I'm with Sebastian. Ben Franklin FTW!
Ben Franklin was a damned man whore. Not just with women, either.
Not that that's a bad thing.
+1 I detest Lincoln passionately.You guys do realize that Lincoln, while not necessarily a bad president (he DID keep the Union together, after all), didn't particularly care about the Constitution? He ignored it more than once.Yeah, I'm kind of curious what criteria someone's using to like Lincoln but despise everyone since.
Since the usual argument against FDR and some of the others is "expansion of federal power", it's hard to see how Lincoln gets off.
Boo! Lincoln rocked!
Srly, though, let's hijack this thread. Tensor's poll is at the top and there's all this space down below, just sitting around doing nothing.
Who's Your Favorite President? Just For Fun
So, we've got:
Lincoln--Gendo, me
Teddy--HD
Ben Franklin--SebastianWho else? Comrade Jeff? Citizen Kryzbyn, BT and all my Fawtl Refugee Peeps?
I think I'd have to go with Jefferson, but he was a big disappointment in many ways.
Regan could have been worse, but he was too much of a big government guy for my tastes.
If you're not rich, it's your own fault! LOL!Worked for Buffet, Gates, Steve Jobs (RIP), Hollywood elites, and any other fithly rich Liberal and Conservative out there.
While I agree with you that there is some serious conflict of interest issues with congress, they can be voted out of office.
Dunno how you got that out of what I said, but ok.
Benjamin Franklin was also NOT A PRESIDENT. He was certainly a pivotal member of the revolution, a patriot, an in general learned man, and one hell of a diplomat, but a president he never was.
+1 on the man whore comment though (50 illegitimate children and he only every legally recognized 1)
As for the election, I fear that the Democrats will hold the office for another 4 years (not that I want either the Republicans or the Democrats - but then again I am a dreamer)
And as for favorite President, look at the 2$ bill, I'll take Jefferson.
Once again, not a perfect man, but still a brilliant statesman.
I'll leave you with one of his maxims "The government that governs best, is the government that governs least." Let people be self supporting and have the government only do what the people are unable to do for themselves (not are unwilling to, merely are unable to.)
Which was my favorite?
Reagan.
I don't like Reagan. Too friendly to big business and the "moral majority".
Benjamin Franklin was also NOT A PRESIDENT. He was certainly a pivotal member of the revolution, a patriot, an in general learned man, and one hell of a diplomat, but a president he never was.
Oh, my mistake.
[Cuffs Leo for not having a sense of humor]
Also, Mama Kelsey, the way that you make sure this thread doesn't get locked is you don't say negative things about the presidents other people like. At least, not for the first couple hours.
Who said I meant it negatively? I very much didn't.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't like Reagan. Too friendly to big business and the "moral majority".
Opened the way for the dominionists.
I don't like Reagan. Too friendly to big business and the "moral majority".Opened the way for the dominionists.
On the other hand, Mama, sometimes it's fun just to unload, like Comrade Del Espada is doing here. But it'll then devolve into partisan name-calling (which is fun) and then, after a couple of days (at most), the mods will lock it. Which, actually, is fun sometimes.
You are all stooges of the plutocracy!
Vive le Galt!
Grover Cleveland
Always jacking up the counts.
I don't take offense to it.
I was in 3rd grade when he became president, and was the first time I paid attention to such things.
As a third grader, all I saw was Jimmy Carter making excuses for what he was supposed to be in charge of, and Reagan resoundly defeating him in every way.
It was like watching the country say "no more" when he won the election.
It was exciting.
Going back and reading about what Carter did in fact do during his presidency, I'm glad he did not get a second term, but it seems all that happened was delay the inevitable.
I similarly hope Obama does not get a second term. Don't think the chances are as good this time round though.
Thread meltdown in 3...2...1
Thread meltdown in 3...2...1
SMURF
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Thread meltdown in 3...2...1
"All this has happened before, and all of it will happen again." [/Leoben Slaad]
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Where is the promised thread meltdown? Want!
Oh, and one more for TR. Any man who can take a bullet to the chest and finish his speech anyway is alright by me.
Oh, and one more for TR. Any man who can take a bullet to the chest and finish his speech anyway is alright by me.
By that logic we should all vote for Putin.
...That's not a bad idea. I hereby switch my vote from FDR to Vladimir Putin.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Every hero in the world is a product of his times. In other words, every hero is an accident. But that doesn't negate the brilliance and heroism with which they acted at the time they were needed. Thus, the events make the conditions for greatness, and those who rise to meet those conditions ARE great. Thus, Lincoln and FDR BOTH were great men, needed at the time they lived, who rose to meet their challenges.
Any other analysis of them is irrelevant. Worse, the notion that anybody would think they can compare the actions of these men to those needed at this time and through a modern lens should be laughed right out of this thread.
Specifically, Teddy Roosevelt might have done a lot of good and interesting things, but he also was a loon in many other ways. That he stood up to corporations sounds like it matters to us now because that is something we need now. But to compare FDR unfavorably to him because he had his plate full with other things is ridiculous and borderline crazy. FDR was fighting Nazis. He was a little busy at the time. Teddy had the time to stick it to the man. But without FDR, you might not be here to complain about corporations at all.
Same with Lincoln. No Lincoln, Teddy is off doing something else entirely. In fact, I'll do you one better. Teddy's father got out of the draft in the Civil War when his own father paid his way out. So, no corruption during Lincoln's time = no Teddy Roosevelt at all.
We could do this until we were blue in the face, and every one of us would be wrong on any number of fronts, because what this amounts to is a bunch of know-everything nerds totally disregarding common sense and any information they don't want to believe, to try to arrive at a point where we can fool ourselves into thinking we are totally right. Making us exactly like all the whackos we rag on for posting angrily to CNN all day.
Also, I thought we weren't supposed to do polls here.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In fact, I'll do you one better. Teddy's father got out of the draft in the Civil War when his own father paid his way out. So, no corruption during Lincoln's time = no Teddy Roosevelt at all.
The rich getting out of risking their lives at the behest of the rich has a long and cherished tradition.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Remember ... remember ... the 5th of November ... falls one day before election day.
|
Every hero in the world is a product of his times. In other words, every hero is an accident. But that doesn't negate the brilliance and heroism with which they acted at the time they were needed. Thus, the events make the conditions for greatness, and those who rise to meet those conditions ARE great. Thus, Lincoln and FDR BOTH were great men, needed at the time they lived, who rose to meet their challenges.
Any other analysis of them is irrelevant. Worse, the notion that anybody would think they can compare the actions of these men to those needed at this time and through a modern lens should be laughed right out of this thread.
Specifically, Teddy Roosevelt might have done a lot of good and interesting things, but he also was a loon in many other ways. That he stood up to corporations sounds like it matters to us now because that is something we need now. But to compare FDR unfavorably to him because he had his plate full with other things is ridiculous and borderline crazy. FDR was fighting Nazis. He was a little busy at the time. Teddy had the time to stick it to the man. But without FDR, you might not be here to complain about corporations at all.
Same with Lincoln. No Lincoln, Teddy is off doing something else entirely. In fact, I'll do you one better. Teddy's father got out of the draft in the Civil War when his own father paid his way out. So, no corruption during Lincoln's time = no Teddy Roosevelt at all.
We could do this until we were blue in the face, and every one of us would be wrong on any number of fronts, because what this amounts to is a bunch of know-everything nerds totally disregarding common sense and any information they don't want to believe, to try to arrive at a point where we can fool ourselves into thinking we are totally right. Making us exactly like all the whackos we rag on for posting angrily to CNN all day.
Also, I thought we weren't supposed to do polls here.
Um, I don't know where you learned history, but you do know FDR had two and a half terms before we entered WWII, right?
Sorry if I think those two and a half term were horrible. Even Keynes thought FDR went too far.
I vote for Obama. I'm not even kidding. I voted 3rd party in 08 but I'm all for Obama now.Don't pretend to ever think you're even close to someone who knows anything about Libertarianism again. Seriously.
Why not? Maybe he's just overwhelmingly cynical, like me. You can believe that the system is a shambles, and the election is a sham, but still vote for someone you don't necessarily like because it makes the whole thing infinitesimally harder to fake and that's that.
I'll vote Obama as a vote against Romney. If Paul got nominated or ran third party... I would actually have to think. I may well still vote for Obama in such a case, but I have no illusions. These people are all running for president.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, I'm pretty much not voting. If the American people insist on giving me two s~$+ty choices, I'll go about my business, ignoring the laws I think are stupid as hell, and planning my exit strategy. Continuing to vote for complete garbage makes no sense to me, it just encourages them to continue screwing me.
And if you think Obama is a lesser evil, then the term "evil" is utterly meaningless.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm writing America off as a bad idea. Stupid people voting for criminals. System's broken, but people keep voting for the same idiots with the hammers breaking the machine.
I have three and a half years before I can bail. I already have a place to go. I'll watch it go up in flames from a safe distance.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, I'm pretty much not voting. If the American people insist on giving me two s@++ty choices, I'll go about my business, ignoring the laws I think are stupid as hell, and planning my exit strategy. Continuing to vote for complete garbage makes no sense to me, it just encourages them to continue screwing me.
And if you think Obama is a lesser evil, then the term "evil" is utterly meaningless.
I think that the media places too much importance on the presidential election, and over time that has become a self-fulfilling prophecy. Now the president IS too important.
The system is very, very broken, and there is nothing as voters we can do to fix it by voting once every four years to choose between two enfranchised political interests.
In the end, everyone is treating it as a referendum on the nation's progress over the past term — and if that's all it is, then yes, an Obama vote from me. But I have no illusions that he's not completely a part of the problem. It's like I said, a vote makes the whole system infinitesimally harder to rig... and I've had the experience of an executive Romney already. It was, for me, worse than an executive Obama.
What we need is campaign finance reform (or rather, "Corrupt Election Reform" as I believe it should be known) before anything will improve. We have a g!$~!*n congress in this country, but everyone seems intent on making things a quad-annual winner-take-all cluster-f~&~.
We have the government we deserve, that's for sure.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why won't more people vote 3rd party?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why won't more people vote 3rd party?
Money.
If Paul got nominated or ran third party... I would actually have to think.
Self Quote.
I'm not a libertarian, in fact, but there's something about RP that is genuine and refreshing, even when he is (I believe) wrong. It would come down to how wrong.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Because they've been conditioned to think they'd be "wasting" their vote.
I really think it could have an impact if ten million people or so who won't vote any more would cast protest votes for third party candidates.
The wasted vote argument is such a self fulfilling view.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why won't more people vote 3rd party?Money.
Well as Steven Colbert proved, you can raise a lot of money.
I think hd's response is more true, but perhaps not necessarily how he meant it. When 3rd party candidates do manage to get air time, they often don't know exactly how to behave and come across as kooks. If a major candidate does that, and most do from time to time, they often get enough air time that some wackiness gets filtered down. But since 3rd party candidates get so much less air time, their wackiness comes across as more defining.
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Benjamin Franklin was also NOT A PRESIDENT. He was certainly a pivotal member of the revolution, a patriot, an in general learned man, and one hell of a diplomat, but a president he never was.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again: Then why is he on money and Mount Rushmore? You can't explain that.
Also, he invented electricity.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"Don't vote, it only encourages them."
points to whoever knows who i'm quoting.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Because they've been conditioned to think they'd be "wasting" their vote.I really think it could have an impact if ten million people or so who won't vote any more would cast protest votes for third party candidates.
The wasted vote argument is such a self fulfilling view.
That's what people said 12 years ago about the Nader campaign. "Even if he can't win, a big enough showing of rebellion from the left will make the Democrats listen to us."
We got Bush, Democrats blamed the left wing for Gore's loss, closed ranks and shifted right.
If you want 3rd party or if you want change in the 2 parties we have, you can't do it with a marquee race. You've got to start at the bottom and build your way up. Organize. Build a movement, in or out of electoral politics.
The Tea Party could have done that, but they've largely been co-opted and the candidates they supported were either insane or standard conservative Republicans lying to them.
The Occupy movement might be able to do something, if it's able to regain momentum come the spring.
I would like to see the two party system destroyed. Barring that I would like to have at least one choice in the the 2 party system that respects the constitution and human rights. The two parties are dangerously similar in how they govern. In spite of their rhetoric they both expand government and deficits. They are both systematically destroying individual liberty. They both love war and imperialism. And they both think we are too stupid to run our own lives and we should just obey them.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm writing America off as a bad idea. Stupid people voting for criminals. System's broken, but people keep voting for the same idiots with the hammers breaking the machine.
I have three and a half years before I can bail. I already have a place to go. I'll watch it go up in flames from a safe distance.
We never should have left the trees. Frankly, this whole leaving the ocean idea was rotten from the beginning.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
thejeff, you may be the most cynical person on this thread. Basically, you're saying nothing will ever change.
We've tried the grassroots thing. People like you shoot it down because it either doesn't fit your worldview (Libertarianism) or it gets Bush elected (Green Party/Nader). You seem to forget that Clinton was successful because he veered right after a disastrous first two years in office pandering to the left. Outside of the coastal urban areas, we are a center-right country.
I hate to break it to you, but very little of the Democratic party is "liberal" in the modern American sense of the word. Your average union member isn't exactly demanding gay marriage rights and probably thinks abortion is wrong. Prop 8 got quite a bit of help from the large African American turnout in California. Tends to be a fairly religious voting bloc. Hispanics tend to be quite socially conservative.
The Democrat party is made up of a small liberal core and a bunch of single issue blocs (unions only care about labor laws, tend to be conservative otherwise, blacks only care about leveling the playing field a bit, tend to be socially conservative otherwise, Hispanics tend to vote on immigration issues and some playing field issues, tend to be socially conservative otherwise). That's why someone like Reagan can come along once in a while and, say, steal the unions, and a Dubya can make a dent in the Hispanic vote (he actually did pretty well for a Repub with them due to his fairly enlightened immigration views, the rest of the party screwed that up).
But that's neither here nor there.
To riff off the last line of your last post, no, voting for Obama isn't going to accomplish a thing. Continually voting for the status quo (which is all voting for Obama, Romney or any of those jackasses is, really) never does.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just a thought: the national voter turnout rate never seems to go much over 50%, and most of the time it is considerably less.
Anyone want to rethink their "stupid people voting for criminals position"?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Just a thought: the national voter turnout rate never seems to go much over 50%, and most of the time it is considerably less.
Anyone want to rethink their "stupid people voting for criminals position"?
That's part of why the argument that minorities and individuals should just shut and obey the majority is such a sick joke. The criminal scumbags in government aren't even elected by majorities.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would like to see the two party system destroyed. Barring that I would like to have at least one choice in the the 2 party system that respects the constitution and human rights. The two parties are dangerously similar in how they govern. In spite of their rhetoric they both expand government and deficits. They are both systematically destroying individual liberty. They both love war and imperialism. And they both think we are too stupid to run our own lives and we should just obey them.OK, fine. Those are good goals. Do you have anyway to work towards achieving them?
If you want the 2 party system destroyed what do you want to replace it? Do you want to change the Constitution to make this happen? How?And no, voting for Ron Paul in the Republican primary isn't going to accomplish a thing.
Of course. I choose to work with in the system for now. I'm having coffee with a congressional candidate in the morning. I'm active in local, county, and state politics. It's not just a case of supporting a candidate in a straw poll. The most plausible route to change currently seems to be through the party. The challenge to working within the party structure is that there is an expectation of loyalty even to god awful candidates. No matter how bad our twit is their twit is worse.
This is what I hate about the 2 party system our party is less interested in a candidate who would be excellent that someone to beat Obama. Beating Obama is a wonderful goal, but it would be nice if we didn't pick a scumbag for our part.
I would like to see the two party system replaced with a multi party system that is actually issue driven. I might not like this outcome. It could lead to more compromise, and I'm not a fan of compromise, but the 2 party system fails to serve us well.
I don't think we need to change the constitution; I think we should start following it and the courts should start enforcing it.
You can continue to discount the tea party and RP supporters, but I see the impact we are having at all levels. The GOP wouldn't need to drive that many of us away to guarantee its defeat and eventual death. Two invasive big government war loving parties seems redundant to me.
I do understand some of the frustration of people who throw up their hands and walk away from the system, but I still think if just a tenth of the people who don't vote (about ten million) voted third party it would start to change the system.
now, i'd just like to ask something of you guys:
at what point would you consider the system so broken that you'd be willing to do your duty as layed down by the declaration of independence and overthrow your existing government.
i do genuinely like this about america. they have a failsafe inbuilt incase their government becomes so corrupt that it no longer serves the people.