Jump to content
270soft Forum
vcczar

Presidential Either/Or Poll

Presidential Either/Or poll  

21 members have voted

  1. 1. This is an either/or poll. (i.e. no other options). Check the match ups below if you would vote for the name on the left over the name on the right. If you do not check it, then it means that you voted for the name on the right.

    • 1788 - George Washington over George Clinton (highest support among anti-Federalists)
    • 1792 - George Washington over Thomas Jefferson (highest support among anti-administration)
    • 1796 - John Adams over Thomas Jefferson
    • 1800 - Thomas Jefferson over Aaron Burr (tied in EC, w/ incumbent getting 3rd place)
    • 1804 - Thomas Jefferson over CC Pinckney
    • 1808 - James Madison over CC Pinckney
    • 1812 - James Madison over DeWitt Clinton
    • 1816 - James Monroe over Rufus King
    • 1820 - James Monroe over protest vote for John Quincy Adams
    • 1824 - John Quincy Adams over Andrew Jackson
    • 1828 - Andrew Jackson over John Quincy Adams
    • 1832 - Andrew Jackson over Henry Clay
    • 1836 - Martin Van Buren over William Henry Harrison
    • 1840 - William Henry Harrison over Martin Van Buren
    • 1844 - James K. Polk over Henry Clay
    • 1848 - Zachary Taylor over Lewis Cass
    • 1852 - Franklin Pierce over Winfield Scott
    • 1856 - James Buchanan over John C. Fremont
    • 1860 - Abraham Lincoln over Stephen A Douglas
    • I vote for the name on the right in every one of these elections.
      0
  2. 2. continued...

    • 1864 - Abraham Lincoln over George B. McClellan
    • 1868 - Ulysses S. Grant over Horatio Seymour
    • 1872 - Ulysses S. Grant over Horace Greeley
    • 1876 - Rutherford B. Hayes over Samuel J. Tilden
    • 1880 - James A. Garfield over Winfield Scott Hancock
    • 1884 - Grover Cleveland over James G. Blaine
    • 1888 - Benjamin Harrison over Grover Cleveland
    • 1892 - Grover Cleveland over Benjamin Harrison
    • 1896 - William McKinley over William Jennings Bryan
    • 1900 - William McKinley over William Jennings Bryan
    • 1904 - Theodore Roosevelt over Alton B. Parker
    • 1908 - William Howard Taft over William Jennings Bryan
    • 1912 - Woodrow Wilson over Theodore Roosevelt (Incumbent Taft got 3rd place)
    • 1916 - Woodrow Wilson over Charles Evans Hughes
    • 1920 - Warren G. Harding over James M. Cox
    • 1924 - Calvin Coolidge over John W. Davis
    • 1928 - Herbert Hoover over Al Smith
    • 1932 - FDR over Herbert Hoover
    • 1936 - FDR over Alf Landon
    • I vote for the name on the right in every one of these elections.
      0
  3. 3. Continued...

    • 1940 - FDR over Wendell Wilkie
    • 1944 - FDR over Thomas E. Dewey
    • 1948 - Harry S Truman over Thomas E. Dewey
    • 1952 - Dwight D. Eisenhower over Adlai E. Stevenson II
    • 1956 - Dwight D. Eisenhower over Adlai E. Stevenson II
    • 1960 - John F. Kennedy over Richard Nixon
    • 1964 - Lyndon B. Johnson over Barry Goldwater
    • 1968 - Richard Nixon over Hubert Humphrey
    • 1972 - Richard Nixon over George McGovern
    • 1976 - Jimmy Carter over Gerald Ford
    • 1980 - Ronald Reagan over Jimmy Carter
    • 1984 - Ronald Reagan over Walter Mondale
    • 1988 - George HW Bush over Michael Dukakis
    • 1992 - Bill Clinton over George HW Bush
    • 1996 - Bill Clinton over Bob Dole
    • 2000 - George W Bush over Al Gore
    • 2004 - George W Bush over John Kerry
    • 2008 - Barack Obama over John McCain
    • 2012 - Barack Obama over Mitt Romney
    • 2016 - Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton


Recommended Posts

This is an either/or poll. I have no way of adding a 3rd option when I only have 60 slots. Do not take this poll if you don't like being forced to pick between one or the other. 

The historical victors of every election are on the left. By selecting their election, you are stating that you would have supported the winner of that election. By not clicking the election, you are stating that you support the nominee that didn't win the historical election. 

Here's a hypothetical future election. Who would you vote for, if you had to pick one of these two:

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) vs. Dan Crenshaw (R-TX). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, vcczar said:

This is an either/or poll. I have no way of adding a 3rd option when I only have 60 slots. Do not take this poll if you don't like being forced to pick between one or the other. 

The historical victors of every election are on the left. By selecting their election, you are stating that you would have supported the winner of that election. By not clicking the election, you are stating that you support the nominee that didn't win the historical election. 

Here's a hypothetical future election. Who would you vote for, if you had to pick one of these two:

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) vs. Dan Crenshaw (R-TX). 

And obviously I'd vote for AOC over Crenshaw, even if AOC isn't one of my favorite Democrats. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, vcczar said:

This is an either/or poll. I have no way of adding a 3rd option when I only have 60 slots. Do not take this poll if you don't like being forced to pick between one or the other. 

The historical victors of every election are on the left. By selecting their election, you are stating that you would have supported the winner of that election. By not clicking the election, you are stating that you support the nominee that didn't win the historical election. 

Here's a hypothetical future election. Who would you vote for, if you had to pick one of these two:

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) vs. Dan Crenshaw (R-TX). 

Crenshaw.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, vcczar said:

And obviously I'd vote for AOC over Crenshaw, even if AOC isn't one of my favorite Democrats. 

And you called me mentally retarded two days ago

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, ThePotatoWalrus said:

Only voted for Harding bc it makes Coolidge President don't hate

I couldn't even bring myself to do that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

AOC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In 1912 my vote would have been Taft actually.

I'd vote for Crenshaw.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Demon Taka said:

AOC

and i would have actually voted for Debs in 1912.

And La Follette in 1924.

I'm just sitting this one out rather than railing against "political Dualism." :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Patine said:

I'm just sitting this one out rather than railing against "political Dualism." :P

Yeah, I expected that would be the case. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, vcczar said:

 

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) vs. Dan Crenshaw (R-TX). 

AOC.

Speaking as someone who proudly backed W Bush twice, and had every intention of voting for Jeb! over Hillary:

I will vote Democrat every single time, forever, until Republicans finally hold Trump accountable for his endless crimes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Actinguy said:

proudly backed W Bush twice

until Republicans finally hold Trump accountable for his endless crimes.

The irony is immensely palpable here, at least to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Patine said:

The irony is immensely palpable here, at least to me.

Look, you don't like war and so you call it a crime.  Fine, I don't care.

But now we're talking about actual, real crimes -- where we don't have to argue.  We have actual legal definitions of these things that Trump is doing.  They are crimes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Actinguy said:

Look, you don't like war and so you call it a crime.  Fine, I don't care.

But now we're talking about actual, real crimes -- where we don't have to argue.  We have actual legal definitions of these things that Trump is doing.  They are crimes.

Sometimes war is necessary. Like WW2. Bush, even though he was responding to a deliberate attack on American soil by a specific group, took full advantage to flagrantly violate the U.S. Constitution and the Geneva Constitutions, declare war on nations uninvolved with the conflict (like Iraq) on a regime of lies, mostly to enrich powerful corporate interests, including a contracting corporation his Vice-President was on the board of directors and resource corporations his father had strong ties to, he made drone attacks constantly on nations he didn't declare on (including the possibility that never DENIED of it being used on American soil against American citizens), and he played the fears and anger of the people MANIPULATIVELY like a harp to get all the CRIMINAL activity past - that no doubt would NEVER have flown otherwise. Yes, sometimes war is necessary - and sometimes, like with Bush, it's a pack of crimes, REAL CRIMES! And indeed, what Bush has done has legal definition of crimes too - in the Constitutional definition of the Presidential official, which he grossly overreached and used to flagrantly violate the Bill of Rights, and in many of the war crimes prosecuted in the Nuremburg War Crimes Tribunals, ICT-R, and ICT-Y, all three of which the United States Government and ENTHUSIASTIC party to, as well as the Geneva Convention (of which the U.S. Government was a signatory in good faith to all four), especially with regards torture and other mistreatment of prisoners of war.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Patine said:

Sometimes war is necessary. Like WW2. Bush, even though he was responding to a deliberate attack on American soil by a specific group, took full advantage to flagrantly violate the U.S. Constitution and the Geneva Constitutions, declare war on nations uninvolved with the conflict (like Iraq) on a regime of lies, mostly to enrich powerful corporate interests, including a contracting corporation his Vice-President was on the board of directors and resource corporations his father had strong ties to, he made drone attacks constantly on nations he didn't declare on (including the possibility that never DENIED of it being used on American soil against American citizens), and he played the fears and anger of the people MANIPULATIVELY like a harp to get all the CRIMINAL activity past - that no doubt would NEVER have flown otherwise. Yes, sometimes war is necessary - and sometimes, like with Bush, it's a pack of crimes, REAL CRIMES! And indeed, what Bush has done has legal definition of crimes too - in the Constitutional definition of the Presidential official, which he grossly overreached and used to flagrantly violate the Bill of Rights, and in many of the war crimes prosecuted in the Nuremburg War Crimes Tribunals, ICT-R, and ICT-Y, all three of which the United States Government and ENTHUSIASTIC party to, as well as the Geneva Convention (of which the U.S. Government was a signatory in good faith to all four), especially with regards torture and other mistreatment of prisoners of war.

Obama did most of these things as well.  Criminal too?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Actinguy said:

Obama did most of these things as well.  Criminal too?

A lot of Progressives consider every US President since Eisenhower to be a war criminal since covert and overt coups became the norm with Eisenhower. I don’t consider all of these criminal, but I do disapprove of all of these actions. I only believe in war for 1) if attacked first 2) humanitarian reasons, such as the holocaust and other genocide. I do support aiding allies with arms and advisors provided they have a good humanitarian record and will still have one by the end of the war. I also don’t believe in preemptive attacks or unilateral warfare. I also don’t believe in targeting civilian populations. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Actinguy said:

Obama did most of these things as well.  Criminal too?

Every U.S. President after Herbert Hoover is actually indictable for war crimes and violations of the U.S. Constitution, frankly. Bush was just more aggregiouss and blatant than the others in that area.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Patine said:

Every U.S. President after Herbert Hoover is actually indictable for war crimes and violations of the U.S. Constitution, frankly. Bush was just more aggregiouss and blatant than the others in that area.

Do you not get what an extremist view that is, and how it damages your credibility when speaking about individual Presidents?

Your standards are so high that no President has been able to meet them in 86 years.

Perhaps you counter that a President COULD have met them if only so-and-So had been elected instead.  But I would argue that whoever that so-and-so is only held so highly in your mind because they never faced the tragedy of having to actually be President and making those difficult choices — having to compromise their personal values and goals on an almost daily basis just to get anything done for their nation, and largely being hated for doing so by the very people they were trying to help.

But that’s the difference with Trump.  His choices are NEVER based on the needs of the nation or it’s people.  They’re built exclusively around  feeding his ego and his pocket book.

When I say that I actually am capable of voting Republican, and in fact have in the recent past and would happily do so again “if”....that shows that I am a reasonable person (from the Republican point of view) who could actually be made happy and therefore the things I say should be taken under consideration — if only to help boost future election votes.

But when you say every President in the past 86 years belongs in jail, that is such an extremist view that there is nothing that can be done to bring you into the fold and therefore you can be safely ignored.

I did not always agree with Bush — he was dead wrong about gay marriage, for example.  I didn’t always agree with Barack Obama either, whose weak hand on foreign policy gave us this mess in Syria and Russia’s attempts to influence our elections.

But there is a difference between “you and I have a difference in politics and values” and “you belong in jail.”

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Patine said:

Every U.S. President after Herbert Hoover is actually indictable for war crimes and violations of the U.S. Constitution, frankly. Bush was just more aggregiouss and blatant than the others in that area.

 

3 hours ago, Actinguy said:

Do you not get what an extremist view that is, and how it damages your credibility when speaking about individual Presidents?

Your standards are so high that no President has been able to meet them in 86 years.

Perhaps you counter that a President COULD have met them if only so-and-So had been elected instead.  But I would argue that whoever that so-and-so is only held so highly in your mind because they never faced the tragedy of having to actually be President and making those difficult choices — having to compromise their personal values and goals on an almost daily basis just to get anything done for their nation, and largely being hated for doing so by the very people they were trying to help.

But that’s the difference with Trump.  His choices are NEVER based on the needs of the nation or it’s people.  They’re built exclusively around  feeding his ego and his pocket book.

When I say that I actually am capable of voting Republican, and in fact have in the recent past and would happily do so again “if”....that shows that I am a reasonable person (from the Republican point of view) who could actually be made happy and therefore the things I say should be taken under consideration — if only to help boost future election votes.

But when you say every President in the past 86 years belongs in jail, that is such an extremist view that there is nothing that can be done to bring you into the fold and therefore you can be safely ignored.

I did not always agree with Bush — he was dead wrong about gay marriage, for example.  I didn’t always agree with Barack Obama either, whose weak hand on foreign policy gave us this mess in Syria and Russia’s attempts to influence our elections.

But there is a difference between “you and I have a difference in politics and values” and “you belong in jail.”

 

 

@Actinguy

I wouldn't be as extreme as @Patine is in regards to criminalizing presidents, if he does believe every president from Hoover to Trump should be in jail. I think the only ones I'd consider putting on some sort of UN-style trial, even if it's just a symbolic censure of sorts, are LBJ (Vietnam), Nixon (escalating the war into Laos and Cambodia), Bush II (Iraq War on flimsy charges). The rest, as Patine states, are not as egregious or blatant, in my opinion. I say this being a huge fan of LBJ as a president outside of Vietnam. 

Of these three, if I had to say one was found guilty of war crimes, then I'd say it's likely to be Bush II. 

To show you I'm not just a run-of-the-mill anti-war progressive, I likely would have supported the following if I were a Senator:

  • Arms deals with/ counties that have democratic elections and a good humanitarian record.  
  • I'd also send advisers and non-combat personnel to the countries listed above. 
  • I would support authentic coalition wars protecting a nation from an obvious aggressor that is invading. This means I would have supported the first Iraq War in the early 90s. Kuwait had no shot at defending itself from Iraq. If I failed to build an authentic coalition, then I wouldn't partake in the war. This might be the only "big" war I would have supported between WWII and today.
  • In all coalition wars, I would not support a situation in which the US does the bulk of the fighting and has the bulk of the responsibility. It must be a shared effort with every ally having a relatively shared responsibility for planning war, waging war, planning post-war, and handling post-war. 
  • I would go to war for humanitarian crises, provided I could build a coalition. The genocide in Rwanda was ignored by Clinton. I would have declared war in this instance. 
  • I would like keep the navy as strong as it is, but I'd mostly reduce spending and such for other branches. 
  • I'd consistently modernize military technology and training so that what we have is superior weaponry and tactics at all times, even if we have fewer military items. 
  • I'd opt for the most non-lethal options, especially in any area that my have civilians. There was a good book written a few decades ago on non-lethal warfare. It's just easier and probably cheaper to kill, but if we are facing people that aren't radicals, it would probably be best for the post-war peace process, if we aren't killing people. It lessens the desire for vengeance, and if the options to not kill (but incapacitate) is available, then not using that option makes us no less evil than our opponents. Obviously, if the non-lethal options increase casualties on our own side it could be reconsidered, but I think the primary reason we don't use this option is because it is more expensive and not as simple. Also some companies make a lot of money off selling weaponry to the US Gov. 
  • Unlike a lot of progressives, I think drones are an amazing invention, militarily speaking. The evilness of the drone program is only in how the program is being used. The drones significantly reduce battlefield casualties on our end. While we can kill them, they can only kill the drones. At some point we will have drone vs. drone warfare and this is going to change how war is waged. 
  • I do support some airstrikes for humanitarian reasons. For instance, if someone is using chemical weapons against a civilian population, I support hitting those factories. 
  • In all cases above, I would not wage war without 1) approval of Congress, 2) confirmation that I am not violating the Geneva Convention or any other similar humanitarian convention. 
  • Ideally, all wars would come with a referendum by the people. For instance, even if I want a war, and Congress approves it, if a certain number of registered voters don't want the war (50%, 2/3, 3/4, not sure of the number yet), then it can't be waged. 
  • Naturally, I support retaliation if the Nation is attacked. 
  • I don't support wars overseas for "protecting the national interests." 

Despite all this, I consider myself a pacifist, but I'm the pacifist that hits back if 1) punched, or 2) I see some defenseless child being beaten across the street by a much stronger bully. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure why you give Kennedy a pass on Vietnam.  He ordered the CIA to support the overthrow & assassination of Diem.  He sent the Special Activities Division into Laos long before Nixon.  He initiated the Phoenix Program.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Actinguy said:

Look, you don't like war and so you call it a crime.  Fine, I don't care.

But now we're talking about actual, real crimes -- where we don't have to argue.  We have actual legal definitions of these things that Trump is doing.  They are crimes.

War crimes ARE "actual, real crimes." The fact that you would actually say they're not speaks a lot to who you are as a person and how you value life.

12 hours ago, Actinguy said:

Obama did most of these things as well.  Criminal too?

Yup.

5 hours ago, Actinguy said:

Do you not get what an extremist view that is, and how it damages your credibility when speaking about individual Presidents?

Your standards are so high that no President has been able to meet them in 86 years.

Perhaps you counter that a President COULD have met them if only so-and-So had been elected instead.  But I would argue that whoever that so-and-so is only held so highly in your mind because they never faced the tragedy of having to actually be President and making those difficult choices — having to compromise their personal values and goals on an almost daily basis just to get anything done for their nation, and largely being hated for doing so by the very people they were trying to help.

But that’s the difference with Trump.  His choices are NEVER based on the needs of the nation or it’s people.  They’re built exclusively around  feeding his ego and his pocket book.

When I say that I actually am capable of voting Republican, and in fact have in the recent past and would happily do so again “if”....that shows that I am a reasonable person (from the Republican point of view) who could actually be made happy and therefore the things I say should be taken under consideration — if only to help boost future election votes.

But when you say every President in the past 86 years belongs in jail, that is such an extremist view that there is nothing that can be done to bring you into the fold and therefore you can be safely ignored.

I did not always agree with Bush — he was dead wrong about gay marriage, for example.  I didn’t always agree with Barack Obama either, whose weak hand on foreign policy gave us this mess in Syria and Russia’s attempts to influence our elections.

But there is a difference between “you and I have a difference in politics and values” and “you belong in jail.”

 

 

I assure you, not wanting the President to commit war crimes is indeed a very, very low standard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jnewt said:

War crimes ARE "actual, real crimes." The fact that you would actually say they're not speaks a lot to who you are as a person and how you value life.

Yup.

I assure you, not wanting the President to commit war crimes is indeed a very, very low standard.

I agree that war crimes are actual crimes, and that war crimes were committed during the Iraq War.  But Bush wasn’t the one there committing them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Actinguy said:

I agree that war crimes are actual crimes, and that war crimes were committed during the Iraq War.  But Bush wasn’t the one there committing them.

The precedents of the Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunal, ICT-R, and ICT-Y (which, again, I will reiterate, were all three fully supported in legality by the U.S. Government) says that superiors in military and political chains of command, up to and including the head-of-state (such as Slobodan Milosovic at ICT-Y - Adolf Hitler and Juevanal Habyaramana were already dead by Nuremberg and ICT-R, respectively) can be held responsible for the war crimes of those under their command and for crimes resulting from, or committed because of, their political or military policies, orders, or designs, even if they never PERSONALLY pull the trigger, or other similar action, on someone involved in person. But your insistence on exonerating Bush at all costs of all wrongdoings, and, in fact, making him out to be such a hero has the ring to it - and I REALLY hate to make this comparison, but it really glares out at me - of a Holocaust denier!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...