Who would you have supported in all US presidential elections up to 1988?

Code Blue · Oct 30, 2019

Futurist said:
I like how you refer to yourself in the third person here.

Oh, I thought it was a reference to James Blaine from state of Maine, who you picked as more ambitious than Cleveland.

Futurist · Oct 30, 2019

Code Blue said:
Oh, I thought it was a reference to James Blaine from state of Maine, who you picked as more ambitious than Cleveland.

Yeah, Blaine probably was more ambitious than Cleveland. For instance, I believe that he has advocated in favor of Hawaii annexation since the 1850s--back when he was still a mere newspaper editor in Maine! The one thing that I dislike Blaine for is his attempt to mediate a peace between Chile and Peru in the War of the Pacific that didn't actually result in any territorial gains for Chile, though. I don't think that the US--a country that has engaged in Manifest Destiny just decades earlier--can actually take this position in good faith.

duncanness · Oct 30, 2019

Divinespark said:
To simplify: Ethics are just morals writ large. So argue away

Well, no--not exactly (although they are very close and the two terms often are used as though they are interchangeable). Morality touches more on an individual's code of behavior and, therefore, varies from person to person. If I were to question someone's moral code, as I have inadvertently, the reaction is quite personal. That being said, and with some trepidation, I argue that Manifest Destiny is (ethically) unconstitutional by logical extension of the First Amendment: whatever one's personal opinion (moral) on the character of the character or even the existence of God, it should play no stated role in setting foreign policy.

duncanness · Oct 30, 2019

Futurist said:
I like how you refer to yourself in the third person here.

I was trying to encompass all of Kotromic's possibilities--not to pass myself off as Code Blue's Plumed Knight.

Theodoric · Oct 30, 2019

NIXON!

(Just kidding, I know almost nothing about Pre-Bush Jr. US Presidents outside of FDR. NIXON just seems to be a really funny in Futurama)

Futurist · Oct 30, 2019

Theodoric said:
NIXON!

(Just kidding, I know almost nothing about Pre-Bush Jr. US Presidents outside of FDR. NIXON just seems to be a really funny in Futurama)

Kotromanic · Oct 30, 2019

If the 31st century needed an example of a tactical genius from Nixon's generation, they would have done better by re-animating Orioles' manager Earl Weaver.

nuclearguy165 · Oct 30, 2019

Futurist said:
Yeah, Blaine probably was more ambitious than Cleveland. For instance, I believe that he has advocated in favor of Hawaii annexation since the 1850s--back when he was still a mere newspaper editor in Maine! The one thing that I dislike Blaine for is his attempt to mediate a peace between Chile and Peru in the War of the Pacific that didn't actually result in any territorial gains for Chile, though. I don't think that the US--a country that has engaged in Manifest Destiny just decades earlier--can actually take this position in good faith.

IIRC, Grover was opposed to the U.S. acquiring overseas possessions because he believed they would be too costly to maintain and could lead to diplomatic issues with other powers, especially in light of the Monroe Doctrine. History ultimately didn't support his ideals here but I can see some sense in them. Plus, this is different from the purely continental dimensions of Manifest Destiny.

frogsofwar · Oct 30, 2019

If you have a choice, where do you really want to live?

-North Korea
-China
-Russia
-Israel
-Australia
-USA
-EU
-Myanmar/Vietnam
-Uganda
-Lol, anywhere in Africa or South America

Pretty sure you are chilling somewhere in the EU, USA o Anglosphere.

Futurist · Oct 30, 2019

nuclearguy165 said:
IIRC, Grover was opposed to the U.S. acquiring overseas possessions because he believed they would be too costly to maintain and could lead to diplomatic issues with other powers, especially in light of the Monroe Doctrine.

Well, the US's presence in Hawaii and the Philippines did make an eventual US-Japan confrontation more likely, no? FTR, I believe that the US's occupation of the Philippines was a mistake. Too many Filipinos for the US to successfully absorb.

Was his argument that the US would be a hypocrite for expanding outside of the Western Hemisphere while refusing to allow new European colonialism in the Americas? If so, I wonder why he didn't aim to acquire more territory in the Americas--for instance, the Danish West Indies.

History ultimately didn't support his ideals here but I can see some sense in them. Plus, this is different from the purely continental dimensions of Manifest Destiny.

I will grant that the US's westward expansion in the early and mid-19th century was much more crucial for the development of the US than Hawaii or the Philippines were. So, I agree with you about this.

Futurist · Oct 30, 2019

frogsofwar said:
If you have a choice, where do you really want to live?

-North Korea
-China
-Russia
-Israel
-Australia
-USA
-EU
-Myanmar/Vietnam
-Uganda
-Lol, anywhere in Africa or South America

Pretty sure you are chilling somewhere in the EU, USA o Anglosphere.

The Russian blogger Anatoly Karlin actually repatriated to Russia after living in the US for a decade and after living in the UK for I think several years before that.

frogsofwar · Oct 30, 2019

Futurist said:
The Russian blogger Anatoly Karlin actually repatriated to Russia after living in the US for a decade and after living in the UK for I think several years before that.

There are exceptions! But there is a reason we have an immigration crisis in Europe and America: people want to be in the West.

nuclearguy165 · Oct 30, 2019

Futurist said:
Well, the US's presence in Hawaii and the Philippines did make an eventual US-Japan confrontation more likely, no? FTR, I believe that the US's occupation of the Philippines was a mistake. Too many Filipinos for the US to successfully absorb.

Was his argument that the US would be a hypocrite for expanding outside of the Western Hemisphere while refusing to allow new European colonialism in the Americas? If so, I wonder why he didn't aim to acquire more territory in the Americas--for instance, the Danish West Indies.

I will grant that the US's westward expansion in the early and mid-19th century was much more crucial for the development of the US than Hawaii or the Philippines were. So, I agree with you about this.

I think the hypocrisy of overseas expansion was part of his argument, yes, but he was more chiefly concerned with avoiding conflicts with other powers as well as his belief that the country's own continental resources combined with trade were already plenty. After that, he didn't want to have to deal with the resources that would need to be expended for overseas territorial control.

Futurist · Oct 30, 2019

frogsofwar said:
There are exceptions! But there is a reason we have an immigration crisis in Europe and America: people want to be in the West.

Yep:

More Than 750 Million Worldwide Would Migrate If They Could

Fifteen percent of the world's adults -- or more than 750 million people -- say they would like to move to another country if they had the opportunity. This is up from previous years, but still shy of the record high of 16% set between 2007 and 2009.

news.gallup.com

Interestingly enough, about a third of Sub-Saharan Africans want to emigrate. This figure is comparable to the percentage of African-Americans who left the Southern US between 1910 and 1970 and moved to the Northern and Western US.

Code Blue · Oct 31, 2019

Futurist said:
Well, the US's presence in Hawaii and the Philippines did make an eventual US-Japan confrontation more likely, no?

Yes. Just as not controlling Cuba makes eventual invasion of the US more likely.

Code Blue · Oct 31, 2019

Kotromanic said:
If the 31st century needed an example of a tactical genius from Nixon's generation, they would have done better by re-animating Orioles' manager Earl Weaver.

Earl Weaver? Why not George Allen or Red Auerbach? (Actually my first pick is Bobby Fisher, but that's not fair).

Divinespark · Oct 31, 2019

duncanness said:
Well, no--not exactly (although they are very close and the two terms often are used as though they are interchangeable). Morality touches more on an individual's code of behavior and, therefore, varies from person to person. If I were to question someone's moral code, as I have inadvertently, the reaction is quite personal. That being said, and with some trepidation, I argue that Manifest Destiny is (ethically) unconstitutional by logical extension of the First Amendment: whatever one's personal opinion (moral) on the character of the character or even the existence of God, it should play no stated role in setting foreign policy.

Wow. That's an interesting viewpoint. Do you think that Manifest Destiny is disrupting the separation between church and state? Now I REALLY have to hear you work out your impressions on this.

duncanness · Oct 31, 2019

Divinespark said:
Wow. That's an interesting viewpoint. Do you think that Manifest Destiny is disrupting the separation between church and state? Now I REALLY have to hear you work out your impressions on this.

1. The state and some chuches were unchanged but not every religion supported Manifest Destiny. Then isn't this giving preference to one religion over another?
2. Manifest Destiny was a secular policy that excused imperialism. It was, in a way, the state imposing itself on religion thus disrupting the existing status.
3. The institution of a non-citizen, non-elected official/non-member of the state department as director of policy was unsanctioned.

Divinespark · Oct 31, 2019

duncanness said:
1. The state and some chuches were unchanged but not every religion supported Manifest Destiny. Then isn't this giving preference to one religion over another?
2. Manifest Destiny was a secular policy that excused imperialism. It was, in a way, the state imposing itself on religion thus disrupting the existing status.
3. The institution of a non-citizen, non-elected official/non-member of the state department as director of policy was unsanctioned.

1. Not necessarily because you could be a supporter of Manifest Destiny yet a member of a religion that didn't support it or vice versa. Plus Manifest Destiny was never a piece of legislation or law so it does not break the first amendment stating "Congress shall make no law"
2. Well it's a policy that was happening due to a variety of factors, sure religion is an influence but this continental expansion motivation did not start off as a religious endeavor or at least it didn't start off JUST that. I point to Jefferson's idea of an Empire of Liberty which had deep roots going back to the 17th century which saw the United States as a new enterprise in which liberty would expand and eventually overtake the ancien dominions of Europe and the world. America would expand its values of liberty and let's say its religious toleration.
3. I'm a little confused by this, are you saying that because the officials of the state department are not elected then this policy was unsanctioned?

duncanness · Oct 31, 2019

1. The first amendment also deals with religion and the state. Supporters of Manifest Destiny used God as their justification. But Manifest Destiny was little more than secular imperialism with a different name--in other words, the state was imposing itself on religion. And yes, I'm sure that there were individual Quakers and Pietists who supported MD--just as there were those, whose religious organizations went along with MD, who objected that the policy was (1) the moral equivalent of robbery (count me in!) and (2)blasphemous because it assumed that God had presented a new revelation pertaining to the US.
2. If crystal balls were part of sanctioned law, this might be a valid point.
3. No, I'm saying that God was a non-citizen, non-elected official/non-member of the state department. There is nothing in the Constitution that would have granted him/her policy direction.

Search

Search

Who would you have supported in all US presidential elections up to 1988?

Code Blue

Futurist

duncanness

duncanness

Theodoric

Futurist

Kotromanic

nuclearguy165

frogsofwar

Futurist

Futurist

frogsofwar

nuclearguy165

Futurist

More Than 750 Million Worldwide Would Migrate If They Could

Code Blue

Code Blue

Divinespark

duncanness

Divinespark

duncanness

More History Discussions

Recent History Discussions

Trending History Discussions