Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Locked thread
SpRahl
Apr 22, 2008

Mountaineer posted:

e: Gotta say, I don't care for Levi Morton though. I guess around now is when the Republicans are shifting from progressive stances to FYGM capitalism?

Eh they still got Teddy Roosevelt going for them.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

tatankatonk
Nov 4, 2011

Pitching is the art of instilling fear.
Waiting for Debs, but the field of candidates is atrocious so i'll vote for his nemesis Harrison

Platystemon
Feb 13, 2012

BREADS
Debs has the terrible timing of first running in the same election as Greatest of All Time

TEDDY ROOSEVELT

He can win the 1908 and 1920 elections, though. TR doesn’t run in those

Lord of Pie
Mar 2, 2007


Debs first ran against McKinley and will shitstomp him in the goon vote

Platystemon
Feb 13, 2012

BREADS
McKinley took a bullet six months into his term.

What would you rather have, 3.5 years of Greatest of All Time TR, or 4 years of perennial loser EVD?

Lord of Pie
Mar 2, 2007


Platystemon posted:

McKinley took a bullet six months into his term.

What would you rather have, 3.5 years of Greatest of All Time TR, or 4 years of perennial loser EVD?

Looking forward to Alaska's Mt. Debs

NumberLast
Jun 7, 2014

Platystemon posted:

McKinley took a bullet six months into his term.

What would you rather have, 3.5 years of Greatest of All Time TR, or 4 years of perennial loser EVD?

What do you mean '4'?

frankenfreak
Feb 16, 2007

I SCORED 85% ON A QUIZ ABOUT MONDAY NIGHT RAW AND ALL I GOT WAS THIS LOUSY TEXT

#bastionboogerbrigade

Platystemon posted:

perennial loser
Not in this reality, I'd wager.

Alikchi
Aug 18, 2010

Thumbs up I agree

I'm guessing Debs wouldn't be down with being called "His Imperial Majesty, Lord-President of these United States and Protector of their Liberties". Gonna have to come up with a new title!

SpRahl
Apr 22, 2008

Alikchi posted:

I'm guessing Debs wouldn't be down with being called "His Imperial Majesty, Lord-President of these United States and Protector of their Liberties". Gonna have to come up with a new title!

Moot point anyway since lets face it in our timeline after Adams narrowly lost his 4th term he probably staged a coup and created a monarchy anyway.

Nckdictator
Sep 8, 2006
Just..someone
Have to admit I'm iffy about Debs after reading this


http://blog.newspapers.library.in.gov/the-black-stork-eugenics-goes-to-the-movies/


quote:

...
Dr. Harry J. Haiselden, chief surgeon at the German-American Hospital in Chicago, was faced with a tough dilemma. A woman named Anna Bollinger had just given birth to a child, John, who suffered from severe birth defects. John had no neck or right ear and suffered from a serious skin ailment, all judged to be the result of syphilis likely passed on by his father. Dr. Haiselden knew that he could save the child’s life through a surgical procedure. But since he was familiar with the conditions into which Illinois’ “feeble-minded” were thrown after birth, he convinced the child’s parents to let John die at the hospital. When the news came out that the doctor wasn’t going to perform the necessary surgery, an unknown person tried to kidnap the child and take it to another hospital. The kidnapping attempt failed and John Bollinger died.

While the Catholic Church, one of the few vocal critics of eugenics, was the only major group to initially protest the surgeon’s decision, Haiselden was soon called before a medical ethics board in Chicago. He nearly lost his medical license, but managed to hang onto it. Public opinion was sharply divided. Chicago social worker and suffragette Jane Addams came out against Haiselden. Short of the death penalty for murder, Addams said, no doctor had the right to be an unwilling person’s executioner. “It is not for me to decide whether a child should be put to death. If it is a defective, it should be treated as such, and be taught all it can learn,” she added.

Many of Haiselden’s critics, such as Addams, pointed out that if eugenicists had had their way, they would have killed some of the great “defectives” in history, like Russian novelist Fyodor Dostoyevksy, French emperor Napoleon Bonaparte, children’s writer Edward Lear, and even the eugenicist Harry Laughlin himself — all of them epileptics. (Biologist Laughlin, Superintendent of the Eugenics Record Office at Cold Spring Harbor and one of the science’s greatest advocates, had suffered from epilepsy since childhood.)

Support for Dr. Haiselden, however, came from many famous social activists. Among them was Helen Keller — advocate for the disabled, a Socialist, and a eugenics supporter (at least in 1915.) Keller, who was blind and deaf since the age of one but thrived against all odds, published her views on the Haiselden case in The New Republic. She thought that children proven to be “idiots” by a “jury of expert physicians” could and perhaps should be put to death. (Keller was an amazing woman, but it’s hard not to view her trust in the opinions of “unprejudiced” medical “experts” as naive.) Chicago lawyer and civil liberties crusader Clarence Darrow — who famously went up against eugenics critic William Jennings Bryan at the 1925 Scopes Monkey Trial — made no bones about his support for the surgeon: “Chloroform unfit children,” Darrow said. “Show them the same mercy that is shown beasts that are no longer fit to live.” Indiana Socialist Eugene V. Debs also supported Haiselden’s decision...

(Then again I admire Bryan and he was racist as hell...)

karmicknight
Aug 21, 2011

QuoProQuid posted:

I like how the Democrats have been reduced to a minor party whose last stay in national office was in 1833 under John Quincy Adams. Somehow, the Republicans and the Prohibitionists seem like the only parties able to consistently get votes. Meanwhile, there's a revolving door of third parties that can't last more than two election cycles.

It's the taint of Jefferson. Even doubling down on the North can't save the Party That Shot Hamilton (pbuh), Shot Fort Sumter, and let Andrew loving Jackson live.

oystertoadfish
Jun 17, 2003

it's always fascinating to see how ideas that we assume are obvious fellow travelers were often not seen as such in other times. so you get theocrat drug warriors advocating for basically everything people who do drugs now think sound nice, progressives and socialists of all stripes arguing for eugenics, and for that matter foundational principles of american liberty being argued by slaveholders

it's an interesting set of pluses and minuses on this group but i'll go for harrison

Savidudeosoo
Feb 12, 2016

Pelican, a Bag Man

karmicknight posted:

It's the taint of Jefferson. Even doubling down on the North can't save the Party That Shot Hamilton (pbuh), Shot Fort Sumter, and let Andrew loving Jackson live.

Suffer not The South.

Jump King
Aug 10, 2011

Bet all these people not voting for labour in this election are somehow going to justify voting for FDR later.

Nebakenezzer
Sep 13, 2005

The Mote in God's Eye

MMM Whatchya Say posted:

IDK, for all the extremist tickets we voted for on the basis of their anti racism, I think I can give this one to Streeter for the women's rights stance alone. We should throw them a bone for once imo

I throw them bones all the time:fella:

Mountaineer posted:

As a long-time Greenback voter I'm worried by the Republicans' stance on the gold standard, but I'm leaning towards Harrison anyway.

e: Gotta say, I don't care for Levi Morton though. I guess around now is when the Republicans are shifting from progressive stances to FYGM capitalism?

As we know it now? I'd say it was a reaction fermented by the new deal and the 20 or so years after the second world war of prosperity. You can reference Coolidge and Hoover as people who believed in laissez faire but that's arguably different

Also I too feel kinda itchy voting for Harrison what with his gold is money thing he has going on

Alikchi
Aug 18, 2010

Thumbs up I agree

The ideology changes but I think the GOP was basically the party of Business from here on out, right?

Mantis42
Jul 26, 2010

There plenty of progressive Republicans during the, well, Progressive Era. I'd put the victory of the business wing around the time of Harding.

e: Of course, both parties are the business party.

Jai Guru Dave
Jan 3, 2008
Nothing's gonna change my world
I congratulate the electorate on not giving in to self-serving Confederate propaganda and electing President Butler. Such a great statesman deserved a second term to loot the rest of the South - er, I mean - no, I guess that is what I mean.

As a diehard Republican who can't see into the future, I will assume that Benjamin Harrison will kick-start the do-nothing government that has metastasized under President - Cleveland, you say?

Corek
May 11, 2013

by R. Guyovich

Nebakenezzer
Sep 13, 2005

The Mote in God's Eye


So...I'm being overshadowed by my dead grandfather who was president for 30 days?

The artist wanted to make a literary reference?

GlyphGryph
Jun 23, 2013

Down came the glitches and burned us in ditches and we slept after eating our dead.
Why is Harrison rated poorly? He seems pretty great.

He was the first decent, responsible, level-headed president we had in a while, with fair political stances including the protection of rights for African Americans and Indians, the promotion of public education, and effective opposition to corruption.

He oversaw a reliable economy and effectively used his government surplus to improve the country. He invested in infrastructure, made us the naval superpower that sowed the seeds of our future success, and made huge strides in terms of foreign policy and increasing the status of the country abroad.

He increased the size of the country, bringing six full states into the Union, pioneered national forest reserves, and passed the Sherman Anti-Trust act to protect people from abuse at the hands of non-competitive corporate monopolies.

What exactly did he do so wrong to get rated below the self-destructive assholes the country seems so keen on electing to office for multiple terms? I don't understand.

GlyphGryph has issued a correction as of 20:33 on Jun 6, 2016

Nebakenezzer
Sep 13, 2005

The Mote in God's Eye

Serious reply: people confuse Harrison with his grandfather.

GlyphGryph
Jun 23, 2013

Down came the glitches and burned us in ditches and we slept after eating our dead.

Nebakenezzer posted:

Serious reply: people confuse Harrison with his grandfather.

Well... uh... I guess that's understandable, actually. His grandfather was pretty terrible.

Platystemon
Feb 13, 2012

BREADS

Nebakenezzer posted:

Serious reply: people confuse Harrison with his grandfather.

I don’t think all the scholars in Wikipedia’s table made that mistake, but their consensus is that he’s decidedly below average.

Platystemon has issued a correction as of 07:36 on Jun 7, 2016

Pakled
Aug 6, 2011

WE ARE SMART
Maybe it's because the Panic of 1893 started at the tail end of his term?

WrightOfWay
Jul 24, 2010


I honestly forgot that Benjamin Harrison was ever president.

Platystemon
Feb 13, 2012

BREADS

WrightOfWay posted:

I honestly forgot that Benjamin Harrison was ever president.

Grover Cleveland won the popular vote in three consecutive elections. Benjamin Harrison got lucky with the Electoral College.

QuoProQuid
Jan 12, 2012

Tr*ckin' and F*ckin' all the way to tha
T O P

Benjamin Harrison never won the popular vote. His attempts at reform were constantly stymied. He had no discernible personality. And he presided over no great crises or historical events.

Benjamin is not remembered as a bad president. He's barely remembered at all, which is why he usually ranks in the lower-middle of the list with all the other Gilded Age presidents. He might have had great ambitions but he barely got the opportunity to address them.

Jai Guru Dave
Jan 3, 2008
Nothing's gonna change my world
I/we are probably being unfair in expecting these guys to exercise the power of an Imperial Presidency. On the other hand, a lot of these guys IRL had no trouble sending out the military to break up strikes, so it's not like they considered themselves helpless pawns.

GlyphGryph
Jun 23, 2013

Down came the glitches and burned us in ditches and we slept after eating our dead.

QuoProQuid posted:

Benjamin Harrison never won the popular vote. His attempts at reform were constantly stymied. He had no discernible personality. And he presided over no great crises or historical events.

Benjamin is not remembered as a bad president. He's barely remembered at all, which is why he usually ranks in the lower-middle of the list with all the other Gilded Age presidents. He might have had great ambitions but he barely got the opportunity to address them.

Rasmussen has him as actively disliked, not just forgettable. Van Buren has better numbers than him.

i say swears online
Mar 4, 2005

Harrison never made it on Seinfeld.

axeil
Feb 14, 2006
Harrison sounds really good. I vote for him. Please someone explain how he is secretly terrible.

edit: also I am voting for whoever is the most popular other than Debs when the time comes because commies suck.

axeil has issued a correction as of 21:17 on Jun 7, 2016

Nebakenezzer
Sep 13, 2005

The Mote in God's Eye

axeil posted:

Harrison sounds really good. I vote for him. Please someone explain how he is secretly terrible.

edit: also I am voting for whoever is the most popular other than Debs because commies suck.

One term? Actually now that people are bringing it up, I've no idea why Harrison gets a bum rap.

I'm looking forward to the Debsutant ball; I've been hearing how awesome Debs is in this thread I might be slightly disappointed if he isn't socialist batman

WrightOfWay
Jul 24, 2010


Generally the only one term presidents that scholars who rank presidents like are JFK and Polk.

I think there's a decent chance that Debs will lose an election or two since he's up against some other thread favorites like Teddy Roosevelt and William Jennings Bryan.

Alfred P. Pseudonym
May 29, 2006

And when you gaze long into an abyss, the abyss goes 8-8

WrightOfWay posted:

Generally the only one term presidents that scholars who rank presidents like are JFK and Polk.

I think there's a decent chance that Debs will lose an election or two since he's up against some other thread favorites like Teddy Roosevelt and William Jennings Bryan.

Did Debs ever run in the same election as Fightin Bob LaFollette?

Lord of Pie
Mar 2, 2007


Alfred P. Pseudonym posted:

Did Debs ever run in the same election as Fightin Bob LaFollette?

1908/1912

e: and 1920

NumberLast
Jun 7, 2014
I wish Huey Long could end up in an election. I'd be interested to see how he did, all things considered.

Lord of Pie
Mar 2, 2007


NumberLast posted:

I wish Huey Long could end up in an election. I'd be interested to see how he did, all things considered.

He'd send in federal troops to burn Shreveport to the ground which would make him a top 5 president probably

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

NumberLast
Jun 7, 2014

Lord of Pie posted:

He'd send in federal troops to burn Shreveport to the ground which would make him a top 5 president probably

No I meant how well he'd fair in an SA election.

  • Locked thread