Here Today... Gone To Hell!

If you had been of age to vote in these elections, which would you have voted for. Or if you are older, whom did you vote for.

1960-Nixon or Kennedy
1964-Goldwater or LBJ
1968-Nixon or Humphrey or Wallace
1972-Nixon or McGovern
1976-Ford or Carter
1980-Reagan or Carter
1984-Reagan or Mondale
1988-Bush or Dukakis
1992-Bush or Clinton or Perot
1996-Dole or Clinton or Perot
2000-Bush or Gore or Nader
2004-Bush or Kerry or Nader
2008-McCain or Clinton

60- JFK
64-LBJ
68-Humphrey
72- McGovern
76-Carter
80- Carter
84- Mondale
88-Duke
92-Clinton
96-Clinton
00-Gore
04-Kerry
08-Clinton

60 Kennedy
64 Goldwater
68 Goldwater (reelection)
72 No clue due to paradox
76 Anyone but Carter
80 Reagan
84 Reagan
88 Bush
92 Perot
96 Clinton
00 Buchanan
04 Buchanan
08 McCain


That is a messed up list, but due to all the time paradox's (great scott) its hard to tell who would have ran.

Buchanan also ran in '96, won NH in the primary.
 

Dude u voted for Carter 3 times, U know u are a hardcore left winger when u would vote for maybe the shittiest president in US history 3 times, for real man u have to be kidding!!!!!


1960-Nixon or Kennedy? Kennedy
1964-Goldwater or LBJ? ?LBJ
1968-Nixon or Humphrey or Wallace? Nixon
1972-Nixon or McCarthy? Nixon
1976-Ford or Carter Ford
1980-Reagan or Carter Reagan
1984-Reagan or Mondale Reagan
1988-Bush or Dukakis? Bush
1992-Bush or Clinton or Perot? Clinton
1996-Dole or Clinton or Perot? Clinton
2000-Bush or Gore or Nader? Gore
2004-Bush or Kerry or Nader? Bush
2008-McCain or Clinton Clinton

To anyone who voted for LBJ (whom I think is our worst president ever tied with bush).  Do you remember a little thing called VIETNAM!

I guess I put him cause I dont know who the fuck Goldwater is, and there are no guarantees that Goldwater wouldnt have went as well, just like we may have ended up in Iraq even if Gore had won the presidency, u never know.

I meant to write Mondale in '84, my bad. Carter, worse than Bush? ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahhahahhahahhahahhahahhahahhahahahhahahahahhaha

And Carter was to the left-of-center, not a "left-winger." McGovern was a left-winger, and a good man.

JFK got us into Vietnam.

All I know about Goldwater is that he was old school conservative.  And conservative at that time meant isolationist, so IMO Vietnam was not on the table for Goldwater.

Actually we officially got into Vietnam in the 50's.  However, JFK, according to what has been written, was not keen on a full scale war in Vietnam.  He was actually one of the only ones in his administration that wasn't for war in Vietnam.  Which is partly why the conspiracy theorists about his death persist.

I'm not a history major or anything, but I think Ike had some advisors on Nam, but the war really started with JFK's secret bombing in '62. Then of course the gulf of tonken res. is the official start, in '64, with LBJ.

Remember that Macnamura DVD a couple years ago "the fog of war." I am pretty sure he said right around that time that Kennedy didn't have plans for a full scale war.  Secret bombings are one thing, and full scale war with 100's of thousands of troops is another.

"The Fog of War" is one of my favorite movies. Really gives you an idea how these people behind the scenes think.

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/cold.war/episodes/11/interviews/mcnamara/

Mcnamara's belief is that Kennedy wouldn't have gone the way Johnson did.

1960- Kennedy
1964- LBJ
1968- Humphrey
1972- McGovern
1976- Carter
1980- Carter
1984- Mondale
1988- Dukakis
1992- Clinton
1996- Clinton
2000- Gore?
2004- Kerry
2008- Clinton


"If I had inherited the mess that Johnson got into, I would have said to North Vietnam, by dropping leaflets out of B-52s, 'You quit the war in three days or the next time these babies come over there going to drop some big bombs on you.' And I'd make a swamp out of North Vietnam...I'd rather kill a hell of a lot of North Vietnamese than one American and we've lost enough of them."

I have far more respect for the Goldwater near the end of his life than the one up for election in 1964.

Also, Goldwaters election would have likely been an issue in itself considering that he was born in Arizona before it was actually part of the United States...it wouldve been interesting to see how we wouldve resolved that problem.

Goldwater on Bill Clintons wife, Hillary: "If he'd let his wife run business, I think he'd be better off. ... I just like the way she acts. I've never met her, but I sent her a bag of chili, and she invited me to come to the White House some night and said she'd cook chili for me. Someday, maybe."

"A lot of so-called conservatives today don't know what the word means," he told the Los Angeles Times in a 1994 interview. "They think I've turned liberal because I believe a woman has a right to an abortion. That's a decision that's up to the pregnant woman, not up to the pope or some do-gooders or the religious right. It's not a conservative issue at all."

1960- Kennedy
1964- LBJ
1968- Nixon
1972- Nixon
1976- Ford
1980- Reagen
1984- Reagen
1988- Bush
1992- Clinton
1996- Clinton
2000- Gore
2004- Kerry
2008- The Terminator!

Would have voted:
1960-Kennedy
1964-LBJ
1968-Nixon
1972-McGovern
1976-Carter
1980-Reagan
1984-Reagan



Sorta voted:
1988-Bush? (Mock election...I'm only 31)

Voted:
1992-Perot
1996-Clinton
2000-Nader
2004-Kerry
2008-McCain (Leaning that way, anyway)

I've only voted in one real election, and wasn't even alive before the 1984 elections.  But anyway, here goes...

1960-- Kennedy
1964-- at the time, LBJ; in hindsight, Goldwater
1968-- RFK's corpse
1972-- Nixon... he looked alright before Watergate
1976-- Carter-- great man, turned out to be a crappy president
1980-- Ed Clark (Libertarian)
1984-- David Bergland (Libertarian)
1988-- Ron Paul (Libertarian)
1992-- Perot
1996-- Dole
2000-- Browne (Libertarian)
2004-- Badnarik (Libertarian)
2008-- Whoever the Libertarians trot out there

1960-Nixon or Kennedy:  Nixon
1964-Goldwater or LBJ:  Goldwater
1968-Nixon or Humphrey or Wallace:  Nixon
1972-Nixon or McGovern:  Nixon
1976-Ford or Carter:   :hihi: :hihi:  Wow, sucks for people who voted in 1976.
1980-Reagan or Carter:  Reagan
1984-Reagan or Mondale:  Reagan
1988-Bush or Dukakis:  Bush
1992-Bush or Clinton or Perot:  Bush
1996-Dole or Clinton or Perot:  Perot...even though it would've been a waste of a vote.
2000-Bush or Gore or Nader:  Bush
2004-Bush or Kerry or Nader:  Bush, I'll admit he's done a pretty poor job so far this term, but I'll still take him over Kerry.
2008-McCain or Clinton:  McCain!

Can I ask why?

I think Ive said it on here before that I respect McCain a lot more than the standard modern-day Republican, but hes still solidly conservative and much closer to Bush politically than many even realize. 


Id ask why, but you wouldve voted for Richard Nixon, so Im not sure its even worth it.  :no:

Nixon would be considered a flamming liberal by today's standards.

He's a conservative, but his policy tends to be much less devisive than Bush.  And certainly less devisive that what we've seen of Hillary's (her health care fiasco when Clinton was in office, for example).  I think the country needs that, especially after 4 years of being split down the middle by this administration.

In addition, he seems to be an "old school" fiscal conservative, and that's something we sorely need..someone to balance the checkbook.  He's internationally respected, and has had good ideas on foriegn policy in the past.   He's proven that he'll depart from the party when he feels he "should", and isn't afraid to work both sides of the floor for support.  In short, I think he's the best possible candidate for the country.  Whether he'll actually run or not, or can make it through a primary process...I'm not sure.  His age is also a factor....he's not a young man anymore so he'd need a young, strong VP candidate.

would have voted for:
1960- Kennedy
1964- Goldwater
1968-Nixon
1972-Nixon
1976-Ford
1980-Reagan
1984-Reagan
1988-Bush
1992-Clinton

Voted For:

1996- Perot
2000- Bush
2004- Bush

and in `08

Guliani or McCain

And its that independent streak I admire about him, not to mention his service prior to office, but hes a supporter of Bushs privatization initiative, he supports homophobic legislature, his outlook on this war seems to mirror Bushs (which is a major problem for Clinton as well), he would like to overturn Roe V. Wade, and despite halfheartedly criticizing the religious right before, hes recently held meetings with Jerry Falwell...which concerns me, for obvious reasons.  Im curious as to just what extent he might go to fulfil his very obvious ambition to be president.  I wonder if his rejection by the party in 2000 is enough to push him farther to the right.  I understand the politics of his support for Bush last year, but its hard to accept. 

Theres some troubling things about Clinton as well, most notably her position on the war...but shes not off on most other issues, and I wouldnt dismiss the prospect of her husband being back in the White House.


Honestly, its looking better for him each day...If this unpopularity streak continues or maintains for Republicans the next year-and-a-half, theyll be a lot more likely to embrace the obviously electable McCain, although theyd surely favor George Allen.  Thats a bit of a catch 22 for me, and many Democrats I presume...Id rather see a McCain presidency than an Allen one, but I dont really want to see him in the general election because he is so likely to win.  I do think that his "moderate" reputation is exaggerated...Were likely to get many of Bushs policies/positions, but in the form of a fiendly, likeable "moderate."


I disagree with that...I suppose hed be a so-called moderate, but an extraordinarily corrupt, dishonest one and how anyone can look back in hindsight and say that they wouldve voted for him is very odd to me.


Ive seen his name mentioned, but does anybody really think its even remotely possibly for Rudolph Giuliani to get the nomination?

People only wanted to vote for Kerry only cause he wasnt Bush, Seriously I wouldve been a better President than John Kerry, that guy was clueless although I voted for him anyway just because I am a democrat, If I had it to do over i wouldve voted for Nader or Bush.

Kerry was a dipshit in my opinion and YES I believe we'd be even worse off right now with Kerry as president.


Bush is a better president than Carter, Carter had the lowest ratings of any president in my opinion.

Nixon had whitewater and all that shit, Bush has the War in Iraq,the natural disasters, the super high gas prices.

What did Carter have that fucked his rating so low?

he didnt have a war, As far as I know he didnt have any big time natural disasters, i think he may have been president during a gas shortage but seriously, to not be a war time or a scandal laden president and to have numbers as low as he, U would have to be a truly horrible president.

Booker, can you prove that Goldwater would have done what Johnson did.  That quote about dropping leaflets means nothing about what he would have done in Johnson's place before the war escalated.

The above quote has about 80 words and absolutely no substance.? Why was Kerry "clueless," and why would we be worse off if he were elected?? I have a feeling that youre more acquainted with the Republican caricature of Kerry than you are the actual man.? So please explain...


Watergate.


Your lack of reasoning is borderline frightening sometimes...Now Im dissecting your logic for a moment: He wasnt involved in any major scandals, and theres nothing else that you can negatively attach to his presidency...why are you calling him a bad president, or worse: worse than Bush?? Id like you to address this.

The Iran hostage crisis and a bad economy did him in.? The hostage crisis really killed him, and its questionable if there was much at all he realistically could do.? Its also uncertain if Carters successor played any role in prolonging the crisis.


Well considering thats a hypothetical scenario, I guess I cant technically prove it.? There was more to the quote than leaflets:

"You quit the war in three days or the next time these babies come over there going to drop some big bombs on you.' And I'd make a swamp out of North Vietnam...I'd rather kill a hell of a lot of North Vietnamese than one American and we've lost enough of them."

--SOUTHEAST ASIA. (http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1996/analysis/back.time/9606/12/index.shtml) "The first thing we've got to do is make the decision that we're going to win in Vietnam. The supplies of the Communist invaders have got to be cut off. This means threatening or actually interdicting the supply routes from Red China, Laos and Cambodia." Asked recently just how this might be done, he listed several possibilities, including the use of small nuclear weapons to "defoliate" the Vietnamese jungle and deprive Communist guerrillas of their cover. He did not say that he advocated such a step, although that was the impression that his listeners received, and the headlines made it appear a definite Goldwater proposal.

So basically Goldwater was in favor of fighting in Vietnam(after the fact of sending 100's of thousands of troops there) with the goal of actually winning something. 

That still means nothing to me in the context of whether he would have escalated the war in the first place.

Well, he also entertained introducing nuclear weapons, which is a pretty scary proposal in an already scary war.

Both were likely to handle the war badly...Johnson did, and paid the price for it, but I would definitely prefer his domestic legislation. 

I do think that Goldwater was playing poltics when he said all of that.  However, I still think he would have avoided the war because his party was still an isolationist party.

If I was alive/old enough, I would have voted

1960-Nixon
1968-Nixon
1972-Nixon
1980-Reagan
1984-Reagan
1988-Bush
1992-Bush
2000-Bush

I voted for
2004-Bush

Kerry voted for the war but then when election time rolled around was against the war, then said basically the war was a "Horrible error" and then said even if elected he'd finish the job... mmmmmm ok, so u are gonna let soldiers die for something that U dont believe in? Cant do it, lost my vote with that statement alone.

He was against outposting Jobs to other countries even though his wife and their ketchup company manufacture their goods overseas, Once again, way to go!


Jimmy Carter was the polar opposite of Bush and had lower ratings than Bush.

U call my points frightening only because u are stuck on left wing too hard and unable to see the forest for the trees.

Did Carter have a controversial war? NO

Did Carter have out of control gas and oil prices??? No

Did Carter have 9/11? NO

Did Carter have some of the worst natural disasters this world has ever witnessed? NO


Still yet he had a lower rating than Bush, so Its fair to say Bush is better than Carter.

Carter was gutless with the Iran hostage crisis and if u go by poll numbers the proof is right there.

In Hindsight Carter is always gonna be looked upon as one of the worst presidents ever.

If Iraq turns out, 20 years down the road Bush's place in history may be cemented and he may turn out to be one of the better presidents in recent history.

Yeah, and you would've voted for Jimmy Carter twice, so your opinion is obviously worth hearing.  I agree with the two reasons D gave in his last post.  I just don't see what Kerry would be doing differently at this point.  Would we be out of Iraq by now?  Don't think so since he said he'd finish the job.  Would he have dealt with Katrina better?  Maybe, but that's only speculation.  You can't sit back and say one guy would've definitely done a better job than another.  And there more issues that agree with Bush on than with Kerry.  I'm not one of those conservatives that'll never admit when somone I voted for fucks up (unlike most liberals I know), so I do realize Bush hasn't done the best job.  But I don't see where Kerry would've done any better.

How in the fuck could you have voted for Carter and Mondale?? :rant:  :confused: ???

Is "horrible error" a quote?



 ???

Your "flip-flop" and oversimplification aside, Im still unclear on how exactly wed be worse off with Kerry.? Would the Katrina response have been worse?? Would our reputation throughout the world be worse?? Given that Kerrys actually proposed a more tangible exit stratgey than the administration thus far, would we really be any more lost in Iraq?



No.? Its not your actual points that are frightening, its the lack of reasoning behind them (and the fact that you in fact missed that distinction might even be an example).? It has nothing to do with political ideology either, it has to do with your reasoning process.? For example:


Here you equate an unsourced "rating" with an objective judgement of whos "better."? Thats absurd logic, regardless of political ideology.? The only thing a "rating" objectively proves is a presidents popularity at a particular time.? That goes for Carter the same as it goes for Bush.? ?


 :confused:

And here we go again...The fact that view poll numbers, that youve failed to source, as objective truth prove my point about your lack of reasoning.

However Im interested in your explanation of his gutlessness...


The unfortunate thing is that you will probably view whatever opinion or list you see as absolute truth.

A February 2005 Washington College public opinion poll  (http://starrcenter.washcoll.edu/poll/gw_poll_results.pdf) has Jimmy Carter at #10, in front of Thomas Jefforson.? A February 2000 ABC News poll has Carter at 12, meaning hes better than Eisenhower!? A 1996 Ridings & McIver academic poll has Carter at 19, which means hes better than Ronald Reagan...

 :o? The proof is in the numbers!? ::)


I really wouldnt bet on it.


You might not like Carter, but hes not the most provably dishonest, corrupt president weve had in recent history.? In fact, he might be the most decent man to serve in the White House for as long as I can remember.?


Really??


You made your initial comment (Bush, I'll admit he's done a pretty poor job so far this term, but I'll still take him over Kerry) in the present, so lets discuss the present.? You believe theres no difference between Kerrys strategy for Iraq and Bushs?


Id suggest that anybody who believes that Kerrys response would have been worse than Bush and Michael Browns is deluded.



Maybe not...


...but youre more than willing to make incredible understatements.

How the fuck could you vote for Reagan?

Because Reagan was awesome?  : ok:

I have never voted because I live in an extremely red state, Georgia, and it's going to be 100% Republican no matter what I do. Likewise, New Yorkers and Californians are going to be 100% liberal, so conservatives from those states should consider moving to battleground states where they could make a real difference.

If I lived in Florida or a highly contested state, I would usually vote Republican, maybe Constitution party or Libertarian if the Republican candidate is terrible.

In regards to Carter, unfortunately the best people usually don't make the best presidents.  In a perfect world they would.  Of course Kerry's strategy in Iraq would be somewhat different, but I really didn't see him coming in and fixing the situation any.  If I thought he would've done such a better job with Iraq I may have voted for him.  And I never said Kerry would've done a worse job than Bush with Katrina.  Hell, I don't think its possible for a worse job to be done.  But to just assume Kerry would've handled it better is totally presumptious.  Hindsight is always 20/20.  Honestly, I don't think either Kerry or Bush are/would be great presidents.  But given the choice between the two I chose Bush and I stick by my choice.