Print Page | Close Window

A true U.S Election in 2012!

Printed From: WorldHistoria Forum
Category: WORLD HISTORIA COMMUNITY
Forum Name: Historical Amusement
Forum Description: For role playing and mock battles
URL: http://www.worldhistoria.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=127459
Printed Date: 18 Nov 2019 at 17:30
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com


Topic: A true U.S Election in 2012!
Posted By: Guests
Subject: A true U.S Election in 2012!
Date Posted: 04 Apr 2012 at 12:21
Yep its a hypothetical election of (in my opinion) showing some of the most magnificent and sore losers of American Politicians

If there is enough attention for this we can organize a game which people can play as the general election candidates

Imagine Tomorrow if the present field of candidates and sitting politicians were replaced a flash by the great figures of American History suddenly by behavior of strange flash into our era

Yep this includes senators, representatives and supreme court judges too
of course I wont steal of the fun- you probably feel like ive skipped over so many important figures so you should propose them to be somewhere else in the government.

P.S: Pist I know this is a little corny so dont mention that!




Replies:
Posted By: Buckskins
Date Posted: 05 Apr 2012 at 01:20
Originally posted by fusong fusong wrote:

Yep its a hypothetical election of (in my opinion) showing some of the most magnificent and sore losers of American Politicians

If there is enough attention for this we can organize a game which people can play as the general election candidates

Imagine Tomorrow if the present field of candidates and sitting politicians were replaced a flash by the great figures of American History suddenly by behavior of strange flash into our era

Yep this includes senators, representatives and supreme court judges too
of course I wont steal of the fun- you probably feel like ive skipped over so many important figures so you should propose them to be somewhere else in the government.

P.S: Pist I know this is a little corny so dont mention that!


 It's a little corny.


-------------
May you live as long as you want to,
and may you want to as long as you live.


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 05 Apr 2012 at 02:21
Originally posted by Buckskins Buckskins wrote:

Originally posted by fusong fusong wrote:

Yep its a hypothetical election of (in my opinion) showing some of the most magnificent and sore losers of American Politicians

If there is enough attention for this we can organize a game which people can play as the general election candidates

Imagine Tomorrow if the present field of candidates and sitting politicians were replaced a flash by the great figures of American History suddenly by behavior of strange flash into our era

Yep this includes senators, representatives and supreme court judges too
of course I wont steal of the fun- you probably feel like ive skipped over so many important figures so you should propose them to be somewhere else in the government.

P.S: Pist I know this is a little corny so dont mention that!


 It's a little corny.

CryCryCry

u hurt my feelings
wah!!

CryCry


Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 05 Apr 2012 at 04:57
LOL
 
Actually it isn't a bad idea that would stretch out one's knowledge of US history. I can see it wouldn't appeal to someone ignorant of it. What we don't want is Congressman Brooks back again.  http://herb.ashp.cuny.edu/items/show/1548" rel="nofollow - http://herb.ashp.cuny.edu/items/show/1548
 
Otherwise I'm still choosing. We probably couldn't manage a whole Congress, but maybe we could get together a Senate.


-------------
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.



Posted By: Parnell
Date Posted: 05 Apr 2012 at 06:32
McGovern/Nader! What a ticket. 

-------------
http://xkcd.com/15/



Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it. ~George Bernard Shaw


Posted By: Captain Vancouver
Date Posted: 05 Apr 2012 at 10:12
The real winner will of course be the uber-rightist party (one of the two).
 
My vote went for McGovern/Nader.


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 05 Apr 2012 at 13:01
Wha...? No Abraham Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt ticket for classical liberal Republican?


Posted By: Captain Vancouver
Date Posted: 05 Apr 2012 at 13:15
Originally posted by Panther Panther wrote:

Wha...? No Abraham Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt ticket for classical liberal Republican?
 
Teddy Roosevelt presided over the initial global imperial awakenings of the US, which included a brutal war against the Philippines.
 
Lincoln? Not a bad guy, but likely would have traded black rights for a rapprochement with the Conferates.
 
Come to think of it, those are Republican values, are they not? I don't think I will change my vote.


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 05 Apr 2012 at 14:08
I am not trying to change your vote. I am just stating my view that i believe Lincoln was honestly against slavery but he was also pragmatist in the beginning of the ACW in trying too keep the union together and would have indeed done what you have said, but with qualifications that slavery didn't spread any further in the US and content too pass any laws that came his way that would let it die in time, of it's own irrationality where it already existed. Generally speaking, that was what the slave holders hated about him. However, he did abandon that effort by 1863 so there really wasn't anything from preventing him from giving the address that he did at Gettysburg. I mean southern couldn't hate him any less by that point. There would have been no rapprochement at any time during the civil war between the north and south as long as Lincoln sat & drew breath in the oval office and or until the south was independent from the US.

I do agree that Roosevelt was in some ways a nationalist and presided over the US during the dawn of global emergence, but from an my perspective, it is my belief that the man was the embodiment of American progressive Republicans of that era.

That was why i was a bit surprised in noting their absence.

Originally posted by Captain Vancouver Captain Vancouver wrote:


those are Republican values, are they not? I don't think I will change my vote.


I think your confusing traditional Republican values with the ones you believe too understand today?


Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 05 Apr 2012 at 20:50
I'd like to see Admiral Dewey running as a long shot President and possible VP. At least he won his war. And he might well have been President in 1900 if he hadn't (a) had the naive belief that the President's job was to execute laws passed by Congress, (b) believed that the next US war would be against Germany.
 
Nothing like believing in the Constitution and understanding global politics for stopping someone becoming President.


-------------
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.



Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 06 Apr 2012 at 02:32
Originally posted by Panther Panther wrote:

I am not trying to change your vote. I am just stating my view that i believe Lincoln was honestly against slavery but he was also pragmatist in the beginning of the ACW in trying too keep the union together and would have indeed done what you have said, but with qualifications that slavery didn't spread any further in the US and content too pass any laws that came his way that would let it die in time, of it's own irrationality where it already existed. Generally speaking, that was what the slave holders hated about him. However, he did abandon that effort by 1863 so there really wasn't anything from preventing him from giving the address that he did at Gettysburg. I mean southern couldn't hate him any less by that point. There would have been no rapprochement at any time during the civil war between the north and south as long as Lincoln sat & drew breath in the oval office and or until the south was independent from the US.

I do agree that Roosevelt was in some ways a nationalist and presided over the US during the dawn of global emergence, but from an my perspective, it is my belief that the man was the embodiment of American progressive Republicans of that era.

That was why i was a bit surprised in noting their absence.

Originally posted by Captain Vancouver Captain Vancouver wrote:


those are Republican values, are they not? I don't think I will change my vote.


I think your confusing traditional Republican values with the ones you believe too understand today?


Yes I considered putting them on tickets
But because of everything you mentioned I just wasn't sure how to in cooperate them into a modern ideological party- but come to think of it we could have a reform party, but that would mean we have to start a new thread

My Personal Choice in this poll is so obvious Embarrassed


Posted By: Captain Vancouver
Date Posted: 06 Apr 2012 at 02:48
Originally posted by Panther Panther wrote:


Originally posted by Captain Vancouver Captain Vancouver wrote:


those are Republican values, are they not? I don't think I will change my vote.


I think your confusing traditional Republican values with the ones you believe too understand today?
 
 
Perhaps this is so. It depends on how far back we want to go. What are "traditional Republican values", and why and when did they change, as you see it?


Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 06 Apr 2012 at 03:59
Pre-McKinley avoidance of 'foreign wars' was part of the Republican tradition. TR broke that tradition, only to see it back again from Taft on (until the cold war)i. TR while less of an opponent of the big corporations as he was made out to be, nevertheless did something to break up the trusts, making him a breaker of Republican traditions as they had become fixed with the Grant administration.
 
In considering 'Republican traditions' you have to distinguish between foreign and domestic affairs (with race probably a separable issue). About Lincoln we know very little about how he would have shaped up with regard to economic policy or foreign affairs.


-------------
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.



Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 06 Apr 2012 at 09:20
Originally posted by <div></div>
<div></div> 
<div>In considering 'Republican traditions' you have to distinguish between foreign and domestic affairs (with race probably a separable issue). About Lincoln we know very little about how he would have shaped up with regard to economic policy or foreign affairs. </div>[/QUOTE
 
In considering 'Republican traditions' you have to distinguish between foreign and domestic affairs (with race probably a separable issue). About Lincoln we know very little about how he would have shaped up with regard to economic policy or foreign affairs.
[/QUOTE wrote:




thats why I didnt add him to the poll

So any proposals for senators?


thats why I didnt add him to the poll

So any proposals for senators?


Posted By: Buckskins
Date Posted: 06 Apr 2012 at 10:57
As for the UK government. I suggest the following. 

Lobby for the right to elect your country's leader.

Abolish politicians that have the right to sit in your upper house by right of birth. In fact abolish the entire house.

Lobby for the right to abolish your Monarchs right to reject Parliament bills by refusing Royal Assent.

In the meantime do enjoy having fun with a Democratic country's elected leaders. Big smile


-------------
May you live as long as you want to,
and may you want to as long as you live.


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 06 Apr 2012 at 11:07
Originally posted by fusong fusong wrote:


But because of everything you mentioned I just wasn't sure how to in cooperate them into a modern ideological party- but come to think of it we could have a reform party, but that would mean we have to start a new thread


Liberal Republican Reform? Maybe we could work such a party into your thread without alienating the other candidates and thereby infuriating their base? Wink


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 06 Apr 2012 at 11:42
Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

Pre-McKinley avoidance of 'foreign wars' was part of the Republican tradition. TR broke that tradition, only to see it back again from Taft on (until the cold war)i. TR while less of an opponent of the big corporations as he was made out to be, nevertheless did something to break up the trusts, making him a breaker of Republican traditions as they had become fixed with the Grant administration.


T.R. did take US involvement with the world to next level, or allowed it too at least, as advocated by Admiral Mahan. The voyage of the great white fleet by one of the highlights. Domestically, another Republican traditions he broke with was in allowing or pushing for the growth of government. Such as his push for the pure food and drugs act, railroad regulation, conservation, his civil rights policy record were mixed (He spoke out against racism and discrimination, but was reluctant to use the power of the federal government to enforce the 15th amendment) and by the last years of his administration his views had shifted radically against big business that saw the birth of the square deal.
 
Quote
In considering 'Republican traditions' you have to distinguish between foreign and domestic affairs (with race probably a separable issue). About Lincoln we know very little about how he would have shaped up with regard to economic policy or foreign affairs.


Domestically, i had have too agree more or less. I tend to think that it has usually been overlooked by most historians because of the civil war. But i do think that is a little strange too hear you say same about foreign affairs Graham. I think there are a lot of foreign affairs examples we can go by here, like somehow managing too keep European powers from intervening in the civil war and how, during the Trent affair, thanks to Prince Albert intervening influence with the Queen, had given Lincoln's administration an out that he had pragmatically chosen rather than face any further escalation with the British.


Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 06 Apr 2012 at 22:06
Originally posted by Panther Panther wrote:

Quote
In considering 'Republican traditions' you have to distinguish between foreign and domestic affairs (with race probably a separable issue). About Lincoln we know very little about how he would have shaped up with regard to economic policy or foreign affairs.


Domestically, i had have too agree more or less. I tend to think that it has usually been overlooked by most historians because of the civil war. But i do think that is a little strange too hear you say same about foreign affairs Graham. I think there are a lot of foreign affairs examples we can go by here, like somehow managing too keep European powers from intervening in the civil war and how, during the Trent affair, thanks to Prince Albert intervening influence with the Queen, had given Lincoln's administration an out that he had pragmatically chosen rather than face any further escalation with the British.
 
I didn't mean that he didn't handle contemporary foreign affairs well. I just mean that his administration didn't have much choice in setting foreign affairs goals. What foreign aims he would have pursued if there had been no civil war we have no idea. (Unless someone can dig up anything he may have said about the Mexican war.)


-------------
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.




Print Page | Close Window

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 12.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Copyright ©2001-2018 Web Wiz Ltd. - https://www.webwiz.net