Rate Each of the US Presidents (who you have studied)
|
Rate Each of the US Presidents (who you have studied)
|
06-30-2022, 01:35 PM
the tiers are:
S A B C D F naturally, you should stick to rating ones you are relatively familiar with.
ammosexual
reluctant millennial
06-30-2022, 01:59 PM
(This post was last modified: 06-30-2022, 02:16 PM by JasonBlack.)
my list is as follows. I've tried to be reasonable
S: Washington A: Jefferson, Lincoln A-: Eisenhower, Bush Sr B+: Clinton, Adams, TR, Grover Cleveland, JFK, Grant B-: Trump, Reagan C+: Carter, Nixon, Jackson, Hoover C-: FDR, LBJ, Bush Jr, Obama D+: Harding D-: Biden F: Wilson, Andrew Johnson notes: - Washington is untouchable in virtually any capacity - Bush and Obama are rated low for the same reasons - Eisenhower would be a solid A if it weren't for those utterly insane confiscatory taxes - FDR gets an A or S for leadership and a solid F for virtually all his policies, so it was hard to place him - half of Jackson's policies were financially genius, the other hand were downright evil - Carter's cabinet was incompetent and idealistic, but as a person....I like the guy - frankly, Watergate wasn't a big deal. taking off the gold standard was. he did a decent chunk for the environment though - LBJ deserves credit for backing Civil Rights reform at the expense of half his party turning on him, but his policies were irresponsible, as was his unwillingness to end the war in Vietnam - JFK was kinda meh, expect for going against the Fed which was fucking heroic. - yes, Biden really is that bad. I tried not to be too biased, but...sorry, it's just true
ammosexual
reluctant millennial 
06-30-2022, 06:47 PM
Washington, Lincoln, FDR -- the man who defined the Presidency, the one who saved the Union, and the one who saved Western Christian civilization (if with the aid of his good buddy Sir Winston Churchill): A+. Washington may have lacked the expertise, but other than that, (consider the times) the more that one diverges from Washington's practice, the more trouble one gets into.
Jefferson and TR get solid A's. Truman, Eisenhower, Obama A-, All three fit my description of the "mature Reactive". one of the strongest styles of President possible. Obama was caught in an awkward time. These are the pick-up-the-pieces Presidents, the ones who do the unglamorous task of putting together the loose ends of history. They do the best with what they have, and do better than expected. Truman resolved the Second World War once and for all. used the Marshall Plan to salvage such democracy as there was in Europe. and managed the Korean War as well as the American psyche would allow. Ike got us out of the war with South Korea in a better geographic position than that with which it started. Ike made the right decisions on the Suez Crisis abd chose to stay clear of the Joe McCarthy bandwagon... and did right on the desegregation of Little Rock Central. Obama followed the book in backing the banks in 2009 and stopped the meltdown before it got to the stage of dangerous bank runs. He had Osama bin Laden whacked in something of the style of an underworld hit with no diplomatic repercussions. Obama was clearly on the right side on LGBT rights, but did not grandstand. Like Ike with civil rights, Obama made clear that same-sex marriage is the law of the land. All three get credit for sane, scandal-free administrations. Marshall Plan, Interstate Highway System, or Obamacare -- take your pick. I consider Eisenhower to be the most similar President to Obama (someone has to be), at the least for competence and temperament. Just look at the overlay map for Eisenhower and Obama elections. Obama did not get the rural vote as Ike did; the agribusiness vote is far more right-wing in recent years than it was in the 1950's. But it is safe to assume that the political cultures of states changed much less between Eisenhower and Obama (I'm guessing that Ike also did better with the African-American vote than any Republican after FDR stripped most blacks from the Party of Lincoln -- someone has to be most like Lincoln, and that is FDR) Both Eisenhower and Obama wiped out the other Party with the votes of the well-educated. I trust college graduates more with political wisdom with political astuteness than I trust high-school drop-outs. Sure, I'm an intellectual snob, and I would have more trust in any trait that serves as a proxy for political astuteness (like not marrying before age 25, having a college degree, listening to classical music or NPR, watching little TV (but what little one watches might be golf and tennis with an occasional news feed) -- anything other than ethnicity. Smart people better understand political discourse and are less amenable to demagogues. Well-educated people are less fickle in their political beliefs. You may be surprised that I rate the elder Bush so high (B) for a one-term President, but here he is. I'm rating the elder Bush for winding down the Cold War and thwarting Satan Hussein in his attempt to fill the role of "Evil Empire" as the Soviet Union became benign, but doing little else as president. Still, winding down one Cold War and preventing another while having a nearly scandal-free Administration is enough to be a good President. i see Kennedy and Clinton similar in personality and political skill. I also see their alley-cat sexuality which I treat as pulling them down toward mediocrity. If I tear Harding and Trump down for this. then I must do so with these two. B-. The sex scandals were huge risks not worth taking. Morality matters, and if I am knocking down Reagan I must knock these two down. A. Jackson, L. Johnson, Very mixed reviews. I give Jackson credit for reshaping American politics to make it more vibrant... but there is the shameful Trail of Tears and the expansion of slavery into the Southwest. LBJ may get more credit than he deserves for civil rights legislation, but he did complete the task that Kennedy started. He also got us into the War in Vietnam. C+ Reagan. I dislike most of his policies. I note that he was effective, which is good for some credit. He knew enough to back down when necessary. If I think Trump was the worst for taking Reagan-era trends to their most destructive conclusion. then I cannot rate him at all high. he had big scandals that seem to be forgotten now ; if he could not gut an institution that he disliked he could corrupt it, as with the EPA. Of course, much of his Presidency is what others did, with Reagan being relegated to a ceremonial role as Alzheimer's Ford C-. He should never have been President, but that said, he did little harm and did what had to be done. Otherwise, few achievements. He shows why one needs to have been a Senator, Governor, or war hero Carter D+. he meant well, but you can't argue with the results. A. Johnson, Coolidge, Hoover, G W Bush -- D. Both rode speculative booms until they crashed, and failed to solve the resulting economic meltdowns. Speculative booms invariably lead to panics and deep meltdowns. To be sure, the corrupt boom was already approaching an end when Hoover took office, and Bush sponsored one from its start. I describe Dubya's Presidency as telescoping the twelve disastrous years of the Harding, Coolidge, and Hoover Presidencies into eight years instead of twelve. That's Harding corruption, Coolidge inattention, and Hoover failure. Dubya infamously botched the response to Hurricane Katrina and got America into a war that may have been unjustified -- on lies. Both presided over economic meltdowns that for a year and a half looked much the same; Dubya's meltdown ended more rapidly, and under Hoover the economy went into three years of more of the same. Now why do I put Coolidge in the same category? He did things that would prove disastrous after his Administration was over. He brought a rigid end to an era of immigration. Such would damn many Jews to death in Nazi murder camps. he supported high tariffs, which I find one of the worst forms of taxation. High tariffs raise the cost of exports, which is the other side of foreign exchange. The dangerous Second Klan flourished while he was President -- we are just lucky that the Second Klan was in no position in which to exploit the Great Depression. He enforced the reparations upon the shaky Weimar Republic, facilitating the rise of you-know-who in Germany. Coolidge fostered the speculative boom that led to the Great Stock Market Crash of 1929 and the Great Depression. He pushed racist eugenics Johnson threw away Lincoln's agenda for nothing. Still, he did annex Alaska for America. Buchanan, Harding, Nixon -- D- Buchanan was way over his head, far past his peak as a leader, well prepared for everything but the Crisis forming under his watch. He appeased the slave-owning interests, stoking their arrogance. Harding was monstrously corrupt, but America got away with it. Nixon could have been great, except... well, violating some legal decencies that underpin our Republic. Donald Trump -- a big fat F. He put our democratic order in grave peril for nothing nobler than his self image. He politicized the US Supreme Court on behalf of an agenda that was grossly unpopular and is in the rear-guard of politics. He may have done irreversible damage to the Republican Party in an effort to entrench it as a totalitarian-style movement. The Trump Presidency was all about him and nothing imaginative. America (and, yes, the Republican party) would be far better off had Republicans concurred that the attempt to blackmail the President of Ukraine was a "high crime or misdemeanor" suitable for impeachment and removal. Sure, Pence would likely be an egregious ideologue, but he would have at worst been in the C- or D+ zone. Our Republic is strong enough to survive a man like Pence. Trump put everything that distinguishes our system from brutal tyrannies of all kinds at grave risk. This man violated most canons of Christian morality as a corrupt businessman and whoremonger even before he was elected. He showed contempt for anyone having misfortune not of one's own making. He warmed up to murderous dictators and to figures of organized crime. He sponsored a vile, dangerous personality cult around himself that will be available for some other right-wing populist demagogue. He may yet shape shape the American political future. If he does, then it will be more like Rafael Trujillo, "Papa Doc" Duvalier, or a right-wing version of Hugo Chavez. To say that he will have been successful will be like saying that Osama bin Laden was successful in making changes in the NYC skyline. Biden: incomplete. His Presidency operates in the shadow of Trump, and it may take a score or so years to undo Trump damage. Be gets an I for incomplete. He is not Obama -- that is certain -- in his political skills. He seems to not be making huge mistakes as President. I consider COVID-19 an Enemy of the People, as dangerous as a military foe. The political polarization that began with Ronald Reagan and became the center of political life with Trump will need to break if America is to go back to some normal in which most politicians deal instead of trying to punish The Enemy. It may be true, according to the Skowronek cycle, that a President is no better than what is possible in his term in office. The shadow of Donald Trump still infects America. The GOp should have cut loose from Trump; six years after Nixon resigned, it was able to elect Ronald Reagan because Nixon was no longer relevant to contemporary politics. I'm rating all of the Presidents of the last century, but few from more than a century ago. The Presidency has changed greatly in the age of electronic media, and the office is very different from what it was in the Goilded Age because it has so much more responsibility attached.
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.
07-01-2022, 02:57 PM
(06-30-2022, 06:47 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: Washington, Lincoln, FDR -- the man who defined the Presidency, the one who saved the Union, and the one who saved Western Christian civilization (if with the aid of his good buddy Sir Winston Churchill): A+. Washington may have lacked the expertise, but other than that, (consider the times) the more that one diverges from Washington's practice, the more trouble one gets into.I only have have a few minutes until I'm done with my lunch, but briefly, I'm curious as to what actual policies you from FDR. Even as a staunch right winger, I have to give credit where credit is due with regards to leadership, but I honestly can't think of a good policy he delivered, which, imo, is a crucial factor to consider if one is going to give someone an A+.
ammosexual
reluctant millennial
07-02-2022, 07:12 AM
(07-01-2022, 02:57 PM)JasonBlack Wrote:(06-30-2022, 06:47 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: Washington, Lincoln, FDR -- the man who defined the Presidency, the one who saved the Union, and the one who saved Western Christian civilization (if with the aid of his good buddy Sir Winston Churchill): A+. Washington may have lacked the expertise, but other than that, (consider the times) the more that one diverges from Washington's practice, the more trouble one gets into.I only have have a few minutes until I'm done with my lunch, but briefly, I'm curious as to what actual policies you from FDR. Even as a staunch right winger, I have to give credit where credit is due with regards to leadership, but I honestly can't think of a good policy he delivered, which, imo, is a crucial factor to consider if one is going to give someone an A+. 1. Backing the banks. This was critical. Banks were the places through which the money flowed, whether collections of receivables, disbursements of payables, payroll of most people,. and loans of all kinds other than shylock fraud. If the banks failed, everything would go to barter, which would have burned millions more after the devastation of bank runs... putting America back on barter. 2. Social Security. It got elderly people out of industrial work in which old people were especially prone to crippling and fatal accidentws not only for themselves but for co-workers. 3. more openness to union organizing. To be sure, some people curse unions as a hardship for those industrialists who would be more efficient if only labor were cheaper and more easily expendable -- but unions gave workers a stake in capitalism., 4. Public works put America back to work, and New Deal projects include some inconceivable in the 1920's like the Tennessee Valley Authority still useful today. 5. Taking as tough a stand on the fascist aggressors as was possible. 6. Ending the hypocrisy and icorruption of Prohibition. FDR saved American capitalism from its worst tendencies in the most critical time, one in which capitalism could have failed in America.
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.
07-02-2022, 12:39 PM
(This post was last modified: 07-02-2022, 02:16 PM by Eric the Green.)
(06-30-2022, 01:59 PM)JasonBlack Wrote: my list is as follows. I've tried to be reasonable Thanks for the idea. But rating FDR so low is not "reasonable" my list is as follows. S means superior? S: FDR A: Lincoln, A-: Washington, TR, JFK, Truman B+: Wilson, Jefferson, Clinton, Obama, B-: Biden, C+: Eisenhower, Carter, Jackson, Hayes, Arthur, Polk, Monroe, JQ Adams, Taft C-: Madison, Grover Cleveland, LBJ, Bush Sr, Adams, Grant, B. Harrison, Taylor, Van Buren, Ford D+: Nixon, Fillmore D-: Reagan (that's a generous placement on my part), Tyler, Hoover, Coolidge, Pierce, F: Harding, Bush Jr, Trump, Andrew Johnson, Buchanan Quote:notes:Except, how much did he really do to shape and improve the country? I'm not so sure. He was rather oppressive toward folks acting up for a better life. Quote:- Eisenhower would be a solid A if it weren't for those utterly insane confiscatory taxesThat was his good point. He kept the New Deal going. But his CIA overthrew democratic governments and planned an invasion of Cuba, leading to untold problems. He got out of Korea, but into Vietnam. He did little to move the country forward. He tried to ratchet down the Cold War, but failed in the end. Quote:- FDR gets an A or S for leadership and a solid F for virtually all his policies, so it was hard to place himHis policies get a solid A too, as far as they went, but needed to go farther. No president did more to advance and heal the country, and the war he got us into was just, unlike the war LBJ got us into. And, he won it too, and saved the democratic world, at least until these days when it's under severe attack again. Quote:- frankly, Watergate wasn't a big deal. taking off the gold standard was. he did a decent chunk for the environment thoughWatergate was a big deal. He was corrupt and criminal. Quote:- LBJ deserves credit for backing Civil Rights reform at the expense of half his party turning on him, but his policies were irresponsible, as was his unwillingness to end the war in VietnamWe agree there in part Quote:- JFK was kinda meh, expect for going against the Fed which was fucking heroic.It was his going after the Steel industry that was heroic. I don't know about him going against the Fed. Most of what LBJ passed was JFK's ideas, and that's A in my book. He proposed a lot that the congress blocked. Had he been able to run again, he would have won by a landslide because the people loved him, and would have got almost as much done as LBJ did-- without getting stuck in Vietnam. He got detente going. He was careless in the way he wanted to connect with the people in questionable and dangerous Dallas, and allowed himself to get killed there. Quote:- yes, Biden really is that bad. I tried not to be too biased, but...sorry, it's just trueSorry, but that's just wrong. He is not to blame for conditions today, although I admit he does not foresee problems very well, but I'm not sure anyone else could have done any better. He rolled out the vaccines that Trump refused to do, and brought down the pandemic and brought the economy back. Like JFK, his excellent proposals have so far been blocked by one or two phony Democratic Senators. It seems unlikely that he will get a landslide and a congress like LBJ did, but we are supposed to be in a reform decade now, so maybe it will happen. It's a huge wall to go over, given how reactionary and conservative our system is and has become. The right-wing has virtual control of the government and of red-state society. Giving Gerald Ford a C- is generous on my part, and he probably really deserves a D. He did nothing to end an inflationary depression and energy crisis, and governed by veto and in ways that harmed the environment. The way we left Vietnam and attacked Cambodia was horrible. But at least the war ended. He did restore honest government at a time when Nixon had destroyed this, and he didn't follow in Nixon's footsteps but instead conducted honest government at a time the country needed it. So I credit him for all that. But he also let Nixon off the hook. I admit Nixon did some constructive things at home and abroad, and even tried to control inflation for a while (but then stopped and let it happen), but he also kept the massacre in Vietnam going, and I was an active protester against that, so I remember him unfondly. Attacking the Fed I find meaningless and ludicrous, and whining about being off the gold standard is just stupid.
07-02-2022, 02:04 PM
(This post was last modified: 07-02-2022, 02:23 PM by Eric the Green.)
(06-30-2022, 06:47 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: I see Kennedy and Clinton similar in personality and political skill. I also see their alley-cat sexuality which I treat as pulling them down toward mediocrity. If I tear Harding and Trump down for this. then I must do so with these two. B-. The sex scandals were huge risks not worth taking. Morality matters, and if I am knocking down Reagan I must knock these two down. I see these a bit differently. JFK's affairs did little to affect his presidency at a time when private affairs were quite justly kept private. I see it as none of my nor anyone's business to judge his sexual behavior or personal choices in relationships. The one thing I wonder about regarding JFK, is whether he had lost a good deal of Jackie's love through his infidelity, and this made Jackie too hesitant in the 5 seconds that counted to pull JFK and herself down in the car before the head shot and thus save his life instead of just stupidly looking into his throat and seeing if there was something wrong. He was being shot; when shots ring out you duck and cover. Governor and Mrs. Connally did. But Jackie didn't, and maybe if JFK had earned her love she would have reacted with more readiness to meet the situation. As for Bill Clinton, I see his affairs as the failure of hypocritical Republicans and Mr. Starr and the media for making his scandal, when again it was none of our business, and except for this big distraction that the Republicans made over it, had no effect on his governance and policies, and he and his admin were not corrupt, but honest; quite unlike Reagan, Nixon and Trump. On the other hand, Trump not only had many affairs but paid for one of them and paid to cover them up. And quite unlike JFK they were often unwanted advances. So that's a bit more corrupt than Clinton was about sex, who only said about his consensual (but risky) affair with Lewinsky to a grand jury that "it depends on what the meaning of the word is, is", so yes Bill lied about sex as Trump did, but unlike Trump he came clean later, and didn't pay hush money; and it is the rest of Trump's infinite level of corruption and incompetence that makes his administration a failure, and twice impeached, and in fact I rate him the worst USA president ever; although Bush Jr. is right behind him for his unnecessary killings of 400,000 people based on lies and his otherwise useless, corrupt, undemocratic and defective policies.
07-02-2022, 03:16 PM
(This post was last modified: 07-02-2022, 03:19 PM by JasonBlack.)
Quote:S: FDR Wilson B-: wait...what?! Severely racist autocrat who got us into WWII, sold us to the Fed bankers, substantially raised taxes with little increase in services in return and was sighted by Mussolini as a key influence in his works and policies on fascism (Wilson hated checks and balances and thought the president should be able to do whatever was necessary for the public good). Oh, and let's not forget being the grandfather of America's current nosy, violent interventionist policies in the name of "spreading democracy" (which he didn't even seem to believe much in the first place). One could argue that Obama was a bit more charismatic, likable and diplomatic, but given how similar their policies were, I'm a little confused on why Obama and Bush are so far apart (I have little complaint about Bush Jr. being super low) Any reason Bush Sr. is so low though? Unlike his son, he's seen by even most liberals to have been a superbly competent administrator and had approval ratings peaking at over 90%. Quote:His (FDR) policies get a solid A too, as far as they went, but needed to go farther.uh...there's no evidence that they actually worked. He had over a decade for them to do so, but we didn't really get out of the war until WW2 amped up production. Quote:I see these a bit differently. JFK's affairs did little to affect his presidency at a time when private affairs were quite justly kept private. I see it as none of my nor anyone's business to judge his sexual behavior or personal choices in relationships. The one thing I wonder about regarding JFK, is whether he had lost a good deal of Jackie's love through his infidelity, and this made Jackie too hesitant in the 5 seconds that counted to pull JFK and herself down in the car before the head shot and thus save his life instead of just stupidly looking into his throat and seeing if there was something wrong. He was being shot; when shots ring out you duck and cover. Governor and Mrs. Connally did. But Jackie didn't, and maybe if JFK had earned her love she would have reacted with more readiness to meet the situation.I didn't include affairs in any of the president's scores, since affairs among US presidents have been common from the get go.
ammosexual
reluctant millennial
07-03-2022, 01:03 AM
(This post was last modified: 07-03-2022, 02:04 AM by Eric the Green.)
(07-02-2022, 03:16 PM)JasonBlack Wrote:Quote:S: FDR Wilson was a great leader. Yes, he was stubborn of temperament. And he was racist, but he came from that tradition in his Party. I support rather than oppose the Fed, not being involved in or deluded by the libertarian ideology. That and other liberal reforms he was able to push through in 2 years with dispatch. Later he was able to be persuaded to sign the amendment giving women the vote. I don't know if we really needed to enter world war I, and during it he did rule like a tyrant. But he was the one who won the war and kept the imperial Germans, then sinking toward the fascism that soon came, from ruling Europe, and he instituted the League of Nations that was the forerunner of the UN. His 14 Points were like a global Bill of Rights and forerunner of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights created by Eleanor Roosevelt in 1946. I think we can call McKinley and TR the founders of US interventionism, rather than Wilson (although your point about the grandfather of US wars to "spread democracy around the world" as Bush Jr. called it, or make it safe for it as he called it, is a good one). But Wilson was the original founder of what someday will be our world government that is a federacy of democratic peoples with power to restrain outlaw dictators and invaders. He stood like a collosus during his trip to Europe as its savior, and that was the stature of a great leader. And his place in history will be monumental. Quote:One could argue that Obama was a bit more charismatic, likable and diplomatic, but given how similar their policies were, I'm a little confused on why Obama and Bush are so far apart (I have little complaint about Bush Jr. being super low) Bush Sr. governed by veto, just like Ford, and so accomplished very little for the country. He thus fits into the others I rated C-. I don't care what approval ratings say. They are so wrong about Biden, you know! I did not support his Gulf War and I protested against it, which-war was his main claim to success and why his ratings soared to 90%. But in the course of his administration, as restrictions on greedy business were lifted resulting in tragedies and as the economy was tanking and riots broke out, his approval rating sunk deeply and he was not re-elected. But he was one of the few modern Republican presidents who had an honest administration free of corruption, much like his supporter and ideological twin Gerald Ford before him. He made some half-hearted movements toward restoring tax fairness (to the detriment of his Republican support) and toward action on global warming and support for education. He was also honest and morally-upright enough to see how corrupt Trump was, and did not support him, and neither did his son Jr. But that does not affect my grade. You on the other hand rate this Trump monstrosity fairly highly. I don't see similar policies between Obama and Bush Sr. or Jr. much at all. Obama tried to push many visionary initiatives, including gun control, and succeeded in reforming health care, something the Bush's would never have dreamt of doing. Obama did engineer the economic recovery from the great recession, while the Bush's engineered recessions. Obama also got some substantial investments in renewable energy made, which jump-started the energy transition that Republicans are trying to stop (and they did stop some of Obama's initiatives too). Bush Sr. did little more than make pronouncements about that and didn't follow through with anything, and Bush Jr. actively pushed global warming. Obama and Bush Sr. both did manage to restore some small measure of tax sanity, but Obama wanted to go farther in that direction than Bush Sr. ever would have wanted. Bush Jr. created enormous deficits with his wars and tax cuts for the rich. Obama did not start any wars, unlike Bush Sr., although he did carry on Bush Jr.'s wars, although he ended or reduced them later. I wonder, though I have been anti-war since the 60s, but getting less so after 9-11, whether a president should be rated more highly than otherwise if he won a war. I think probably so. If a president enters a war and WINS it, it redounds favorably upon him, and it probably means such a war was judged correctly to begin with as not a quagmire and had winnable objectives as well as that the president used good strategy and leadership of the soldiers and the people to win the war. It may also give the winning president a chance to shape world history. That was the case with James K Polk, Lincoln, Wilson, FDR. Truman at least fought to a stalemate. Madison won a war, keeping the British out, although the war's conquest goals were lost, and it was poorly fought and didn't change much. It did result in an "era of good feelings" and a national anthem. Bush Sr. won a war, and then, upon victory, declared the New World Order, and was blest with a new Soviet leader who could help shape it with him. But he really didn't have much to do with the big world changes of that time. McKinley was left off my list, but he won the Spanish-American war, and after much travail suppressed The Philippines to become our imperial colony. He belongs in the C category since his domestic policy only boosted monopoly and corruption in business. And I don't think we gained much from his imperial wars. Reagan is said by his boosters to have "won the Cold War," but he didn't. He merely bankrupted his own nation, and lost some minor battles in Beirut and carried on a corrupt campaign to boost reactionaries in Nicaragua, resulting in scandal. His win in Greneda was mostly a publicity stunt. He aided the radical Muslims in Afghanistan, who expelled the Soviets eventually, but this had bad consequences later. So his record in war is a mixed record at best. Bush Jr. started a war in Afghanistan that we lost. His long and deadly war in Iraq continued after he left office, and spawned the Islamic State, but it does have parliamentary rule now, if they can keep it. LBJ, Nixon and Ford were all losers in Vietnam.
07-03-2022, 02:57 PM
(07-02-2022, 02:04 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:(06-30-2022, 06:47 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: I see Kennedy and Clinton similar in personality and political skill. I also see their alley-cat sexuality which I treat as pulling them down toward mediocrity. If I tear Harding and Trump down for this. then I must do so with these two. B-. The sex scandals were huge risks not worth taking. Morality matters, and if I am knocking down Reagan I must knock these two down. Much as I disagree with Mike Pence on many things, I must consider adultery a destructive habit with little to gain from. If you want a healthy marital relationship and seek to avoid eliciting cynicism in your kids, you do not do adultery. Kennedy apparently diddled with someone with Mob connections, which could have become extremely compromising. Clinton was small stuff -- but I still say that Hillary Clinton deserved better. Harding slept with anyone willing. Trump of course is an extreme sexual predator, as shown in his behavior in beauty contests and having paid big money to silence a porn star. A porn star!
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.
07-07-2022, 04:44 AM
(This post was last modified: 07-07-2022, 08:18 PM by Eric the Green.)
(07-03-2022, 02:57 PM)pbrower2a Wrote:(07-02-2022, 02:04 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:(06-30-2022, 06:47 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: I see Kennedy and Clinton similar in personality and political skill. I also see their alley-cat sexuality which I treat as pulling them down toward mediocrity. If I tear Harding and Trump down for this. then I must do so with these two. B-. The sex scandals were huge risks not worth taking. Morality matters, and if I am knocking down Reagan I must knock these two down. I disagree with Pence on this too. I think these things are matters of private choice, and opinions and feelings differ on such things as adultery. For many or most people adultery might be unwise, and your advice may or may not be good for someone with children, but for some it might be what they need, especially if the marriage is unhappy and someone happens to come along who is better. A healthy marriage cannot be assured for anyone, and might not be possible in some cases regardless of the couple's adherence to traditional values and practice of virtues or not. Yours might be good advice. But as for rating a president, I normally consider it highly irrelevant. Certainly not equivalent to abuse of power, financial misdeeds and other such scandals. As for Clinton, his dalliance with Lewinsky I don't consider anyone's business but for the three of them, but Bill can be faulted for not being more careful, since he should have remembered it would be good fuel for the right-wing Republican culture-war and that they would use it against him. And he should have been more forthcoming early on. So it was most imprudent from that point of view, but I would rate the Republicans lower than Clinton because of this scandal, and it would not lower my estimate of his presidency by very much. His lie early on was what he was impeached for, technically, and it might lower his standing as a president with me a bit because it tampered with peoples' trust.
07-07-2022, 04:13 PM
Just a short list of FDRs policies that should not be considered good even for those on the left
- one of the first attempts at court packing (I'm honestly surprised how few presidents have tried this) - gold confiscation - literally threw Japanese Americans into concentration camps - extremely protectionist tariffs that led to trade wars and decreased exports. It's one thing to have protectionist tariffs against countries capable of drastically undercutting labor costs (ex: child labor sweat shops in China). It's not good to do this to the entire world and risk them retaliating with tariffs of their own in a race to the bottom. Let's not forget that a huge surge in exports was what got us out of WWII, not a huge surge in production for domestic consumption - Confiscated Nikola Tesla's files because....well, I honestly don't know I understand that politics is often a question of the lesser of two evils, and that single issue voting should not be encouraged, but the bold point alone should prevent him from being anything over a C to pretty much anyone (or at least anyone "liberal" in the general sense of the word)
ammosexual
reluctant millennial
07-07-2022, 08:16 PM
(07-07-2022, 04:13 PM)JasonBlack Wrote: Just a short list of FDRs policies that should not be considered good even for those on the left Something we desperately need at the present time. The Supreme Court has fewer members than other national supreme courts. No, that was a good idea, and just the threat of it worked. FDR was unfairly chastised for this. Quote:- gold confiscation I have no idea what that means Quote:- literally threw Japanese Americans into concentration camps true Quote:- extremely protectionist tariffs that led to trade wars and decreased exports. It's one thing to have protectionist tariffs against countries capable of drastically undercutting labor costs (ex: child labor sweat shops in China). It's not good to do this to the entire world and risk them retaliating with tariffs of their own in a race to the bottom. Let's not forget that a huge surge in exports was what got us out of WWII, not a huge surge in production for domestic consumption It was Hoover who put on the huge tariffs. If exports "decreased", then why your last statement? Quote:- Confiscated Nikola Tesla's files because....well, I honestly don't know Never heard this. Is this a conspiracy theory? Quote:I understand that politics is often a question of the lesser of two evils, and that single issue voting should not be encouraged, but the bold point alone should prevent him from being anything over a C to pretty much anyone (or at least anyone "liberal" in the general sense of the word) No, he still rates an A, and compared to the others he is still #1, because there has never been a president of the USA who didn't do terrible things, unless he was only in office for a short time. Certainly none who were waging a war at the time. And this has to be weighed against his other accomplishments, including the New Deal about which conservatives disagree with liberals about, and so would not be sufficiently credited by conservatives including yourself, admitted or not here, but are credited by liberals as the best performance by any president in domestic affairs. As well as winning the greatest and most-necessary war in our history. And there were other things that others count against FDR too, such as racial redlining carried out in connection with housing programs. (07-07-2022, 04:44 AM)Eric the Green Wrote:(07-03-2022, 02:57 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: Much as I disagree with Mike Pence on many things, I must consider adultery a destructive habit with little to gain from. If you want a healthy marital relationship and seek to avoid eliciting cynicism in your kids, you do not do adultery. Kennedy apparently diddled with someone with Mob connections, which could have become extremely compromising. Clinton was small stuff -- but I still say that Hillary Clinton deserved better. Harding slept with anyone willing. Adultery is a voluntary and lawful choice of behavior. That is not to say that it isn't foolish. It is a huge gamble with family life, especially if there are already children. I can understand someone thinking that a sexual fling could spice up a boring life, especially if one consumes a huge amount of pornography that suggests that sex seemingly without consequences other than fun is harmless. If one fling can break up a marriage, then there is not much of a marriage to break up. But it can unsettle a marriage shakier than one already has, and that is harmful. I will make a concession for people who find that they have a frigid spouse or whose spouse has become abusive (although any adultery in an abusive marriage would likely provoke even more abuse, whish is something to consider before taking that chance). Sometimes there is no sexual spark, which is likely to happen if someone has sexual hang-ups. Yes, some marriages are mistakes, and the sooner that such a mistake is ended the better things are for all. So get a divorce or annulment before there is much put into a futile effort and move on. It is a strong and defensible position that children thrive best in a stable, monogamous marriage. Ultimately, extant children are more important than almost anything else from material success to self-discovery to sex. Quote:As for Clinton, his dalliance with Lewinsky I don't consider anyone's business but for the three of them, but Bill can be faulted for not being more careful, since he should have remembered it would be good fuel for the right-wing Republican culture-war and that they would use it against him. And he should have been more forthcoming early on. So it was most imprudent from that point of view, but I would rate the Republicans lower than Clinton because of this scandal, and it would not lower my estimate of his presidency by very much. His lie early on was what he was impeached for, technically, and it might lower his standing as a president a bit because it tampered with peoples' trust. Yes, indeed. It was consensual. It did not result in a child. This is also when FoX News was becoming a vector for sleazy coverage, at least in politics in which Democrats could get away with nothing but Republicans could get away with anything, and FoX news established personality cults for two of our worst Presidents -- Dubya and Trump. FoX Propaganda Channel is an indelible part of the political environment.
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.
07-08-2022, 11:23 PM
My opinion on Republican sex scandals and Democrat sex scandals are largely the same. In a nutshell
- on a personal level, being a disloyal marriage partner is going to make me think a lot less of a person - on a political level, I take a "this isn't any of my business" stance about 99% of the time - regardless of how relevant you think it is to whether or not someone will make a good leader, it really shouldn't surprise people when it happens. Politicians and celebrities both sleep around so much that it's unlikely to pick up on my radar, and honestly, anyone expecting otherwise is pretty naïve in my book.
ammosexual
reluctant millennial |
|
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|
