|
The president said he'd eliminate the presidency but were still voting. Clearly Socialist Labor's promises are bullshit. Bryan this time.
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2016 20:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 12:55 |
|
|
Does William Jennings Bryan have anything going for him other than bimetallism? If not, I don't really see the point. Bringing in silver would be a one time massive infusion to the monetary supply, and then it'd continue to have all the same issues as the gold standard from that point onward, a cross of gold and silver. Are they making bimetallism out to be some kind of magical panacea? Never met a populist I've liked either.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2016 21:45
|
|
|
i wrote a paper on clarence darrow in middle school so i just can't bring myself to vote for bryan
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2016 21:47
|
|
|
Empress Theonora posted:i wrote a paper on clarence darrow in middle school so i just can't bring myself to vote for bryan I wrote a paper on Henry Clay but i still voted for obscure nobodies named Wirt and Birney over him.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2016 22:49
|
|
|
i almost always vote prohibition, so this election is really tough for meSlothfulCobra posted:Does William Jennings Bryan have anything going for him other than bimetallism? If not, I don't really see the point. Bringing in silver would be a one time massive infusion to the monetary supply, and then it'd continue to have all the same issues as the gold standard from that point onward, a cross of gold and silver. Are they making bimetallism out to be some kind of magical panacea? Bryan really wanted to make 1896 a referendum on bimetallism. He had other opinions and beliefs that came out in his later campaigns, but he actively tried to avoid talking about other issues for fear of alienating a key constituency.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2016 22:54
|
|
|
QuoProQuid posted:i almost always vote prohibition, so this election is really tough for me 
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2016 22:55
|
|
|
BENTLEY! *slams typewriter, shattering it into a million pieces and horribly maiming myself*
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2016 23:00
|
|
|
Man, the good old days when Socialists were Socialists and not just liberals who liked post offices or whatever.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2016 00:27
|
|
|
5 times more people voted socialist labor party in this thread than attended the 1892 conventionquote:The party nominated its first candidate for President of the United States in 1892, a decision made in September of that year at a national conference of the organization held at party headquarters in New York City,[43] despite the fact that the SLP's platform called for the abolition of the offices of President and Vice President. A pro-forma nominating convention was held in New York City in August, attended by just 8 delegates, at which candidates were named and a platform approved.[44] The party's ticket, featuring Boston camera manufacturer Simon Wing and New York electrician Charles H. Matchett, appeared on the ballot in just six states and drew a total of 21,512 votes.[45]
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2016 01:01
|
|
|
After thinking it over, I'm with Mr. Cobra. Bryan I think made a great speech, but that doesn't make him presidential material, especially when his solution is another precious metal. In a world without fiat money, Mr. active intervention is a lot more attractive. McKinley! Reach that mountain top!
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2016 01:13
|
|
|
Straight ticket socialist labor forever.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2016 01:26
|
|
|
McKinley got that mountaintop the same way he got Hawaii - he stole it from native people. Vote Socialist for a world without the theft that is wage slavery!
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2016 01:26
|
|
|
Gorgo Primus posted:McKinley got that mountaintop the same way he got Hawaii - he stole it from native people. Vote Socialist for a world without the theft that is wage slavery! Where would America be if we didn't steal things from native people, I ask you
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2016 01:52
|
|
|
Gorgo Primus posted:McKinley got that mountaintop the same way he got Hawaii - he stole it from native people. Vote Socialist for a world without the theft that is wage slavery! I heard that the mountain was named after him as a joke and then he was assassinated and it stuck.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2016 02:01
|
|
|
QuoProQuid posted:BENTLEY! QPQ, am I correct in thinking Black was the only incrementalist prohibition candidate?
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2016 02:46
|
|
|
reignonyourparade posted:Straight ticket socialist labor forever. quote:To support this effort, Maguire has taken it upon himself to tour the state of New Jersey to deliver speeches to union workers and raise awareness of the Socialist Labor cause. Unfortunately, most of these speeches are unplanned and unannounced. The workers that he interrupts do not seem to know who he is or why he is bothering them. Hell, same.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2016 02:53
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:QPQ, am I correct in thinking Black was the only incrementalist prohibition candidate? As far as I can tell, yeah. One of the more interesting part of these write-ups has been seeing subtle shifts in party platform. Each election, the Prohibitionists have gradually become more radical, moving away from broad reform to a narrow-minded focus on the destruction of alcohol. I'm not sure if that is a better or worse way to go than the Liberty Party, which rapidly morphed into Ron Paul. QuoProQuid has issued a correction as of 03:13 on Aug 1, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2016 03:09
|
|
|
SlothfulCobra posted:Does William Jennings Bryan have anything going for him other than bimetallism? If not, I don't really see the point. Bringing in silver would be a one time massive infusion to the monetary supply, and then it'd continue to have all the same issues as the gold standard from that point onward, a cross of gold and silver. Are they making bimetallism out to be some kind of magical panacea? Yeah, I miss the Greenback Party too.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2016 03:10
|
|
|
QuoProQuid posted:As far as I can tell, yeah. One of the more interesting part of these write-ups has been seeing subtle shifts in party platform. Each election, the Prohibitionists have gradually become more radical, moving away from broad reform to a narrow-minded focus on the destruction of alcohol. In that case, let me add: 
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2016 04:24
|
|
|
Corek posted:I heard that the mountain was named after him as a joke and then he was assassinated and it stuck. I believe someone named it after him when he was nominated. Not even when he was elected. Just when he was nominated.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2016 04:39
|
|
|
MATCHETT!! *forces bankers to dig a large ditch at gunpoint*
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2016 11:42
|
|
|
Cannot believe I'm voting for a god-damned Democrat.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2016 15:36
|
|
|
Jai Guru Dave posted:Cannot believe I'm voting for a god-damned Democrat.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2016 22:05
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:Where would America be if we didn't steal things from native people, I ask you Rhode Island? 
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2016 22:10
|
|
|
The guy who terrorized Kentucky rednecks seems cool.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2016 23:25
|
|
|
well, we might as well stay on the socialist revolution train now that we've (prematurely imo) jumped on it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2016 23:28
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:Where would America be if we didn't steal things from native people, I ask you Actually, a word about the annexation of Hawaii. I've been poking around wikipedia about this issue, and it's really interesting. At this point, the situation in Hawaii is that the "rightful" monarch, Queen Lili'uokalani has been ousted by Hawaii's legislature in response to her attempt to rewrite the Hawaiian constitution behind their backs to take power away from the legislature and give it back to the crown. Lili'uokalani had only recently taken the throne in 1891, and in fact the dynasty she was part of is very new. Her brother, Kalakaua, only took power after the last of the Kamehamehas died off 20 years ago. Theoretically, the new government of the Republic of Hawaii is democratic, although in the real world, it never lasted to see elections. The current president of Hawaii, Sanford Dole, may be of American descent, but he was born and raised in Hawaii and only ever spent a couple years in the US. He's as Hawaiian as Barack Obama is American. He also has a distant cousin who will come to Hawaii in a few years and found the fruit company that we all know. This whole series of events was sparked by Hawaii going through an economic collapse when the US introduced some protectionist duties on imports, so naturally, the easiest way around it is for them to lobby for annexation. Grover Cleveland officially disapproved of how they deposed the queen, but did nothing, because that's the kind of president he was. There's no real reason at this point to not annex them. And as for Mount McKinley, it might as well be renamed. The Russians had already renamed it Bolshaya Gora, and we bought Alaska from them fair and square.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2016 23:31
|
|
|
so-cia-li-sm clap clap clapclapclap
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2016 01:53
|
|
|
Alfred P. Pseudonym posted:so-cia-li-sm clap clap clapclapclap fuckin knew it
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2016 05:17
|
|
|
Open question for the thread: In several upcoming races, tickets will appear on the ballot without a presidential or vice-presidential candidate. I am in two minds on how to react to this. On one hand, I feel like Webster in 1852 and my plans for a Horace Greeley run-off in 1872 might have already set precedent for zombie tickets. On the other hand, I worry that headless tickets might become distracting protest votes. So I ask, should I include "No Candidate" or "Unpledged Electors" in races where they appear? If I included "No Candidate" tickets I would insert a brief blurb explaining their appearance on the ballot as I would do any candidate. In the unlikely event that they won, I would then run a quick run-off election made up of party notables and functionaries. If, for example, "Unpledged Electors" won in 1956, I would probably post a run-off election made up of former Dixiecrats like Strom Thurmond and Leander Perez. This won't affect any races in the immediate future, but I'd like to get feedback and set the ground rules before it becomes a concern.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2016 01:39
|
|
|
I think that's a fine way to handle it. I already look forward to the election of Socialist Not Appearing in This Picture.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2016 03:32
|
|
|
I really think this thread is not going to go Strom Thurmond at any time soon. If Unpledged Electors win, throw it to whoever actually wins.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2016 03:34
|
|
|
I think part of the fun of this is choosing between (heavily flawed) people, not generic candidates that we can project everything onto. I say mention them being there for curiosity's sake, but don't put them on the poll.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2016 11:43
|
|
|
The Lord of Hats posted:I think part of the fun of this is choosing between (heavily flawed) people, not generic candidates that we can project everything onto. I say mention them being there for curiosity's sake, but don't put them on the poll. Yeah I think it's obviously easy for us to choose candidates that would never be feasible as being elected - i.e. Literally anyone other than George Washington for the first POTUS, because we're both judging these candidates through a 2016 lens and because we're obviously not having to deal with the consequences. It's one thing to joke about being on Civil War VII, but of course most living in the United States of Goonmerica would regard one as too many, hence why people spent so much effort to try and avoid it at all costs. That being said, I think changing horses in midstream is a bad idea, and overall the thread is great (and I love learning about all these fascinating people who most have never heard of), but I think there are problems when a party that only was on the ticket in 5 states somehow takes the White House. Would that even be possible in the electoral landscape of the time (assuming they won all 5 states they ran in?) I mean I guess it could, assuming the other states were divided enough between various other parties, but that would mean a very hostile congress, presumably. So I guess the more radical policies would never make it past Congress. Considering counter factual scenarios is fun! In conclusion, I do agree with Lord of Hats that perhaps there should be more focus on candidates who could have a path to victory in the historical election, but it's ultimately QuoProQuid's thread so I'm willing to abide by however the elections are run. I think the problem lies with those in the electorate pushing for Full Communism Now and drat the consequences.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2016 12:51
|
|
|
Are the Unpledged Electors, when they appear, usually associated with a certain party/ideology? If it's not a case of "could be voting for literally anybody in America" but instead "you're going to get Democrats who hate desegregation" I think it works.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 15:33
|
|
|
Rejoice, brothers and sisters, the final crisis of capitalism is at hand! Soon we shall be progressing forward to that perfect society where class has been destroyed. OK, last time I voted my heart, but now my heart and mind align. The Socialist Labor party is missing that sometimes to be most radical, we need to sneak our way in. Bryan isn't a socialist, obviously. But through the opiate of the masses, he's somehow twisted himself into a populist. The pigs obviously fear him. But they fear Debs more, and if they won't accept Debs, they'll be forced to accept Bryan. Though, let's be clear. I know that the Democratic party has long stood for racism and other terrible things, but the winds of change are upon us. We'll deal with the damned confederates that infest the party soon enough. But first, we need victory. As such, we must vote for Watson over Sewall for Vice President. I'd not put it past the capitalist pigs to use the turbulence of the current times to find a way to sneak a bullet into the heart or head of our next president. Some mutter that they did such to the much beloved Abraham Lincoln, and that Booth was a patsy. Something about a second gunman on the stage... No matter. Sewall is the puppet they want, but Bryan and Watson will be the brand they'll get! A new century dawns! It shall be one of global peace and understanding!
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 19:39
|
|
|
Takanago posted:Are the Unpledged Electors, when they appear, usually associated with a certain party/ideology? If it's not a case of "could be voting for literally anybody in America" but instead "you're going to get Democrats who hate desegregation" I think it works. The most immediate cases coming up are 1920, in which Teddy Roosevelt kills the Progressive Party after it secures ballot access in most states, and 1944, where a bunch of racist Texans go, "Gee wizz, let's unseat the President in the middle of the war because we really hate desegregation!" Unpledged electors will show up a handful of times afterward as a vehicle for Dixiecrats to voice ire against the Democratic establishment.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 01:59
|
|
|
I guess we really did abolish the presidency.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2016 03:26
|
|
|
Election night at midnight: Boy Brian's defeat. Defeat of western silver. Defeat of the wheat. Victory of letterfiles And plutocrats in miles With dollar signs upon their coats, Diamond watchchains on their vests and spats on their feet. Victory of custodians, Plymouth Rock, And all that inbred landlord stock. Victory of the neat. Defeat of the aspen groves of Colorado valleys, The blue bells of the Rockies, And blue bonnets of old Texas, by the Pittsburg alleys. Defeat of alfalfa and the Mariposa lily. Defeat of the Pacific and the long Mississippi. Defeat of the young by the old and the silly. Defeat of tornadoes by the poison vats supreme. Defeat of my boyhood, defeat of my dream. ________________ Where is McKinley, that respectable McKinley, The man without an angle or a tangle, Who soothed down the city man and soothed down the farmer, The German, the Irish, the Southerner, the Northerner, Who climbed every greasy pole, and slipped through every crack; Who soothed down the gambling hall, the bar-room, the church, The devil-vote, the angel vote, the neutral vote, The desperately wicked, and their victims on the rack, The gold vote, the silver vote, the brass vote, the lead vote, Every vote?... Where is McKinley, Mark Hanna’s McKinley, His slave, his echo, his suit of clothes? Gone to join the shadows, with the pomps of that time, And the flames of that summer's prairie rose. Where is Cleveland whom the Democratic platform Read from the party in a glorious hour? Gone to join the shadows with pitchfork Tillman, And sledge-hammer Altgeld who wrecked his power. Where is Hanna, bulldog Hanna, Low-browed Hanna, who said: ‘Stand pat’? Gone to his place with old Pierpont Morgan. Gone somewhere with lean rat Platt. Where is Roosevelt, the young dude cowboy, Who hated Bryan, then aped his way? Gone to join the shadows with might Cromwell And tall King Saul, till the Judgment day. Where is Altgeld, brave as the truth, Whose name the few still say with tears? Gone to join the ironies with Old John Brown, Whose fame rings loud for a thousand years. Where is that boy, that Heaven-born Bryan, That Homer Bryan, who sang from the West? Gone to join the shadows with Altgeld the Eagle, Where the kings and the slaves and the troubadours rest.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2016 01:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 12:55 |
|
|
Finally caught up on this thread and it is great. Thanks for doing this QPQ. Felt I couldn't properly vote without full knowledge of our rump Adams dictatorship in constant war with the United Slavers of America. And best of all I made it just in time for our transition to the dictatorship of a proletariat (that proletariat being Debs).
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2016 06:03
|
|
