No, I've heard about it in several places.
But in truth, your criticism of the previous thread I started, which was certainly partisan, got me to thinking that if this is truly going to be a politics subforum we should have at least some discussions around here of a non-partisan nature- by that I mean discussions about how our system works without everybody automatically taking predictable sides.
You can't deny that, even if you see flaws in the theory, (or, as DaVinci points out, it's too small a sample) that it's at least pretty clear that after 8 years of one President, there seems to be a strong desire for change. I think it's also pretty clear that after 4 years of a President, there's a general feeling that he hasn't had enough time to accomplish his goals. Would you agree that both of these feelings have been prevalent and have influenced our elections?
Well, if you've heard about it.
But in truth, your criticism of the previous thread I started, which was certainly partisan,
You really are your own worst enemy sometimes. You repeatedly try to argue that you were talking about conservatives and not Republicans in the beginning of the thread before you lost your own ability to hide what your true argument was, and then you just focused on republicans under the guise of modern republicans. So yeah I called you out because your major point in that thread, only backed up by the second post, was bigoted nonsense disguised as some kind of grand adult conversation. And my calling you out was asking you to define what you were truly talking about so I could understand your argument - because, really, I'm not making this up - it made no sense and only got worse when you tried to answer my very fair questions. If you want to start a political debate like that thread or this one then you should be able to answer questions about your declarative statements. And if you can't, your posts are useless.
Meanwhile, nothing I wrote was Republican. And therefore, nothing I wrote was partisan. You were the partisan, not me. I was and still am more than willing to have a conversation/debate on any of these things for the fun of it - insert nerd joke here - but if you aren't grown up enough to be able to actually back up your statements of fact then you're useless in the exercise. Grow up and learn how to take a punch. Our politics would be a hell of a lot better if everyone could do that.
got me to thinking that if this is truly going to be a politics subforum we should have at least some discussions around here of a non-partisan nature- by that I mean discussions about how our system works without everybody automatically taking predictable sides.
You original statement in that thread was - paraphrasing - every problem in America is due to conservatives, and that is because every position of the conservative is illogical or irrational (can't remember the word, don't feel like looking it up). So, basically, your initial premise was, by definition, "anyone that disagrees with me is the problem and not rational." It's fine to think that way. Don't be all hollier than thou about it though. Other posters do it better and in more entertaining ways.
You can't deny that, even if you see flaws in the theory, (or, as DaVinci points out, it's too small a sample) that it's at least pretty clear that after 8 years of one President, there seems to be a strong desire for change.
Well, let's look at actual facts instead of timfacts (oh I made up a new phrase like fake news...)
Adams followed 8 years of Washington, same party in the parlance of the time.
Madison followed 8 years of Jefferson - same party. Monroe followed 8 years of Madison - same party. Quincy Adams followed him after 8 years - same party.
Van Buren followed 8 years of Jackson - same party. Then we had a string of one term guys to Lincoln who was elected twice but didn't serve 8 years. We have to go to Grant for the next President who served 8 years. He was followed by Rutherford Hayes - same party and really contested election. Hayes was followed by Garfield - same party, who died and Arthur filled out the spot. Cleveland finally won for the Democrats in 1885 becoming the first non-republican in the office since Buchanan in 1860 - so 25 years is a little more than 8. He only served one term before he was replaced and then replaced the guy who replaced him.
Then you have the string of McKinley for 4.5 years, Teddy for 8 years and Taft for 4 years totaling another 16 years (more than 8) before a Democrat got in there. Wilson served 8 years and then a republican took over so there is the first time your theory works. The we had republicans for 12 years again. Then democrats for 20 years. Eisenhower had 8 years followed by a democrat so there is number 2. Kennedy was killed with Johnson finishing out the 8 years which fits because a republican took over in Nixon, but there was something more going on there. Still, that is number 3. Nixon didn't finish 8 years but the party did, when Jimmy Carter came along. I guess technically that is 4. Carter got one term. Republicans had the next 12. Clinton had 8 and Bush replaced him in the second closest election in history. After his 8 Obama had 8 and now Trump.
But you allowed unusual circumstances. So in the roughly 7 times it's happened, you had as unusual circumstances, the era after Wilson and WWI, Eisenhower into Kennedy wasn't very unusual accept for the rockstar status of Kennedy and the fact that he only won because of TV and Nixon being sick on it (throwing that in there for entertainment). Then Nixon taking over in the midst of Vietnam - I'd call that unusual circumstances - you know, when those evil conservatives were destroying the world with their illogical irrational foreign policy that is the main problem in the world. Nixon didn't finish hie 8 years but the party did leading to Jimmy Carter - I'd call the impeachment crisis unusual. Bush followed Clinton in a fairly unusual election - look it up, really. Then Obama, the first black guy - not unusual at all. Then Trump - not unusual at all.
So yeah the examples you think might actually prove your point don't, and there is no grand political theory that you can make out of the fact that we have had a string of full two term Presidents. Modern times or not. What is more unusual is that we have just come out of a string of 3 presidents serving 8 years consecutively. That hadn't happened since Jefferson, Madison and Monroe. And what is more entertaining than that is the Quincy Adams - Jackson election that followed these 3 has a ton of similarities to the Trump-Clinton election after the three most recent guys. If you are looking for something else more interesting that this thread will turn out to be, look into how the lessons of Adams/Jackson can teach on what is going to come from Trump/Clinton. Because it's pretty cool (again, in a nerd sort of way).
I think it's also pretty clear that after 4 years of a President, there's a general feeling that he hasn't had enough time to accomplish his goals. Would you agree that both of these feelings have been prevalent and have influenced our elections?
No. I wouldn't agree with almost anything you have written in this thread or the other one.
This is like the 4th or 5th time you've blamed me personally for Hillary Clinton. Hey, you're welcome!
