Jump to content
270soft Forum

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

1 minute ago, Patine said:

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!

Oh for fucks sake, what a stupid thing to take the time to type.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 67
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

8 minutes ago, Actinguy said:

You know what?

This was such a stupid thing to say that I actually never want to hear from you again.

Blocked.

No big loss. Anyone who lionizes war criminals and claims self-righteousness for crusading against a corrupt blow-hard like Trump probably lacks the utter moral centre to see reason at all.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/5/2019 at 10:02 PM, Actinguy said:

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.

Wait what? So war crimes and breaking international law is OK, but mean tweets and Trump simply not being able to hide his horribleness is the worst thing ever. Also good luck with that, unfortunately for the foreseeable future the majority of Republicans are going to stand with him.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Dr. Insano said:

Wait what? So war crimes and breaking international law is OK, but mean tweets and Trump simply not being able to hide his horribleness is the worst thing ever. Also good luck with that, unfortunately for the foreseeable future the majority of Republicans are going to stand with him.

I agree, that's the most likely outcome.

And so I'll continue voting Democrat until it changes.  It might never!  That's okay, too.

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

I agree, that's the most likely outcome.

And so I'll continue voting Democrat until it changes.  It might never!  That's okay, too.

The only Republicans in the senate I could see flipping on Trump are Ben Sasse and Susan Collins. Maybe Cory Gardner if he wants any chance of winning reelection as Colorado trends more and more Democrat

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Dr. Insano said:

The only Republicans in the senate I could see flipping on Trump are Ben Sasse and Susan Collins. Maybe Cory Gardner if he wants any chance of winning reelection as Colorado trends more and more Democrat

Mitt Romney seems the most likely to me.  Utah likes him way better than they like Trump, so he could stick to his morals and keep winning elections anyway -- that's a win/win with nothing to lose, from his perspective.

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

Mitt Romney seems the most likely to me.  Utah likes him way better than they like Trump, so he could stick to his morals and keep winning elections anyway -- that's a win/win with nothing to lose, from his perspective.

I meant other than Romney, I wouldn't be surprised if John Kasich ends up challenging Rob Portman for Senate in 2022.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Dr. Insano said:

The only Republicans in the senate I could see flipping on Trump are Ben Sasse and Susan Collins. Maybe Cory Gardner if he wants any chance of winning reelection as Colorado trends more and more Democrat

Well, it's not like the Democrats have MUCH of better record at all regarding criminal U.S. Presidents. These horrid, high crimes from the White House don't really seem to be an issue of partisan divide - but much more often an area of "bipartisan cooperation." Which means, both parties, excluding some major members each, are guilty as organizations for supporting, aiding, abetting, enabling, organizing, facilitating, and funding these monstrous high crimes.

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

Well, it's not like the Democrats have MUCH of better record at all regarding criminal U.S. Presidents. These horrid, high crimes from the White House don't really seem to be an issue of partisan divide - but much more often an area of "bipartisan cooperation." Which means, both parties, excluding some major members each, are guilty as organizations for supporting, aiding, abetting, enabling, organizing, facilitating, and funding these monstrous high crimes.

You're preaching to the choir to me,  the more I look into both Trump and Clinton's connections to Epstein. People tend to forget how close Trump, Clinton Giuliani and others were. They would golf with each other all the time. But I think the thing with Trump is he so erratic and unable to hide his horribleness he really messed with a lot of people's heads. Donald Trump is not the problem, Donald Trump is a symptom of the problem of years after years of corruption from both sides. Donald Trump simply has ripped off the mask and showed people what our government has been doing for years. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/5/2019 at 11:51 AM, 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). 

AOC.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/6/2019 at 2:54 PM, Patine said:

 and I REALLY hate to make this comparison, but it really glares out at me - of a Holocaust denier!

What a disgusting accusation/comparison to make just because he doesn't support your conspiracy theory.

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, ThePotatoWalrus said:

What a disgusting accusation/comparison to make just because he doesn't support your conspiracy theory.

Conspiracy theory? Tell me, how is Bush NOT guilty of the many war crimes, crimes against humanity, and violations of the U.S. Constitution that are blatantly on record, witnessed by those who lived back then (like me), and well known fact, and that I am not BY FAR the only one indicting him for. And DON'T use the lack of a formal indictment or trial attempt having happened - less than 1% of war criminals in the whole world since WW2 have EVER indicted or brought to trial - a record that is frankly what is TRULY disgusting...

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

What a disgusting accusation/comparison to make just because he doesn't support your conspiracy theory.

How is that a conspiracy theory?!? It's pretty well documented what Bush did, and if you actually follow the Nuremberg Principles, it's also pretty clear that he (along with most other Presidents) committed countless war crimes.

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

Conspiracy theory? Tell me, how is Bush NOT guilty of the many war crimes, crimes against humanity, and violations of the U.S. Constitution that are blatantly on record, witnessed by those who lived back then (like me), and well known fact, and that I am not BY FAR the only one indicting him for. And DON'T use the lack of a formal indictment or trial attempt having happened - less than 1% of war criminals in the whole world since WW2 have EVER indicted or brought to trial - a record that is frankly what is TRULY disgusting...

 

1 hour ago, jnewt said:

How is that a conspiracy theory?!? It's pretty well documented what Bush did, and if you actually follow the Nuremberg Principles, it's also pretty clear that he (along with most other Presidents) committed countless war crimes.

Extreme American nationalism is a true toxic cult isn't it? Some of these people seem to think the world revolves around America and we decide what is inherently good or bad. 

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

Conspiracy theory? Tell me, how is Bush NOT guilty of the many war crimes, crimes against humanity, and violations of the U.S. Constitution that are blatantly on record, witnessed by those who lived back then (like me), and well known fact, and that I am not BY FAR the only one indicting him for. And DON'T use the lack of a formal indictment or trial attempt having happened - less than 1% of war criminals in the whole world since WW2 have EVER indicted or brought to trial - a record that is frankly what is TRULY disgusting...

I'd rather trust a firsthand account of someone who was actually there over some guy who's prob still scared of the dark.

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

I'd rather trust a firsthand account of someone who was actually there over some guy who's prob still scared of the dark.

I'm not scared of the dark. And you, and @Actinguy, are probably blinded by nationalism, one of the most toxic and destructive ideologies in the world, and one of those that has justified among the worst atrocities through it's tendency to "dehumanize" non-nationals and "undesirable" to the nationalist ideal (the core principle of the Goebbels-school of propaganda, which is STILL used RIGOROUSLY in many countries today for nationalistic promotion, ESPCIALLY the United States). This tendency toward atrocity, dehumanization, wars, war crimes, and indifference to great evils committed by one's own government and military and one would rail against committed by others' governments and militaries does not seem to meaningfully matter between nationalist movements of different nations or desired or proposed nations - it's all toxic evil at heart. And I remind, one of the biggest defining ideals of Naziism is hard nationalism!

And also, by "I'd rather trust a firsthand account of someone who was actually there," I assume you mean someone who was serving in Iraq, as opposed to just someone alive and an adult at the time of these events, which, as being five years older than him, I was certainly. Consider that being a soldier in war means you do what you're told, go where you're told, and receive what intel your superiors want you to have that comes down the chain of command. The U.S. Military is not like those horrid G.I. Joe remake movies. If you want a better, more balanced perspective to judge by, try finding and talking to someone unjustly put in Guantanamo Bay or one of those Black Sites, someone whose neighbourhood was bombed with an airstrike, missile, or drone because of civilian, not military, targeting in Afghanistan or Iraq or because a "terrorist" leader was believed to be in the area, in a country no declaration of war was made on, or whose wedding was bombed by an airstrike because of the rural Afghan tradition of firing guns into the air during the festivities, or other such alternate viewpoints - if your atrocious and repugnant attitude doesn't alienate them and make them refuse to talk candidly to you - and who could blame them - you inspire hostility and contempt from the best of people at the best of times.

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

I'm not scared of the dark. And you, and @Actinguy, are probably blinded by nationalism, one of the most toxic and destructive ideologies in the world, and one of those that has justified among the worst atrocities through it's tendency to "dehumanize" non-nationals and "undesirable" to the nationalist ideal (the core principle of the Goebbels-school of propaganda, which is STILL used RIGOROUSLY in many countries today for nationalistic promotion, ESPCIALLY the United States). This tendency toward atrocity, dehumanization, wars, war crimes, and indifference to great evils committed by one's own government and military and one would rail against committed by others' governments and militaries does not seem to meaningfully matter between nationalist movements of different nations or desired or proposed nations - it's all toxic evil at heart. And I remind, one of the biggest defining ideals of Naziism is hard nationalism!

And also, by "I'd rather trust a firsthand account of someone who was actually there," I assume you mean someone who was serving in Iraq, as opposed to just someone alive and an adult at the time of these events, which, as being five years older than him, I was certainly. Consider that being a soldier in war means you do what you're told, go where you're told, and receive what intel your superiors want you to have that comes down the chain of command. The U.S. Military is not like those horrid G.I. Joe remake movies. If you want a better, more balanced perspective to judge by, try finding and talking to someone unjustly put in Guantanamo Bay or one of those Black Sites, someone whose neighbourhood was bombed with an airstrike, missile, or drone because of civilian, not military, targeting in Afghanistan or Iraq or because a "terrorist" leader was believed to be in the area, in a country no declaration of war was made on, or whose wedding was bombed by an airstrike because of the rural Afghan tradition of firing guns into the air during the festivities, or other such alternate viewpoints - if your atrocious and repugnant attitude doesn't alienate them and make them refuse to talk candidly to you - and who could blame them - you inspire hostility and contempt from the best of people at the best of times.

I've said this once before but here it is again. I thought you put Potato on ignore?

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

I'm not scared of the dark. And you, and @Actinguy, are probably blinded by nationalism, one of the most toxic and destructive ideologies in the world, and one of those that has justified among the worst atrocities through it's tendency to "dehumanize" non-nationals and "undesirable" to the nationalist ideal (the core principle of the Goebbels-school of propaganda, which is STILL used RIGOROUSLY in many countries today for nationalistic promotion, ESPCIALLY the United States). This tendency toward atrocity, dehumanization, wars, war crimes, and indifference to great evils committed by one's own government and military and one would rail against committed by others' governments and militaries does not seem to meaningfully matter between nationalist movements of different nations or desired or proposed nations - it's all toxic evil at heart. And I remind, one of the biggest defining ideals of Naziism is hard nationalism!

And also, by "I'd rather trust a firsthand account of someone who was actually there," I assume you mean someone who was serving in Iraq, as opposed to just someone alive and an adult at the time of these events, which, as being five years older than him, I was certainly. Consider that being a soldier in war means you do what you're told, go where you're told, and receive what intel your superiors want you to have that comes down the chain of command. The U.S. Military is not like those horrid G.I. Joe remake movies. If you want a better, more balanced perspective to judge by, try finding and talking to someone unjustly put in Guantanamo Bay or one of those Black Sites, someone whose neighbourhood was bombed with an airstrike, missile, or drone because of civilian, not military, targeting in Afghanistan or Iraq or because a "terrorist" leader was believed to be in the area, in a country no declaration of war was made on, or whose wedding was bombed by an airstrike because of the rural Afghan tradition of firing guns into the air during the festivities, or other such alternate viewpoints - if your atrocious and repugnant attitude doesn't alienate them and make them refuse to talk candidly to you - and who could blame them - you inspire hostility and contempt from the best of people at the best of times.

I don't think this is going to get through to him. He just wants to get a reaction out of you and when you respond, he wins. It gives him power of you because that is his intention. Ignoring him is the best response you can have since there's basically no alternative universe which @ThePotatoWalrus is suddenly going to be convinced or enlightened by anything we say if it doesn't conform to his imagined worldview. He knows how to irk you, so he's going to use that power against you. Don't waste raising your blood pressure on someone that isn't worth it. Maybe he'll change in time, but we have to have time answer that. 

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

I'd rather trust a firsthand account of someone who was actually there over some guy who's prob still scared of the dark.

Thanks man, I appreciate that.  

As I’ve said all along, it’s not my intention to actually change anyone’s mind on this.  I accept that I’m in the minority on it, and that’s okay.  

But I appreciate you taking the time to read my first hand perspective without pretending that I’m Joseph Goebbels.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I failed to read the part where it said "If you do not check it, then it means that you voted for the name on the right" - so some of my votes - like for Grover Cleveland in 1888, but against him in both 1884 and 1892 - were due to my own foolishness.

In reality, I would've voted third-party in several of these elections, and my vote choices reflect that.

I do find it interesting how united we seem to be when it comes to certain presidents - usually the ones rated "great" or "near-great" by presidential historians.

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

Thanks man, I appreciate that.  

As I’ve said all along, it’s not my intention to actually change anyone’s mind on this.  I accept that I’m in the minority on it, and that’s okay.  

But I appreciate you taking the time to read my first hand perspective without pretending that I’m Joseph Goebbels.

Honestly I don't agree with you either but I had to say something when he threw such a vile and uncharacteristic accusation towards you. In no way are the two comparable (a directly ordered mass murder of millions vs an unproven conspiracy theory on shaky evidence of Bush family war crimes, etc.). I'm honestly shocked that my troll ass of all people was literally the only one to see something wrong with that.

Thank you for your service and i'm sorry some people here can't realize that some people perhaps know a little more on certain things than they do.

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

Honestly I don't agree with you either but I had to say something when he threw such a vile and uncharacteristic accusation towards you. In no way are the two comparable (a directly ordered mass murder of millions vs an unproven conspiracy theory on shaky evidence of Bush family war crimes, etc.). I'm honestly shocked that my troll ass of all people was literally the only one to see something wrong with that.

Thank you for your service and i'm sorry some people here can't realize that some people perhaps know a little more on certain things than they do.

Unproven conspiracy theory? Take off your blindfold and say that. The evidence is well-known and documented. Bush and his cronies are only protected from justice by corrupt and undeserved immunities - ones befitting of old monarchs and theocrats, but the spit in the face and insult to the very concept of justice itself for the leadership of a Republic to have. But you and @Actinguy obviously don't believe in justice at all...

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

Unproven conspiracy theory? Take off your blindfold and say that. The evidence is well-known and documented. Bush and his cronies are only protected from justice by corrupt and undeserved immunities - ones befitting of old monarchs and theocrats, but the spit in the face and insult to the very concept of justice itself for the leadership of a Republic to have. But you and @Actinguy obviously don't believe in justice at all...

Listen man, you can't go around accusing people of this stuff. You can have your beliefs all you want but keep things civil. This is a public forum for a completely unrelated topic and you're attacking people. 

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...