Presidential Survivor Discussion (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
June 04, 2024, 08:38:02 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Discussion
  History (Moderator: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee)
  Presidential Survivor Discussion (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Presidential Survivor Discussion  (Read 14303 times)
TheWildCard
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,529
United States


« on: April 28, 2005, 12:50:09 AM »

I've been voting for Johnson because out of all the Presidents we've had he is the only one that has managed to alianate the population enough to create a veto proof majority.

I voted for Jackson for all the reasons Blue Rectangle mentioned.
Logged
TheWildCard
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,529
United States


« Reply #1 on: April 28, 2005, 12:17:29 PM »

Why all the animosity towards Harding, but no mention of Grant yet?  Is Harding seen as more complicit in his scandals, while Grant was 100% patsy?

Grant has the advantage of being a great General whereas Harding was... well just another politician.
Logged
TheWildCard
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,529
United States


« Reply #2 on: May 03, 2005, 10:59:02 PM »

Wilson, he was pretty racist and peace without victory turned out pretty badly.
Logged
TheWildCard
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,529
United States


« Reply #3 on: May 04, 2005, 12:57:37 AM »

let's make our next attack Bill Clinton.  They'll never expect it :  )

Yes, if we plan it out now they will have no clue what so ever! Cheesy
Logged
TheWildCard
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,529
United States


« Reply #4 on: May 07, 2005, 01:23:35 AM »

I'd be willing to make a deal to save Lincoln.
Logged
TheWildCard
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,529
United States


« Reply #5 on: May 07, 2005, 12:11:19 PM »


As for the final five, I'm going to be the first to suggest that Cleveland and Mckinley may be dark horses.

Do we need to vote Grover off twice?

This round, FDR v. Bush, is the first truly partisan round.  LBJ is legitimately despised as President by many of us.  FDR's domestic fiscal policies may not be well liked, but he did deal with WWII properly.  I would imagine many of the people voting FDR off are looking to get rid of him in retaliation for the run on Bush.

Really, no one can judge W, Bubba, and Bush the Elder in a proper historical context at this point.  In 20 years we may live in a world where International Terrorism is all but forgotten and democracy in the Middle East is the accepted norm.  We are just now beginning to enter the phase where we can properly judge Reagan.

My point exactly.  I don't think W should necessarily win, but I think it's premature to be trying to get rid of him with so much dead wood left.  We have to make the Democrats pay dearly for their blind partisanship.

It's the Republicans, not the Democrats that have been showing blind partisanship in eliminating our modern Presidents in previous rounds.

People are not going after FDR in retaliation for anything.  The campaign against him started in Round 4!

Even in this round, the effort against GWB didn't start until it was obvious he was the only reason to save FDR. 

Texasgurl voted for Bush before I voted for FDR so thats not really true.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.022 seconds with 12 queries.