Jump to content
The Political Lounge

Greatest 20th Century Political Leaders (Round 3)


vcczar
 Share

Greatest 20th Century Political Leaders (Round 3)   

13 members have voted

  1. 1. Who is the greatest 20th century political leader?

    • Theodore Roosevelt, USA
    • Margaret Thatcher, UK


Recommended Posts

30 minutes ago, DakotaHale said:

Tough choice. Teddy is more of a legend but Thatcher was a better head of state political leader imo. 

It was tough for me too. But I had to go with Teddy. 

(I still think Churchill is better than both but whatever.) 😛 

Edited by Pringles
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No vote no comment! 😛 

(This tends to be a pattern I often notice... however I believe I have deduced that no human being is truly worthy of Patines support. Other than himself, or God. Or the aliens that are observing our society as we speak. Waiting to uplift humanity among the stars once they deem us ready.) 

Edited by Pringles
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Patine said:

I just said I voted in the first poll, didn't I? And just because I don't like your favourites doesn't mean such caustic (and it's not as subjective a descriptor as you claimed) commentary makes things any better.

I don't give a flying flamingo whether you like my favorites or not. That's not the point. You're entitled just as every one of us here to like whoever you want. I just think it's funny that we all vote, discuss, and debate these topics yet you offer no position of yourself, just criticism of what everyone else says. 😛 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Patine said:

Did you read what I said TWICE (and now, THREE TIMES, here)? I voted in the first round! You're still ignoring that and self-righteously carrying on as if it weren't the case! THAT is the point!

I am referring to this vote specifically. Which you haven't voted on. Calm down. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Patine said:

These particular two choices are untenable, like the "electable choices," in the U.S. 2016 Presidential General Election, or only liver and onions or fish stew being offered on some restaurant's menu for a day, or actually being OFFERED a choice of ISP in a U.S. jurisdiction, but it's still Comcast or Verizon. Sometimes (not always, and not even necessarily a statistical majority of the time), a choice of two is so flawed as to be a, "damned if you do, damned if you don't," scenario. Sometimes, to show conviction and true principal is not to choose, and not to vote (or vote for someone whom the deck is obviously stacked against). I don't expect you to necessarily understand that - but please stop pretending that such a view is always and objectively wrong and a failing (at least, a failing in the one choosing or voting, as opposed to a failing in the process, mechanisms, or people behind the choice coming into effect). If I say that I can put neither my endorsement behind Thatcher or Teddy Roosevelt without compromising my basic principles, it does not mean I have a, "perfect god complex," inherently. So can it, okay!

Why didn’t you vote in the 2nd round. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Patine said:

These particular two choices are untenable, like the "electable choices," in the U.S. 2016 Presidential General Election, or only liver and onions or fish stew being offered on some restaurant's menu for a day, or actually being OFFERED a choice of ISP in a U.S. jurisdiction, but it's still Comcast or Verizon. Sometimes (not always, and not even necessarily a statistical majority of the time), a choice of two is so flawed as to be a, "damned if you do, damned if you don't," scenario. Sometimes, to show conviction and true principal is not to choose, and not to vote (or vote for someone whom the deck is obviously stacked against). I don't expect you to necessarily understand that - but please stop pretending that such a view is always and objectively wrong and a failing (at least, a failing in the one choosing or voting, as opposed to a failing in the process, mechanisms, or people behind the choice coming into effect). If I say that I can put neither my endorsement behind Thatcher or Teddy Roosevelt without compromising my basic principles, it does not mean I have a, "perfect god complex," inherently. So can it, okay!

"It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat."

This quote right here is one of the reasons why I love Teddy. And I believe it can be tied into our current situation right now!

I will say, we aren't working hard or fighting here, but we are having a thoughtful debate, at least we were previously. 

But I do love the first sentence of what President Roosevelt said! 🙂 

With that said, I will stop now. ❤️ 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...