Eisenhower or McGovern?
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 05:29:06 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  U.S. General Discussion (Moderators: The Dowager Mod, Chancellor Tanterterg)
  Eisenhower or McGovern?
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2]
Poll
Question: Eisenhower or McGovern? (who do you like better as President)
#1
Eisenhower
#2
McGovern
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results


Author Topic: Eisenhower or McGovern?  (Read 3014 times)
🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸
shua
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 25,665
Nepal


Political Matrix
E: 1.29, S: -0.70

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #25 on: September 10, 2014, 12:11:01 AM »

Didn't JFK help water down Ike's 1957 Civil Rights Act? 

McGovern has much to recommend him, but I'm going with Ike on this one.  The 1950s had a lot of crises, but people look back at it as a relatively peaceful time, which is in large part thanks to how Ike handled things.
Logged
FEMA Camp Administrator
Cathcon
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,284
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #26 on: September 10, 2014, 12:31:24 AM »


The same Eisenhower who was sympathetic to segregationists and refused to take a stand against McCarthyism even after Joe McCarthy started trying to paint George Marshall as an unpatriotic Soviet sympathizer?  Yeah, that guy sure was a real leader Roll Eyes  Eisenhower was a great *military* leader/General.  However, he was a pretty mediocre *political* leader.

It is funny, because you could have just as well been talking about JFK there.

Nice try, but although it is true that both John and Robert Kennedy were awful on McCarthyism, the idea that either was sympathetic to segregationists is simply absurd.  Thanks for playing though, better luck next time!

In the 1950's, it was considered by some that if segregationists were to run their own states' rights candidate, JFK might be a good choice for Vice President given his record on the issue. It was only in the buildup to 1960 where JFK knew he'd need the support of northern liberals to win the nomination that he tacked a different course (at least rhetorically) on the issue.
Logged
MATTROSE94
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,803
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -5.29, S: -6.43

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #27 on: September 10, 2014, 06:55:18 AM »

Even though I like McGovern a lot and admire him, I feel that he would have ended up as a one-termer if he was elected in 1972 due to the poor economy. Furthermore, I feel that the Republicans would have regained both houses of Congress in 1974 if McGovern was elected.
Logged
Chancellor Tanterterg
Mr. X
Moderator
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,203
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #28 on: September 10, 2014, 08:17:12 AM »


The same Eisenhower who was sympathetic to segregationists and refused to take a stand against McCarthyism even after Joe McCarthy started trying to paint George Marshall as an unpatriotic Soviet sympathizer?  Yeah, that guy sure was a real leader Roll Eyes  Eisenhower was a great *military* leader/General.  However, he was a pretty mediocre *political* leader.

It is funny, because you could have just as well been talking about JFK there.

Nice try, but although it is true that both John and Robert Kennedy were awful on McCarthyism, the idea that either was sympathetic to segregationists is simply absurd.  Thanks for playing though, better luck next time!

In the 1950's, it was considered by some that if segregationists were to run their own states' rights candidate, JFK might be a good choice for Vice President given his record on the issue. It was only in the buildup to 1960 where JFK knew he'd need the support of northern liberals to win the nomination that he tacked a different course (at least rhetorically) on the issue.

Please cite, I highly doubt that given that the segregationist crowd even backed slates of unpledged electors over the Kennedy/Johnson ticket, plus I doubt those folks were too fond of Catholics Tongue  This sounds a bit like revisionist history, tbh
Logged
Heimdal
HenryH
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 289


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #29 on: September 10, 2014, 10:04:31 AM »


The same Eisenhower who was sympathetic to segregationists and refused to take a stand against McCarthyism even after Joe McCarthy started trying to paint George Marshall as an unpatriotic Soviet sympathizer?  Yeah, that guy sure was a real leader Roll Eyes  Eisenhower was a great *military* leader/General.  However, he was a pretty mediocre *political* leader.

It is funny, because you could have just as well been talking about JFK there.

Nice try, but although it is true that both John and Robert Kennedy were awful on McCarthyism, the idea that either was sympathetic to segregationists is simply absurd.  Thanks for playing though, better luck next time!

He was lukewarm on the issue of Civil Rights for a long time. At least until the events in Birmingham in 1962-1963. Above all Kennedy was a pragmatist. That is why it took him so long to throw McCarthy under the buss, and it is also why he didn’t cut loose the segregationists in his own party earlier.

So you can’t really claim that Kennedy was any better than Eisenhower. Eisenhower sent federal troops to Arkansas in 1957, he signed a (although weak) Civil Rights bill and pushed forward the desegregation of the Armed Forces that Truman had started. 
Anything else you want to know?
Logged
Chancellor Tanterterg
Mr. X
Moderator
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,203
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #30 on: September 10, 2014, 11:16:33 AM »
« Edited: September 10, 2014, 11:20:38 AM by Ten in Roman Numerals »


The same Eisenhower who was sympathetic to segregationists and refused to take a stand against McCarthyism even after Joe McCarthy started trying to paint George Marshall as an unpatriotic Soviet sympathizer?  Yeah, that guy sure was a real leader Roll Eyes  Eisenhower was a great *military* leader/General.  However, he was a pretty mediocre *political* leader.

It is funny, because you could have just as well been talking about JFK there.

Nice try, but although it is true that both John and Robert Kennedy were awful on McCarthyism, the idea that either was sympathetic to segregationists is simply absurd.  Thanks for playing though, better luck next time!

He was lukewarm on the issue of Civil Rights for a long time. At least until the events in Birmingham in 1962-1963. Above all Kennedy was a pragmatist. That is why it took him so long to throw McCarthy under the buss, and it is also why he didn’t cut loose the segregationists in his own party earlier.

So you can’t really claim that Kennedy was any better than Eisenhower. Eisenhower sent federal troops to Arkansas in 1957, he signed a (although weak) Civil Rights bill and pushed forward the desegregation of the Armed Forces that Truman had started.  
Anything else you want to know?


I'd argue that both John and Robert Kennedy were true-believers when it came to McCarthyism rather than simply pragmatic politicians who hoped on the band wagon.  Robert Kennedy was even supposed to get the position that ultimately went to Roy Cohn before McCarthy realized that the optics could've been problematic (McCarthy and Kennedy were both Catholic and many of their targets were Jewish).  Pointing out that the Kennedys were awful on the subject of McCarthyism doesn't take away from the fact that Eisenhower showed an appalling lack of leadership in that area (even when McCarthy went after George Marshall).

I never claimed JFK was some sort of champion of civil rights Roll Eyes  In fact, he was objectively a disappointment in that area and a generally "meh" President aside from his handling of the Cuban Missile Crisis.  If you expect me to vigorously defend Kennedy's civil rights record, you're going to be disappointed.  However, to say that JFK was sympathetic to the segregationists (the way Eisenhower was) is simply ludicrous.  Eisenhower infamously referred to his appointment of Earl Warren to the Supreme Court as "the biggest damn fool mistake I ever made" in part due to Warren's role in the ultimate verdict in Brown v. Board of Education.  Once Truman got the ball rolling on desegregating the armed forces, it would've been politically unfeasible for Eisenhower not to have acted as he did on that issue once elected.  By the same token, Faubus essentially forced Eisenhower's hand in Arkansas.  I suspect that, all things being equal, Eisenhower would've preferred to have been able to avoid getting involved in Little Rock.  In fairness, Al's "who cares why people do good things?" point applies here.

Note that I am not arguing that Eisenhower *was* a segregationist.  I am merely saying that he was sympathetic to them, albeit not to an extent that he was willing to risk his political fortunes by siding with them on high-profile issues when push came to shove.  If you said Kennedy was a complete disappointment on civil rights who, while he may've meant well, ultimately did what was politically expedient rather than what was right then I'd agree.  But you and a few others seem to be arguing that Kennedy was sympathetic to segregationists (with even Cathcon claiming that he was actually under serious consideration for a VP slot on a segregationist ticket) and there is simply no factual basis for that claim.  It smacks of revisionist history.

Btw, even if we hypothetically said you were right, how does Kennedy's lack of leadership on civil rights and especially McCarthyism relate to the points I raised about Eisenhower in my original post?
Logged
Mechaman
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,791
Jamaica
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #31 on: September 11, 2014, 07:30:51 AM »


The same Eisenhower who was sympathetic to segregationists and refused to take a stand against McCarthyism even after Joe McCarthy started trying to paint George Marshall as an unpatriotic Soviet sympathizer?  Yeah, that guy sure was a real leader Roll Eyes  Eisenhower was a great *military* leader/General.  However, he was a pretty mediocre *political* leader.

It is funny, because you could have just as well been talking about JFK there.

Nice try, but although it is true that both John and Robert Kennedy were awful on McCarthyism, the idea that either was sympathetic to segregationists is simply absurd.  Thanks for playing though, better luck next time!

He was lukewarm on the issue of Civil Rights for a long time. At least until the events in Birmingham in 1962-1963. Above all Kennedy was a pragmatist. That is why it took him so long to throw McCarthy under the buss, and it is also why he didn’t cut loose the segregationists in his own party earlier.

So you can’t really claim that Kennedy was any better than Eisenhower. Eisenhower sent federal troops to Arkansas in 1957, he signed a (although weak) Civil Rights bill and pushed forward the desegregation of the Armed Forces that Truman had started.  
Anything else you want to know?


I'd argue that both John and Robert Kennedy were true-believers when it came to McCarthyism rather than simply pragmatic politicians who hoped on the band wagon.  Robert Kennedy was even supposed to get the position that ultimately went to Roy Cohn before McCarthy realized that the optics could've been problematic (McCarthy and Kennedy were both Catholic and many of their targets were Jewish).  Pointing out that the Kennedys were awful on the subject of McCarthyism doesn't take away from the fact that Eisenhower showed an appalling lack of leadership in that area (even when McCarthy went after George Marshall).

I never claimed JFK was some sort of champion of civil rights Roll Eyes  In fact, he was objectively a disappointment in that area and a generally "meh" President aside from his handling of the Cuban Missile Crisis.  If you expect me to vigorously defend Kennedy's civil rights record, you're going to be disappointed.  However, to say that JFK was sympathetic to the segregationists (the way Eisenhower was) is simply ludicrous.  Eisenhower infamously referred to his appointment of Earl Warren to the Supreme Court as "the biggest damn fool mistake I ever made" in part due to Warren's role in the ultimate verdict in Brown v. Board of Education.  Once Truman got the ball rolling on desegregating the armed forces, it would've been politically unfeasible for Eisenhower not to have acted as he did on that issue once elected.  By the same token, Faubus essentially forced Eisenhower's hand in Arkansas.  I suspect that, all things being equal, Eisenhower would've preferred to have been able to avoid getting involved in Little Rock.  In fairness, Al's "who cares why people do good things?" point applies here.

Note that I am not arguing that Eisenhower *was* a segregationist.  I am merely saying that he was sympathetic to them, albeit not to an extent that he was willing to risk his political fortunes by siding with them on high-profile issues when push came to shove.  If you said Kennedy was a complete disappointment on civil rights who, while he may've meant well, ultimately did what was politically expedient rather than what was right then I'd agree.  But you and a few others seem to be arguing that Kennedy was sympathetic to segregationists (with even Cathcon claiming that he was actually under serious consideration for a VP slot on a segregationist ticket) and there is simply no factual basis for that claim.  It smacks of revisionist history.

Btw, even if we hypothetically said you were right, how does Kennedy's lack of leadership on civil rights and especially McCarthyism relate to the points I raised about Eisenhower in my original post?

I remember reading a conservative criticism of Kennedy that was published in 1962 or so that said that many Southern Democrats had a high opinion of Kennedy and would've thought he would be one of the best candidates for office due to how he was, at the time, handling the controversial segregation issue.  However, for the life of me I don't think they went as far as to suggest that Kennedy should run as the VP for a hypothetical Dixiecratic ticket.
Logged
Cryptic
Shadowlord88
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 891


Political Matrix
E: -5.55, S: -6.09

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #32 on: September 11, 2014, 08:25:05 AM »

McGovern
Logged
Chancellor Tanterterg
Mr. X
Moderator
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,203
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #33 on: September 11, 2014, 09:28:04 AM »


The same Eisenhower who was sympathetic to segregationists and refused to take a stand against McCarthyism even after Joe McCarthy started trying to paint George Marshall as an unpatriotic Soviet sympathizer?  Yeah, that guy sure was a real leader Roll Eyes  Eisenhower was a great *military* leader/General.  However, he was a pretty mediocre *political* leader.

It is funny, because you could have just as well been talking about JFK there.

Nice try, but although it is true that both John and Robert Kennedy were awful on McCarthyism, the idea that either was sympathetic to segregationists is simply absurd.  Thanks for playing though, better luck next time!

He was lukewarm on the issue of Civil Rights for a long time. At least until the events in Birmingham in 1962-1963. Above all Kennedy was a pragmatist. That is why it took him so long to throw McCarthy under the buss, and it is also why he didn’t cut loose the segregationists in his own party earlier.

So you can’t really claim that Kennedy was any better than Eisenhower. Eisenhower sent federal troops to Arkansas in 1957, he signed a (although weak) Civil Rights bill and pushed forward the desegregation of the Armed Forces that Truman had started.  
Anything else you want to know?


I'd argue that both John and Robert Kennedy were true-believers when it came to McCarthyism rather than simply pragmatic politicians who hoped on the band wagon.  Robert Kennedy was even supposed to get the position that ultimately went to Roy Cohn before McCarthy realized that the optics could've been problematic (McCarthy and Kennedy were both Catholic and many of their targets were Jewish).  Pointing out that the Kennedys were awful on the subject of McCarthyism doesn't take away from the fact that Eisenhower showed an appalling lack of leadership in that area (even when McCarthy went after George Marshall).

I never claimed JFK was some sort of champion of civil rights Roll Eyes  In fact, he was objectively a disappointment in that area and a generally "meh" President aside from his handling of the Cuban Missile Crisis.  If you expect me to vigorously defend Kennedy's civil rights record, you're going to be disappointed.  However, to say that JFK was sympathetic to the segregationists (the way Eisenhower was) is simply ludicrous.  Eisenhower infamously referred to his appointment of Earl Warren to the Supreme Court as "the biggest damn fool mistake I ever made" in part due to Warren's role in the ultimate verdict in Brown v. Board of Education.  Once Truman got the ball rolling on desegregating the armed forces, it would've been politically unfeasible for Eisenhower not to have acted as he did on that issue once elected.  By the same token, Faubus essentially forced Eisenhower's hand in Arkansas.  I suspect that, all things being equal, Eisenhower would've preferred to have been able to avoid getting involved in Little Rock.  In fairness, Al's "who cares why people do good things?" point applies here.

Note that I am not arguing that Eisenhower *was* a segregationist.  I am merely saying that he was sympathetic to them, albeit not to an extent that he was willing to risk his political fortunes by siding with them on high-profile issues when push came to shove.  If you said Kennedy was a complete disappointment on civil rights who, while he may've meant well, ultimately did what was politically expedient rather than what was right then I'd agree.  But you and a few others seem to be arguing that Kennedy was sympathetic to segregationists (with even Cathcon claiming that he was actually under serious consideration for a VP slot on a segregationist ticket) and there is simply no factual basis for that claim.  It smacks of revisionist history.

Btw, even if we hypothetically said you were right, how does Kennedy's lack of leadership on civil rights and especially McCarthyism relate to the points I raised about Eisenhower in my original post?

I remember reading a conservative criticism of Kennedy that was published in 1962 or so that said that many Southern Democrats had a high opinion of Kennedy and would've thought he would be one of the best candidates for office due to how he was, at the time, handling the controversial segregation issue.  However, for the life of me I don't think they went as far as to suggest that Kennedy should run as the VP for a hypothetical Dixiecratic ticket.

Surely you'd agree that what you mentioned is hardly an objective source about Kennedy's civil rights record, no?
Logged
Mechaman
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,791
Jamaica
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #34 on: September 11, 2014, 12:36:47 PM »
« Edited: September 11, 2014, 05:06:19 PM by Mechaman »


The same Eisenhower who was sympathetic to segregationists and refused to take a stand against McCarthyism even after Joe McCarthy started trying to paint George Marshall as an unpatriotic Soviet sympathizer?  Yeah, that guy sure was a real leader Roll Eyes  Eisenhower was a great *military* leader/General.  However, he was a pretty mediocre *political* leader.

It is funny, because you could have just as well been talking about JFK there.

Nice try, but although it is true that both John and Robert Kennedy were awful on McCarthyism, the idea that either was sympathetic to segregationists is simply absurd.  Thanks for playing though, better luck next time!

He was lukewarm on the issue of Civil Rights for a long time. At least until the events in Birmingham in 1962-1963. Above all Kennedy was a pragmatist. That is why it took him so long to throw McCarthy under the buss, and it is also why he didn’t cut loose the segregationists in his own party earlier.

So you can’t really claim that Kennedy was any better than Eisenhower. Eisenhower sent federal troops to Arkansas in 1957, he signed a (although weak) Civil Rights bill and pushed forward the desegregation of the Armed Forces that Truman had started.  
Anything else you want to know?


I'd argue that both John and Robert Kennedy were true-believers when it came to McCarthyism rather than simply pragmatic politicians who hoped on the band wagon.  Robert Kennedy was even supposed to get the position that ultimately went to Roy Cohn before McCarthy realized that the optics could've been problematic (McCarthy and Kennedy were both Catholic and many of their targets were Jewish).  Pointing out that the Kennedys were awful on the subject of McCarthyism doesn't take away from the fact that Eisenhower showed an appalling lack of leadership in that area (even when McCarthy went after George Marshall).

I never claimed JFK was some sort of champion of civil rights Roll Eyes  In fact, he was objectively a disappointment in that area and a generally "meh" President aside from his handling of the Cuban Missile Crisis.  If you expect me to vigorously defend Kennedy's civil rights record, you're going to be disappointed.  However, to say that JFK was sympathetic to the segregationists (the way Eisenhower was) is simply ludicrous.  Eisenhower infamously referred to his appointment of Earl Warren to the Supreme Court as "the biggest damn fool mistake I ever made" in part due to Warren's role in the ultimate verdict in Brown v. Board of Education.  Once Truman got the ball rolling on desegregating the armed forces, it would've been politically unfeasible for Eisenhower not to have acted as he did on that issue once elected.  By the same token, Faubus essentially forced Eisenhower's hand in Arkansas.  I suspect that, all things being equal, Eisenhower would've preferred to have been able to avoid getting involved in Little Rock.  In fairness, Al's "who cares why people do good things?" point applies here.

Note that I am not arguing that Eisenhower *was* a segregationist.  I am merely saying that he was sympathetic to them, albeit not to an extent that he was willing to risk his political fortunes by siding with them on high-profile issues when push came to shove.  If you said Kennedy was a complete disappointment on civil rights who, while he may've meant well, ultimately did what was politically expedient rather than what was right then I'd agree.  But you and a few others seem to be arguing that Kennedy was sympathetic to segregationists (with even Cathcon claiming that he was actually under serious consideration for a VP slot on a segregationist ticket) and there is simply no factual basis for that claim.  It smacks of revisionist history.

Btw, even if we hypothetically said you were right, how does Kennedy's lack of leadership on civil rights and especially McCarthyism relate to the points I raised about Eisenhower in my original post?

I remember reading a conservative criticism of Kennedy that was published in 1962 or so that said that many Southern Democrats had a high opinion of Kennedy and would've thought he would be one of the best candidates for office due to how he was, at the time, handling the controversial segregation issue.  However, for the life of me I don't think they went as far as to suggest that Kennedy should run as the VP for a hypothetical Dixiecratic ticket.

Surely you'd agree that what you mentioned is hardly an objective source about Kennedy's civil rights record, no?

Of course.  I'm just saying that even from the most conservative sources I cannot find something as incredible as what Cathcon suggests.

And this isn't to entirely excuse Kennedy's handling of the issue in the 1950s, but even the most adamant Kennedy critic must acknowledge that it would've been much harder for a Catholic Democrat to successfully come out as pro-civil rights leading up to his nomination than it would for a white protestant.  Even with Kennedy's moderate heroistic acrobatics many Southern Ds still did not trust him.  While the country (including the South) had progressed past the 1928 campaign's open anti-Catholic campaign, running as a Catholic with a pretty liberal Civil Rights record would've been a very hard sell for Kennedy to pull off in an era where the Democrats needed the South to win and you had a war hero as President who was real popular.  Yeah he could've been less of a spineless dweeb about everything, but then he probably wouldn't come near the presidency in 1960.

If his name was John Franklin Kendall and was an Episcopalian this probably wouldn'tve been an issue.  This is kind of like how Obama was anti-gay marriage in 2008, but to a greater extent.
Logged
Rockefeller GOP
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,936
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #35 on: September 11, 2014, 05:46:13 PM »

Ike, easily.  As for the civil rights stuff, most unbiased (read: non-liberals) would agree that it's pretty absurd to paint Eisenhower as lukewarm on civil rights but Kennedy as "liberal" (I still want to know what modern liberal had the genius PR idea to convince everyone that supporting the end of slavery/the end of Jim Crow/racial equality is inherently a "liberal" thing) on them is a pretty suspect claim.
Logged
All Along The Watchtower
Progressive Realist
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,426
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #36 on: September 11, 2014, 09:18:27 PM »

The one who didn't have the CIA overthrow democratically elected governments.
Logged
pbrower2a
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,843
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #37 on: September 11, 2014, 11:17:03 PM »

Where are all the people who voted Eisenhower?  Huh  Come on, don't be shy.  Seriously, nobody will yell at you.  Tongue

I'm one of them. I am a Democrat, and a very partisan one now.

Eisenhower was the right President for his time. His Interstate Highway System may have had its flaws, but it spurred economic growth where it was built and paid for itself with a reduction in highway carnage. He got us out of a stalemated war, and kept us out of others. He presided over shrunken deficits and surpluses. He let Joseph R. McCarthy implode. He showed some Southern pols what the law was on segregation. He avoided scandals.

He was so effective that his VP came close to succeeding him as President and probably would have had he not been so ugly. That's a reference to the appearance of Richard Nixon.

He proved himself with some amazing electoral successes. He won the two northern states (Massachusetts and Rhode Island) that went for Al Smith in 1928, and he won the two states that have been the exceptions to the two subsequent 49-state wipe-outs of 1972 (Massachusetts) and 1984 (Minnesota) -- twice. He put four Western states (Arizona, Idaho, Utah, and Wyoming) into the GOP camp to the extent that only once has any one of them gone for the Democratic nominee after 1952.
Logged
Antonio the Sixth
Antonio V
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,964
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #38 on: September 12, 2014, 05:10:45 AM »

Logged
CapoteMonster
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 486
United States


Political Matrix
E: -3.49, S: -2.61

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #39 on: September 12, 2014, 02:47:42 PM »

The one who didn't have the CIA overthrow democratically elected governments.
Logged
IceSpear
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,841
United States


Political Matrix
E: -6.19, S: -6.43

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #40 on: September 12, 2014, 10:18:48 PM »

Eisenhower because we already know he was a good president. McGovern is a question mark. If his campaign was any indication, he easily could've been a hapless failure as president.
Logged
Oldiesfreak1854
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,674
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #41 on: September 17, 2014, 05:57:13 PM »

McGovern never became president, and it's a darn good thing for America.  His extreme anti-war views, support of abortion, and advocacy of bad science would have been disastrous for our country if he'd made it to the White House.  On the other hand, you have a moderate Republican who supported most of the New Deal, helped save the world from Nazi tyranny, fought for civil rights, and stood strong against the Soviet Union.

Needless to say, Ike wins by lightyears.
Logged
🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸
shua
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 25,665
Nepal


Political Matrix
E: 1.29, S: -0.70

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #42 on: September 17, 2014, 07:49:56 PM »

McGovern never became president, and it's a darn good thing for America.  His extreme anti-war views, support of abortion, and advocacy of bad science would have been disastrous for our country if he'd made it to the White House.  On the other hand, you have a moderate Republican who supported most of the New Deal, helped save the world from Nazi tyranny, fought for civil rights, and stood strong against the Soviet Union.

Needless to say, Ike wins by lightyears.

McGovern's moderate views on abortion in 72 would disqualify him from being on a Democratic ticket today. And "advocacy of bad science"??
Logged
Oldiesfreak1854
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,674
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #43 on: September 18, 2014, 05:58:03 PM »
« Edited: September 18, 2014, 06:01:19 PM by Jo March Bhaer »

McGovern never became president, and it's a darn good thing for America.  His extreme anti-war views, support of abortion, and advocacy of bad science would have been disastrous for our country if he'd made it to the White House.  On the other hand, you have a moderate Republican who supported most of the New Deal, helped save the world from Nazi tyranny, fought for civil rights, and stood strong against the Soviet Union.

Needless to say, Ike wins by lightyears.

McGovern's moderate views on abortion in 72 would disqualify him from being on a Democratic ticket today. And "advocacy of bad science"??
http://michaelpollan.com/interviews/michael-pollan-debunks-food-myths/

Although everyone thinks saturated fat causes heart disease and obesity, the scientific evidence supporting that is outdated, and flimsy at best.  McGovern chaired the committee that published the federal government's low-fat diet recommendations, causing people to eat more processed sugars and artificial trans fats.  Simply put, people like him are responsible for the ever-increasing levels of obesity in this country, as well as countless deaths and/or impairments from heart disease, diabetes, and other diseases.
Logged
Chancellor Tanterterg
Mr. X
Moderator
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,203
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #44 on: September 18, 2014, 06:14:00 PM »

McGovern never became president, and it's a darn good thing for America.  His extreme anti-war views, support of abortion, and advocacy of bad science would have been disastrous for our country if he'd made it to the White House.  On the other hand, you have a moderate Republican who supported most of the New Deal, helped save the world from Nazi tyranny, fought for civil rights, and stood strong against the Soviet Union.

Needless to say, Ike wins by lightyears.

McGovern's moderate views on abortion in 72 would disqualify him from being on a Democratic ticket today. And "advocacy of bad science"??
http://michaelpollan.com/interviews/michael-pollan-debunks-food-myths/

Although everyone thinks saturated fat causes heart disease and obesity, the scientific evidence supporting that is outdated, and flimsy at best.  McGovern chaired the committee that published the federal government's low-fat diet recommendations, causing people to eat more processed sugars and artificial trans fats.  Simply put, people like him are responsible for the ever-increasing levels of obesity in this country, as well as countless deaths and/or impairments from heart disease, diabetes, and other diseases.

Lol
Logged
Kushahontas
floating_to_sea
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,627
Kenya


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #45 on: September 19, 2014, 08:24:50 AM »

McGovern never became president, and it's a darn good thing for America.  His extreme anti-war views, support of abortion, and advocacy of bad science would have been disastrous for our country if he'd made it to the White House.  On the other hand, you have a moderate Republican who supported most of the New Deal, helped save the world from Nazi tyranny, fought for civil rights, and stood strong against the Soviet Union.

Needless to say, Ike wins by lightyears.

McGovern's moderate views on abortion in 72 would disqualify him from being on a Democratic ticket today. And "advocacy of bad science"??
http://michaelpollan.com/interviews/michael-pollan-debunks-food-myths/

Although everyone thinks saturated fat causes heart disease and obesity, the scientific evidence supporting that is outdated, and flimsy at best.  McGovern chaired the committee that published the federal government's low-fat diet recommendations, causing people to eat more processed sugars and artificial trans fats.  Simply put, people like him are responsible for the ever-increasing levels of obesity in this country, as well as countless deaths and/or impairments from heart disease, diabetes, and other diseases.

Lol
Logged
Antonio the Sixth
Antonio V
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,964
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #46 on: September 19, 2014, 02:12:46 PM »

So fats are actually totally innocuous to health? Wow, that's fantastic news! My meals are about to get much tastier. Cheesy
Logged
Blue3
Starwatcher
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,035
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #47 on: September 19, 2014, 10:43:10 PM »

94 have voted so far, and it's a tie... did not expect it to be so close.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2]  
« previous next »
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 0.077 seconds with 14 queries.