Poll: Who wins in 2012? (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 30, 2024, 04:35:47 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2012 Elections
  Poll: Who wins in 2012? (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Poll
Question: Which party wins the White House in 2012?
#1
Democrat
 
#2
Republican
 
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results

Total Voters: 57

Author Topic: Poll: Who wins in 2012?  (Read 14121 times)
Alexander Hamilton
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,167
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.58, S: -5.13

« on: November 06, 2009, 01:03:09 PM »

If the GOP nominates a fiscal conservative, they win.
Logged
Alexander Hamilton
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,167
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.58, S: -5.13

« Reply #1 on: November 06, 2009, 03:55:33 PM »

Calvin Coolidge is one of our best Presidents ever, and he did not serve a weak administration. His Presidency marked one of the most popular executives ever and a prosperous America.
Logged
Alexander Hamilton
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,167
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.58, S: -5.13

« Reply #2 on: November 06, 2009, 07:06:27 PM »

The dangerous 1915 KKK reached its peak during the second term of Calvin Coolidge.  

Your logic here fails so hard.
This is just as pathetic as what I've seen from many blowhard far right conservatives. I mean really pbrower, I didn't expect such a fail of an argument to be used by you.

Let me give you an example of what I'm talking about to put it into better perspective:

Nazi Germany reached its peak during the second and third terms of Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

Just because Group X grows the most while Leader A leads B country doesn't mean that Leader A is most responsible for the growth of Group X.

Here's another example (a bit more fun):

Progressive Rock reached its peak during Nixon's second term.
See, those two have little to do with each other, yet this is the kind of argument you are employing in the quote. The idea that Richard Nixon was responsible for the popularity of Progressive Rock is crazy, so is the idea that Calvin Coolidge is responsible for the rise of the KKK.

I tell you if James Cox or John W. Davis were presidents during this era the KKK would be just as strong, if not stronger (if Davis was president). I am not denying that the KKK was popular amongst Republicans in the Midwest, but their strength at the time was due to environment and not just because one guy sat in the Oval Office. The president is not f***ing god and can not dictate the direction of society, there are other factors present.

OK, OK, OK. There's a huge difference between the KKK and progressive rock; the KKK killed people, and progressive rock didn't. Coolidge didn't encourage people to join the Klan, but he didn't tell people to leave it. Heck, bootleggers killed more people than did the Klan.

Coolidge may not have been a corrupt, reckless, and dishonest man, but he was certainly unmemorable for any noteworthy achievements. Minority rights? He wasn't called Silent Cal without cause. Economic achievements? He presided over the most destructive bubble in American history.

Coolidge (like Dubya) demonstrates that a President with few achievements can be re-elected (or in his case he could be said to have been said elected to his then-current office) -- and the issue at hand is that 13 incumbent Presidents won election and 5 didn't.  That is no insignificant statistic. Whether it is continuing a term to which he was originally elected President or a term that resulted from succession of a President who died in office or resigned is not my consideration. 

I wasn't talking about Cox (how could he have been worse than Harding?) or Davis any more than I was talking about Thomas Dewey or Adlai Stevenson.

You MORON. Coolidge essentially killed the KKK. His refusal to incorporate them in his administration destroyed almost all influence they had. Minority rights? Coolidge was one of the best Presidents for minority rights we've had. I'd say he's second only to Abraham Lincoln.  Coolidge had many achievements. Was a return to normalcy not an achievement? A booming economy? Not to mention he only had ONE DAMN YEAR before re-election.

God, pbrower2a, you are easily one the most hackish, clouded, and straight up sinning posters on this forum. Your thought coherency is negative on a scale of 1-10.
Logged
Alexander Hamilton
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,167
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.58, S: -5.13

« Reply #3 on: November 06, 2009, 07:41:40 PM »

Coolidge may have been popular at the time, but I'm going on a historical assessment of the Presidents. Coolidge was a ticking time-bomb of a President who fostered calamities that would explode after the end of his Presidency. The speculative boom of the 1920s has obvious parallels to the one of recent years -- except that it was more in securities than in real estate. Coolidge did nothing to mute a stock market bubble that began when he was President. Hoover had been President for only six months at the time of the 1929 Stock Market Crash.
The president is not in control of the business cycle. The Federal Reserve set the conditions up for a bust. It was the Hoover and Roosevelt administrations that then proceeded to turn an isolated crash into the Great Depression. Had Harding-Coolidge policy been adhered to, there would have been no Great Depression.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
Wait, the Germans were the ones who got FDR?


Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
TR and Eisenhower as "peacetime" presidents? Please, you clearly haven't gotten a clue.

(Coolidge was still better than either of them, by the way)

pbrower2a lives in a fantasyland where all Republicans suck and all Democrats are Gods.
Logged
Alexander Hamilton
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,167
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.58, S: -5.13

« Reply #4 on: November 07, 2009, 05:15:29 AM »

What's wrong with relying upon Wikipedia for objective treatment of history?

Because an article on Wikipedia about a survey is not an "objective treatment of history".

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
At least you are aware of your own ignorance.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.


Yes, I do. Dwight Eisenhower was mediocre and Theodore Roosevelt sucked big-time. Calvin Coolidge was better than either of them.

I love how pbrower conveniently leaves out the fact that Eisenhower and Roosevelt had hardons for military interventionism in other nations. Roosevelt got aroused by the thought of sending our navy around the world just to get all the other bitch nations wet for our seacocks of death. And Eisenhower, don't even get me started on how "peaceful" a president he was.

Sending the navy around was a poor example of Roosevelt's interventionism. In fact, that was more an act of Roosevelt that showed he did not want war, and therefore, persuaded other nations against it. Smiley

What we should focus on is the Roosevelt Corollary.
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 0.027 seconds with 14 queries.