puppet for the establishment and was trying to return us to the constituion where the government served the people instead of us serving them like we do now and paid the price for it.carter was the only since since who wasnt evil and corrupt.every president since Kennedy which the exception of carter,has been more evil and corrupt than the previous one.

It looks like I am going to have to create a reagan thread somehwere becase many people here are obviously clueless about Reagans atrocites he committed.

KC
10-28-2012, 05:12 PM
oh my god the patriot act and the NDAA are AGAINST us they are not for us.It allows the government to illegally spy on american citizens and illegally detain them without even a trail.Obama has expanded what Bush got started.

Even members of congress came forward admitting they regretted signing the patriot act saying they were not told the complete details about it and had they known,they would not have eagerly signed it.

wow doesnt ANYBODY around here not worship the CIA controlled mainstream media? Or I mean the Lamestream media and read alternative news sources like Media Bypass,American Free Press,or Rock Creek Fress Press for examples? Obviously not.


I dislike government control and strongly oppose the NDAA and Patriot Act. They represent the most systematic and advanced ways our government has found to illegally control its citizens and I don't support any candidates that support either of these two measures (which gives me very few choices on election day).

BB-35
10-28-2012, 06:32 PM
as usual you show what great rebuttals you have for facts.you should start a comedy club.In a debating hall you would not last one minute if you debated the same way there you do here not even trying to refute the facts of your opponent.You would be laughed out of the hall within one minute son.

these are always your lame duck comebacks to the facts everytime.where is that ignore list button? I am only interested in debating someone who will at LEAST try and not come back with pathetic lameduck posts like this one when cornered and cant be mature enough to admit they are wrong..

How do I rebutt the utter garbage you post?...hard to be 'cornered' by the crap you post.