|
Are non-americans allowed to participate in this? Because I'd love to.
|
#
¿
Nov 17, 2015 19:18
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 3, 2024 16:10 |
|
|
alpha_destroy posted: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 Well, according to the OP, Jay was in favor of a strong central government and was ready to encroach state rights, so he might just be your guy after all.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 17, 2015 19:25
|
|
|
QuoProQuid posted:Of course. Go ahead. Cool, thanks. In that case I am throwing all my support behind Jay, because I do not only support his stance on slavery due to ethical reasons, but also because IMHO slavery was a major factor that held the American economy back. It was only profitable for a really small class of people who were overrepresented in Washington and in the trade policies of the time. The US could have started to get properly industrialized much earlier, were it not for the free trade with the UK, which hampered manufacturing industries but poured money into the pockets of plantation owners (and hardly anybody else). In other words, if you love the US as much as I do and want to see it prosper, vote Jay/Adams 88!
|
|
#
¿
Nov 17, 2015 19:30
|
|
|
Octatonic posted:I have a hard time believing that John Jay is so Brazen in his undermine the sovereignty of our great state as well, friend. We just fought a long war against the crown, and the last thing that we want is to bow to another "King", or indeed, if he has his way, the SAME king. Now is no longer the time for this extremist nonsense. We are a young nation, and we should do this right. I think you are deliberately ignoring the Federalist Papers issues 2-6, in which he argues in favor of a strong Union to protect the sovereignity of this young great nation. And not merely does he understand the dangers of his age, but he also has the coolness of mind to secure the future of the nation by approaching past enemies in order to create security, stability and liberty. No, no, there just is no better path for the nation to take but the one illuminated by John Jay.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 17, 2015 22:18
|
|
|
Lycus posted:There's no way that President Eugene Debs doesn't get assassinated. He might get assassinated, though I predict him to hold office for about a quarter of a century first.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 21, 2015 12:18
|
|
|
I would like to see Burr as president. I like his stance on cigareets, whuskey and wild, wild women. Fortunately, we are lucky enough to have some vintage footage from his campaign. He wants equal rights for women, slaves and slave women, which just make him the perfect man to become president, imho. Another major problem of this young nation is the monopolization of power by the Federalist aristocrats. And he is just the right man to right this wrong. His only shortcoming is that he is a bit too wishy washy when it comes to the French Revolution, but for this he will have Thomas Jefferson as Vice President, because Vive La Revolution and gently caress the British! (And afaik, slave women are a hot topic for Jefferson, as well). In short: Vote Burr/Jefferson in '92! Ibogaine has issued a correction as of 20:55 on Nov 22, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Nov 22, 2015 20:52
|
|
|
Look here guys: Washington is a good guy, a really decent man. But he just wants to settle down on his farm. And you know why? Because he knows himself that he just doesn't have the energy to be President, and that there are better suited men than him. Now he is running, of course, but only because there are those around him pressuring and hounding him against his will. I say: Let the man settle down and be remembered as a celebrated general. With his low energy, he would only hurt his reputation and his country if he were forced to be president. Like Cincinattus, he already did his duty for his country and then returned to his plow. And you know what: I respect him for that. And I respect him so much that I want to grant him his wish: A quiet and enjoyable country life. But now it is time for a man of action, an energetic man for tumultous times: Aaron Burr! (And Jefferson as VP, because we should side with our revolutionary brothers in France and not give an inch to perfidious Albion). edit: Maybe Jefferson could draft up a list of British sympathizers, just to be sure...
|
|
#
¿
Nov 24, 2015 12:28
|
|
|
Abner Cadaver II posted:Remember that electors cannot cast their votes for two candidates from the same state, so Iredell/Johnston, Washington/Jefferson, Adams/Adams, and Burr/Jay/Clinton are all out if you're playing as a strict constructionist. Edit: Foobardog convinced me. S. Adams/Burr all the way! Ibogaine has issued a correction as of 20:59 on Nov 29, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Nov 29, 2015 20:51
|
|
|
unwantedplatypus posted:Just a reminder that Aaron Burr had such a bitchfit over not getting the presidency that he went to the western frontier, made friends with a Spanish spy, and tried to get the west to secede from the union. Yooge if true.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 29, 2015 21:47
|
|
|
I am voting for John Adams, because America needs an experienced leader now more than ever before. He has reigned for twelve years now, and America still has a proper republican process. To those naysayers among you who claim that he is ambitious, I answer you this: Thrice he was offered a kingly crown, which he did thrice refuse: was this ambition? He needs a Vice President who has proven to work well under Adams, which means either Burr or Jay. I am voting for Aaron Burr because Jay's position towards Britain is rather questionable, I think. The inhabitants of perfidious Albion are like rabid dogs, and there can be no reasoning with them. The only language they understand is that of powder and shrapnel. We need to stand with our French brothers in the battle against the vile cancer called the "United Kingdom", since we have now reached a point in time at which there are only two choices: Freedom, represented by France and the USA and tyranny as represented by Britain and its lackeys. Burr will keep Adams on the straight and narrow regarding the English question.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 6, 2015 16:11
|
|
|
Joementum posted:Pretty sure if Adams gets a fourth term he's going to crown himself. Et tu, Joementum?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 6, 2015 16:26
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted: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. John Adams would never steep so low as to fix an election. The only reason he keeps winning these elections is that his boundless love for the people of this great country is reciprocated by the people in equal measure. If he wins again, we should change the name of the title "President" to "Adams" for simplicity's sake, IMHO. Failing that, I would accept naming the capitol after him. Ibogaine has issued a correction as of 16:42 on Dec 6, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Dec 6, 2015 16:40
|
|
|
Aliquid posted:Why not seize it outright for free? War with France, expand the frontier! Because the French will eventually defeat Britain and rule the waves! We should bet on the winning horse and side with France, which will allow us to conquer the British posessions at our borders.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 6, 2015 20:54
|
|
|
I liked the previous system that gave the vice presidency to the runner up a lot, since it kept presidents in check and kept them from simply putting up a "secretary" to their own "elected king". Anyway, I went for Jefferson/Clinton. At least they want to end the slave trade and want to improve ties with the nation that will undoubtedly win the war in Europe: France. Let's face it, Napoleon Bonaparte is an unstoppable force of nature and in fact a manifestation of the world spirit, to quote a German philosopher. Still, I am slightly miffed that I can't vote for an Adams this time.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 13, 2015 14:44
|
|
|
James Monroe seems to be the least odious man of them all, so he's got my vote.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 20, 2015 21:11
|
|
|
kalstrams posted:Clinton/Ingersoll '12, down with slavery! I agree. Even though Clinton is a two-faced SOB, he actually has a decent track record compared to the rest of the field. Furthermore: Down with the 12th amendment in '12! edit: And what the heck did Pickney do to get us into a war with England? Ibogaine has issued a correction as of 22:19 on Dec 27, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Dec 27, 2015 21:52
|
|
|
QuoProQuid, I really like your updates, so thanks a lot for the effort you are putting into this. I liked the gradual development of the title "His Elective Majesty, Our Lord-Protector, John Adams, President of the United States, Protector of Their Liberties, Defender of the Faithful, and Father of the Nation" best so far. Keep up the good work!
|
|
#
¿
Dec 27, 2015 22:28
|
|
|
Ibogaine posted:James Monroe seems to be the least odious man of them all, so he's got my vote. At least compared to King, I still feel the same after all these years, so Monroe/Tompkins it is. Furthermore, at the moment, gradual abolition seems to be the best option offered to a single issue voter like me, while Tompkins approach to booze will at least keep him from making things any worse.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 3, 2016 21:24
|
|
|
Personally, I hope that we will include Philip Roth's alternate history at some point so that I can vote for Lindbergh in '40.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 5, 2016 07:45
|
|
|
DeWitt Clinton needs to get back in the saddle! The Missouri compromise looks like the best thing we abolitionists can hope for, it seems, and as President, Clinton had been able to save the country from the horrible war with England which had been started by the Pinckney administration. So, as far as I am concerned, he is the best of the lot. Regarding the vice president: I don't really care who will serve under Clinton, as long as he is loyal.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 10, 2016 16:20
|
|
|
Anyway, in the case of his election, would Clinton still be the 5th president, or the 5th and 7th one?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 10, 2016 18:26
|
|
|
troubled teen posted:Just throwing out there, once more, that this thread is fantastic and extremely interesting. I agree. I just finished reading Gore Vidal's "Burr", which I wouldn't have discovered without this thread, and the rest of Vidal's "Empire" novels are on their way here right now. 
|
|
#
¿
Jan 10, 2016 18:41
|
|
|
Lycus posted:One more week until we can start not electing Jackson. By the eternal!
|
|
#
¿
Jan 11, 2016 07:59
|
|
|
RagnarokAngel posted:I can't wait till we get past the civil war I feel too many decisions are based on how the person feels about slaves because...yeah. Yeah, I can't wait to switch from the "Abolish Slavery!" platform to the "Full Communism Now!" one, either.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 11, 2016 20:56
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:welcome aboard president for life John Quincy Adams, may death come quickly to his enemies This sums up the way I am feeling better than I could put it. Just like the LOrd gave us Jesus Christ, John Adams gave us John Quincy Adams. Anybody who is turning his back on him is turning his back on redemption itself. Edit: Once JQA is elected, the constitution should be amended to make him president for life so that we can go without the divisive and ultimately distructive process of elections for the time being.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 17, 2016 21:17
|
|
|
I would like to modify of my initial suggestion of making JQA President for life a little. In fact, he should become President For All Eternity, and once he died, we'll just mummify his corpse and turn the White House into his mausoleum. The people of the United States will still be allowed to vote for VPs, naturally, and we will rely on The Eternal President to rise again in this nation's greatest hour of need.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 17, 2016 22:38
|
|
|
Yoshifan823 posted:O'Malley talking fast because he doesn't know when he's ever gonna have a national platform to speak. O'Malley ran in 1824? It's possible of course, and apparently he left as much of an impression back then as he does now.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 18, 2016 10:02
|
|
|
Lycus posted:Did JQA pick Calhoun, or did the party leadership? He apparently put himself forward and then got votes from the supporters of both, Jackson and Adams. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1824 quote:Secretary of War John C. Calhoun of South Carolina, who was initially a fifth candidate in the early stages of consideration, declined to run for president, but did decide to seek the vice presidency. For president, he backed Jackson, whose political beliefs he considered more compatible with those of most voters in the southern states. Both Adams and Jackson supporters backed Calhoun's candidacy as vice president, thus he easily secured the majority of electoral votes he needed to secure that office. In reality, Calhoun was vehemently opposed to nearly all of Adams's policies, but he did nothing to dissuade Adams supporters from voting for him for vice president.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 20, 2016 14:34
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:An Adams astroturf group is an astroturf group you can trust. Since I am German and I am surrounded by Krauts all day long, I agree that more of them should be deported to unviable swampy colonies. Also: You don't get the chance to fight the masons with your vote every day. So, Wirt it is! Ibogaine has issued a correction as of 09:00 on Feb 1, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Feb 1, 2016 07:57
|
|
|
Now that we have taken care of the freemasons, we should return to the great ideas of our founding fathers. Especially those of Aaron Burr. I have always felt a strong kinship for Aaron Burr, and Martin van Buren seems to share this feeling. (Though not for the reasons some slanderous ponces suggest). MVB 1836! edit: Both his VP candidates are horrible, though... I tried to flip a coin to decide, but it always came up Clinton! Oh, gently caress it. I'll vote for Johnson as VP, at least that way, I can get my mail on sundays. Ibogaine has issued a correction as of 16:21 on Feb 7, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Feb 7, 2016 16:16
|
|
|
Birney/Earle! Not only do they appeal to a single issue voter like me, but I think that we should also give the two guys a chance to finally meet each other, after all: QuoProQuid posted:Birney and Earle had made no attempt to set up local organizations to support their candidacy and have not actually met one another in person. I don't like people who put too much effort into their presidential bit, because it reeks of ambition and desperation. Ibogaine has issued a correction as of 17:02 on Feb 14, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Feb 14, 2016 16:54
|
|
|
troubled teen posted:Dear lord...another terrible election. I can't wait to vote to start the civil war. Birney seems to be the man for you then. He even wants Mexico to take of the kids gloves when dealing with the seditious scum in Texas.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 14, 2016 17:17
|
|
|
Empress Theonora posted:At this point we're just killing time until Debs comes along, anyway. I'm not so certain. Candidates with strong anti-mason or hollow earth platforms might split the vote of the SA electorate. Anyway, there are two episodes of Slate's Whistlestop podcast on the 1840 election: William Henry Harrison: https://www.slate.com/articles/podcasts/whistlestop/2015/03/william_henry_harrison_becomes_the_first_candidate_to_actually_campaign.html and Hurrah and Hokum https://www.slate.com/articles/podcasts/whistlestop/2015/12/in_1840_whigs_and_democrats_turned_out_record_numbers_of_voters.html Ibogaine has issued a correction as of 08:57 on Feb 15, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Feb 15, 2016 08:45
|
|
|
oystertoadfish posted:
So in our timeline, every four years a shadowy image appears in front of congress, declaring who will be President and Vice President for the next four years? Sounds awesome. We should make this canon. I wonder when the candidates will begin pandering to this mysterious Future Cabal that is holding an iron grip on their society. So far, they should have noticed that abolitionism is a good way to gain our favors, but alternative tactics like going full anti-mason or wishing to explore the hollow earth might work as well. How long untill one of them will figure out that the magical words to become President for lifetime are "Full Communism Now!"?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 15, 2016 13:12
|
|
|
Eschers Basement posted:
The only thing more important to me is getting hosed up on hard cider in a LOG CABIN! edit:  
Ibogaine has issued a correction as of 21:03 on Feb 16, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Feb 16, 2016 20:49
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:This thread has literally been a more educational history experience than my years of US history class, including AP US History. My minor at college was American studies, and the focus was more on cultural history and structural aspects of the US. I never took any classes on the minutiae of individual elections, so I wasn't prepared for the sheer insanity of it all. Never mind the structural differences between the different parts of the US and their effects on the long term development of political fissures and alliances: Voting for hard cider or anti-Mason is much more fun! So, yeah, this thread is awesome.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 16, 2016 20:56
|
|
|
Carrasco posted:Still feelin' the Birn. Plus, hey, we've only had two presidents with more than one term so far. DeWitt Clinton served twice in 1812 and 1820, and while his terms were not consecutive, he is still the only president with more than one term who's family name wasn't "Adams". That being said, let's make Birney president again before his VP dies. FOUR MORE YEARS!!!
|
|
#
¿
Feb 21, 2016 21:03
|
|
|
I'm definetely gonna vote Nixon in 1952, 1960, 1968 and 1972. He's got what it takes to become the second longest serving president after Eugene Debs.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 26, 2016 23:25
|
|
|
Corek posted:I will gladly take the opportunity to vote in another Adams, stop slavery, and defeat Yeah, the chance to vote for an Adams won me over for the Van Buren ticket as well. Oh, yeah, and, well, anti-slavery, too, I suppose. And speaking of Van Buren: More like Van Burren, if you catch my drift here! And why am I not surprised that  named his alter ego after an anti-abolitionist?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 28, 2016 21:22
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 3, 2024 16:10 |
|
|
Slate's Whistlestop covers several elections after 1840, and they are still adding more: http://www.slate.com/articles/podcasts/whistlestop.html. Incidentally, I recently reread Favell Lee Mortimer's "The Clumsiest People in Europe". It's a global view of a Victorian woman who never left the house writing about different countries and people in the 1850s. And while she is generally really nasty and mean, she still recognizes slavery in the US to be utterly horrible. I found it interesting because it shows that the only part of the civilized world in the middle of the 19th century where slavery was still considered acceptable was really the USA. Which makes slavery the climate change denial of its day, I guess.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 5, 2016 14:19
|
|