 |
|
d_dudy
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by axi
Couldn't they have different leaders for different epochs and governments?
F.e. if the US were communist, their leader wouldn't have been Lincoln, but Eugene Debbs.
If they were fundy, it would have been revt. Jesse Jackson.
If they had a king, it would be Elvis.
If they had a despot, it would be Bill Gates.
For a republic, it would be Reagan.
For a democracy, it would be JFK. |
what kind of fundy is that??????? crazy looney fundy. i think the christian coalition guy would be better
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ozymandous
|
 |
Atlanta, GA
Aug 2001
time: 00:15
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Boris Godunov
There was not originally a term limit for the POTUS. The Republicans in Congress inacted the 22nd amendment because they were ticked off at FDR being prez for so long. The Dems went along with it because they didn't want to be seen as endorsing a "monarchal figure."
I would actually attribute the move out of isolationism more to Wilson than FDR. Or Wilson's wife, at least, since she was actually our first woman president after Wilson was debilitated by a stroke.
Cheers.
PS--I am opposed to the 22nd Amendment. I find it a violation of the Bill of Rights. Americans should be allowed to vote for who they want free of restrictions. That IS democracy, after all. |
There was no official term limit but most presidents (at least not those who craved power) knew of and accepted that their was an unofficial limit on their terms since George Washington did it.
One note about your comment about the 22nd amendment. if Americans could really vote who they want in I don't think Bill Clinton would have been elected at all, possibly no "modern" president would have been except George W in the most recent election because Clinton didn't even win the majority of the popular vote, he just won more of the minority that anyone else at the time.
IMHO, there should be a third "none of the above" option for elections and if that option wins more than either cantidate then we have the election again, only with better cantidates. 
Otherwise you risk the dubious "choice" of voting for the lesser of two evils (which is what happens anyway), and just trying to counter-act some of the blind radicals who want the government to do everything for them in their lives. 
Oh, and for whoever it was who commented about not liking Geore Bush's energy policy... Well, it's better than the non-existant policy that the previous administration had. 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
d_dudy
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Isn't crazy looney the very definition of a fundamentalist?
But yes, Jackson isn't remotely close to a fundy. He doesn't hate women/gays/minorities/poor people/other religions/etc.
Better to have Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson. But since neither of those two bozos have actually been political leaders, and I'd really HATE to immortalize them in a game...maybe Brigham Young? |
maybe if it was the fundy of utah
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
orange
|
 |
It doesn't matter what your name is!
Feb 2000
time: 00:15
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Easy choice for me:
Thomas Jefferson. Let us recognize, finally, what this man has meant to the United States. He may not have had more influence than Washington or led in as troubled times as Lincoln. However, his writing of the Declaration of Independence, his purchase of the Louisiana terrority during his Presidency, and his ideas of a weak federal government which won out over Hamiltonian ideas of strong federal government colored American attitudes, even today (even though we have a strong federal government these days). |
Jefferson didn't purchase Louisiana. It was purchased during his presidency. Jefferson wanted New Orleans and the surroundings and told the diplomat to France, James Monroe, only to spend a certain amount. Monroe paid 10 times that for the whole Louisiana territory after it was offered by Napoleon.
Jefferson had a good first term, but a fairly bad second term, IIRC.
Edit: may I add that I am unbelievably shocked that you didn't pick Reagan
|
|
| |
|
|
|
orange
|
|
It doesn't matter what your name is!
Feb 2000
time: 00:15
|
|
quote:
One note about your comment about the 22nd amendment. if Americans could really vote who they want in I don't think Bill Clinton would have been elected at all, possibly no "modern" president would have been except George W in the most recent election because Clinton didn't even win the majority of the popular vote, he just won more of the minority that anyone else at the time. |
What the hell are you talking about  
George W. was the first President that did NOT win the popular vote and still won the election since 1876!
Clinton won the majority of both the popular vote and the electoral vote both elections.
quote:
IMHO, there should be a third "none of the above" option for elections and if that option wins more than either cantidate then we have the election again, only with better cantidates. |
Yes, this would be efficient
quote:
Otherwise you risk the dubious "choice" of voting for the lesser of two evils (which is what happens anyway), and just trying to counter-act some of the blind radicals who want the government to do everything for them in their lives. |
So join a third party and start changing our government. It's a slow process, the only way to make it a fast process is with a nation wide revolution...I don't think you have the resources to pull that one off And it's been done before. Federalists and Republicans, Whigs and Democratic Republicans, Republicans and Democrats, Progressives thrown in there...
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Boris Godunov
|
 |
Portland, OR
Aug 2001
time: 00:15
|
|
quote:
Majority - Popularity...who cares? More people voted for Clinton than anyone else...by a decisive amount. |
Yup, I agree. I don't care because in general I supported Clinton's policies. Clinton-haters cared because they would do anything to try and de-legitimize his presidency. Now they are strangely silent on Bush's own legitimacy problems (which are far more obvious!)
quote:
You sure about 20% for Perot in '92? |
100% sure. He captured a large part of the voters who were disgruntled with Bush and Clinton both and were sour about the economy. It didn't help that many of them were weirdos, too!
quote:
Edit: If Nader hadn't gotten all the votes that he did, Gore would have recieved more votes as well. What's your point |
My point was that conservatives repeatedly whine about if Perot hadn't run, Bush would have won and Clinton would never have gotten elected. This is rubbish, as studies showed the lack of Perot in the race would not have changed the final outcome. It might have stopped Bush Pere from earning one of the lowest popular vote percentages in the nation's history for a major party candidate (I think only Goldwater is lower this century), but not have prevented Clinton's win.
Regarding Gore, I think that since the margin was so small in Florida, the argument would hold more water. But it's meaningless. If they voted for Nader, they voted for Nader, end of story. More important is the thwarting of the popular will by the botched Palm Beach County ballots, which would have easily given Gore a 2000+ vote victory margin. But again, you can't count intended votes, despite the ludicrousness of elderly Florida Jews voting for Pat "The Nazis weren't so bad" Buchanan.
Cheers.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:15.
Apolyton Time is 00:15. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
21-09-2001 21:30
|