1812 Election: Who Would You Vote For?

Hoover's policy of trickle-down economics were anything but nothing. I agree he fucked up bad though.

So we are all in agreement then that sometimes you had to do something and not nothing when president?

Why is it that in a forum full of leftists a jeffersonian is winning a hypothetical election?

It's hard to justify Washington as a Jeffersonian.

Wait we all know Washington was not part of an political party, right?

I meant how Madison is winning over Clinton, as Madison was a Democrat-Republican, I wouldn't expect him to earn more than five votes on a forum as communist as this one.

He was a Federalist, or at least affiliated with them more, but he spoke out against the creation of parties.

George Washington was much better as a general than an actual POTUS. Let us be honest, he kinda left the country as fucked up as when he came in, and it took Adams to generally fuck it up some more.

Don't compliment his career as a General, he was a horrible military leader. And his presidency would have been good had he not listened to Hamilton, and had he not put down the Whiskey Rebellion.

I simply state that he was better at being a general than POTUS, because well, he was. I will admit, he was crap. He was a crap general, all there has to be said about that, but he did far worse as POTUS. Although, the alternative to him was J. Adams, and well, he was more crap, but that is for another thread.

How was putting down the Whiskey Rebellion a bad thing?

Because it was over whiskey!

"What's that? The people are upset due to my policies? MILITARY ACTION!!"
Yeah, what a great president. The simple fact that they later named it a "rebellion" is outrageous.

It was a protest against new taxes levied by Alexander Hamilton to pay off the national debt. The only good to come of it was the formation of the Democrat-Republican Party, which repealed the tax when it took office.

Indeed.

You do know that it was a real rebellion. 500 armed men attacked attacked the home of tax inspector. Also before he rased his Army Wahington stent a peace commissioners to egotiate with the rebels. I will admit it wasn't like Shays' Rebellion but that's what Washington was trying to pervent from happening again. I have a feeling your not going to agree with what I say, but I'm trying to explan what happened and why.

Edit: I will say that they really should of called it a "riot" rather than a "rebellion", but really it would of ended up the same. Just look at that roit that happened in England not that long ago. They used the police like Washington used the milita to stop it.

They rebelled because new taxes were levied without their consent. Remind you of anyone?

The diffrence is that these people had Representation in Congress where as under Great Britian the colonies had no Representation in the Parliament. It was their Representatives that fail them. As for the tax its self the Government needed Money, you can't run a country without money. The country was $54 million in debt and they put taxes on Whiskey if they would of tried to put taxes on something else they would of most likly of just pissed off another group of people.

True, true.

The government wouldn't have needed to raise those taxes had Washington and Hamilton not nationalized the debt. If the States had retained the debt, the people could have been taxed much more locally and efficiently, instead of making everyone across the nation pay for everyone else, and people having to pay money to the Federal government.

I see what your getting at, but when the States were in charge of collecting taxes for their own war debt, thats what helped lead to Shays' Rebellion in Massachusetts.