|
I think a debate between John Jay and John Adams may be quite interesting. I am not a historian, so I could be wrong, but I believe that this would pit a man that owned slaves but took political action toward emancipation versus a man that made a point to never own a slave but at times dragged his feet on emancipation because the issue was too politically divisive.
|
#
¿
Nov 17, 2015 15:37
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 2, 2024 20:03 |
|
|
Alter Ego posted:Washington/Adams, go along to get along. It will be interesting to see how often we agree with history. Because in this one, I'm having a hard time motivating anything that isn't Washington/Adams. I thought maybe Washington/Jay...
|
|
#
¿
Nov 17, 2015 17:22
|
|
|
babypolis posted:john jay sounds like a cool dude i voted for him I'm still on the fence. I'm hoping people can come along with more knowledge than me to help me decide between Jay and Adams Adams is Adams. He wrote the Massachusetts constitution which disallowed slavery in Massachusetts. He also owned no slaves. He also believed in public education, which is important to me. Jay did own slaves. But as governor of New York he started the largest emancipation project prior to the civil war. Then again, Jay entangled government and Christianity more than I am comfortable with. But which founding father didn't? Both are obviously federalists, and I tend to lean against states rights. At the moment, I'm leaning Adams, but I'm open to persuasion. Edit: obviously my other vote is for Washington. alpha_destroy has issued a correction as of 19:20 on Nov 17, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Nov 17, 2015 19:18
|
|
|
oystertoadfish posted:washington made a lot of money finding nice native american land, surveying it, telling his rich friends and getting a slice, then throwing desparate white people at the indians until they, um, went away You know what I think is missing? The madness of the electoral college.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 18, 2015 02:08
|
|
|
I fear we are going to gently caress up right at the beginning. If we don't elect Washington we will be making a huge mistake. So I am going to lay out a multi-faceted argument for why we need to vote Washington. 1.) Washington is a baller-rear end motherfucker: Who did we trust out armies to to defeat the British? George loving Washington. I know a lot of people will claim that generals don't necessarily make good presidents, but I think this general is special. He was relentless even in defeat. He was a successful organizer. At the end of the war he stood down like good Cincinnatus. My point is we can trust Washington to not make himself king. Can we trust a monarchist like John Adams to do the same? 2.) Washington knows his limitations: Washington is a smart dude, but Washington knows he has weaknesses; that is why he surrounds himself with people he can trust. I know Washington didn't invent the idea of a cabinet, but he did bring it to the U.S. And he did set the tone for how a President and his Cabinet operate. 3.) Washington on the army: Holy poo poo, we cannot survive as a nation based on regional militias. No one knows this better than Washington. No one will work as tirelessly to make sure our fledgling nation can defend itself against enemies domestic and foreign better than General Washington. While he did need the regional militias to put down the Whiskey Rebellion, Washington's belief in professional soldiers and a standing army are essential to defending this project in democracy. 4.) Washington on economics: Modern views on national debt are probably shading our idea of Washington's attack on national debt. Washington is no Ramirez. Washington knows that for a nation in its infancy it is important to be healthy economically. We need to be able to effectively collect taxes. We need to be able to effectively settle our debts. We need to be able to raise and maintain enough funds to be able to solve problems as they arise. If we can't pay out debts right now there is no way this country will be able to get off the ground because we do not yet have the reputation to be able to take on debt successfully. My argument is pretty much this: We are, as an voting body, looking too far into the future. We are trying to set up a Socialist States of America before we have even proven a nation can survive on its own on these shores. Before we can look forward, we need to cement our present. We need to elect someone who has learned the right lessons from the struggle so far. And that man is General Washington. No other leader can ensure the safety of this fledgling nation. A vote for Washington/Adams or a vote for Washington/Jay is a vote for a strong, united America: an America that can survive a couple of decades without having to write a new governing document. But a vote for Adams/Jay is a vote for the death of this young Republic. Washington/Someone '89
|
|
#
¿
Nov 18, 2015 15:31
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:You make a good case. You fool! 
|
|
#
¿
Nov 18, 2015 15:58
|
|
|
I might have to do something absurd like vote Washington/Harrison even though I like both Jay and Adams. We gotta have George as top dog.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 18, 2015 16:47
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:Washington would weep if he knew that people were practicing strategic voting on his behalf. It's true. He would. Not gonna stop me though.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 18, 2015 22:11
|
|
|
oystertoadfish posted:i want to emphasize that george washington was a profiteering land speculator Oystertoadfish, I always appreciated you. This post is a good example of why I appreciate you.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 19, 2015 04:43
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 2, 2024 20:03 |
|
|
I am big into expansionism and were better to expand than into the hollow earth? Manifest Destiny demands we seize the West and also the Down gentlegoons.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 15, 2016 14:59
|
|