|
Washington/Adams, go along to get along. And if we're allowed to use a historian's perspective, I voted Washington because at that time I don't think there was another man in the country who could have led us at that point. Whether his Presidency is judged good or bad, it was the only one that could have happened. Fritz Coldcockin has issued a correction as of 17:19 on Nov 17, 2015 |
#
¿
Nov 17, 2015 17:15
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 4, 2024 03:45 |
|
|
alpha_destroy posted: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... The country was VERY divided in 1788. Washington was literally the only thing they agreed on--the guy was as close to a King as we ever got post-American Revolution. He had to serve, and he had to serve at least as long as he did.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 17, 2015 17:38
|
|
|
I can see Burr running a Trump-style populist campaign. Only thing missing would be him calling Washington and Adams losers.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 24, 2015 14:58
|
|
|
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.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 30, 2015 16:00
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:I’m voting for Carter because he was a legit great president. Pretty sure it's a given that either Anderson or Carter will be elected in 1980, thus eliminating Reagan from the timeline 
|
|
#
¿
Dec 1, 2015 22:09
|
|
|
We all know that Eugene Debs is literally going to get elected to like 5 consecutive terms; if we tried to construct the Goon President Timeline it'd be the most bizarre alternate history ever. Glad we're sticking with established history despite election results.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 3, 2015 17:55
|
|
|
Jefferson plays billiards and breaks the Sabbath, Jay/Adams in 1800
|
|
#
¿
Dec 9, 2015 04:25
|
|
|
Jefferson/Clinton. Jefferson had recognized the need for a strong central government by the time he ran for reelection, so I'm honestly not sure it even will matter.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 14, 2015 05:49
|
|
|
Aliquid posted:Same, same Goons will all ironically vote for Strom Thurmond.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 8, 2016 22:32
|
|
|
Thing is, most of the things Jackson said about Adams were false...the stuff Adams said about Jackson was mostly true (even the accusations against Rachel Jackson were technically true, scummy as it was for the Adams people to bring up the subject at all).
|
|
#
¿
Jan 29, 2016 21:36
|
|
|
Voted for Tippecanoe because the past is obdurate and doesn't wish to be changed
|
|
#
¿
Feb 15, 2016 15:03
|
|
|
Thump! posted:Because we let Texas write our textbooks for some godawful reason. Do they teach that Ronald Reagan killed Hitler with his bare hands? I imagine it that way.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 15, 2016 21:33
|
|
|
Voted The past is obdurate, Jake. It doesn't want to be changed.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 22, 2016 16:11
|
|
|
SA Decides, 1788-2000: We're Gonna Elect Eugene Debs To Seven Consecutive Terms
|
|
#
¿
Mar 8, 2016 17:30
|
|
|
Grand Theft Autobot posted:TR is a top-5 President. We'll be too busy electing Eugene Debs.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 9, 2016 01:38
|
|
|
Thump! posted:It's also a period of pretty ineffectual Presidents too, isn't it? Like they don't start doing anything worthwhile again until we get McKinley calling for the blood of Spanish infants or whatever the papers were saying. That's why they called it the Gilded Age. Actually, the official Gilded Age was even longer--1868 to 1901. Ironically, McKinley catching a bullet at the Pan-American Exposition was probably the primary reason why it ended. The Presidents of the time were weaker because a great deal of power had been ceded back to Congress after what was viewed as Lincoln's "overreaches" during the Civil War. Reconstruction ended in failure after that disaster of an election in 1876, when Hayes sold Southern blacks up the river so Tilden wouldn't contest the election, and the South settled into a comfortable Jim Crow routine for the next ~100 years. The Senate during that time was perhaps more indolent and obstructionist than the modern Senate. Fritz Coldcockin has issued a correction as of 17:07 on Mar 23, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2016 17:04
|
|
|
Thump! posted:True. I do love the thought of the New York Republicans nominating TR for VP just to get him out of their hair and lol whoops he's now the President. No wonder Mark Hanna is Karl Rove's hero--they both melt down when they see their carefully constructed facade crumble in the face of reality. Hanna was McKinley's campaign manager (or what passed for one in 1900) and the suggestion to put Roosevelt on the ticket in 1900 was made because a) the previous guy, Garrett Hobart, died, and b) he was pissing off the party bosses in New York so much. When McKinley died, Hanna said "Now look--that damned cowboy is President of the United States!" If you want a modern-day equivalent, imagine Clinton winning the primary in 2008, putting Obama on the ticket to shut his supporters up, and then having her drop dead a year into her first term. But there was nothing about the Gilded Age that wasn't horrible, except Chester Arthur's mutton chops. The income gap between rich and poor widened to almost cartoonish levels, politicians became orders of magnitude more corrupt, the issues of the day were literally incapable of dividing the candidates (except on the issue of the Bonus Army in 1888), and the southern conservatives in the Senate--mostly Democrats--made sure that no legislation of any consequence was passed. The lack of labor laws made working conditions completely intolerable--if you think the job market now is bad, imagine what it was like when the only job you could get was in a filthy, unregulated meatpacking plant in Chicago where the chances of you making into the next batch of ground chuck were about 50/50. It is, no lie, one of the most shameful eras in our history, because it was when we as a people were the MOST disengaged with the process. Fritz Coldcockin has issued a correction as of 17:20 on Mar 23, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2016 17:09
|
|
|
Jai Guru Dave posted:Could you please elaborate? I'm having the same problem as you did, but I only have Gerald Ford's IQ. The dude wanted to negotiate an armistice with the South and split up the Union permanently so probably not.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 31, 2016 14:22
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 4, 2024 03:45 |
|
|
SA is gonna vote Teddy Roosevelt right out of the timeline 
|
|
#
¿
Jul 31, 2016 14:42
|
|