|
Alfred P. Pseudonym posted:Adams/Jay for king and vice king Yes, but make sure it's the right Adams - Sam Adams is who we need to make our country truly great. Closer ties with France, developing virtous citizens, and hopefully doing something to that peculiar institution at the prodding of his VP...
|
#
¿
Nov 30, 2015 04:56
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 5, 2024 10:42 |
|
|
JosefStalinator posted:It's really amazing how revolutionary some of their ideas and applications were, and how effective ideas like the Supreme Court turned out to be, but the whole "what if the runner up is from a different faction" thing never seemed to cross their minds. I got the impression it was specifically to try and avoid the formation of political parties (encouraging multiple different people from each "party" to run) while also empowering the largest group of "losers" instead of making them feel like they have no say in things at all, like a consolation prize. Also I think the VP was supposed to be more involved in Congress and policy? So it might have been yet another "checks and balances" type proposal where the runner up being a different "faction" might even have been intentional on the parts of those who did think of it. It's not really a terrible idea in concept, but the execution is lacking and a good execution might not have been possible. Alter Ego posted:Without Jefferson we don't get the Louisiana Purchase and we probably get a continuation of the Alien and Sedition Acts (aka the PATRIOT Act before it was cool). Jefferson in '96. Actually wouldn't anyone else have just jumped all over it without all the wishy-washiness?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 30, 2015 19:33
|
|
|
Abner Cadaver II posted:I'm surprised the Founders didn't go whole hog with their Roman Republic love and have two presidents with authority alternating between every day. No, let's not half-rear end this, let's dial things up to 11. Every person who wins a state at all becomes president, but their power is directly related to the number of states they won.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 30, 2015 19:43
|
|
|
John Adams is clearly fixing these SA elections, no doubt about that, and I won't stand by and let it happen again, especially after the better Adams lost last time around.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 6, 2015 16:30
|
|
|
Ugh, much as I don't want to, I think I'm going with Jefferson/Jay this time around. I am not a huge fan of Jefferson's, but it seems the only way too stop us descending into tyranny and war with our once ally France.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 6, 2015 23:24
|
|
|
This new voting system is dumb, I want King/Clinton >:|
GlyphGryph has issued a correction as of 16:25 on Dec 13, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Dec 13, 2015 15:48
|
|
|
Was there anyone else notable running in this election that just didn't receive any electoral votes, or was this really all there was?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 13, 2015 19:19
|
|
|
So one thing that's a big deal in the modern day political equation is primaries. In a way, primary's have become the "real" election between all of the actual US voting blocks, with the general being something of a run off between the two chosen coalitions. In some elections this has obviously mattered more than others. When did primaries start being a thing? Previous to this we obviously had a number of people running, but it feels like it's gonna be 1v1 for Presidents from here on out, but especially once we get into recent history there's gonna be some people that would have had a real chance of winning if they'd been voted for in the primaries. Are we just gonna ignore that and stick to generals or what?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 13, 2015 21:50
|
|
|
I blame this, all of this, on John Adams.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 14, 2015 00:48
|
|
|
I'm confused - why is there no Monroe/Langdon? Wasn't he "unwillingly recruited" by Monroe?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 21, 2015 00:51
|
|
|
Why couldn't we have elected Paine as President For Life? He's the only guy involved in this whole "brand new country" business that seemed to be a genuinely good person. Oh wait, answered my own question there.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 25, 2016 14:42
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:Lee's the one, I like the look of him. Why is he not an option in the poll???
|
|
#
¿
Jan 31, 2016 21:21
|
|
|
Alfred P. Pseudonym posted:yo, gently caress freemasons Accomplish this by voting for the freemason.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 5, 2016 05:16
|
|
|
I love this thread.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 8, 2016 05:23
|
|
|
quote:Has advocated on the behalf of slaveowners, claiming that slavery and indentured servitude in the Midwest would make it a more attractive location for settlement. The only issues that he believes should be nationalized is the prohibition on Freemasonry. Harrison believes the institution to be a “moral and political evil,” with its members serving dark and unknown purposes. Freemasons are evil, but slavery is good. That's, uh...quite a guy there. On the other hand, Birney actually seems pretty terrible and I am pretty sure he would lose the inevitable civil war, and that the mass deportations probably wouldn't go well... God drat this thread is better than my history class was.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 14, 2016 16:25
|
|
|
This thread has literally been a more educational history experience than my years of US history class, including AP US History. Why is the state of history education so bad? Why is this thread so good? Unsurprisingly, these questions have lead me to vote for the abolitionist. Burn it all down.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 15, 2016 17:06
|
|
|
:birnget:
|
|
#
¿
Feb 23, 2016 15:48
|
|
|
I would actually be cool with most of these guys winning, I think this may be an actual first for american elections. It's pretty cool.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 29, 2016 16:35
|
|
|
oystertoadfish posted:i'm glad we won't be voting for pierce because, even if it wouldn't save his son's life, at least he and his wife won't convince themselves that god killed him so pierce wouldn't have any distractions as president Holy poo poo. This guy seems to win for the most miserable presidency ever.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 9, 2016 18:47
|
|
|
You gotta write out the text I can't read this crazy writing.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2016 00:41
|
|
|
I am really excited, when we get into the late 60s, to see if anti-Oddfellowism replaces anti-Freemasonry as the elite boogeymen, since there was a string of like four presidents in a row who were Oddfellows.
GlyphGryph has issued a correction as of 14:02 on Mar 23, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2016 05:05
|
|
|
Nckdictator posted:https://www.americanhistoryusa.com/campaign-trail/ Played a Trump that once nominated basically said "Screw the conservative establishment, screw the democratic establishment, I want to help the little people and keep them safe from the dangers abroad and our own corrupt politicians" and turned basically the entire country red except California and New England. Landslide victory. Mind you, the two terrorist attacks in Europe seemed to help a lot.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 29, 2016 04:09
|
|
|
The fact that this wasn't a race between Greeley and Black in real life is a testament is to how terrible past Americans were.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 18, 2016 02:00
|
|
|
Grant is great in theory but we have now seen how he works in practice. Based on what we have seen of his supreme incompetence so far, how can anyone in good conscience vote for the man a second time?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 18, 2016 15:17
|
|
|
What this thread has taught me was that Grant was one of the shittiest US Presidents in a long line of US Presidents. I can't believe you assholes voted this crook in for a second term.
|
|
#
¿
May 2, 2016 05:46
|
|
|
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 |
|
#
¿
Jun 6, 2016 20:14
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:Serious reply: people confuse Harrison with his grandfather. Well... uh... I guess that's understandable, actually. His grandfather was pretty terrible.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 7, 2016 01:31
|
|
|
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. Rasmussen has him as actively disliked, not just forgettable. Van Buren has better numbers than him.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 7, 2016 14:23
|
|
|
I don't know, just did my best to look it up but found nothing except a ton more evidence of what an incompetent idiot Grant was. Nothing that indicates he treated his wife poorly or anything, that I can find. GlyphGryph has issued a correction as of 17:52 on Jun 10, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Jun 10, 2016 17:36
|
|
|
UrbicaMortis posted:I would have just jumped out of the way. Sure, everyone would give you poo poo about having no honour and jackson could clown on you for the rest of your life but at least you'd have a rest of your life. This sort of person just turns down the dueling challenge to begin with
|
|
#
¿
Jun 11, 2016 01:21
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 5, 2024 10:42 |
|
|
Should we just have someone else take over the thread? We're so behind at this point that I'd be willing to bang out a few elections right quick. Wouldn't be nearly as good at them, but hey, we've still got a lot of history to go so...
|
|
#
¿
Jun 24, 2016 21:42
|
|