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?

179111213

Posts

  • LoserForHireXLoserForHireX Registered User regular
    MadCaddy wrote: »
    Wilson made the country far worse.

    Eh, we aren't speaking German and the UN is still in a neutered form of his ideal League of Nations. If his foreign policy was followed to a t , there's a very good chance world war 2 could've been avoided. Germany wouldn't've had the economic sanctions issued during the Weimar Republic that led to the hyperinflation which helped Hitler and the Nazi's gain dominance.

    WW1 was never a threat to North America. It was the dumbest of dumb European wars. And America did not contribute that much to the Allied victory type substance.

    Indeed, it's unlikely that even had Germany "won" the war that somehow they would have conquered and occupied all of continental Europe.

    It's likely that if they had won part of the peace terms would have been the surrendering of a lot of the British and French colonies to Germany, but they weren't really interested in culturally dominating the world.

    "The only way to get rid of a temptation is to give into it." - Oscar Wilde
    "We believe in the people and their 'wisdom' as if there was some special secret entrance to knowledge that barred to anyone who had ever learned anything." - Friedrich Nietzsche
    Julius
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    Abraham Lincoln
    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.

    It's because the winner of each state wins all the electoral votes. So if Wilson gets 40% of the vote, TR gets 35%, Taft gets 20%, and Debs gets 5%, Wilson gets all the electoral votes. TR and Taft together win by 15 points and take the electoral votes.

    Herbert Hoover got 40% of the vote in 1932. Friendly reminder.
    KruiteCaptain CarrotArdolHeirRchanen
  • MadCaddyMadCaddy Registered User regular
    Theodore "Teddy" Roosevelt
    MadCaddy wrote: »
    Wilson made the country far worse.

    Eh, we aren't speaking German and the UN is still in a neutered form of his ideal League of Nations. If his foreign policy was followed to a t , there's a very good chance world war 2 could've been avoided. Germany wouldn't've had the economic sanctions issued during the Weimar Republic that led to the hyperinflation which helped Hitler and the Nazi's gain dominance.

    Wilson waited an awful long time to get us into the war.

    If he hadn't, maybe Europe ends up a little less in shambles because the war ends much faster.

    With Europe less of a complete disaster in the post war we don't quite get the Weimar germany.

    Although that's a pretty tenuous argument, I'm not sure I'd care to actually give a full throated defense of.

    Also, the state of Europe post WW1 probably can be laid a lot at the feet of the successive Republican Presidents and their isolationist tendencies.

    Congress is who had the authority, and delayed, the US entrance into the war. Wilson was pro-intervention before the Lusetania. He also played an incredibly large role in the armistice negotiations after. He was far better internationally than domestically, I'll admit, but he also played a much larger role in the Allied victory in WW1 and predicted the fallout when all his points weren't followed. He contributed far more to the allied victory and was far more involved internationally than another president being mentioned on many best lists, FDR.

    Julius
  • FiendishrabbitFiendishrabbit Registered User regular
    Franklin D. Roosevelt
    FDR. I don't think any other president has managed to shape the political scene like FDR did.

    It's a rare president that can salvage his political party (making the democrats the politicly dominant force for like...30 years?), unite various social factions and massively reshape the political arena.

    Note. If it had been "Most badass american president" the list would have looked quite different. There would hasically have been three choices on the vote "Teddy", "Andrew Jackson" and "Other (aka the Wrong choice).

    "The western world sips from a poisonous cocktail: Polarisation, populism, protectionism and post-truth"
    -Antje Jackelén, Archbishop of the Church of Sweden
  • LoserForHireXLoserForHireX Registered User regular
    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.

    It's because the winner of each state wins all the electoral votes. So if Wilson gets 40% of the vote, TR gets 35%, Taft gets 20%, and Debs gets 5%, Wilson gets all the electoral votes. TR and Taft together win by 15 points and take the electoral votes.

    Every state broke down that way?

    Yeah then Wilson was a shit candidate who couldn't win a single state without help from a third party.

    If you look at the county breakdown, NY would likely have flipped without a divided Republican electorate. As well you might have seen Wisconsin and Oklahoma flip. Still not enough electoral votes though. You have to commit to the idea that a HUGE amount of votes that Wilson won would have unequivocally gone to TR without a divided Republican party. When those people didn't in fact vote for either TR or Taft.

    "The only way to get rid of a temptation is to give into it." - Oscar Wilde
    "We believe in the people and their 'wisdom' as if there was some special secret entrance to knowledge that barred to anyone who had ever learned anything." - Friedrich Nietzsche
  • tinwhiskerstinwhiskers Registered User regular
    George Washington
    Crayon wrote: »
    Roz wrote: »
    Here's the notable Presidents in my view. This is why I think Obama's absolutely in the top 10.

    -Washington, the landmark one. Elected unanimously. Widely popular and deeply respected. His actual Presidency isn't all that remarkable, though he does do a couple of very important things. 1) Shows that the Union will be defended by suppressing the Whiskey Rebellion. 2) Stays out of the French revolution. 3) Leaves after two terms allowing for the peaceful transition of leadership that would become tradition. (was totally onboard with Slavery though)

    -Jefferson's the next big one. Massively expands the United States. Creates the model for the Presidency that many will follow. Creates the philosophical underpinnings for the Agrarian Individualistic ideal, which remains to this day the prominent political theory in much of the Mid West and South (plus racism). Also owned slaves. Also a total shitlord.

    -Jackson took our policy of being dicks to Native Americans into full on Genocide and Ethnic Cleansing mode that would persist until Reservations became the solution. (Fuck him). He was, however, capable of breaking apart some of the political machines, and helping to give the average man more say in the government. (Believed in the Union above all else, thought Slavery was ok but rebellion to preserve Slavery was not *shrug*)

    --*intermission*Large number of largely uninteresting or terrible Presidents *intermission*--

    then

    -Lincoln is a massive historical figure that completely reshapes the Presidency and the country. It would be easy to write page after page of his accomplishments and historical significance (and numerous Constitutional crises). More or less he invests the Modern Presidency and the massively expanded role and power that comes with it. He writes (arguably) the most important speeches in American history. Also he could wrestle like a god, and gave no fucks about killing traitors. (Did I mention he didn't own slaves!)

    -Teddy Roosevelt completely reshapes foreign and domestic policy. Fights for people, limits trusts, curtails corporations and excesses. Establishes National parks and creates the underpinnings for conservationism. Proposes the "Square Deal" which is the core philosophy on which most of the 20th and 21st centuries progressivism is built. Also he was baller as fuck.

    -Taft/Coolidge/Wilson others can make cases for. I don't think they're that great to be honest, even though each some decent accomplishments.

    -FDR. If Teddy built the foundation for Progressivism, FDR built the building upon which it rests. The "New Deal" was radically transformative for the American people. It brought about social security, banking regulations, the removal of the gold standard, welfare, food stamps, and about 100 other things that are too numerous to list. More or less the modern America that we have today, and nearly all the political discourse around domestic issues is directly tied to his initiatives and the society that he shaped and created. Also was President during most of WWII and many historians credit him with our victory in that war and the subsequent "rise of the American Century". (You'll note how important the Presidency becomes after this point. Most people cannot name more than one or two presidents between Lincoln to Wilson, but can easily rattle off 5 or more presidents between FDR to now. This forum obviously excluded)

    -Eisenhower. Great on foreign and domestic policy. Fascinating in that he's almost apolitical. Conservatives and Liberals alike admire his Presidency. Built the highway system, desegregated schools, created some important agencies that are still around today (NASA, DARPA). Despite being a conservative, he expanded many of the policies of the New Deal, and seems like an all around decent dude. Did order coups in Iran and Guatemala, which was pretty awful.

    -JFK: overrated. Bobby was the better Kennedy.

    -LBJ helped craft and pass much of the Civil Rights legislation of the 1960s. He was a master politician, but his legacy is not as highly regarded as Ike's or JFKs for some bizarre reason. In fact most of the major accomplishments attributed to JFK are actually LBJs. He is directly responsible for the political realignment which has resulted in the current incarnations of the Democratic and Republican parties. Vietnam will remain his worst blunder, and it's possible that it has overshadowed some of the real good he did.

    -Nixon walking human disaster. Others in this thread have commented on what he's done. And for all the good things he's responsible for, abuse of authority completely overshadows them. We hate abuse of power for political gain in this country. Hate it. There are people who will overlook Washington's or Jefferson's views on Slavery (and their participation in that system) but no one gives Nixon a pass. I'm still not sure how to process that. But yeah, Nixon was pretty awful.

    -Ford/Carter *yawn*

    -Reagan. A mediocre president who gets propped up by conservatives because they need someone to point to in 60 years of politics who isn't corrupt, inept, or a total failure. He's directly responsible for much of the conservative mythos that exists today, but much of what has been ascribed to him is Fantasy.

    -HWB others have talked about. He did some good things, but did pardon people involved in Iran-Contra. Could have been great (maybe) without that, and losing his second term.

    -Clinton good speaker. Middle of the road in terms of actual policies. Many of his legislative achievements are now rejected by his own party. Mostly average.

    -GWB worse than Nixon on the policy front, with a Presidency saddled with corruption and incompetence. will probably be worst of 21st century.

    -Obama. First. Black. President. That alone is a huge signifying moment in American politics. If this trend continues (first woman president, first hispanic president, first LBGTQ president), his election will act as the anchor which brought a renewed progressivism to America in the 21st century. Beyond his accomplishments (which I've posted before), he has no major scandals. In American politics that's pretty much unheard of. Look at this list of dudes, many of them owned Slaves or participated in that culture, were involved in some really shady shit, committed mass genocide, or ordered coups against foreign governments. It is entirely possible we are looking a new model of Presidency, unique to what's come before. The Drone program and NSA spying are concerning, but they are not illegal. That's kind of a huge cultural shift.

    Just wanted to quote you to say insanely good post. It's always fun to hear people's insight into their choices. It also helps that I can agree on most, especially the oddity of LBJ not being fondly remembered. I'm still confused as to how he isn't, but when you talk about your dick 20% of the time I suppose it'll happen. Also agree that JFK was mediocre and is terribly overrated.


    Oddity? He was so unpopular that he didn't even seek reelection in 1968. Would a lot of the blame he is saddled with fall to JFK had he lived, probably, but for as much as we refer to W's Iraq War as an unforced error, Vietnam was basically that times 20. The Pentagon Papers were damning, it would be basically like having a report from the pentagon to confirm everything liberals believed about the Iraq war in '06 to be 100% true-except again the war was at least an order of magnitude larger.

    HedgethornHeir
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    Abraham Lincoln
    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.

    It's because the winner of each state wins all the electoral votes. So if Wilson gets 40% of the vote, TR gets 35%, Taft gets 20%, and Debs gets 5%, Wilson gets all the electoral votes. TR and Taft together win by 15 points and take the electoral votes.

    Every state broke down that way?

    Yeah then Wilson was a shit candidate who couldn't win a single state without help from a third party.

    If you look at the county breakdown, NY would likely have flipped without a divided Republican electorate. As well you might have seen Wisconsin and Oklahoma flip. Still not enough electoral votes though. You have to commit to the idea that a HUGE amount of votes that Wilson won would have unequivocally gone to TR without a divided Republican party. When those people didn't in fact vote for either TR or Taft.

    Wilson did not get a majority in any state outside the Confederacy.

    Herbert Hoover got 40% of the vote in 1932. Friendly reminder.
  • JusticeforPlutoJusticeforPluto Total Goober Registered User regular
    Abraham Lincoln
    Wilson's idealism of self determination was pretty cool.

    Shame it only counted for white men.

    RMS Oceanic
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    Abraham Lincoln
    Oddity? He was so unpopular that he didn't even seek reelection in 1968. Would a lot of the blame he is saddled with fall to JFK had he lived, probably, but for as much as we refer to W's Iraq War as an unforced error, Vietnam was basically that times 20. The Pentagon Papers were damning, it would be basically like having a report from the pentagon to confirm everything liberals believed about the Iraq war in '06 to be 100% true-except again the war was at least an order of magnitude larger.

    Other than Lincoln and FDR, the most transformative domestic President in our history. Arguably more than FDR, actually. Medicare, Medicaid, Civil Rights Act of 1964, VRA, Fair Housing Act.

    Herbert Hoover got 40% of the vote in 1932. Friendly reminder.
    OptimusZedRozBigJoeMRchanen
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    Franklin D. Roosevelt
    Roz wrote: »
    DarkPrimus wrote: »
    There's a reason homeless people named their shantytowns Hoovervilles. He was a poor orator and seemed like he just didn't care about what was happening. He actively made the Depression worse by signing the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act.

    Coolidge gets to have his share of the blame for the Great Depression, but it's not like Hoover just didn't do enough to rise to the greatest challenge of the time period. He took the wrong actions.

    Hoover didn't have the tools available to him to take the right actions and didn't have the political acumen or fortitude that FDR possessed when he more or less told the rest of the government "look, this is what we are going to do, shut up and trust me, it'll work" when creating all the new agencies and passing sweeping, broad proclamations

    And this is why he's consistently ranked as a bad President. If you're going to be in the big chair, you'd better be a goddamn leader of men.

    I also think that there's nothing wrong with judging people primarily based on how they handle crises. If nothing exceptional is happening you can probably get by on being a mediocre President. At that point your job is to try to make things better but the most important thing is to keep the country from burning down. Of course we judge Presidents more harshly when they fail to rise to the challenge, or more highly when they succeed in something major and keep terrible things from happening.

    This is exactly why Bill Clinton is considered an average or slightly above average President.

    I've always thought of Clinton as the guy who didn't have to whether any great crisis and pretty much didn't fuck anything up. The kind of steady hand that's good to have in good times.

    He had some fuck ups and some successes but I think in the end he'll end up unremarkable in the history books.

    Shit, he'll probably end up mostly known as "Hillary Clinton's husband".

    RozShortyfurlionCptKemzikRchanen
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    Franklin D. Roosevelt
    MadCaddy wrote: »
    DarkPrimus wrote: »
    DarkPrimus wrote: »
    Coolidge was like, the laziest president ever.

    Dude did not think that the President should be doing much for sure, but he did do things. I mean, I think that one could make a top 5 things Coolidge did list.

    He apparently wasn't a super personable guy and didn't like doing much

    Yeah, like doing anything to prevent the Great Depression.

    Oh, he was fine with blaming Hoover for it, though.

    At the time it wasn't like "have a Great Depression y/n?" was a real question.

    Yes what was done was wrong, and the actions that they took were either insufficient or made it worse, but in some sense they were trying to do something about it or they figured it was the kind of thing that would be bad but not that bad

    I think at worst you can accuse the leaders at the time of just not understanding what was happening. We have the benefit of being able to explain what happened because we can study it.

    In the middle of the worst economic disaster this country has ever seen, I'm not sure it's all that hard to understand that they just didn't realize what was going on or have the economic theory to try to stop it

    Like, without Keynes at all, how do you even conceptualize the depression?

    The exact causes, effects and given repercussions of actions taken during the Great Depression are still a very hotly debated and studied field in academic Economics (as well as policy leaning think tanks.)

    It's why even Obama had no idea what to do exactly or what would be the right path during the Great Recession; the best thing he did, and what most academics agree as the correct course given the scenario, was not tighten the purse strings of the Fed and try to balance the budget while operating at deficit with a collapsing GDP. A very Keynesian solution, but it might've been taken too far as the still hovering at 0% prime rate may indicate and the growing income inequality domestically.

    None of what he actually did is really responsible for any of that. That's not the result of being "too Keynesian".

    Plus he couldn't implement most of what was thought of as the right course of action because of Congress anyway.

    Julius
  • LoserForHireXLoserForHireX Registered User regular
    FDR. I don't think any other president has managed to shape the political scene like FDR did.

    It's a rare president that can salvage his political party (making the democrats the politicly dominant force for like...30 years?), unite various social factions and massively reshape the political arena.

    Note. If it had been "Most badass american president" the list would have looked quite different. There would hasically have been three choices on the vote "Teddy", "Andrew Jackson" and "Other (aka the Wrong choice).

    More like 20 years. I mean, if you overlook Ike (or claim him for the Democratic party which might not be crazy) you
    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.

    It's because the winner of each state wins all the electoral votes. So if Wilson gets 40% of the vote, TR gets 35%, Taft gets 20%, and Debs gets 5%, Wilson gets all the electoral votes. TR and Taft together win by 15 points and take the electoral votes.

    Every state broke down that way?

    Yeah then Wilson was a shit candidate who couldn't win a single state without help from a third party.

    If you look at the county breakdown, NY would likely have flipped without a divided Republican electorate. As well you might have seen Wisconsin and Oklahoma flip. Still not enough electoral votes though. You have to commit to the idea that a HUGE amount of votes that Wilson won would have unequivocally gone to TR without a divided Republican party. When those people didn't in fact vote for either TR or Taft.

    Wilson did not get a majority in any state outside the Confederacy.

    The map that I'm looking at (county breakdown) has him winning the following states with a majority of the counties. I don't exactly know where all the major population centers are for all these states but for those that I do know it's not like TR would have carried every major population center and win to such a degree that he would have easily won the state. That is, that a majority of the counties went for Wilson and even had the counties for Taft been for TR TR still wouldn't have won the state. None of these are confederate states to my knowledge.

    Nevada
    New Jersey
    New Hampshire
    Colorado
    Arizona
    Idaho
    Oregon
    Indiana
    Ohio
    Kentucky (whle not technically confederate, I will acknowledge that this is pretty much a southern state)
    Nebraska
    Wyoming

    But you're right

    Wilson would have been totally destroyed (a 15 point difference is dominant) had Taft not taken the R nomination instead of TR.

    "The only way to get rid of a temptation is to give into it." - Oscar Wilde
    "We believe in the people and their 'wisdom' as if there was some special secret entrance to knowledge that barred to anyone who had ever learned anything." - Friedrich Nietzsche
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    Abraham Lincoln
    That's... now how we elect Presidents. If it were, the Democrats could literally never win. Here's a map:

    http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/national.php?year=1912

    Herbert Hoover got 40% of the vote in 1932. Friendly reminder.
  • CrayonCrayon Sleeps in the wrong bed. TejasRegistered User regular
    edited July 2016
    Other


    Oddity? He was so unpopular that he didn't even seek reelection in 1968. Would a lot of the blame he is saddled with fall to JFK had he lived, probably, but for as much as we refer to W's Iraq War as an unforced error, Vietnam was basically that times 20. The Pentagon Papers were damning, it would be basically like having a report from the pentagon to confirm everything liberals believed about the Iraq war in '06 to be 100% true-except again the war was at least an order of magnitude larger.

    I didn't even bring up that it was an oddity during his time, merely during ours. I feel that's a big difference. Social Security Act. Civil Rights Act of 1964. Office of Economic Opportunity. And yes, vietnam was shit. My father killed himself 12 years after coming back because of Vietnam. It sucked. It took too many lives and too many of our young. It changed our entire country and how not only we deal with intervention, but in how we care or don't care for our veterans. This is something I acknowledge and am painfully aware of every single day. I know the damage it caused, personally. However, I still feel the good he did far outweighs the bad from a historical perspective. I can remove the emotional from the historical here.

    Crayon on
    "I am conscious of my inability to grasp, in all its details and positive developments, any very large portion of human knowledge."
    X-Box Tag: PrettyGoodCake
    PSN: LLatikuf
  • LoserForHireXLoserForHireX Registered User regular
    edited July 2016
    RUTHERFORD B HAYES FOR BEST PRESIDENT!

    LoserForHireX on
    "The only way to get rid of a temptation is to give into it." - Oscar Wilde
    "We believe in the people and their 'wisdom' as if there was some special secret entrance to knowledge that barred to anyone who had ever learned anything." - Friedrich Nietzsche
  • LoserForHireXLoserForHireX Registered User regular
    edited July 2016
    WARREN G HARDING FOR

    PRESIDENT?

    he seems like a pretty bad one

    LoserForHireX on
    "The only way to get rid of a temptation is to give into it." - Oscar Wilde
    "We believe in the people and their 'wisdom' as if there was some special secret entrance to knowledge that barred to anyone who had ever learned anything." - Friedrich Nietzsche
  • Apothe0sisApothe0sis Have you ever questioned the nature of your reality? Registered User regular
    Other
    I vote Al Gore for Best President and Cheney for Worst

    Tide goes in. Tide goes out.
    Es-annon NEVA 4GET
    Julius
  • Apothe0sisApothe0sis Have you ever questioned the nature of your reality? Registered User regular
    Other
    A steak! wrote: »
    Crayon wrote: »
    Roz wrote: »
    Here's the notable Presidents in my view. This is why I think Obama's absolutely in the top 10.

    -Washington, the landmark one. Elected unanimously. Widely popular and deeply respected. His actual Presidency isn't all that remarkable, though he does do a couple of very important things. 1) Shows that the Union will be defended by suppressing the Whiskey Rebellion. 2) Stays out of the French revolution. 3) Leaves after two terms allowing for the peaceful transition of leadership that would become tradition. (was totally onboard with Slavery though)

    -Jefferson's the next big one. Massively expands the United States. Creates the model for the Presidency that many will follow. Creates the philosophical underpinnings for the Agrarian Individualistic ideal, which remains to this day the prominent political theory in much of the Mid West and South (plus racism). Also owned slaves. Also a total shitlord.

    -Jackson took our policy of being dicks to Native Americans into full on Genocide and Ethnic Cleansing mode that would persist until Reservations became the solution. (Fuck him). He was, however, capable of breaking apart some of the political machines, and helping to give the average man more say in the government. (Believed in the Union above all else, thought Slavery was ok but rebellion to preserve Slavery was not *shrug*)

    --*intermission*Large number of largely uninteresting or terrible Presidents *intermission*--

    then

    -Lincoln is a massive historical figure that completely reshapes the Presidency and the country. It would be easy to write page after page of his accomplishments and historical significance (and numerous Constitutional crises). More or less he invests the Modern Presidency and the massively expanded role and power that comes with it. He writes (arguably) the most important speeches in American history. Also he could wrestle like a god, and gave no fucks about killing traitors. (Did I mention he didn't own slaves!)

    -Teddy Roosevelt completely reshapes foreign and domestic policy. Fights for people, limits trusts, curtails corporations and excesses. Establishes National parks and creates the underpinnings for conservationism. Proposes the "Square Deal" which is the core philosophy on which most of the 20th and 21st centuries progressivism is built. Also he was baller as fuck.

    -Taft/Coolidge/Wilson others can make cases for. I don't think they're that great to be honest, even though each some decent accomplishments.

    -FDR. If Teddy built the foundation for Progressivism, FDR built the building upon which it rests. The "New Deal" was radically transformative for the American people. It brought about social security, banking regulations, the removal of the gold standard, welfare, food stamps, and about 100 other things that are too numerous to list. More or less the modern America that we have today, and nearly all the political discourse around domestic issues is directly tied to his initiatives and the society that he shaped and created. Also was President during most of WWII and many historians credit him with our victory in that war and the subsequent "rise of the American Century". (You'll note how important the Presidency becomes after this point. Most people cannot name more than one or two presidents between Lincoln to Wilson, but can easily rattle off 5 or more presidents between FDR to now. This forum obviously excluded)

    -Eisenhower. Great on foreign and domestic policy. Fascinating in that he's almost apolitical. Conservatives and Liberals alike admire his Presidency. Built the highway system, desegregated schools, created some important agencies that are still around today (NASA, DARPA). Despite being a conservative, he expanded many of the policies of the New Deal, and seems like an all around decent dude. Did order coups in Iran and Guatemala, which was pretty awful.

    -JFK: overrated. Bobby was the better Kennedy.

    -LBJ helped craft and pass much of the Civil Rights legislation of the 1960s. He was a master politician, but his legacy is not as highly regarded as Ike's or JFKs for some bizarre reason. In fact most of the major accomplishments attributed to JFK are actually LBJs. He is directly responsible for the political realignment which has resulted in the current incarnations of the Democratic and Republican parties. Vietnam will remain his worst blunder, and it's possible that it has overshadowed some of the real good he did.

    -Nixon walking human disaster. Others in this thread have commented on what he's done. And for all the good things he's responsible for, abuse of authority completely overshadows them. We hate abuse of power for political gain in this country. Hate it. There are people who will overlook Washington's or Jefferson's views on Slavery (and their participation in that system) but no one gives Nixon a pass. I'm still not sure how to process that. But yeah, Nixon was pretty awful.

    -Ford/Carter *yawn*

    -Reagan. A mediocre president who gets propped up by conservatives because they need someone to point to in 60 years of politics who isn't corrupt, inept, or a total failure. He's directly responsible for much of the conservative mythos that exists today, but much of what has been ascribed to him is Fantasy.

    -HWB others have talked about. He did some good things, but did pardon people involved in Iran-Contra. Could have been great (maybe) without that, and losing his second term.

    -Clinton good speaker. Middle of the road in terms of actual policies. Many of his legislative achievements are now rejected by his own party. Mostly average.

    -GWB worse than Nixon on the policy front, with a Presidency saddled with corruption and incompetence. will probably be worst of 21st century.

    -Obama. First. Black. President. That alone is a huge signifying moment in American politics. If this trend continues (first woman president, first hispanic president, first LBGTQ president), his election will act as the anchor which brought a renewed progressivism to America in the 21st century. Beyond his accomplishments (which I've posted before), he has no major scandals. In American politics that's pretty much unheard of. Look at this list of dudes, many of them owned Slaves or participated in that culture, were involved in some really shady shit, committed mass genocide, or ordered coups against foreign governments. It is entirely possible we are looking a new model of Presidency, unique to what's come before. The Drone program and NSA spying are concerning, but they are not illegal. That's kind of a huge cultural shift.

    Just wanted to quote you to say insanely good post. It's always fun to hear people's insight into their choices. It also helps that I can agree on most, especially the oddity of LBJ not being fondly remembered. I'm still confused as to how he isn't, but when you talk about your dick 20% of the time I suppose it'll happen. Also agree that JFK was mediocre and is terribly overrated.

    If I had 20% of LBJs dick I'd talk about it all the time.

    I'm telling you

    LBJ
    sickest burns
    biggest donger (and balls)
    catchy slogan

    Tide goes in. Tide goes out.
    Es-annon NEVA 4GET
  • OptimusZedOptimusZed Registered User regular
    Other
    Apothe0sis wrote: »
    A steak! wrote: »
    Crayon wrote: »
    Roz wrote: »
    Here's the notable Presidents in my view. This is why I think Obama's absolutely in the top 10.

    -Washington, the landmark one. Elected unanimously. Widely popular and deeply respected. His actual Presidency isn't all that remarkable, though he does do a couple of very important things. 1) Shows that the Union will be defended by suppressing the Whiskey Rebellion. 2) Stays out of the French revolution. 3) Leaves after two terms allowing for the peaceful transition of leadership that would become tradition. (was totally onboard with Slavery though)

    -Jefferson's the next big one. Massively expands the United States. Creates the model for the Presidency that many will follow. Creates the philosophical underpinnings for the Agrarian Individualistic ideal, which remains to this day the prominent political theory in much of the Mid West and South (plus racism). Also owned slaves. Also a total shitlord.

    -Jackson took our policy of being dicks to Native Americans into full on Genocide and Ethnic Cleansing mode that would persist until Reservations became the solution. (Fuck him). He was, however, capable of breaking apart some of the political machines, and helping to give the average man more say in the government. (Believed in the Union above all else, thought Slavery was ok but rebellion to preserve Slavery was not *shrug*)

    --*intermission*Large number of largely uninteresting or terrible Presidents *intermission*--

    then

    -Lincoln is a massive historical figure that completely reshapes the Presidency and the country. It would be easy to write page after page of his accomplishments and historical significance (and numerous Constitutional crises). More or less he invests the Modern Presidency and the massively expanded role and power that comes with it. He writes (arguably) the most important speeches in American history. Also he could wrestle like a god, and gave no fucks about killing traitors. (Did I mention he didn't own slaves!)

    -Teddy Roosevelt completely reshapes foreign and domestic policy. Fights for people, limits trusts, curtails corporations and excesses. Establishes National parks and creates the underpinnings for conservationism. Proposes the "Square Deal" which is the core philosophy on which most of the 20th and 21st centuries progressivism is built. Also he was baller as fuck.

    -Taft/Coolidge/Wilson others can make cases for. I don't think they're that great to be honest, even though each some decent accomplishments.

    -FDR. If Teddy built the foundation for Progressivism, FDR built the building upon which it rests. The "New Deal" was radically transformative for the American people. It brought about social security, banking regulations, the removal of the gold standard, welfare, food stamps, and about 100 other things that are too numerous to list. More or less the modern America that we have today, and nearly all the political discourse around domestic issues is directly tied to his initiatives and the society that he shaped and created. Also was President during most of WWII and many historians credit him with our victory in that war and the subsequent "rise of the American Century". (You'll note how important the Presidency becomes after this point. Most people cannot name more than one or two presidents between Lincoln to Wilson, but can easily rattle off 5 or more presidents between FDR to now. This forum obviously excluded)

    -Eisenhower. Great on foreign and domestic policy. Fascinating in that he's almost apolitical. Conservatives and Liberals alike admire his Presidency. Built the highway system, desegregated schools, created some important agencies that are still around today (NASA, DARPA). Despite being a conservative, he expanded many of the policies of the New Deal, and seems like an all around decent dude. Did order coups in Iran and Guatemala, which was pretty awful.

    -JFK: overrated. Bobby was the better Kennedy.

    -LBJ helped craft and pass much of the Civil Rights legislation of the 1960s. He was a master politician, but his legacy is not as highly regarded as Ike's or JFKs for some bizarre reason. In fact most of the major accomplishments attributed to JFK are actually LBJs. He is directly responsible for the political realignment which has resulted in the current incarnations of the Democratic and Republican parties. Vietnam will remain his worst blunder, and it's possible that it has overshadowed some of the real good he did.

    -Nixon walking human disaster. Others in this thread have commented on what he's done. And for all the good things he's responsible for, abuse of authority completely overshadows them. We hate abuse of power for political gain in this country. Hate it. There are people who will overlook Washington's or Jefferson's views on Slavery (and their participation in that system) but no one gives Nixon a pass. I'm still not sure how to process that. But yeah, Nixon was pretty awful.

    -Ford/Carter *yawn*

    -Reagan. A mediocre president who gets propped up by conservatives because they need someone to point to in 60 years of politics who isn't corrupt, inept, or a total failure. He's directly responsible for much of the conservative mythos that exists today, but much of what has been ascribed to him is Fantasy.

    -HWB others have talked about. He did some good things, but did pardon people involved in Iran-Contra. Could have been great (maybe) without that, and losing his second term.

    -Clinton good speaker. Middle of the road in terms of actual policies. Many of his legislative achievements are now rejected by his own party. Mostly average.

    -GWB worse than Nixon on the policy front, with a Presidency saddled with corruption and incompetence. will probably be worst of 21st century.

    -Obama. First. Black. President. That alone is a huge signifying moment in American politics. If this trend continues (first woman president, first hispanic president, first LBGTQ president), his election will act as the anchor which brought a renewed progressivism to America in the 21st century. Beyond his accomplishments (which I've posted before), he has no major scandals. In American politics that's pretty much unheard of. Look at this list of dudes, many of them owned Slaves or participated in that culture, were involved in some really shady shit, committed mass genocide, or ordered coups against foreign governments. It is entirely possible we are looking a new model of Presidency, unique to what's come before. The Drone program and NSA spying are concerning, but they are not illegal. That's kind of a huge cultural shift.

    Just wanted to quote you to say insanely good post. It's always fun to hear people's insight into their choices. It also helps that I can agree on most, especially the oddity of LBJ not being fondly remembered. I'm still confused as to how he isn't, but when you talk about your dick 20% of the time I suppose it'll happen. Also agree that JFK was mediocre and is terribly overrated.

    If I had 20% of LBJs dick I'd talk about it all the time.

    I'm telling you

    LBJ
    sickest burns
    biggest donger (and balls)
    catchy slogan

    (?) Hey hey LBJ how many kids you kill today? (?)

    We're reading Rifts. You should too. You know you want to. Now With Ninjas!

    They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
  • Captain CarrotCaptain Carrot Alexandria, VARegistered User regular
    Everybody gives major props to Washington for saying "hey, don't form political parties" and it is the sheerest bullshit. George Washington was very much a Federalist, he just pretended not to be.

    AngelHedgieshrykelonelyahavaiTunesIsEvil
  • Apothe0sisApothe0sis Have you ever questioned the nature of your reality? Registered User regular
    Other
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    Apothe0sis wrote: »
    A steak! wrote: »
    Crayon wrote: »
    Roz wrote: »
    Here's the notable Presidents in my view. This is why I think Obama's absolutely in the top 10.

    -Washington, the landmark one. Elected unanimously. Widely popular and deeply respected. His actual Presidency isn't all that remarkable, though he does do a couple of very important things. 1) Shows that the Union will be defended by suppressing the Whiskey Rebellion. 2) Stays out of the French revolution. 3) Leaves after two terms allowing for the peaceful transition of leadership that would become tradition. (was totally onboard with Slavery though)

    -Jefferson's the next big one. Massively expands the United States. Creates the model for the Presidency that many will follow. Creates the philosophical underpinnings for the Agrarian Individualistic ideal, which remains to this day the prominent political theory in much of the Mid West and South (plus racism). Also owned slaves. Also a total shitlord.

    -Jackson took our policy of being dicks to Native Americans into full on Genocide and Ethnic Cleansing mode that would persist until Reservations became the solution. (Fuck him). He was, however, capable of breaking apart some of the political machines, and helping to give the average man more say in the government. (Believed in the Union above all else, thought Slavery was ok but rebellion to preserve Slavery was not *shrug*)

    --*intermission*Large number of largely uninteresting or terrible Presidents *intermission*--

    then

    -Lincoln is a massive historical figure that completely reshapes the Presidency and the country. It would be easy to write page after page of his accomplishments and historical significance (and numerous Constitutional crises). More or less he invests the Modern Presidency and the massively expanded role and power that comes with it. He writes (arguably) the most important speeches in American history. Also he could wrestle like a god, and gave no fucks about killing traitors. (Did I mention he didn't own slaves!)

    -Teddy Roosevelt completely reshapes foreign and domestic policy. Fights for people, limits trusts, curtails corporations and excesses. Establishes National parks and creates the underpinnings for conservationism. Proposes the "Square Deal" which is the core philosophy on which most of the 20th and 21st centuries progressivism is built. Also he was baller as fuck.

    -Taft/Coolidge/Wilson others can make cases for. I don't think they're that great to be honest, even though each some decent accomplishments.

    -FDR. If Teddy built the foundation for Progressivism, FDR built the building upon which it rests. The "New Deal" was radically transformative for the American people. It brought about social security, banking regulations, the removal of the gold standard, welfare, food stamps, and about 100 other things that are too numerous to list. More or less the modern America that we have today, and nearly all the political discourse around domestic issues is directly tied to his initiatives and the society that he shaped and created. Also was President during most of WWII and many historians credit him with our victory in that war and the subsequent "rise of the American Century". (You'll note how important the Presidency becomes after this point. Most people cannot name more than one or two presidents between Lincoln to Wilson, but can easily rattle off 5 or more presidents between FDR to now. This forum obviously excluded)

    -Eisenhower. Great on foreign and domestic policy. Fascinating in that he's almost apolitical. Conservatives and Liberals alike admire his Presidency. Built the highway system, desegregated schools, created some important agencies that are still around today (NASA, DARPA). Despite being a conservative, he expanded many of the policies of the New Deal, and seems like an all around decent dude. Did order coups in Iran and Guatemala, which was pretty awful.

    -JFK: overrated. Bobby was the better Kennedy.

    -LBJ helped craft and pass much of the Civil Rights legislation of the 1960s. He was a master politician, but his legacy is not as highly regarded as Ike's or JFKs for some bizarre reason. In fact most of the major accomplishments attributed to JFK are actually LBJs. He is directly responsible for the political realignment which has resulted in the current incarnations of the Democratic and Republican parties. Vietnam will remain his worst blunder, and it's possible that it has overshadowed some of the real good he did.

    -Nixon walking human disaster. Others in this thread have commented on what he's done. And for all the good things he's responsible for, abuse of authority completely overshadows them. We hate abuse of power for political gain in this country. Hate it. There are people who will overlook Washington's or Jefferson's views on Slavery (and their participation in that system) but no one gives Nixon a pass. I'm still not sure how to process that. But yeah, Nixon was pretty awful.

    -Ford/Carter *yawn*

    -Reagan. A mediocre president who gets propped up by conservatives because they need someone to point to in 60 years of politics who isn't corrupt, inept, or a total failure. He's directly responsible for much of the conservative mythos that exists today, but much of what has been ascribed to him is Fantasy.

    -HWB others have talked about. He did some good things, but did pardon people involved in Iran-Contra. Could have been great (maybe) without that, and losing his second term.

    -Clinton good speaker. Middle of the road in terms of actual policies. Many of his legislative achievements are now rejected by his own party. Mostly average.

    -GWB worse than Nixon on the policy front, with a Presidency saddled with corruption and incompetence. will probably be worst of 21st century.

    -Obama. First. Black. President. That alone is a huge signifying moment in American politics. If this trend continues (first woman president, first hispanic president, first LBGTQ president), his election will act as the anchor which brought a renewed progressivism to America in the 21st century. Beyond his accomplishments (which I've posted before), he has no major scandals. In American politics that's pretty much unheard of. Look at this list of dudes, many of them owned Slaves or participated in that culture, were involved in some really shady shit, committed mass genocide, or ordered coups against foreign governments. It is entirely possible we are looking a new model of Presidency, unique to what's come before. The Drone program and NSA spying are concerning, but they are not illegal. That's kind of a huge cultural shift.

    Just wanted to quote you to say insanely good post. It's always fun to hear people's insight into their choices. It also helps that I can agree on most, especially the oddity of LBJ not being fondly remembered. I'm still confused as to how he isn't, but when you talk about your dick 20% of the time I suppose it'll happen. Also agree that JFK was mediocre and is terribly overrated.

    If I had 20% of LBJs dick I'd talk about it all the time.

    I'm telling you

    LBJ
    sickest burns
    biggest donger (and balls)
    catchy slogan

    (?) Hey hey LBJ how many kids you kill today? (?)
    I was thinking "All the way with LBJ"

    But that is a good one too

    Tide goes in. Tide goes out.
    Es-annon NEVA 4GET
  • RozRoz Boss of InternetRegistered User regular
    Abraham Lincoln
    shryke wrote: »
    Roz wrote: »
    DarkPrimus wrote: »
    There's a reason homeless people named their shantytowns Hoovervilles. He was a poor orator and seemed like he just didn't care about what was happening. He actively made the Depression worse by signing the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act.

    Coolidge gets to have his share of the blame for the Great Depression, but it's not like Hoover just didn't do enough to rise to the greatest challenge of the time period. He took the wrong actions.

    Hoover didn't have the tools available to him to take the right actions and didn't have the political acumen or fortitude that FDR possessed when he more or less told the rest of the government "look, this is what we are going to do, shut up and trust me, it'll work" when creating all the new agencies and passing sweeping, broad proclamations

    And this is why he's consistently ranked as a bad President. If you're going to be in the big chair, you'd better be a goddamn leader of men.

    I also think that there's nothing wrong with judging people primarily based on how they handle crises. If nothing exceptional is happening you can probably get by on being a mediocre President. At that point your job is to try to make things better but the most important thing is to keep the country from burning down. Of course we judge Presidents more harshly when they fail to rise to the challenge, or more highly when they succeed in something major and keep terrible things from happening.

    This is exactly why Bill Clinton is considered an average or slightly above average President.

    I've always thought of Clinton as the guy who didn't have to whether any great crisis and pretty much didn't fuck anything up. The kind of steady hand that's good to have in good times.

    He had some fuck ups and some successes but I think in the end he'll end up unremarkable in the history books.

    Shit, he'll probably end up mostly known as "Hillary Clinton's husband".

    Amazing president Hillary Clinton, whose husband was also a former President!

    (cool historic trivia!)

    Rchanen
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    Franklin D. Roosevelt
    Everybody gives major props to Washington for saying "hey, don't form political parties" and it is the sheerest bullshit. George Washington was very much a Federalist, he just pretended not to be.

    From what I understand, historians today think that was more "the only true party is the Federalist Party" than a warning against parties.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • DedwrekkaDedwrekka What Would Nyarlathotep Do? Registered User regular
    Abraham Lincoln
    Jefferson, Jackson, and Wilson were important Presidents who are all overrated. And Reagan was an important President who was a god damn disaster.

    I think Jefferson earned his place mostly in his willingness to bend to reality when it came to solving national problems. The guy had rigidly stuck to his guns throughout the Washington presidency (so much that he was almost fired) and during the campaign, but was willing to bend to Federalist/Hamiltonian ideas when provided with the facts and events of his time. His willingness to bend led to some important decisions that would have been bungled by a more rigid person.

    Commander Zoom
  • Blackhawk1313Blackhawk1313 Registered User regular
    Other
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    Crayon wrote: »
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    Crayon wrote: »
    No Eisenhower? Well, okay then.

    :bro:

    Do what now?! I don't know what bro means in this context! Hah.

    Eisenhower was my vote, too.

    so

    :terroristfistjab

    Ahem, as I said earlier in this thread
    I like Ike.

    I also put some facts out there, so come on out and represent for Eisenhower with some facts and share the love!

  • MadCaddyMadCaddy Registered User regular
    Theodore "Teddy" Roosevelt
    Everybody gives major props to Washington for saying "hey, don't form political parties" and it is the sheerest bullshit. George Washington was very much a Federalist, he just pretended not to be.

    From what I understand, historians today think that was more "the only true party is the Federalist Party" than a warning against parties.

    I like the theory that Hamilton was to Washington, what Cheney was to W.

  • Apothe0sisApothe0sis Have you ever questioned the nature of your reality? Registered User regular
    Other
    who was the most vindictive president tho

    Tide goes in. Tide goes out.
    Es-annon NEVA 4GET
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    edited July 2016
    Abraham Lincoln
    Apothe0sis wrote: »
    who was the most vindictive president tho

    Nixon, not even close. Even with Jackson.

    enlightenedbum on
    Herbert Hoover got 40% of the vote in 1932. Friendly reminder.
    RozMadCaddyjoshofalltradesShortyshrykeDedwrekkaCommander ZoomHeirAngelHedgieCrayoniTunesIsEvilfurlionMegaMekRchanen
  • OptimusZedOptimusZed Registered User regular
    Other
    Apothe0sis wrote: »
    who was the most vindictive president tho

    Nixon, not even close. Even with Jackson.

    Put the phrase "enemies list" into the American vernacular.

    Dude was a for real psychopath.

    We're reading Rifts. You should too. You know you want to. Now With Ninjas!

    They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
    MadCaddyAngelHedgieCrayonMegaMek
  • BigJoeMBigJoeM Registered User regular
    Abraham Lincoln
    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.

  • HedgethornHedgethorn Associate Professor of Historical Hobby Horses In the Lions' DenRegistered User regular
    Abraham Lincoln
    Most vindictive president before 2017: Nixon
    Most vindictive president after 2017: ...?

  • MadCaddyMadCaddy Registered User regular
    Theodore "Teddy" Roosevelt
    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...

  • a5ehrena5ehren AtlantaRegistered User regular
    George Washington
    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.

  • a5ehrena5ehren AtlantaRegistered User regular
    George Washington
    Everybody gives major props to Washington for saying "hey, don't form political parties" and it is the sheerest bullshit. George Washington was very much a Federalist, he just pretended not to be.

    Lately I've taken that to be more of a "Hey Hamilton and Jefferson, please shut the fuck up for a second and let things settle down."

    Commander Zoom
  • SLyMSLyM Registered User regular
    Theodore "Teddy" Roosevelt
    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?

    Steam Starcraft SLeague of Legends
  • RMS OceanicRMS Oceanic 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 think Washington might have to take the top slot then.

    RozShortyfurlion
  • daveNYCdaveNYC Why universe hate Waspinator? Registered User regular
    Franklin D. Roosevelt
    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?

    Hoover or Carter.
    Grant or Ike if we want to include generalship in the mix.

    I'm leaving out the founding father types, 'wrote the Declaration of Independence' or 'led the armies that won our independence' is cheating.

  • Solomaxwell6Solomaxwell6 Registered User regular
    edited July 2016
    Other
    Jackson killing people in duels vs Nixon keeping an enemies list is more a product of their respective times

    If Nixon had gone around shooting people he disliked, he would've been off to jail, end of story. I don't think it's really fair to give him credit for not doing that.

    Solomaxwell6 on
    shrykeCommander ZoomMegaMek
  • LoserForHireXLoserForHireX Registered User regular
    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.

    "The only way to get rid of a temptation is to give into it." - Oscar Wilde
    "We believe in the people and their 'wisdom' as if there was some special secret entrance to knowledge that barred to anyone who had ever learned anything." - Friedrich Nietzsche
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    edited July 2016
    Franklin D. 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.

    AngelHedgie on
    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
Sign In or Register to comment.