Retrospective US Presidential Election: 1904
- Thread starter Nerdlinger
- Start date
And what is the better judge of a man's character?
As Lincoln said, "Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power."
Okay, let's suppose Alton Parker or any other anti-imperialist Democrat is elected in 1904. Those hundreds of thousands of people would still be alive. Like he said, you seem to have some warped priorities here.
Again, I routinely see people rank LBJ as "a great president" or "near great" on this site and plenty of others. Often times these are the same people that will rail against Jackson or whatever for their own racial policies. I think we both know why that is.
Context matters. Milosevic killed less people than Bush did in Iraq, but morally Milosevic is more at fault. Milosevic was carrying out a purposeful campaign of racial genocide, not suppressing (however brutally) a guerrilla insurrection.
The vast majority of the deaths in the Philippine Insurgency occurred before March 4, 1905.
Plenty of people seem to rank him an "utter disaster" or "his Vietnam policy is an utter disaster".
Some posters just ask the impossible. I actually like the TC's thread idea, if approached from the actual idea of "who am I going to vote for on Nov 1, 1904 if my 1904 self resembles my current self?" and not "how should I act on Jan 15, 2012, knowing everything I know 100% the same, if I could vote 108 years ago".
But the moderators understandably moved the thread, as posters couldn't retain the plausibility. And I don't know why that is?
Despite all the Debs fan boys and TR haters here we seem to have quite a blowout anyways.
I can't help but think that everyone voting for Debs is only doing so because he has the word "socialist" next to his name. Would all these people still be voting for him if his party affliation was say something non-descript like "Union" or silly like "Wild Turkey"?
No, actually the situations are almost exactly equivalent. From the Serbian/"Yugoslav" perspective they were suppressing (however brutally) a guerrilla insurrection. In the Serbian case though, it was at least people in related ethnic groups who spoke the same language and who originally voted to join the country. Not literally a conquered province, as in the Philippines.
How is that at all relevant? He had already ascended to the Presidency by 1901. Besides, even if he was second in command that doesn't absolve him of moral responsibility.
No, I was drawing a comparison. That doesn't imply that I approve of their actions or anything. That much should be obvious given "the context." But I suspect you know that and are just using the tried and true tactic of being deliberately obtuse.
In what way? Will Spain get to keep them? Will they be under American protection? Or will the Japanese Empire just be happening to them in a few years?
Jasen777
Donor
Well I voted for him and I'm not a socialist.
T3h_shammy said:
I don't think anyone has more fanboys on this site than Teddy.
Well that's not saying much. I voted for Swallow, well because his name is Swallow and nobody else voted for him...
In a way which McKinley decides to not retain the Philippines. Because from what I've read is that they would probably balkanize while other European powers would exert influence over various client states.