Presidential Survivor Discussion
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 03:43:55 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
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5
Author Topic: Presidential Survivor Discussion  (Read 13548 times)
Akno21
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,066
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #75 on: May 07, 2005, 03:26:12 PM »

If we ever do something like this again where it's clearly partisan (We could do it with the senate perhaps) we should divide up into two camps, Dems and Reps. Each side ranks five Presidents they want to keep off the island. After each five rounds, the lowest ranked President would be put on the island to be voted on. This way, people like FDR or Reagan wouldn't be voted off until at least Round 20 or so, but they aren't protected the whole time.
Logged
Frodo
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 24,509
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #76 on: May 07, 2005, 03:50:45 PM »

If we ever do something like this again where it's clearly partisan (We could do it with the senate perhaps) we should divide up into two camps, Dems and Reps. Each side ranks five Presidents they want to keep off the island. After each five rounds, the lowest ranked President would be put on the island to be voted on. This way, people like FDR or Reagan wouldn't be voted off until at least Round 20 or so, but they aren't protected the whole time.


or, alternatively, anyone who chooses to restart these Presidential Threads from the very beginning (i.e. Round 1) could list only those presidents from the late 18th and 19th centuries (from George Washington to William McKinley) for the rest of us to choose to eliminate. 

they must not under any circumstances list any 20th or early 21 century presidents (from Theodore Roosevelt to George W. Bush) until those presidents from the preceding centuries had already been dealt with.   
Logged
Emsworth
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,054


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #77 on: May 07, 2005, 03:51:58 PM »

they must not under any circumstances list any 20th or early 21 century presidents (from Theodore Roosevelt to George W. Bush) until those presidents from the preceding centuries had already been dealt with.
Wouldn't that effectively be equivalent to just eliminating all the 19th century presidents, and leaving only the 20th century presidents to be voted on?
Logged
○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└
jfern
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 53,611


Political Matrix
E: -7.38, S: -8.36

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #78 on: May 07, 2005, 03:57:19 PM »

they must not under any circumstances list any 20th or early 21 century presidents (from Theodore Roosevelt to George W. Bush) until those presidents from the preceding centuries had already been dealt with.
Wouldn't that effectively be equivalent to just eliminating all the 19th century presidents, and leaving only the 20th century presidents to be voted on?

Hey, at least Carter won't be eliminated by partisans in the first round.
Logged
ATFFL
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,754
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #79 on: May 07, 2005, 05:35:21 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. 

Round Four?  Pfft!  The move against W. started in Round One!

Also, FDR would be the third modern democrat, unless you are counting Wilson, who should be too early to count as modern.

I propose that we come together in the spirit of bipartisanship to see that Abraham Lincoln wins.  We should do this just to reaky, really piss someone off. 
Logged
A18
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 23,794
Political Matrix
E: 9.23, S: -6.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #80 on: May 07, 2005, 05:41:43 PM »

I'm rooting for Grover Cleveland, personally.
Logged
ATFFL
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,754
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #81 on: May 07, 2005, 05:45:19 PM »

I'm rooting for Grover Cleveland, personally.

I ask again, do we need to vot ehim out twice?
Logged
A18
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 23,794
Political Matrix
E: 9.23, S: -6.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #82 on: May 07, 2005, 05:50:14 PM »

I'm rooting for Grover Cleveland, personally.

I ask again, do we need to vot ehim out twice?

Maybe he has immunity. Anyway, why do you want to vote him out?
Logged
DanimalBr
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 908


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #83 on: May 07, 2005, 05:51:21 PM »

I'm rooting for Grover Cleveland, personally.

I ask again, do we need to vot ehim out twice?


No.  We do not need to vote him out twice.   Once is good enough. 
Logged
ATFFL
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,754
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #84 on: May 07, 2005, 05:51:45 PM »

I'm rooting for Grover Cleveland, personally.

I ask again, do we need to vot ehim out twice?

Maybe he has immunity. Anyway, why do you want to vote him out?

He is not a particular target of mine, I just do not feel he belongs in the final few and want to know when his time comes, do we need to eliminate him twice.

If so, we should get rid of him once to level things out.
Logged
DanimalBr
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 908


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #85 on: May 07, 2005, 05:55:12 PM »

Tredrick, Grover Cleveland does not need to get eliminated twice.   I know he had two separate presidencies, but he is one man and only needs to get voted out once to be out of the game for good. 
Logged
Blue Rectangle
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,683


Political Matrix
E: 8.50, S: -0.62

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #86 on: May 07, 2005, 10:23:57 PM »

DanimalBr:
Congrats, you found a way to make the History forum more popular; all it needed was some bitter partisanship Wink
Logged
DanimalBr
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 908


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #87 on: May 07, 2005, 10:39:31 PM »

DanimalBr:
Congrats, you found a way to make the History forum more popular; all it needed was some bitter partisanship Wink

Thanks, Blue Rectangle.  I think in the past 2 weeks, the history forum probably has gotten more hits then it has in the past year.   The funny thing was on the day I started it, I wasn't sure where to do it.   At first I went to the "Fantasy Elections" thread but was immediately run out of there, so I locked that thread and came to the history forum.  Turns out to be a perfect match for it.  Smiley
Logged
Peter
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,030


Political Matrix
E: -0.77, S: -7.48

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #88 on: May 09, 2005, 08:25:13 PM »

Who are we taking next round?

Given that my wish to take out Zachary Taylor has now been fulfilled, I'd quite like to go after James Garfield next because as Emsworth pointed out elsewhere, his death actually precipitated reform. He was pretty useless, and amongst those remaining from the 19th Century is probably now the least deserving.
Logged
Schmitz in 1972
Liberty
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,317
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #89 on: May 12, 2005, 11:37:14 PM »

Looks like my list of presidents that need to be voted out needs an update

1. Clinton (While it's true he was mostly good as president, he's too devoid of principle to deserve to stay)
2. Lincoln (Face it, he's got to go sometime)
3. Taft (after all, the 16th amendment was added under his watch)
4. Polk (a bully who dragged us into the unnecessary Mexican War)
5. Jefferson (surprising how the entire stretch from Washington to JQA has flown completely under the radar)
Logged
TX_1824
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 542
United States


Political Matrix
E: 8.06, S: 2.17

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #90 on: May 12, 2005, 11:45:23 PM »

5. Jefferson (surprising how the entire stretch from Washington to JQA has flown completely under the radar)


We'll get to that once all the partisan hatred is pushed aside. The Republicans still have Clinton to deal with. The Democrats have Reagan and George HW Bush to knock off. If we were playing the game as to who were the worst, names like FDR would still be there and others like John Adams, John Q. Adams, Martin Van Buren, Chester A. Arthur and William Taft would all be gone by now.
Logged
The Duke
JohnD.Ford
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,270


Political Matrix
E: 0.13, S: -1.23

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #91 on: May 13, 2005, 01:29:32 AM »

The mentally unstable partisanship of Democrats shows again, as they contine to deny the greatness of Reagan.  The toppling of the USSR without a war is the greatest single accomplishment of any President with the exception of Lincoln's winning the Civil War.
Logged
minionofmidas
Lewis Trondheim
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 58,207
India


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #92 on: May 13, 2005, 08:03:54 AM »

The mentally unstable partisanship of Democrats shows again, as they contine to deny the greatness of Reagan.  The toppling of the USSR without a war is the greatest single accomplishment of any President with the exception of Lincoln's winning the Civil War.
I don't think Republicans should talk. (I'm not denying that Reagan doesn't really belong off yet, btw.)
Logged
jokerman
Cosmo Kramer
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,808
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #93 on: May 13, 2005, 04:25:30 PM »

The mentally unstable partisanship of Democrats shows again, as they contine to deny the greatness of Reagan.  The toppling of the USSR without a war is the greatest single accomplishment of any President with the exception of Lincoln's winning the Civil War.
Hell, I was trying to vote off people who really deserved to be kicked off like Franklin Pierce and James Buchanan in the beginning, but the Republicans' partisanship was threatening to kick off every modern democrat.  I had to fight against it.
Logged
Jake
dubya2004
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,621
Cuba


Political Matrix
E: -0.90, S: -0.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #94 on: May 13, 2005, 04:29:44 PM »

The Republicans reacted to the Democrats attempting to knock off Dubya by beating you guys at your own game and taking out FDR and LBJ. Then again, you try to knock off Dubya and barely are able to before Clinton gets taken out. Now, you try to vote off the best President since Truman just because he was a Republican.
Logged
Emsworth
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,054


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #95 on: May 13, 2005, 04:33:08 PM »

The mentally unstable partisanship of Democrats shows again, as they contine to deny the greatness of Reagan.  The toppling of the USSR without a war is the greatest single accomplishment of any President with the exception of Lincoln's winning the Civil War.
That is a narrow and parochial view. He permitted an enormous increase in the national debt; his administration was involved in the Iran-Contra affair; his economic policies were largely unsuccesful.

So even though I am right-of-center on fiscal policy, I still voted for Ronald Reagan.
Logged
A18
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 23,794
Political Matrix
E: 9.23, S: -6.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #96 on: May 13, 2005, 04:45:25 PM »

his economic policies were largely unsuccesful

We have some ultra-delusional Democrats on this board.



You are not right-of-center fiscally if you think Clinton is better than the guy who cut the top tax rate from 70% to 28% in the course of five years.
Logged
The Duke
JohnD.Ford
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,270


Political Matrix
E: 0.13, S: -1.23

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #97 on: May 13, 2005, 08:24:21 PM »

The mentally unstable partisanship of Democrats shows again, as they contine to deny the greatness of Reagan.  The toppling of the USSR without a war is the greatest single accomplishment of any President with the exception of Lincoln's winning the Civil War.
That is a narrow and parochial view. He permitted an enormous increase in the national debt; his administration was involved in the Iran-Contra affair; his economic policies were largely unsuccesful.

So even though I am right-of-center on fiscal policy, I still voted for Ronald Reagan.

The national debt did not increase as fast as it did under Democrat hero FDR.  The Iran-Contra Affair saved central America from communism.  His economic policies ended stagflation and tripled the value of the stock market.  Unemployment and inflation were both lower at the end of his term than at the start.

Next time you think about saying something, play it safe and stay quiet.
Logged
Emsworth
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,054


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #98 on: May 13, 2005, 08:33:00 PM »

The national debt did not increase as fast as it did under Democrat hero FDR.
I never implied that I had any particular affection for Roosevelt's presidency.

While I applaud Reagan for his tax cuts, his economic policy was, in my view, undermined by the ridiculous increases in defense spending. These absurdly high increases were far from necessary.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
Nevertheless, the actions involved contravened the law and the will of Congress.
Logged
○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└
jfern
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 53,611


Political Matrix
E: -7.38, S: -8.36

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #99 on: May 13, 2005, 08:36:05 PM »



The national debt did not increase as fast as it did under Democrat hero FDR.  The Iran-Contra Affair saved central America from communism.  His economic policies ended stagflation and tripled the value of the stock market.  Unemployment and inflation were both lower at the end of his term than at the start.

Next time you think about saying something, play it safe and stay quiet.

Meaningless, FDR had to end the Great Depression and win WWII. Since World War II, the national debt / GDP has gone down under every Democratic President (Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, Carter, Clinton). It's gone up under the last 4 Republicans (the Bushes, Ford, and Reagan), in particular Dubya and Reagan.

This is all while every Democratic President for the last 80 years had a higher average annual percentage increase in the number of jobs than every Republican President.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5  
« 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 0.067 seconds with 13 queries.