Snake Featherston
Banned
Then how would you say socialism differs from communism?
Socialism does it through the ballot box. Communists do it with bullets in people's crania.
Then how would you say socialism differs from communism?
you know, that's totally unfair considering he hasn't even taken office yet, I mean I wouldn't have said what you just said if McCain was electedIt already happened. He won the 2008
election IOTL.
How would a President ban the teaching of evolution?
P.S: Not all colleges are privat3
It already happened. He won the 2008 election IOTL.
I don't think Goldwater would have been that bad. I mean, most of his economic policies were not much worse than Reagan’s and at least he wasn't a fan of the Religious Right (who I think are perhaps the greatest threat to American security at this moment in time)
I wouldn't call him FDR 2.0
Probably closer to LBJ 2.0, which, while I'm fine with, may not be what others want......
I'm not speaking so much of what he will do for sure, but rather his ideology and at least what he will try to do. LBJ was too conservative for me to consider Obama in line with him. Obama will likely be bipartisan, but not conservative or centrist.
LBJ wasn't conservative, unless you count non-Civil Rights social issues, and then he was a product of his time. He was the last of the New Deal Democrats, and he did a sight more good for the country than Kennedy did, who was seen as the "shining star" of liberalism.
Johnson had balls and was a power-player, he had a vision for the country that was a step beyond even FDR's New Deal or JFK's New Frontier..... but he had a foreign mess to step into.
That pretty much describes Obama. Except Obama has the image of JFK as well.
yes LBJ conservative....... so whats Liberal?![]()
George McGovern isn't plausible.
i would agree with that after 72 because before that it was pretty much the convention bosses who decided the candidates.I would have to disagree with you on that. Of course McGovern was an absolute disaster in the 1972 election, however I think anyone who gets the nomination of either the Democrats or Republicans should be considered a plausible president. You don't get chosen to one of two people competing for the highest office in the USA without having at least a signifcant level of broad community support.
Whilst I don't know that much about the electoral college system (I'm Australian and there's nothing even remotedly similar here to compare it to), I do know that it does dramatically over-exaggerate McGovern's loss, due to him having large minorities of support in almost all states. On the other hand this would mean that it would only take him to garner a few more percentage points of support (ie have him moderate some of his stances) for a lot of states to be won by him.
More of a little game then a challenge. Tell me who you think would be the worst plausible President (i.e. no President Charles Manson or anything). By that, I mean it has to be someone that was actually reasonably close at one point to becoming President. So, was Vice President, almost became Vice President, got the party's nomination, was about to get the party, almost got his party's nomination, etc.