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

27 minutes ago, Herbert Hoover said:

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. 

I have been slandered and run through the mud, told I was "incapable of rational discussion," that I was "too closed minded to discuss the matter, so he won't even bother justifying his points, and I should accept being arbitrary and unilaterally declared wrong," that being a soldier automatically annuls and trumps all other points of view and knowledge, and I can't possibly understand or have any valid opinion, and some corrupt bureaucratic hoodwink Trump's been caught for is "real crimes," but war crimes and violating due process in the Constitution doesn't matter in comparison, and now I'm in the wrong, but he's the innocent, hard-done-by victim? Is there some perceived feudal social station difference between him and me that gives his opinion and harsh tongue more privilege than mine?

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

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

4 minutes ago, Patine said:

I have been slandered and run through the mud, told I was "incapable of rational discussion," that I was "too closed minded to discuss the matter, so he won't even bother justifying his points, and I should accept being arbitrary and unilaterally declared wrong," that being a soldier automatically annuls and trumps all other points of view and knowledge, and I can't possibly understand or have any valid opinion, and some corrupt bureaucratic hoodwink Trump's been caught for is "real crimes," but war crimes and violating due process in the Constitution doesn't matter in comparison, and now I'm in the wrong, but he's the innocent, hard-done-by victim? Is there some perceived feudal social station difference between him and me that gives his opinion and harsh tongue more privilege than mine?

You started it up again out of the blue. This post had nothing to do with W's presidency outside of a comment that he supported Bush twice. You already knew his feelings on the matter and knew it would agitate him. You just wanted to feel right and morally superior by bringing it to the table once again.

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

You started it up again out of the blue. This post had nothing to do with W's presidency outside of a comment that he supported Bush twice. You already knew his feelings on the matter and knew it would agitate him. You just wanted to feel right and morally superior by bringing it to the table once again.

Although my bringing it up was perhaps unnecessary and coup-counting gratuity, I don't feel he's owed an apology given the way he's treated me and my opinions on the issue prior and still seems smug and self-righteous about. But I will drop it, with no apologies or retractions of my viewpoints.

Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Patine said:

Is there some perceived feudal social station difference between him and me that gives his opinion and harsh tongue more privilege than mine?

He was there so it's very personal in that respect and you attacked him. You're just a non-American with a lot of free time.

You're free to.believe whatever you want but please don't accuse someone of such a vile comparison like that. I was actually supporting you until you said that.

Besides, the Hitler/Neo-Nazi comparisons are so inappropriate and overdone anyways.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 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.

I support you man. George W Bush was the better choice twice and Id like to thank you for your service under him. Of course I oppose the Patriot Act, but Bush did the best he could with what he was given and he was a strong leader. Unlike his two successors. To call him a war criminal is just silly, I for one am glad Saddam is no longer in power.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Reagan04 said:

I support you man. George W Bush was the better choice twice and Id like to thank you for your service under him. Of course I oppose the Patriot Act, but Bush did the best he could with what he was given and he was a strong leader. Unlike his two successors. To call him a war criminal is just silly, I for one am glad Saddam is no longer in power.

Best he could with what he was given?  He had GOP control of both houses of congress for six years.  He should have been able to accomplish quite a bit, but instead he pissed away all his political capital fighting everybody in the Middle East except the people who attacked us.

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

Best he could with what he was given?  He had GOP control of both houses of congress for six years.  He should have been able to accomplish quite a bit, but instead he pissed away all his political capital fighting everybody in the Middle East except the people who attacked us.

9/11 tends to do that to a President.

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

He was there so it's very personal in that respect and you attacked him. You're just a non-American with a lot of free time.

You're free to.believe whatever you want but please don't accuse someone of such a vile comparison like that. I was actually supporting you until you said that.

Besides, the Hitler/Neo-Nazi comparisons are so inappropriate and overdone anyways.

 

8 minutes ago, Reagan04 said:

I support you man. George W Bush was the better choice twice and Id like to thank you for your service under him. Of course I oppose the Patriot Act, but Bush did the best he could with what he was given and he was a strong leader. Unlike his two successors. To call him a war criminal is just silly, I for one am glad Saddam is no longer in power.

Criminality and justice are not mitigated by nationality or who out there maybe worse. But since the United States seems to have completely abdicated the concept of "justice," to the point where the motto on the Supreme Court building "and justice for all" has become a vile, loathsome taunt, it's probably not surprising you two grew up thinking this way.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Reagan04 said:

I support you man. George W Bush was the better choice twice and Id like to thank you for your service under him. Of course I oppose the Patriot Act, but Bush did the best he could with what he was given and he was a strong leader. Unlike his two successors. To call him a war criminal is just silly, I for one am glad Saddam is no longer in power.

Agree

 

3 minutes ago, Reagan04 said:

9/11 tends to do that to a President.

Tru. Dubya wasn't perfect but I never, ever doubted his priorities.

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

Criminality and justice are not mitigated by nationality or who out there maybe worse. But since the United States seems to have completely abdicated the concept of "justice," to the point where the motto on the Supreme Court building "and justice for all" has become a vile, loathsome taunt, it's probably not surprising you two grew up thinking this way.

 

20191008_201441.png

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

Best he could with what he was given?  He had GOP control of both houses of congress for six years.  He should have been able to accomplish quite a bit, but instead he pissed away all his political capital fighting everybody in the Middle East except the people who attacked us.

 

Just now, Reagan04 said:

9/11 tends to do that to a President.

Going to Afghanistan was understandable. The invasion of Iraq was just plain wrong. No WMDs and no connection to Osama Bin Laden. To me that's an illegal war. I hold no judgment on soldiers that fought in that war, as I wouldn't for soldiers that fought in Vietnam, but I hold those that pushed for the Iraq War accountable. I'd approve of a US or a World Court holding GW Bush, Dick Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, etc. accountable. If either of the premises for that war had been true, then that could have been arguably a justifiable war. I think launching an costly coup to overthrow Saddam is not enough reason for war. There were also very few allies, unlike the first Iraq War, which was both just and supported by most of the international community. I can't see how anyone can successfully spin the W's Iraq War as some sort of success. The intentions were bad, the result (outside of knocking Saddam from power) was bad,. It destabilized the region and allowed ISIS. Thousands of innocent civilians died as well. I'm not as extreme as @Patine in this, but I think at least having a war crimes investigation is at least a fair compromise. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Reagan04 said:

Thanks Obama!

I do partially blame Obama too, but there would be no ISIS if there was no unjustifiable Iraq War. I agree with @Patine here, it's like blaming Bush for the Bush Recession. The Iraq War and the Recession are two reasons one could make the case that GW Bush was actually a worse president than Trump. I'm not sure if I'd make that case personally, but I can understand rationale of it. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's an interesting article that argues that the Iraq War was the greatest foreign policy fiasco in US History: https://nationalinterest.org/feature/mistakes-were-made-americas-five-biggest-foreign-policy-11160?page=3%2C1

@Patine @Reagan04 @Actinguy

The journal is a Foreign Policy and International Affairs magazine.

"

Greatest Fiasco: The Invasion of Iraq, 2003. On the question of whether this was a discretionary initiative, there can be no longer any real debate. Iraq’s Saddam Hussein did not possess weapons of mass destruction, nor did he have any serious connection to Islamist fundamentalists such as those who had attacked the American homeland on September 11, 2001. In other words, he was not the enemy. And, when his rule was upended and his country destroyed, it was inevitable that jihadist Islam would exploit the resulting chaos.

    And it isn’t simply Iraq that has slipped into chaos and posed opportunity for the real enemy, which is Islamist radicals bent on attacking the West whenever and wherever possible. It seems clear that the so-called Arab Spring emerged in part from inspiration derived from events in Iraq, which nurtured confidence among many elements of Islam that change was possible. Unfortunately for many, the change that has unfolded hasn’t contributed to regional stability, let alone anything approaching the democracy envisioned by the architects of the Bush invasion. And so now we have ISIS on the march, established in significant expanses of territory in Syria and Iraq. Dealing with that problem—a problem of the real enemy—will now draw America further into the maw. The cost has been immense, and unfortunately it is just beginning.    "

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

Here's an interesting article that argues that the Iraq War was the greatest foreign policy fiasco in US History: https://nationalinterest.org/feature/mistakes-were-made-americas-five-biggest-foreign-policy-11160?page=3%2C1

@Patine @Reagan04 @Actinguy

The journal is a Foreign Policy and International Affairs magazine.

"

Greatest Fiasco: The Invasion of Iraq, 2003. On the question of whether this was a discretionary initiative, there can be no longer any real debate. Iraq’s Saddam Hussein did not possess weapons of mass destruction, nor did he have any serious connection to Islamist fundamentalists such as those who had attacked the American homeland on September 11, 2001. In other words, he was not the enemy. And, when his rule was upended and his country destroyed, it was inevitable that jihadist Islam would exploit the resulting chaos.

    And it isn’t simply Iraq that has slipped into chaos and posed opportunity for the real enemy, which is Islamist radicals bent on attacking the West whenever and wherever possible. It seems clear that the so-called Arab Spring emerged in part from inspiration derived from events in Iraq, which nurtured confidence among many elements of Islam that change was possible. Unfortunately for many, the change that has unfolded hasn’t contributed to regional stability, let alone anything approaching the democracy envisioned by the architects of the Bush invasion. And so now we have ISIS on the march, established in significant expanses of territory in Syria and Iraq. Dealing with that problem—a problem of the real enemy—will now draw America further into the maw. The cost has been immense, and unfortunately it is just beginning.    "

Jean Chretien, the Prime Minister of Canada at the time of both the 9/11 attacks AND Bush's declaration of the Iraq War, honoured fully Canada's NATO obligations and it's obligations to international justice to send troops to Afghanistan, where such Canadian Forces troops served valiantly, steadfastly, and consistently in Afghanistan for the entire 11-year period of NATO military presence there. However, Chretien also made very clear that - without threatening withdrawl or reduction or drop in commitment at all of Canadian Forces in Afghanistan, that no Canadian Forces would be sent to the Iraq War, nor would Canada give diplomatic, military, or financial support to that conflict. THAT is a hard choice for a world leader...

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

Jean Chretien, the Prime Minister of Canada at the time of both the 9/11 attacks AND Bush's declaration of the Iraq War, honoured fully Canada's NATO obligations and it's obligations to international justice to send troops to Afghanistan, where such Canadian Forces troops served valiantly, steadfastly, and consistently in Afghanistan for the entire 11-year period of NATO military presence there. However, Chretien also made very clear that - without threatening withdrawl or reduction or drop in commitment at all of Canadian Forces in Afghanistan, that no Canadian Forces would be sent to the Iraq War, nor would Canada give diplomatic, military, or financial support to that conflict. THAT is a hard choice for a world leader...

I'd say Jean Chretien was, at least in this area, a man of integrity and strength--a leader. I don't know much about Chretien otherwise. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Reagan04 said:

I support you man. George W Bush was the better choice twice and Id like to thank you for your service under him. Of course I oppose the Patriot Act, but Bush did the best he could with what he was given and he was a strong leader. Unlike his two successors. To call him a war criminal is just silly, I for one am glad Saddam is no longer in power.

Thanks!

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...