Club PA 2.0 has arrived! If you'd like to access some extra PA content and help support the forums, check it out at patreon.com/ClubPA
The image size limit has been raised to 1mb! Anything larger than that should be linked to. This is a HARD limit, please do not abuse it.
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

Vindicated/Vilified by History! Which President was the best?

178101213

Posts

  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    Abraham Lincoln
    Vindictive is also different than an asshole full of rage, which is a better description of Jackson, I think.

    Herbert Hoover got 40% of the vote in 1932. Friendly reminder.
    shrykeAngelHedgieCommander ZoomSolomaxwell6
  • HandgimpHandgimp R+L=J Family PhotoRegistered User regular
    Theodore "Teddy" Roosevelt
    a5ehren wrote: »
    Wilson got 41.8% of the vote, Debs got 6%. TR/Taft got 52.2%. It wouldn't have been close. There were only two Democratic Presidents between Grant and FDR for a reason. The Republican Party was absolutely dominant.

    TR + Taft accounts for 96 electoral votes.

    You would have to commit to the claim that TR as Republican would more than double the amount of electoral votes that the two of them combined got.

    Wilson's margin of victory was massive.

    TR + Taft's votes together would have won the majority of the country outside the south.

    So you think that TR+Taft steals 160+ electoral votes from Wilson.

    That's cool and all, but with a combined 50%+ of the popular vote, they don't get those numbers.

    I mean, you are essentially arguing that TR wins more votes alone than TR + Taft do together.

    The electoral college is more or less designed to produce these kinds of lopsided results based on small swings in the vote. The Wiki article starts pointing that direction but doesn't finish the analysis. Someone with time should check the results if all of Taft's votes were allocated to TR.

    Like Wilson was the first Democratic candidate to ever win Massachusetts, because they had always gone Federalist, Whig, or Republican.

    It's something like 330 EV for TR if he got all of Taft's votes.

    PwH4Ipj.jpg
  • HeirHeir Registered User regular
    Abraham Lincoln
    SLyM wrote: »
    I think both the Adams were great men who were only okay presidents at best.

    Which brings up an interesting thought, who was the best president based only on the things they did while not in office?

    I mean, we already mentioned Carter and if humanitarian works count, Carter is pretty amazing.

    It's interesting though because after being President, it doesn't seem like a lot go on to do much. Taft went on to head a Supreme Court that seems like a mixed bag.

    If we're just talking post-Presidency, I think it's Carter hands down. Guy is a saint.


    Didn't Ike have money issues after being president...or was that Truman?

    camo_sig2.png
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    Franklin D. Roosevelt
    Heir wrote: »
    SLyM wrote: »
    I think both the Adams were great men who were only okay presidents at best.

    Which brings up an interesting thought, who was the best president based only on the things they did while not in office?

    I mean, we already mentioned Carter and if humanitarian works count, Carter is pretty amazing.

    It's interesting though because after being President, it doesn't seem like a lot go on to do much. Taft went on to head a Supreme Court that seems like a mixed bag.

    If we're just talking post-Presidency, I think it's Carter hands down. Guy is a saint.


    Didn't Ike have money issues after being president...or was that Truman?

    Truman. Which is why they instituted the Presidential pension.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
    ShortyShadowhope
  • HedgethornHedgethorn Associate Professor of Historical Hobby Horses In the Lions' DenRegistered User regular
    Abraham Lincoln
    Truman was dirt poor after leaving office. He's the main reason that Presidential pensions were established in the Eisenhower era.

  • joshofalltradesjoshofalltrades 地獄のようにかわいい あなたは嫉妬深いかRegistered User regular
    Abraham Lincoln
    Nixon having an enemies list is some serious sociopathic high school stuff

    ジェイムズ・ブラウンの好きな色は何ですか?
    青!
    shryke
  • ShortyShorty JUDGE BROSEF Registered User regular
    Abraham Lincoln
    Truman spent his whole life working for the government

    after he retired, his only source of income was from the memoir he published, which he wrote specifically because he was broke

    he could have taken jobs giving speeches or gone on some company's payroll, but he felt it would have diminished the integrity of the office of the president

    (here I will ask you to place this position next to that of GWB's media clownery and paid speechifyin')

    the presidential pension was likely introduced to give Truman specifically some relief, since the only other beneficiary at the time was Herbert Hoover, who certainly didn't need the help


    oh, and it doesn't have much to do with his broke-ness, but Truman was the president who started the tradition of creating a library after they leave office

    I don't know that I'd put him in the top 10, but he seems like a hard-working, honest guy who honestly wanted to do right by the country

    Commander ZoomHeirShadowhopeshrykeRchanen
  • GnomeTankGnomeTank Registered User regular
    edited July 2016
    Abraham Lincoln
    Had to drop my vote in for Lincoln (and I see many agree with me). Not much to say really. As imperfect of a man as he was he's absolutely one of the greatest American's ever, with a forward thinking vision that was uncommon in his time. He saw this country through it's darkest days with as much grace and poise as could ever be asked of someone.

    e: Also the Gettysburg Address is arguably the greatest speech ever done by a US president, at the very least it's in the top 5.

    GnomeTank on
    Sagroth wrote: »
    Oh c'mon FyreWulff, no one's gonna pay to visit Uranus.
    Steam: Brainling, XBL / PSN: GnomeTank, NintendoID: Brainling, FF14: Zillius Rosh SFV: Brainling
  • MadCaddyMadCaddy Registered User regular
    Theodore "Teddy" Roosevelt
    MadCaddy wrote: »
    BigJoeM wrote: »
    I'd have to go with Jackson.

    Nixon put people on a list but Jackson put a man in the ground because he called him a coward.

    Even people in the south thought it was cold.

    I guess actually killing people for slurring you is SLIGHTLY worse than keeping detailed lists of every person who has wronged you.

    Now that I think of it, He clearly misused executive power and privilege, and suffered from paranoia, but I can't really think of vindictive actions that Nixon took that're on the same level as Jackson. He was much more "my way or the highway, come hell or high water" than Nixon. This kind of ties into my earlier defense of Nixon; there have been some real shitheels who've used the office solely for vainglorious or self-serving reasons. There have also been complete puppets on numerous occasions, and men drastically under qualified to fulfill the rigors expected of the position, physically and mentally. Nixon was a psychopath, possibly a sociopath, no ifs and or buts, but I still see the legacy he leaves in his wake and have a hard time saying he was a bad president. A bad, troubled man, yes, but President...

    A lot of the "good" that Nixon did was actually done to blunt further pushes on those topics (again, the EPA is a good example of this), and he horribly abused the power of the office. The problem with just looking at the legacy of a President is that puts their work in a vacuum. Context is important for weighting their actions.

    I agree context can be important as it seems disingenuous to rate Presidents based on our current mores and current understanding of the role of the executive. I just don't see the counter to my statement of Nixon being an extremely skillful politician in the evidence you're citing. In fact, I only see more examples of how canny and skilled the man was at playing the game, and use of rhetoric. I would never call Nixon a green president, and the fact that people could be tricked into thinking so further demonstrates his skill. His establishment of the EPA was a power grab for the executive more than a heartfelt attempt at environmentalism, no doubt, but it also further proves the skill for the office he exemplified.

  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    Franklin D. Roosevelt
    MadCaddy wrote: »
    MadCaddy wrote: »
    BigJoeM wrote: »
    I'd have to go with Jackson.

    Nixon put people on a list but Jackson put a man in the ground because he called him a coward.

    Even people in the south thought it was cold.

    I guess actually killing people for slurring you is SLIGHTLY worse than keeping detailed lists of every person who has wronged you.

    Now that I think of it, He clearly misused executive power and privilege, and suffered from paranoia, but I can't really think of vindictive actions that Nixon took that're on the same level as Jackson. He was much more "my way or the highway, come hell or high water" than Nixon. This kind of ties into my earlier defense of Nixon; there have been some real shitheels who've used the office solely for vainglorious or self-serving reasons. There have also been complete puppets on numerous occasions, and men drastically under qualified to fulfill the rigors expected of the position, physically and mentally. Nixon was a psychopath, possibly a sociopath, no ifs and or buts, but I still see the legacy he leaves in his wake and have a hard time saying he was a bad president. A bad, troubled man, yes, but President...

    A lot of the "good" that Nixon did was actually done to blunt further pushes on those topics (again, the EPA is a good example of this), and he horribly abused the power of the office. The problem with just looking at the legacy of a President is that puts their work in a vacuum. Context is important for weighting their actions.

    I agree context can be important as it seems disingenuous to rate Presidents based on our current mores and current understanding of the role of the executive. I just don't see the counter to my statement of Nixon being an extremely skillful politician in the evidence you're citing. In fact, I only see more examples of how canny and skilled the man was at playing the game, and use of rhetoric. I would never call Nixon a green president, and the fact that people could be tricked into thinking so further demonstrates his skill. His establishment of the EPA was a power grab for the executive more than a heartfelt attempt at environmentalism, no doubt, but it also further proves the skill for the office he exemplified.

    Skilled and impactful are not synonyms for good.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
    ArdolShadowhopeshrykeGennenalyse RuebenMegaMek
  • MadCaddyMadCaddy Registered User regular
    Theodore "Teddy" Roosevelt
    Shorty wrote: »
    Truman spent his whole life working for the government

    after he retired, his only source of income was from the memoir he published, which he wrote specifically because he was broke

    he could have taken jobs giving speeches or gone on some company's payroll, but he felt it would have diminished the integrity of the office of the president

    (here I will ask you to place this position next to that of GWB's media clownery and paid speechifyin')

    the presidential pension was likely introduced to give Truman specifically some relief, since the only other beneficiary at the time was Herbert Hoover, who certainly didn't need the help


    oh, and it doesn't have much to do with his broke-ness, but Truman was the president who started the tradition of creating a library after they leave office

    I don't know that I'd put him in the top 10, but he seems like a hard-working, honest guy who honestly wanted to do right by the country

    Truman was a career politician and a bit of a stooge. He was more puppet, than principled or ingenious statesman. His father in law played a tremendous role in his early political career and how it started, and it was how beholden to the DNC establishment was how he managed to snag the role of Vice Presidents for FDR's swan song term. (it was very obvious FDR wasn't going to survive his fourth term even before he announced his candidacy for it; another strike against FDR in my book.) He was vastly out of his depth once he got in the office, and his decision to drop the bomb is something that will follow the US for the duration of its existence...

    He didn't lose the war, but he also didn't dramatically contribute beyond the bomb decision and he was very much a mixed bag domestically, so I would rank him in the bottom tier of our presidents personally.

  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    Abraham Lincoln
    MadCaddy wrote: »
    Shorty wrote: »
    Truman spent his whole life working for the government

    after he retired, his only source of income was from the memoir he published, which he wrote specifically because he was broke

    he could have taken jobs giving speeches or gone on some company's payroll, but he felt it would have diminished the integrity of the office of the president

    (here I will ask you to place this position next to that of GWB's media clownery and paid speechifyin')

    the presidential pension was likely introduced to give Truman specifically some relief, since the only other beneficiary at the time was Herbert Hoover, who certainly didn't need the help


    oh, and it doesn't have much to do with his broke-ness, but Truman was the president who started the tradition of creating a library after they leave office

    I don't know that I'd put him in the top 10, but he seems like a hard-working, honest guy who honestly wanted to do right by the country

    Truman was a career politician and a bit of a stooge. He was more puppet, than principled or ingenious statesman. His father in law played a tremendous role in his early political career and how it started, and it was how beholden to the DNC establishment was how he managed to snag the role of Vice Presidents for FDR's swan song term. (it was very obvious FDR wasn't going to survive his fourth term even before he announced his candidacy for it; another strike against FDR in my book.) He was vastly out of his depth once he got in the office, and his decision to drop the bomb is something that will follow the US for the duration of its existence...

    He didn't lose the war, but he also didn't dramatically contribute beyond the bomb decision and he was very much a mixed bag domestically, so I would rank him in the bottom tier of our presidents personally.

    Integrating the military alone puts him in the top half.

    Herbert Hoover got 40% of the vote in 1932. Friendly reminder.
    HeirShadowhopeGennenalyse Rueben
  • MadCaddyMadCaddy Registered User regular
    edited July 2016
    Theodore "Teddy" Roosevelt
    MadCaddy wrote: »
    Shorty wrote: »
    Truman spent his whole life working for the government

    after he retired, his only source of income was from the memoir he published, which he wrote specifically because he was broke

    he could have taken jobs giving speeches or gone on some company's payroll, but he felt it would have diminished the integrity of the office of the president

    (here I will ask you to place this position next to that of GWB's media clownery and paid speechifyin')

    the presidential pension was likely introduced to give Truman specifically some relief, since the only other beneficiary at the time was Herbert Hoover, who certainly didn't need the help


    oh, and it doesn't have much to do with his broke-ness, but Truman was the president who started the tradition of creating a library after they leave office

    I don't know that I'd put him in the top 10, but he seems like a hard-working, honest guy who honestly wanted to do right by the country

    Truman was a career politician and a bit of a stooge. He was more puppet, than principled or ingenious statesman. His father in law played a tremendous role in his early political career and how it started, and it was how beholden to the DNC establishment was how he managed to snag the role of Vice Presidents for FDR's swan song term. (it was very obvious FDR wasn't going to survive his fourth term even before he announced his candidacy for it; another strike against FDR in my book.) He was vastly out of his depth once he got in the office, and his decision to drop the bomb is something that will follow the US for the duration of its existence...

    He didn't lose the war, but he also didn't dramatically contribute beyond the bomb decision and he was very much a mixed bag domestically, so I would rank him in the bottom tier of our presidents personally.

    Integrating the military alone puts him in the top half.

    Yea, he did some good, but dropping the bomb and starting the Korean War are pretty big strikes against and I'm just not a fan of any of our presidents that are more beholden to political machines than a constituency. I definitely wouldn't say he's in the bottom 10, but he's one of the presidents I respect the least outside the office, and was a very mixed bag within policy wise and looks horrendous when you compare him to his immediate predecessor and successor.

    MadCaddy on
  • MadCaddyMadCaddy Registered User regular
    edited July 2016
    Theodore "Teddy" Roosevelt
    MadCaddy wrote: »
    MadCaddy wrote: »
    BigJoeM wrote: »
    I'd have to go with Jackson.

    Nixon put people on a list but Jackson put a man in the ground because he called him a coward.

    Even people in the south thought it was cold.

    I guess actually killing people for slurring you is SLIGHTLY worse than keeping detailed lists of every person who has wronged you.

    Now that I think of it, He clearly misused executive power and privilege, and suffered from paranoia, but I can't really think of vindictive actions that Nixon took that're on the same level as Jackson. He was much more "my way or the highway, come hell or high water" than Nixon. This kind of ties into my earlier defense of Nixon; there have been some real shitheels who've used the office solely for vainglorious or self-serving reasons. There have also been complete puppets on numerous occasions, and men drastically under qualified to fulfill the rigors expected of the position, physically and mentally. Nixon was a psychopath, possibly a sociopath, no ifs and or buts, but I still see the legacy he leaves in his wake and have a hard time saying he was a bad president. A bad, troubled man, yes, but President...

    A lot of the "good" that Nixon did was actually done to blunt further pushes on those topics (again, the EPA is a good example of this), and he horribly abused the power of the office. The problem with just looking at the legacy of a President is that puts their work in a vacuum. Context is important for weighting their actions.

    I agree context can be important as it seems disingenuous to rate Presidents based on our current mores and current understanding of the role of the executive. I just don't see the counter to my statement of Nixon being an extremely skillful politician in the evidence you're citing. In fact, I only see more examples of how canny and skilled the man was at playing the game, and use of rhetoric. I would never call Nixon a green president, and the fact that people could be tricked into thinking so further demonstrates his skill. His establishment of the EPA was a power grab for the executive more than a heartfelt attempt at environmentalism, no doubt, but it also further proves the skill for the office he exemplified.

    Skilled and impactful are not synonyms for good.

    You might wanna look up skilled in the thesaurus again...

    MadCaddy on
  • joshofalltradesjoshofalltrades 地獄のようにかわいい あなたは嫉妬深いかRegistered User regular
    Abraham Lincoln
    MadCaddy wrote: »
    MadCaddy wrote: »
    MadCaddy wrote: »
    BigJoeM wrote: »
    I'd have to go with Jackson.

    Nixon put people on a list but Jackson put a man in the ground because he called him a coward.

    Even people in the south thought it was cold.

    I guess actually killing people for slurring you is SLIGHTLY worse than keeping detailed lists of every person who has wronged you.

    Now that I think of it, He clearly misused executive power and privilege, and suffered from paranoia, but I can't really think of vindictive actions that Nixon took that're on the same level as Jackson. He was much more "my way or the highway, come hell or high water" than Nixon. This kind of ties into my earlier defense of Nixon; there have been some real shitheels who've used the office solely for vainglorious or self-serving reasons. There have also been complete puppets on numerous occasions, and men drastically under qualified to fulfill the rigors expected of the position, physically and mentally. Nixon was a psychopath, possibly a sociopath, no ifs and or buts, but I still see the legacy he leaves in his wake and have a hard time saying he was a bad president. A bad, troubled man, yes, but President...

    A lot of the "good" that Nixon did was actually done to blunt further pushes on those topics (again, the EPA is a good example of this), and he horribly abused the power of the office. The problem with just looking at the legacy of a President is that puts their work in a vacuum. Context is important for weighting their actions.

    I agree context can be important as it seems disingenuous to rate Presidents based on our current mores and current understanding of the role of the executive. I just don't see the counter to my statement of Nixon being an extremely skillful politician in the evidence you're citing. In fact, I only see more examples of how canny and skilled the man was at playing the game, and use of rhetoric. I would never call Nixon a green president, and the fact that people could be tricked into thinking so further demonstrates his skill. His establishment of the EPA was a power grab for the executive more than a heartfelt attempt at environmentalism, no doubt, but it also further proves the skill for the office he exemplified.

    Skilled and impactful are not synonyms for good.

    You might wanna look up skilled in the thesaurus again...

    Hedgie's point is that being skilled at accomplishing things that make the country worse doesn't make him a good President, I think

    ジェイムズ・ブラウンの好きな色は何ですか?
    青!
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    Franklin D. Roosevelt
    MadCaddy wrote: »
    MadCaddy wrote: »
    MadCaddy wrote: »
    BigJoeM wrote: »
    I'd have to go with Jackson.

    Nixon put people on a list but Jackson put a man in the ground because he called him a coward.

    Even people in the south thought it was cold.

    I guess actually killing people for slurring you is SLIGHTLY worse than keeping detailed lists of every person who has wronged you.

    Now that I think of it, He clearly misused executive power and privilege, and suffered from paranoia, but I can't really think of vindictive actions that Nixon took that're on the same level as Jackson. He was much more "my way or the highway, come hell or high water" than Nixon. This kind of ties into my earlier defense of Nixon; there have been some real shitheels who've used the office solely for vainglorious or self-serving reasons. There have also been complete puppets on numerous occasions, and men drastically under qualified to fulfill the rigors expected of the position, physically and mentally. Nixon was a psychopath, possibly a sociopath, no ifs and or buts, but I still see the legacy he leaves in his wake and have a hard time saying he was a bad president. A bad, troubled man, yes, but President...

    A lot of the "good" that Nixon did was actually done to blunt further pushes on those topics (again, the EPA is a good example of this), and he horribly abused the power of the office. The problem with just looking at the legacy of a President is that puts their work in a vacuum. Context is important for weighting their actions.

    I agree context can be important as it seems disingenuous to rate Presidents based on our current mores and current understanding of the role of the executive. I just don't see the counter to my statement of Nixon being an extremely skillful politician in the evidence you're citing. In fact, I only see more examples of how canny and skilled the man was at playing the game, and use of rhetoric. I would never call Nixon a green president, and the fact that people could be tricked into thinking so further demonstrates his skill. His establishment of the EPA was a power grab for the executive more than a heartfelt attempt at environmentalism, no doubt, but it also further proves the skill for the office he exemplified.

    Skilled and impactful are not synonyms for good.

    You might wanna look up skilled in the thesaurus again...

    When we talk about a President as good, we're usually looking at whether or not their actions served to progress the country as a whole. You keep on trying to defend Nixon on the grounds that he was a skilled politician, while ignoring the damage that he did, in large part because of his skill. Even the positive parts of his legacy have to be tempered with the fact they were done in large part to impede even further shifts.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • MadCaddyMadCaddy Registered User regular
    Theodore "Teddy" Roosevelt
    MadCaddy wrote: »
    MadCaddy wrote: »
    MadCaddy wrote: »
    BigJoeM wrote: »
    I'd have to go with Jackson.

    Nixon put people on a list but Jackson put a man in the ground because he called him a coward.

    Even people in the south thought it was cold.

    I guess actually killing people for slurring you is SLIGHTLY worse than keeping detailed lists of every person who has wronged you.

    Now that I think of it, He clearly misused executive power and privilege, and suffered from paranoia, but I can't really think of vindictive actions that Nixon took that're on the same level as Jackson. He was much more "my way or the highway, come hell or high water" than Nixon. This kind of ties into my earlier defense of Nixon; there have been some real shitheels who've used the office solely for vainglorious or self-serving reasons. There have also been complete puppets on numerous occasions, and men drastically under qualified to fulfill the rigors expected of the position, physically and mentally. Nixon was a psychopath, possibly a sociopath, no ifs and or buts, but I still see the legacy he leaves in his wake and have a hard time saying he was a bad president. A bad, troubled man, yes, but President...

    A lot of the "good" that Nixon did was actually done to blunt further pushes on those topics (again, the EPA is a good example of this), and he horribly abused the power of the office. The problem with just looking at the legacy of a President is that puts their work in a vacuum. Context is important for weighting their actions.

    I agree context can be important as it seems disingenuous to rate Presidents based on our current mores and current understanding of the role of the executive. I just don't see the counter to my statement of Nixon being an extremely skillful politician in the evidence you're citing. In fact, I only see more examples of how canny and skilled the man was at playing the game, and use of rhetoric. I would never call Nixon a green president, and the fact that people could be tricked into thinking so further demonstrates his skill. His establishment of the EPA was a power grab for the executive more than a heartfelt attempt at environmentalism, no doubt, but it also further proves the skill for the office he exemplified.

    Skilled and impactful are not synonyms for good.

    You might wanna look up skilled in the thesaurus again...

    Hedgie's point is that being skilled at accomplishing things that make the country worse doesn't make him a good President, I think

    Nixon did more good for the country and weathered more crises than either Ford or Carter, and I've already given examples of things he accomplished during his administration that will be remembered far beyond our own generation, and have had a tremendous impact globally. While I don't agree with the mans politics, and see him for the ego maniac and psychopath he was, I have a hard time saying he was a bad president in comparison to some of the do nothing's and true shitheels thatve held the office.

    Nixon was Eisenhower's Vice President, another executive being lobbied around for the best, and he was heavily involved in that administration and his checkers speech shows a view on campaign finance that we wish our candidates today would have.. I also stand by the statement that Nixon was the most qualified and best choice in every presidential race in which he ran. While Nixon wasn't a good man, I have a hard time saying he was a bad president.

  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    Abraham Lincoln
    Jackson and Nixon being the two best examples of this. Both unquestionably skilled politicians who ushered in realignments. Both absolutely awful policy makers and human beings.

    Herbert Hoover got 40% of the vote in 1932. Friendly reminder.
    joshofalltradesCommander Zoomshryke
  • joshofalltradesjoshofalltrades 地獄のようにかわいい あなたは嫉妬深いかRegistered User regular
    Abraham Lincoln
    Somebody without Nixon's evil would have accomplished a great deal more good with the political capital that existed during his Presidency.

    ジェイムズ・ブラウンの好きな色は何ですか?
    青!
    AngelHedgieshrykeShortyHeirGennenalyse Rueben
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    Abraham Lincoln
    MadCaddy wrote: »
    Nixon was Eisenhower's Vice President, another executive being lobbied around for the best, and he was heavily involved in that administration and his checkers speech shows a view on campaign finance that we wish our candidates today would have.. I also stand by the statement that Nixon was the most qualified and best choice in every presidential race in which he ran. While Nixon wasn't a good man, I have a hard time saying he was a bad president.

    Ike would dispute that.

    Herbert Hoover got 40% of the vote in 1932. Friendly reminder.
    HedgethornShortyHeir
  • MadCaddyMadCaddy Registered User regular
    Theodore "Teddy" Roosevelt
    MadCaddy wrote: »
    Nixon was Eisenhower's Vice President, another executive being lobbied around for the best, and he was heavily involved in that administration and his checkers speech shows a view on campaign finance that we wish our candidates today would have.. I also stand by the statement that Nixon was the most qualified and best choice in every presidential race in which he ran. While Nixon wasn't a good man, I have a hard time saying he was a bad president.

    Ike would dispute that.

    Would he now?

    https://archive.org/details/car_000012

  • MadCaddyMadCaddy Registered User regular
    Theodore "Teddy" Roosevelt
    Somebody without Nixon's evil would have accomplished a great deal more good with the political capital that existed during his Presidency.

    I don't understand this statement, but I also don't see Nixon as evil. I see him as overly ego driven and psychopathic (textbook definition, not colloquially), but I don't think anyone but Nixon could've had the political capital that Nixon had at that point in time.

    I would take a lifetime of Nixon's over Truman's or Ford's for sure.

  • joshofalltradesjoshofalltrades 地獄のようにかわいい あなたは嫉妬深いかRegistered User regular
    Abraham Lincoln
    I'm pretty sure ordering your henchmen to break into the opposition's headquarters, bugging people you disagree with politically to damage their reputations, and ordering government agencies to harass people is pretty damn evil. I'm not interested in getting bogged down in a semantic argument over whether those actions were moral because Nixon might have been diagnosable. The man was a scumbag and did more bad than good as a President.

    ジェイムズ・ブラウンの好きな色は何ですか?
    青!
    shrykeenlightenedbumGennenalyse RuebenMegaMek
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    Franklin D. Roosevelt
    MadCaddy wrote: »
    Somebody without Nixon's evil would have accomplished a great deal more good with the political capital that existed during his Presidency.

    I don't understand this statement, but I also don't see Nixon as evil. I see him as overly ego driven and psychopathic (textbook definition, not colloquially), but I don't think anyone but Nixon could've had the political capital that Nixon had at that point in time.

    I would take a lifetime of Nixon's over Truman's or Ford's for sure.

    The man was an outspoken bigot (which we know thanks to all his recordings) and kneecapped a number of social and political movements.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
    joshofalltradesshrykeCommander ZoomenlightenedbumGennenalyse RuebenMegaMek
  • joshofalltradesjoshofalltrades 地獄のようにかわいい あなたは嫉妬深いかRegistered User regular
    Abraham Lincoln
    I'm not opposed to discovering someone most people think was universally awful was actually not as bad as people think they are, but Nixon is really not the hill anybody should be dying on

    ジェイムズ・ブラウンの好きな色は何ですか?
    青!
    ArdolGennenalyse RuebenfurlionMegaMek
  • MadCaddyMadCaddy Registered User regular
    edited July 2016
    Theodore "Teddy" Roosevelt
    MadCaddy wrote: »
    MadCaddy wrote: »
    MadCaddy wrote: »
    BigJoeM wrote: »
    I'd have to go with Jackson.

    Nixon put people on a list but Jackson put a man in the ground because he called him a coward.

    Even people in the south thought it was cold.

    I guess actually killing people for slurring you is SLIGHTLY worse than keeping detailed lists of every person who has wronged you.

    Now that I think of it, He clearly misused executive power and privilege, and suffered from paranoia, but I can't really think of vindictive actions that Nixon took that're on the same level as Jackson. He was much more "my way or the highway, come hell or high water" than Nixon. This kind of ties into my earlier defense of Nixon; there have been some real shitheels who've used the office solely for vainglorious or self-serving reasons. There have also been complete puppets on numerous occasions, and men drastically under qualified to fulfill the rigors expected of the position, physically and mentally. Nixon was a psychopath, possibly a sociopath, no ifs and or buts, but I still see the legacy he leaves in his wake and have a hard time saying he was a bad president. A bad, troubled man, yes, but President...

    A lot of the "good" that Nixon did was actually done to blunt further pushes on those topics (again, the EPA is a good example of this), and he horribly abused the power of the office. The problem with just looking at the legacy of a President is that puts their work in a vacuum. Context is important for weighting their actions.

    I agree context can be important as it seems disingenuous to rate Presidents based on our current mores and current understanding of the role of the executive. I just don't see the counter to my statement of Nixon being an extremely skillful politician in the evidence you're citing. In fact, I only see more examples of how canny and skilled the man was at playing the game, and use of rhetoric. I would never call Nixon a green president, and the fact that people could be tricked into thinking so further demonstrates his skill. His establishment of the EPA was a power grab for the executive more than a heartfelt attempt at environmentalism, no doubt, but it also further proves the skill for the office he exemplified.

    Skilled and impactful are not synonyms for good.

    You might wanna look up skilled in the thesaurus again...

    When we talk about a President as good, we're usually looking at whether or not their actions served to progress the country as a whole. You keep on trying to defend Nixon on the grounds that he was a skilled politician, while ignoring the damage that he did, in large part because of his skill. Even the positive parts of his legacy have to be tempered with the fact they were done in large part to impede even further shifts.

    What are you talking about further shifts? I don't see how you can further shift from the gold standard to a fiat dollar being the worlds reserve currency, or further shift opening China (at least without being involved in domestic politics within Xian.). Those are two of the largest events of the twentieth century, and had a tremendous impact on the world we're currently living. Not to mention removing all of our troops from Vietnam (I understand the politics and circumstances of this, but it is still a fact.)

    You said it yourself, no one but Nixon could've opened China.

    MadCaddy on
  • PantsBPantsB Registered User regular
    edited July 2016
    Abraham Lincoln
    MadCaddy wrote: »
    MadCaddy wrote: »
    MadCaddy wrote: »
    MadCaddy wrote: »
    BigJoeM wrote: »
    I'd have to go with Jackson.

    Nixon put people on a list but Jackson put a man in the ground because he called him a coward.

    Even people in the south thought it was cold.

    I guess actually killing people for slurring you is SLIGHTLY worse than keeping detailed lists of every person who has wronged you.

    Now that I think of it, He clearly misused executive power and privilege, and suffered from paranoia, but I can't really think of vindictive actions that Nixon took that're on the same level as Jackson. He was much more "my way or the highway, come hell or high water" than Nixon. This kind of ties into my earlier defense of Nixon; there have been some real shitheels who've used the office solely for vainglorious or self-serving reasons. There have also been complete puppets on numerous occasions, and men drastically under qualified to fulfill the rigors expected of the position, physically and mentally. Nixon was a psychopath, possibly a sociopath, no ifs and or buts, but I still see the legacy he leaves in his wake and have a hard time saying he was a bad president. A bad, troubled man, yes, but President...

    A lot of the "good" that Nixon did was actually done to blunt further pushes on those topics (again, the EPA is a good example of this), and he horribly abused the power of the office. The problem with just looking at the legacy of a President is that puts their work in a vacuum. Context is important for weighting their actions.

    I agree context can be important as it seems disingenuous to rate Presidents based on our current mores and current understanding of the role of the executive. I just don't see the counter to my statement of Nixon being an extremely skillful politician in the evidence you're citing. In fact, I only see more examples of how canny and skilled the man was at playing the game, and use of rhetoric. I would never call Nixon a green president, and the fact that people could be tricked into thinking so further demonstrates his skill. His establishment of the EPA was a power grab for the executive more than a heartfelt attempt at environmentalism, no doubt, but it also further proves the skill for the office he exemplified.

    Skilled and impactful are not synonyms for good.

    You might wanna look up skilled in the thesaurus again...

    Hedgie's point is that being skilled at accomplishing things that make the country worse doesn't make him a good President, I think

    Nixon did more good for the country and weathered more crises than either Ford or Carter, and I've already given examples of things he accomplished during his administration that will be remembered far beyond our own generation, and have had a tremendous impact globally. While I don't agree with the mans politics, and see him for the ego maniac and psychopath he was, I have a hard time saying he was a bad president in comparison to some of the do nothing's and true shitheels thatve held the office.

    Nixon was Eisenhower's Vice President, another executive being lobbied around for the best, and he was heavily involved in that administration and his checkers speech shows a view on campaign finance that we wish our candidates today would have.. I also stand by the statement that Nixon was the most qualified and best choice in every presidential race in which he ran. While Nixon wasn't a good man, I have a hard time saying he was a bad president.

    Ford and Carter were shitty Presidents, near the bottom of anyone's lists. Nixon watering down good policies so he was comparable to them indicates his low quality

    And Nixon absolutely wasn't heavily involved in Eisenhower's Administration
    Q. Mr. Mohr: We understand that the power of decision is entirely yours, Mr. President. I just wondered if you could give us an example of a major idea of [VP Nixon's] that you had adopted in that role, as the decider and final--

    THE PRESIDENT. If you give me a week, I might think of one. I don't remember.

    PantsB on
    11793-1.png
    day9gosu.png
    QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
    joshofalltradesshrykeHedgethornCommander ZoomenlightenedbumGennenalyse RuebenThe EnderMegaMek
  • joshofalltradesjoshofalltrades 地獄のようにかわいい あなたは嫉妬深いかRegistered User regular
    Abraham Lincoln
    You keep bringing up Vietnam withdrawal like it's a point in Nixon's favor.

    If I lob bombs into random people's houses every night, and one day realize that people are going to be pissed off at me if I don't stop doing that, so I then cease throwing bombs, does that mean I get credit for finally ending the bombing streak?

    ジェイムズ・ブラウンの好きな色は何ですか?
    青!
    AngelHedgieShortyenlightenedbumGennenalyse Rueben
  • HefflingHeffling No Pic EverRegistered User regular
    Theodore "Teddy" Roosevelt
    At least Carter managed to finish out his administration, unlike Nixon.

    If a movement doesn't have someone that can sit down opposite those in a position of power and strike a deal, how can that movement achieve success?
    Commander Zoom
  • MadCaddyMadCaddy Registered User regular
    Theodore "Teddy" Roosevelt
    I'm not opposed to discovering someone most people think was universally awful was actually not as bad as people think they are, but Nixon is really not the hill anybody should be dying on

    I only recently turned from being one of those guys that thought Nixon was a four letter word to being a semi-advocate of his. I can't remember the first documentary or book I read that made the case, but the more I've chewed on it and looked at it, the more I have to admit he wasn't as bad as most people believe and was actually quite talented and had a good nose for the realities of politics. If it wasn't for his hubris, and his crass refusal to admit fault, he would definitely be the model Republican over Reagan.

    If I were defending Jackson, I'd agree it's just contrarianism, as his legacy has only gotten more tarnished and his policy direction was pants on head ridiculous. His refusal to renew the second Bank of the United States because he didn't like it originally directly resulted in a recession, and helped bring the states rights banker elite north narrative the south used to justify the civil war. That doesn't even begin with the murdering, Indian butchery and forced migration, et al.

  • MadCaddyMadCaddy Registered User regular
    Theodore "Teddy" Roosevelt
    You keep bringing up Vietnam withdrawal like it's a point in Nixon's favor.

    If I lob bombs into random people's houses every night, and one day realize that people are going to be pissed off at me if I don't stop doing that, so I then cease throwing bombs, does that mean I get credit for finally ending the bombing streak?

    Nixon didn't initiate Vietnam, and began the process of withdrawal as soon as he took office. Your logic (excepting his interference in the peace talks which I haven't studied enough to give an opinion on its merit) would be like blaming solely Obama for Iraq.

  • MadCaddyMadCaddy Registered User regular
    Theodore "Teddy" Roosevelt
    PantsB wrote: »
    MadCaddy wrote: »
    MadCaddy wrote: »
    MadCaddy wrote: »
    MadCaddy wrote: »
    BigJoeM wrote: »
    I'd have to go with Jackson.

    Nixon put people on a list but Jackson put a man in the ground because he called him a coward.

    Even people in the south thought it was cold.

    I guess actually killing people for slurring you is SLIGHTLY worse than keeping detailed lists of every person who has wronged you.

    Now that I think of it, He clearly misused executive power and privilege, and suffered from paranoia, but I can't really think of vindictive actions that Nixon took that're on the same level as Jackson. He was much more "my way or the highway, come hell or high water" than Nixon. This kind of ties into my earlier defense of Nixon; there have been some real shitheels who've used the office solely for vainglorious or self-serving reasons. There have also been complete puppets on numerous occasions, and men drastically under qualified to fulfill the rigors expected of the position, physically and mentally. Nixon was a psychopath, possibly a sociopath, no ifs and or buts, but I still see the legacy he leaves in his wake and have a hard time saying he was a bad president. A bad, troubled man, yes, but President...

    A lot of the "good" that Nixon did was actually done to blunt further pushes on those topics (again, the EPA is a good example of this), and he horribly abused the power of the office. The problem with just looking at the legacy of a President is that puts their work in a vacuum. Context is important for weighting their actions.

    I agree context can be important as it seems disingenuous to rate Presidents based on our current mores and current understanding of the role of the executive. I just don't see the counter to my statement of Nixon being an extremely skillful politician in the evidence you're citing. In fact, I only see more examples of how canny and skilled the man was at playing the game, and use of rhetoric. I would never call Nixon a green president, and the fact that people could be tricked into thinking so further demonstrates his skill. His establishment of the EPA was a power grab for the executive more than a heartfelt attempt at environmentalism, no doubt, but it also further proves the skill for the office he exemplified.

    Skilled and impactful are not synonyms for good.

    You might wanna look up skilled in the thesaurus again...

    Hedgie's point is that being skilled at accomplishing things that make the country worse doesn't make him a good President, I think

    Nixon did more good for the country and weathered more crises than either Ford or Carter, and I've already given examples of things he accomplished during his administration that will be remembered far beyond our own generation, and have had a tremendous impact globally. While I don't agree with the mans politics, and see him for the ego maniac and psychopath he was, I have a hard time saying he was a bad president in comparison to some of the do nothing's and true shitheels thatve held the office.

    Nixon was Eisenhower's Vice President, another executive being lobbied around for the best, and he was heavily involved in that administration and his checkers speech shows a view on campaign finance that we wish our candidates today would have.. I also stand by the statement that Nixon was the most qualified and best choice in every presidential race in which he ran. While Nixon wasn't a good man, I have a hard time saying he was a bad president.

    Ford and Carter were shitty Presidents, near the bottom of anyone's lists. Nixon watering down good policies so he was comparable to them indicates his low quality

    And Nixon absolutely wasn't heavily involved in Eisenhower's Administration
    Q. Mr. Mohr: We understand that the power of decision is entirely yours, Mr. President. I just wondered if you could give us an example of a major idea of [VP Nixon's] that you had adopted in that role, as the decider and final--

    THE PRESIDENT. If you give me a week, I might think of one. I don't remember.

    Your off hand quote, while better for the forums, doesn't trump the full hearted endorsement he gave Nixon I linked I'm afraid.

  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    Franklin D. Roosevelt
    MadCaddy wrote: »
    MadCaddy wrote: »
    MadCaddy wrote: »
    MadCaddy wrote: »
    BigJoeM wrote: »
    I'd have to go with Jackson.

    Nixon put people on a list but Jackson put a man in the ground because he called him a coward.

    Even people in the south thought it was cold.

    I guess actually killing people for slurring you is SLIGHTLY worse than keeping detailed lists of every person who has wronged you.

    Now that I think of it, He clearly misused executive power and privilege, and suffered from paranoia, but I can't really think of vindictive actions that Nixon took that're on the same level as Jackson. He was much more "my way or the highway, come hell or high water" than Nixon. This kind of ties into my earlier defense of Nixon; there have been some real shitheels who've used the office solely for vainglorious or self-serving reasons. There have also been complete puppets on numerous occasions, and men drastically under qualified to fulfill the rigors expected of the position, physically and mentally. Nixon was a psychopath, possibly a sociopath, no ifs and or buts, but I still see the legacy he leaves in his wake and have a hard time saying he was a bad president. A bad, troubled man, yes, but President...

    A lot of the "good" that Nixon did was actually done to blunt further pushes on those topics (again, the EPA is a good example of this), and he horribly abused the power of the office. The problem with just looking at the legacy of a President is that puts their work in a vacuum. Context is important for weighting their actions.

    I agree context can be important as it seems disingenuous to rate Presidents based on our current mores and current understanding of the role of the executive. I just don't see the counter to my statement of Nixon being an extremely skillful politician in the evidence you're citing. In fact, I only see more examples of how canny and skilled the man was at playing the game, and use of rhetoric. I would never call Nixon a green president, and the fact that people could be tricked into thinking so further demonstrates his skill. His establishment of the EPA was a power grab for the executive more than a heartfelt attempt at environmentalism, no doubt, but it also further proves the skill for the office he exemplified.

    Skilled and impactful are not synonyms for good.

    You might wanna look up skilled in the thesaurus again...

    When we talk about a President as good, we're usually looking at whether or not their actions served to progress the country as a whole. You keep on trying to defend Nixon on the grounds that he was a skilled politician, while ignoring the damage that he did, in large part because of his skill. Even the positive parts of his legacy have to be tempered with the fact they were done in large part to impede even further shifts.

    What are you talking about further shifts? I don't see how you can further shift from the gold standard to a fiat dollar being the worlds reserve currency, or further shift opening China (at least without being involved in domestic politics within Xian.). Those are two of the largest events of the twentieth century, and had a tremendous impact on the world we're currently living. Not to mention removing all of our troops from Vietnam (I understand the politics and circumstances of this, but it is still a fact.)

    You said it yourself, no one but Nixon could've opened China.

    No, he doesn't get credit for bringing the troops home after sabotaging the Paris Peace Talks (and again, this is fact, as we have the evidence from Johnson's surveillance of the South Vietnamese government.) And again, the point of "only Nixon could go to China" was that he poisoned that well so that he was the only one who could go.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
    HefflingMegaMek
  • MadCaddyMadCaddy Registered User regular
    Theodore "Teddy" Roosevelt
    MadCaddy wrote: »
    MadCaddy wrote: »
    MadCaddy wrote: »
    MadCaddy wrote: »
    BigJoeM wrote: »
    I'd have to go with Jackson.

    Nixon put people on a list but Jackson put a man in the ground because he called him a coward.

    Even people in the south thought it was cold.

    I guess actually killing people for slurring you is SLIGHTLY worse than keeping detailed lists of every person who has wronged you.

    Now that I think of it, He clearly misused executive power and privilege, and suffered from paranoia, but I can't really think of vindictive actions that Nixon took that're on the same level as Jackson. He was much more "my way or the highway, come hell or high water" than Nixon. This kind of ties into my earlier defense of Nixon; there have been some real shitheels who've used the office solely for vainglorious or self-serving reasons. There have also been complete puppets on numerous occasions, and men drastically under qualified to fulfill the rigors expected of the position, physically and mentally. Nixon was a psychopath, possibly a sociopath, no ifs and or buts, but I still see the legacy he leaves in his wake and have a hard time saying he was a bad president. A bad, troubled man, yes, but President...

    A lot of the "good" that Nixon did was actually done to blunt further pushes on those topics (again, the EPA is a good example of this), and he horribly abused the power of the office. The problem with just looking at the legacy of a President is that puts their work in a vacuum. Context is important for weighting their actions.

    I agree context can be important as it seems disingenuous to rate Presidents based on our current mores and current understanding of the role of the executive. I just don't see the counter to my statement of Nixon being an extremely skillful politician in the evidence you're citing. In fact, I only see more examples of how canny and skilled the man was at playing the game, and use of rhetoric. I would never call Nixon a green president, and the fact that people could be tricked into thinking so further demonstrates his skill. His establishment of the EPA was a power grab for the executive more than a heartfelt attempt at environmentalism, no doubt, but it also further proves the skill for the office he exemplified.

    Skilled and impactful are not synonyms for good.

    You might wanna look up skilled in the thesaurus again...

    When we talk about a President as good, we're usually looking at whether or not their actions served to progress the country as a whole. You keep on trying to defend Nixon on the grounds that he was a skilled politician, while ignoring the damage that he did, in large part because of his skill. Even the positive parts of his legacy have to be tempered with the fact they were done in large part to impede even further shifts.

    What are you talking about further shifts? I don't see how you can further shift from the gold standard to a fiat dollar being the worlds reserve currency, or further shift opening China (at least without being involved in domestic politics within Xian.). Those are two of the largest events of the twentieth century, and had a tremendous impact on the world we're currently living. Not to mention removing all of our troops from Vietnam (I understand the politics and circumstances of this, but it is still a fact.)

    You said it yourself, no one but Nixon could've opened China.

    No, he doesn't get credit for bringing the troops home after sabotaging the Paris Peace Talks (and again, this is fact, as we have the evidence from Johnson's surveillance of the South Vietnamese government.) And again, the point of "only Nixon could go to China" was that he poisoned that well so that he was the only one who could go.

    I'm all ears for both of these claims. I don't see how Nixon poisoned the well for opening China, it was just against the general political dogma of the times, but Nixon was not McCarthy.

  • MadCaddyMadCaddy Registered User regular
    Theodore "Teddy" Roosevelt
    I'm pretty sure ordering your henchmen to break into the opposition's headquarters, bugging people you disagree with politically to damage their reputations, and ordering government agencies to harass people is pretty damn evil. I'm not interested in getting bogged down in a semantic argument over whether those actions were moral because Nixon might have been diagnosable. The man was a scumbag and did more bad than good as a President.

    You realize Obama has done the last two of those as well?

  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    Franklin D. Roosevelt
    MadCaddy wrote: »
    MadCaddy wrote: »
    MadCaddy wrote: »
    MadCaddy wrote: »
    MadCaddy wrote: »
    BigJoeM wrote: »
    I'd have to go with Jackson.

    Nixon put people on a list but Jackson put a man in the ground because he called him a coward.

    Even people in the south thought it was cold.

    I guess actually killing people for slurring you is SLIGHTLY worse than keeping detailed lists of every person who has wronged you.

    Now that I think of it, He clearly misused executive power and privilege, and suffered from paranoia, but I can't really think of vindictive actions that Nixon took that're on the same level as Jackson. He was much more "my way or the highway, come hell or high water" than Nixon. This kind of ties into my earlier defense of Nixon; there have been some real shitheels who've used the office solely for vainglorious or self-serving reasons. There have also been complete puppets on numerous occasions, and men drastically under qualified to fulfill the rigors expected of the position, physically and mentally. Nixon was a psychopath, possibly a sociopath, no ifs and or buts, but I still see the legacy he leaves in his wake and have a hard time saying he was a bad president. A bad, troubled man, yes, but President...

    A lot of the "good" that Nixon did was actually done to blunt further pushes on those topics (again, the EPA is a good example of this), and he horribly abused the power of the office. The problem with just looking at the legacy of a President is that puts their work in a vacuum. Context is important for weighting their actions.

    I agree context can be important as it seems disingenuous to rate Presidents based on our current mores and current understanding of the role of the executive. I just don't see the counter to my statement of Nixon being an extremely skillful politician in the evidence you're citing. In fact, I only see more examples of how canny and skilled the man was at playing the game, and use of rhetoric. I would never call Nixon a green president, and the fact that people could be tricked into thinking so further demonstrates his skill. His establishment of the EPA was a power grab for the executive more than a heartfelt attempt at environmentalism, no doubt, but it also further proves the skill for the office he exemplified.

    Skilled and impactful are not synonyms for good.

    You might wanna look up skilled in the thesaurus again...

    When we talk about a President as good, we're usually looking at whether or not their actions served to progress the country as a whole. You keep on trying to defend Nixon on the grounds that he was a skilled politician, while ignoring the damage that he did, in large part because of his skill. Even the positive parts of his legacy have to be tempered with the fact they were done in large part to impede even further shifts.

    What are you talking about further shifts? I don't see how you can further shift from the gold standard to a fiat dollar being the worlds reserve currency, or further shift opening China (at least without being involved in domestic politics within Xian.). Those are two of the largest events of the twentieth century, and had a tremendous impact on the world we're currently living. Not to mention removing all of our troops from Vietnam (I understand the politics and circumstances of this, but it is still a fact.)

    You said it yourself, no one but Nixon could've opened China.

    No, he doesn't get credit for bringing the troops home after sabotaging the Paris Peace Talks (and again, this is fact, as we have the evidence from Johnson's surveillance of the South Vietnamese government.) And again, the point of "only Nixon could go to China" was that he poisoned that well so that he was the only one who could go.

    I'm all ears for both of these claims. I don't see how Nixon poisoned the well for opening China, it was just against the general political dogma of the times, but Nixon was not McCarthy.

    Details on Nixon sabotaging Paris. And the point was that Nixon was one of the great Cold Warriors feeding into that paranoia that drove the times.

    Also there was the little matter of his illegally bombing Cambodia, too...

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • tinwhiskerstinwhiskers Registered User regular
    George Washington
    MadCaddy wrote: »
    I'm pretty sure ordering your henchmen to break into the opposition's headquarters, bugging people you disagree with politically to damage their reputations, and ordering government agencies to harass people is pretty damn evil. I'm not interested in getting bogged down in a semantic argument over whether those actions were moral because Nixon might have been diagnosable. The man was a scumbag and did more bad than good as a President.

    You realize Obama has done the last two of those as well?

    Ohh this will be fun, but please support your claim.

    MegaMek
  • ShortyShorty JUDGE BROSEF Registered User regular
    Abraham Lincoln
    MadCaddy wrote: »
    You keep bringing up Vietnam withdrawal like it's a point in Nixon's favor.

    If I lob bombs into random people's houses every night, and one day realize that people are going to be pissed off at me if I don't stop doing that, so I then cease throwing bombs, does that mean I get credit for finally ending the bombing streak?

    Nixon didn't initiate Vietnam, and began the process of withdrawal as soon as he took office. Your logic (excepting his interference in the peace talks which I haven't studied enough to give an opinion on its merit) would be like blaming solely Obama for Iraq.

    if by "began the process of withdrawl" you mean "expanded bombing into neighboring countries in an attempt to cow the north Vietnamese into accepting some bullshit peace terms", sure

    and like, nobody's blaming solely Nixon for Vietnam

    joshofalltradesArdolGennenalyse Ruebenshryke
  • DedwrekkaDedwrekka What Would Nyarlathotep Do? Registered User regular
    Abraham Lincoln
    MadCaddy wrote: »
    I'm pretty sure ordering your henchmen to break into the opposition's headquarters, bugging people you disagree with politically to damage their reputations, and ordering government agencies to harass people is pretty damn evil. I'm not interested in getting bogged down in a semantic argument over whether those actions were moral because Nixon might have been diagnosable. The man was a scumbag and did more bad than good as a President.

    You realize Obama has done the last two of those as well?

    Has he? The only thing I'm aware of was the IRS issuing a BOLO on Tea Party organizations seeking tax-exempt status, and not even the director of that department knew about it initially. Are you saying that the president contacted the lowest rung on the process and told them to do something without anyone else finding out?

Sign In or Register to comment.