Jump to content

Welcome to mygnrforum.com Guns N' Roses Forum
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. This message will be removed once you have signed in.
Login to Account Create an Account
Photo

Best Modern US President?


  • Please log in to reply
77 replies to this topic

Poll: Best Modern US President? (42 member(s) have cast votes)

Who was the best President, 1933-1993 (New Deal-Cold War Era)

You cannot see the results of the poll until you have voted. Please login and cast your vote to see the results of this poll.

Who has been the best Post Cold War/Millennial Era President (2000-present)?

You cannot see the results of the poll until you have voted. Please login and cast your vote to see the results of this poll.
Vote Guests cannot vote

#31
Randy Lahey

Randy Lahey

    FRONTMAN

  • Returned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,646 posts
  • 29-June 06
JFK could have been if he followed through on his speeches, and dismantled the CIA.
Posted Image
Welcome To The Jungle of Smooth Flamenco Beatz
Dre Day will make Axl's payday.

#32
Vincent Vega

Vincent Vega

    FRONTMAN

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,662 posts
  • 30-March 06




I really don't understand all the people voting for Reagan. It's not like he led the world through the Great Depression and WWII and whatnot.

Did a great deal to help end the Cold War, reducing nuclear arms and improving relations with the USSR after tense years and having a good relationship with Gorbachev. One thing I will say is that these threads usually turn into a popularity contest and people vote for the President's they like the best rather than voting based on policy.


The USSR was already crumbling from within when Reagan became President.

So? Before Reagan was President tensions were very high with the USSR, yes they had problems from within but Reagan's policies in his second term facilitated better relations between the two super powers which included agreements to reduce Nuclear arms. Quite a bit of the historiography regarding Reagan's second term in the context of the Cold War makes a big deal out of the fact that without his good relations with Gorbachev and their work to reduce nuclear arms there is a good chance the USSR would have crumbled sooner which would have been problematic due to the tensions and acceleration of nuclear arms which were occuring at the time. Reagan's diplomatic approach allowed the USSR's economy to somewhat stabilize while reducing nuclear arms and challenging Gorbachev to improve relations to the West, something that would have been impossible had it not been for Reagan which changed policy tracks despite it going against his own personal prejudices. Without Reagan there is no INF Treaty and no START I which are somewhat forgotten despite being very significant in the context of the time.

Yeah it kind of helps I had to do a 4000 word essay on Reagan's impact on the Cold War during his second term last year so I have a pretty pro-Reagan stance on the whole thing :lol:


What about his first term, during which tensions were at their highest since the Kennedy era? We came the closest to getting into a nuclear war during the Reagan years since the Cuban Missile Crisis. He didn't actively seek to have a reasonable relationship with the Soviet Union until Gorbi came in and Reagan realized the debt was raising at a fast rate. His first term was all about reigniting the Cold War--the "evil empire" talk and all of that. LBJ, Nixon, and Ford all relaxed tensions with the USSR, and also all three saw a continuing drop in our national debt. Reagan came in and in his first term--throughout his Presidency really--spending went through the roof. The national debt was around 32% of the GDP when Carter left office--and it was 52% of the GDP when Reagan left office. And it was a boot point anyway because as I said, the USSR was rotting from within when Reagan came in due to almost two decades of Brezhnev's ineptness and his half decade decline before his death. Add to that the USSR's costly (both financially and in terms of morale) involvement in Afghanistan and Gorbi attempting too many reforms for the Soviet system to handle and you have the USSR's collapse.

Also, Reagan rejected SALT II as President. Carter and Reagan reignited the Cold War after a decade and a half of "thawing." START was begun during his Presidency but wasn't signed until July 1991.

Edited by Vincent Vega, 14 December 2012 - 07:23 PM.

-Member formerly known as Mr. Miser/Honky Chateau/Memnoch the Devil/Indigo Child/Clark Gable/Virgil Caine-
GUNS N' ROSES = AXL, SLASH, IZZY, DUFF, STEVEN

#33
luciusfunk

luciusfunk

    The Imposter

  • Supporters
  • 5,632 posts
  • 21-September 05



Anyone who knows anything about American politics has to list FDR as the greatest American president of the 21st century (how anyone chose Richard Nixon is beyond me; research Watergate and then get back to us). FDR is easily in the top three of Presidents, somewhere with Washington and Lincoln. Nobody has had to deal with what FDR did during his Presidency (Depression, WW2). He is considered the greatest foreign policy president of all time by most historians (I'd sources this but I'm too lazy too, but take my word as an American studies and political scientist major).

Reagan should have been impeached over the Iran/Contra affair (directly violated the will of Congress). Plus is the godfather of trickle-down economics that created and excacerbated the massive income inequality that now dominates the U.S. He was a pretty good foreign policy president (aside from the Iran/Contra scandal), but that's pretty much it. His only meaningful and righteous policy agenda was the 1986 Tax Reform Act. There's a much better argument for Eisenhower than Reagan.

As for post Cold War presidents, right now have to give it to Clinton, but we'll see how Obama handles his second term (he's definitely in the running). Anyone voting for George W. Bush is either an inept ideologue or had their head up their ass for the past twelve years. The guy is up there with Hoover with being one of the worst presidents of the past 120 years.

Obama is far worse than Bush.


Fox News regurgitation?


So anyone who dislikes Obama watches Fox News? I don't watch Fox News. Try harder.

Edited by luciusfunk, 14 December 2012 - 07:19 PM.

 vvZ4ihN.png


#34
Vincent Vega

Vincent Vega

    FRONTMAN

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,662 posts
  • 30-March 06
If you go back and read articles from the time period, The GOP was ready to basically view Reagan as a mediocre President until the USSR fell. They viewed him as a guy who kept none of his promises (never balanced the budget, never got rid of Social Security, never dismantled the Great Society, raised taxes 13 times while not lowering spending). Then the USSR died in December 1991 and the GOP was all too eager to heap the credit on Reagan--Giving him credit for 40 years worth of policies starting with Truman. And that myth that "Reagan killed the USSR" sort of became enshrined in the media. To this day, Reagan is still their only standout President of the modern era. Before Reagan came in, the living GOP Presidents were Nixon (resigned in disgrace) and Ford (considered mediocre), and before them you had Ike (Ike was viewed as being a do-nothing President until the '90s) and Hoover (A President so hated that no Republican had the White House for 20 years). So, the GOP basically pumped up his legacy and made it more than it was so they could have their version of FDR.

The fact that he had incredible media smarts, a fuckload of charisma and wit and funny anecdotes and stories and a grandfatherly smile helped. But most of his anecdotes--like the Welfare Queen who supposedly used dozens of names to get Welfare--were lies. Like his claim that he helped liberate a Concentration Camp.

And people keep harping on the prosperity during Reagan's time but what seems to be forgotten is that under Reagan, unemployment reached 10.8% in December 1982--The highest since the Great Depression. Even in the recession now, unemployment never went above 10%. And under Reagan, the gap between the rich and poor grew tremendously. Most of Reagan's tax cuts hurt the lower income people--He lowered the top marginal tax rate (the rate for the 1% basically) from 70% to around 35%.

Add to this that he may have been beginning to go senile in his second term (he began to forget names, referred to Vice President Bush as "Prime Minister Bush" for example)....Not my idea of the best President ever.

And Iran Contra makes Watergate look innocent.

Edited by Vincent Vega, 14 December 2012 - 07:34 PM.

-Member formerly known as Mr. Miser/Honky Chateau/Memnoch the Devil/Indigo Child/Clark Gable/Virgil Caine-
GUNS N' ROSES = AXL, SLASH, IZZY, DUFF, STEVEN

#35
Tater Totts

Tater Totts

    Tater Totts

  • Supporters
  • 11,824 posts
  • 22-November 08
Dude like I said, I was basing it off the research I did into his second term. Also you do realize the reason Reagan rejected SALT II was because ideaolically he believed the whole point of limiting nuclear arms was pointless as they still existed hence why he favoured START which would actually reduce the number of nuclear arms rather than placing a limitation on it. Also you mention how START wasn't signed until July 1991, again, what is your point? Without Reagan it wouldn't have been signed full stop. Yes his spending went through the roof but prominent historians point to this hastening the end of the Cold War due to the Soviet's inability to match US military spending which would later necessitate the thawing of tensions with Gorbachev, you can't really look at these things in black and white terms and they really are all intertwined. Due to the increased US military spending by Reagan specifically in SDI the Soviets and Gorbachev knew they could not complete technologically which hastened discussions between the two nations. Yes there was a relaxing of tensions brought about by Nixon and Ford through detente, but detente actually ended with the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979 and Reagan was partially elected on a campaign which was anti-detente, afterall when campaigning he did say this: “Détente ... Isn’t that what a turkey has with his farmer-until Thanksgiving Day?”

That being said I do agree that his first term was not great for him but like I mentioned due to the research I had to do specific to the course I did on the Cold War and reading the historiography regarding Reagan's role in end of the Cold War I like the guy, my opinion is based entirely on how he handled international and not domestic relations and I happen to agree with many prominent historians who speak very positively of Reagan.

6lfBCJD.jpg


#36
Rustycage

Rustycage

    FRONTMAN

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,666 posts
  • 23-March 04




Anyone who knows anything about American politics has to list FDR as the greatest American president of the 21st century (how anyone chose Richard Nixon is beyond me; research Watergate and then get back to us). FDR is easily in the top three of Presidents, somewhere with Washington and Lincoln. Nobody has had to deal with what FDR did during his Presidency (Depression, WW2). He is considered the greatest foreign policy president of all time by most historians (I'd sources this but I'm too lazy too, but take my word as an American studies and political scientist major).

Reagan should have been impeached over the Iran/Contra affair (directly violated the will of Congress). Plus is the godfather of trickle-down economics that created and excacerbated the massive income inequality that now dominates the U.S. He was a pretty good foreign policy president (aside from the Iran/Contra scandal), but that's pretty much it. His only meaningful and righteous policy agenda was the 1986 Tax Reform Act. There's a much better argument for Eisenhower than Reagan.

As for post Cold War presidents, right now have to give it to Clinton, but we'll see how Obama handles his second term (he's definitely in the running). Anyone voting for George W. Bush is either an inept ideologue or had their head up their ass for the past twelve years. The guy is up there with Hoover with being one of the worst presidents of the past 120 years.

Obama is far worse than Bush.


Fox News regurgitation?


So anyone who dislikes Obama watches Fox News? I don't watch Fox News. Try harder.


Then can you explain why you made your statement? Bush took a surplus and turned it into a deficit. Started two wars without the funds to pay for it and allowed wall street to take the country to the brink of the great depression.

Somehow, Obama is "horrible" because of a congress that vowed to vote no on everything Obama tried just to get him out of office? Obama lacked balls in his first term but it's fucking obvious that the government reached a stalemate for 2 years.

To say Obama is worse than Bush sounds exactly like Tea Party/Fox News propaganda vomit.

*Locked*

3325a15.gif


#37
Randy Lahey

Randy Lahey

    FRONTMAN

  • Returned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,646 posts
  • 29-June 06
I don't think you can be all that good and become President. Politics after all is the sport of sociopaths.
Posted Image
Welcome To The Jungle of Smooth Flamenco Beatz
Dre Day will make Axl's payday.

#38
MEXzilla

MEXzilla

    Senior

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 952 posts
  • 16-May 12
FDR

I say Clinton on the Economy and Bush on the war. Everyone trashes Bush but hey the guy kept us safe for the 8 years he was in office; granted the economy went down but look at Obama he cant keep us Safe nor fix the economy.

#39
Vincent Vega

Vincent Vega

    FRONTMAN

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,662 posts
  • 30-March 06

Dude like I said, I was basing it off the research I did into his second term. Also you do realize the reason Reagan rejected SALT II was because ideaolically he believed the whole point of limiting nuclear arms was pointless as they still existed hence why he favoured START which would actually reduce the number of nuclear arms rather than placing a limitation on it. Also you mention how START wasn't signed until July 1991, again, what is your point? Without Reagan it wouldn't have been signed full stop. Yes his spending went through the roof but prominent historians point to this hastening the end of the Cold War due to the Soviet's inability to match US military spending which would later necessitate the thawing of tensions with Gorbachev, you can't really look at these things in black and white terms and they really are all intertwined. Due to the increased US military spending by Reagan specifically in SDI the Soviets and Gorbachev knew they could not complete technologically which hastened discussions between the two nations. Yes there was a relaxing of tensions brought about by Nixon and Ford through detente, but detente actually ended with the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979 and Reagan was partially elected on a campaign which was anti-detente, afterall when campaigning he did say this: “Détente ... Isn’t that what a turkey has with his farmer-until Thanksgiving Day?”

That being said I do agree that his first term was not great for him but like I mentioned due to the research I had to do specific to the course I did on the Cold War and reading the historiography regarding Reagan's role in end of the Cold War I like the guy, my opinion is based entirely on how he handled international and not domestic relations and I happen to agree with many prominent historians who speak very positively of Reagan.


He also disagreed with SALT because he viewed it as weakness. Also, in the beginning, START started as "SALT III" and DID place limits on ICBMs and heavy bombers. His foreign policy at least toward the USSR is vastly different from his second term. Second term Reagan looks like Nixon in regards to the Soviet Union. You take Reagan's first and second terms' foreign policies and it's almost like looking at two different Presidents. And really, we didn't need another Arm's Race with them. They had no intent on taking us on, for one, and they were crumbling from within due to their own reasons. In the end, Reagan's spending got us less than it was worth.

Let us not also forget the embarrassment with Lebanon in '83 under Reagan.

I just think Reagan is incredibly overrated because he was indeed a Hollywood President--all style, little substance. He overall did more bad than good, short and long term.
-Member formerly known as Mr. Miser/Honky Chateau/Memnoch the Devil/Indigo Child/Clark Gable/Virgil Caine-
GUNS N' ROSES = AXL, SLASH, IZZY, DUFF, STEVEN

#40
Tater Totts

Tater Totts

    Tater Totts

  • Supporters
  • 11,824 posts
  • 22-November 08


Dude like I said, I was basing it off the research I did into his second term. Also you do realize the reason Reagan rejected SALT II was because ideaolically he believed the whole point of limiting nuclear arms was pointless as they still existed hence why he favoured START which would actually reduce the number of nuclear arms rather than placing a limitation on it. Also you mention how START wasn't signed until July 1991, again, what is your point? Without Reagan it wouldn't have been signed full stop. Yes his spending went through the roof but prominent historians point to this hastening the end of the Cold War due to the Soviet's inability to match US military spending which would later necessitate the thawing of tensions with Gorbachev, you can't really look at these things in black and white terms and they really are all intertwined. Due to the increased US military spending by Reagan specifically in SDI the Soviets and Gorbachev knew they could not complete technologically which hastened discussions between the two nations. Yes there was a relaxing of tensions brought about by Nixon and Ford through detente, but detente actually ended with the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979 and Reagan was partially elected on a campaign which was anti-detente, afterall when campaigning he did say this: “Détente ... Isn’t that what a turkey has with his farmer-until Thanksgiving Day?”

That being said I do agree that his first term was not great for him but like I mentioned due to the research I had to do specific to the course I did on the Cold War and reading the historiography regarding Reagan's role in end of the Cold War I like the guy, my opinion is based entirely on how he handled international and not domestic relations and I happen to agree with many prominent historians who speak very positively of Reagan.


He also disagreed with SALT because he viewed it as weakness. Also, in the beginning, START started as "SALT III" and DID place limits on ICBMs and heavy bombers. His foreign policy at least toward the USSR is vastly different from his second term. Second term Reagan looks like Nixon in regards to the Soviet Union. You take Reagan's first and second terms' foreign policies and it's almost like looking at two different Presidents. And really, we didn't need another Arm's Race with them. They had no intent on taking us on, for one, and they were crumbling from within due to their own reasons. In the end, Reagan's spending got us less than it was worth.

Let us not also forget the embarrassment with Lebanon in '83 under Reagan.

I just think Reagan is incredibly overrated because he was indeed a Hollywood President--all style, little substance. He overall did more bad than good, short and long term.

There are very many prominent Cold War historians who disagree with you on that one but also many that would agree, such is the nature of the beast.

But like I said, I am not versed in his domestic policies, I am just going on what I know from the Cold War, specifically his second term which is what my essay had to focus on and have based my findings on the events that occured, the context behind them, the historopgraphy of the period and what historians today think about it in hindsight. I disagree he did more bad than good personally but there are also many historians who would agree with you on that one.

One point I do agree on is a description of him as a Hollywood President, I did a bit of research into the idea of "Cowboy Presidents" last year and looked specifically at Teddy Roosevelt and how his appearance and background as a so called "Cowboy President" influence Reagan and Bush Jr and how they used this idea to sway public perceptions. It wasn't that indepth but I had to do a presentation on it and my conclusion from that little bit of research was that outside of the Cold War events I was very much on the fence about Reagan :lol:

6lfBCJD.jpg


#41
luciusfunk

luciusfunk

    The Imposter

  • Supporters
  • 5,632 posts
  • 21-September 05





Anyone who knows anything about American politics has to list FDR as the greatest American president of the 21st century (how anyone chose Richard Nixon is beyond me; research Watergate and then get back to us). FDR is easily in the top three of Presidents, somewhere with Washington and Lincoln. Nobody has had to deal with what FDR did during his Presidency (Depression, WW2). He is considered the greatest foreign policy president of all time by most historians (I'd sources this but I'm too lazy too, but take my word as an American studies and political scientist major).

Reagan should have been impeached over the Iran/Contra affair (directly violated the will of Congress). Plus is the godfather of trickle-down economics that created and excacerbated the massive income inequality that now dominates the U.S. He was a pretty good foreign policy president (aside from the Iran/Contra scandal), but that's pretty much it. His only meaningful and righteous policy agenda was the 1986 Tax Reform Act. There's a much better argument for Eisenhower than Reagan.

As for post Cold War presidents, right now have to give it to Clinton, but we'll see how Obama handles his second term (he's definitely in the running). Anyone voting for George W. Bush is either an inept ideologue or had their head up their ass for the past twelve years. The guy is up there with Hoover with being one of the worst presidents of the past 120 years.

Obama is far worse than Bush.


Fox News regurgitation?


So anyone who dislikes Obama watches Fox News? I don't watch Fox News. Try harder.


Then can you explain why you made your statement? Bush took a surplus and turned it into a deficit. Started two wars without the funds to pay for it and allowed wall street to take the country to the brink of the great depression.

Somehow, Obama is "horrible" because of a congress that vowed to vote no on everything Obama tried just to get him out of office? Obama lacked balls in his first term but it's fucking obvious that the government reached a stalemate for 2 years.

To say Obama is worse than Bush sounds exactly like Tea Party/Fox News propaganda vomit.


You can't blame everything on Bush. Obama more than doubled the deficit. Unemployment is higher.

 vvZ4ihN.png


#42
Vincent Vega

Vincent Vega

    FRONTMAN

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,662 posts
  • 30-March 06



Dude like I said, I was basing it off the research I did into his second term. Also you do realize the reason Reagan rejected SALT II was because ideaolically he believed the whole point of limiting nuclear arms was pointless as they still existed hence why he favoured START which would actually reduce the number of nuclear arms rather than placing a limitation on it. Also you mention how START wasn't signed until July 1991, again, what is your point? Without Reagan it wouldn't have been signed full stop. Yes his spending went through the roof but prominent historians point to this hastening the end of the Cold War due to the Soviet's inability to match US military spending which would later necessitate the thawing of tensions with Gorbachev, you can't really look at these things in black and white terms and they really are all intertwined. Due to the increased US military spending by Reagan specifically in SDI the Soviets and Gorbachev knew they could not complete technologically which hastened discussions between the two nations. Yes there was a relaxing of tensions brought about by Nixon and Ford through detente, but detente actually ended with the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979 and Reagan was partially elected on a campaign which was anti-detente, afterall when campaigning he did say this: “Détente ... Isn’t that what a turkey has with his farmer-until Thanksgiving Day?”

That being said I do agree that his first term was not great for him but like I mentioned due to the research I had to do specific to the course I did on the Cold War and reading the historiography regarding Reagan's role in end of the Cold War I like the guy, my opinion is based entirely on how he handled international and not domestic relations and I happen to agree with many prominent historians who speak very positively of Reagan.


He also disagreed with SALT because he viewed it as weakness. Also, in the beginning, START started as "SALT III" and DID place limits on ICBMs and heavy bombers. His foreign policy at least toward the USSR is vastly different from his second term. Second term Reagan looks like Nixon in regards to the Soviet Union. You take Reagan's first and second terms' foreign policies and it's almost like looking at two different Presidents. And really, we didn't need another Arm's Race with them. They had no intent on taking us on, for one, and they were crumbling from within due to their own reasons. In the end, Reagan's spending got us less than it was worth.

Let us not also forget the embarrassment with Lebanon in '83 under Reagan.

I just think Reagan is incredibly overrated because he was indeed a Hollywood President--all style, little substance. He overall did more bad than good, short and long term.

There are very many prominent Cold War historians who disagree with you on that one but also many that would agree, such is the nature of the beast.

But like I said, I am not versed in his domestic policies, I am just going on what I know from the Cold War, specifically his second term which is what my essay had to focus on and have based my findings on the events that occured, the context behind them, the historopgraphy of the period and what historians today think about it in hindsight. I disagree he did more bad than good personally but there are also many historians who would agree with you on that one.

One point I do agree on is a description of him as a Hollywood President, I did a bit of research into the idea of "Cowboy Presidents" last year and looked specifically at Teddy Roosevelt and how his appearance and background as a so called "Cowboy President" influence Reagan and Bush Jr and how they used this idea to sway public perceptions. It wasn't that indepth but I had to do a presentation on it and my conclusion from that little bit of research was that outside of the Cold War events I was very much on the fence about Reagan :lol:


May I ask--What country are you from and what line of study are you pursuing?
I ask because I love both history and politics getting some pointers on what to pursue would be appreciated. And perhaps someone to discuss politics and history with who's actually interested.
-Member formerly known as Mr. Miser/Honky Chateau/Memnoch the Devil/Indigo Child/Clark Gable/Virgil Caine-
GUNS N' ROSES = AXL, SLASH, IZZY, DUFF, STEVEN

#43
Rustycage

Rustycage

    FRONTMAN

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,666 posts
  • 23-March 04






Anyone who knows anything about American politics has to list FDR as the greatest American president of the 21st century (how anyone chose Richard Nixon is beyond me; research Watergate and then get back to us). FDR is easily in the top three of Presidents, somewhere with Washington and Lincoln. Nobody has had to deal with what FDR did during his Presidency (Depression, WW2). He is considered the greatest foreign policy president of all time by most historians (I'd sources this but I'm too lazy too, but take my word as an American studies and political scientist major).

Reagan should have been impeached over the Iran/Contra affair (directly violated the will of Congress). Plus is the godfather of trickle-down economics that created and excacerbated the massive income inequality that now dominates the U.S. He was a pretty good foreign policy president (aside from the Iran/Contra scandal), but that's pretty much it. His only meaningful and righteous policy agenda was the 1986 Tax Reform Act. There's a much better argument for Eisenhower than Reagan.

As for post Cold War presidents, right now have to give it to Clinton, but we'll see how Obama handles his second term (he's definitely in the running). Anyone voting for George W. Bush is either an inept ideologue or had their head up their ass for the past twelve years. The guy is up there with Hoover with being one of the worst presidents of the past 120 years.

Obama is far worse than Bush.


Fox News regurgitation?


So anyone who dislikes Obama watches Fox News? I don't watch Fox News. Try harder.


Then can you explain why you made your statement? Bush took a surplus and turned it into a deficit. Started two wars without the funds to pay for it and allowed wall street to take the country to the brink of the great depression.

Somehow, Obama is "horrible" because of a congress that vowed to vote no on everything Obama tried just to get him out of office? Obama lacked balls in his first term but it's fucking obvious that the government reached a stalemate for 2 years.

To say Obama is worse than Bush sounds exactly like Tea Party/Fox News propaganda vomit.


You can't blame everything on Bush. Obama more than doubled the deficit. Unemployment is higher.


Due to the financial crisis.

If I were to set your house on fire and tried everything I could to stop you from putting the fire out, I wouldn't blame you for burning your house down. Yet, people like to somehow dismiss that we are STILL in a financial shithole because of Bush and the congress scum that held the country hostage to unseat Obama.

*Locked*

3325a15.gif


#44
luciusfunk

luciusfunk

    The Imposter

  • Supporters
  • 5,632 posts
  • 21-September 05







Anyone who knows anything about American politics has to list FDR as the greatest American president of the 21st century (how anyone chose Richard Nixon is beyond me; research Watergate and then get back to us). FDR is easily in the top three of Presidents, somewhere with Washington and Lincoln. Nobody has had to deal with what FDR did during his Presidency (Depression, WW2). He is considered the greatest foreign policy president of all time by most historians (I'd sources this but I'm too lazy too, but take my word as an American studies and political scientist major).

Reagan should have been impeached over the Iran/Contra affair (directly violated the will of Congress). Plus is the godfather of trickle-down economics that created and excacerbated the massive income inequality that now dominates the U.S. He was a pretty good foreign policy president (aside from the Iran/Contra scandal), but that's pretty much it. His only meaningful and righteous policy agenda was the 1986 Tax Reform Act. There's a much better argument for Eisenhower than Reagan.

As for post Cold War presidents, right now have to give it to Clinton, but we'll see how Obama handles his second term (he's definitely in the running). Anyone voting for George W. Bush is either an inept ideologue or had their head up their ass for the past twelve years. The guy is up there with Hoover with being one of the worst presidents of the past 120 years.

Obama is far worse than Bush.


Fox News regurgitation?


So anyone who dislikes Obama watches Fox News? I don't watch Fox News. Try harder.


Then can you explain why you made your statement? Bush took a surplus and turned it into a deficit. Started two wars without the funds to pay for it and allowed wall street to take the country to the brink of the great depression.

Somehow, Obama is "horrible" because of a congress that vowed to vote no on everything Obama tried just to get him out of office? Obama lacked balls in his first term but it's fucking obvious that the government reached a stalemate for 2 years.

To say Obama is worse than Bush sounds exactly like Tea Party/Fox News propaganda vomit.


You can't blame everything on Bush. Obama more than doubled the deficit. Unemployment is higher.


Due to the financial crisis.

If I were to set your house on fire and tried everything I could to stop you from putting the fire out, I wouldn't blame you for burning your house down. Yet, people like to somehow dismiss that we are STILL in a financial shithole because of Bush and the congress scum that held the country hostage to unseat Obama.


Didn't Obama say he'd cut the debt in half in four years?

Look. I don't care. He won...twice. This Benghazi shit and the economy are enough to judge him in four years. I'm done.

 vvZ4ihN.png


#45
Tater Totts

Tater Totts

    Tater Totts

  • Supporters
  • 11,824 posts
  • 22-November 08




Dude like I said, I was basing it off the research I did into his second term. Also you do realize the reason Reagan rejected SALT II was because ideaolically he believed the whole point of limiting nuclear arms was pointless as they still existed hence why he favoured START which would actually reduce the number of nuclear arms rather than placing a limitation on it. Also you mention how START wasn't signed until July 1991, again, what is your point? Without Reagan it wouldn't have been signed full stop. Yes his spending went through the roof but prominent historians point to this hastening the end of the Cold War due to the Soviet's inability to match US military spending which would later necessitate the thawing of tensions with Gorbachev, you can't really look at these things in black and white terms and they really are all intertwined. Due to the increased US military spending by Reagan specifically in SDI the Soviets and Gorbachev knew they could not complete technologically which hastened discussions between the two nations. Yes there was a relaxing of tensions brought about by Nixon and Ford through detente, but detente actually ended with the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979 and Reagan was partially elected on a campaign which was anti-detente, afterall when campaigning he did say this: “Détente ... Isn’t that what a turkey has with his farmer-until Thanksgiving Day?”

That being said I do agree that his first term was not great for him but like I mentioned due to the research I had to do specific to the course I did on the Cold War and reading the historiography regarding Reagan's role in end of the Cold War I like the guy, my opinion is based entirely on how he handled international and not domestic relations and I happen to agree with many prominent historians who speak very positively of Reagan.


He also disagreed with SALT because he viewed it as weakness. Also, in the beginning, START started as "SALT III" and DID place limits on ICBMs and heavy bombers. His foreign policy at least toward the USSR is vastly different from his second term. Second term Reagan looks like Nixon in regards to the Soviet Union. You take Reagan's first and second terms' foreign policies and it's almost like looking at two different Presidents. And really, we didn't need another Arm's Race with them. They had no intent on taking us on, for one, and they were crumbling from within due to their own reasons. In the end, Reagan's spending got us less than it was worth.

Let us not also forget the embarrassment with Lebanon in '83 under Reagan.

I just think Reagan is incredibly overrated because he was indeed a Hollywood President--all style, little substance. He overall did more bad than good, short and long term.

There are very many prominent Cold War historians who disagree with you on that one but also many that would agree, such is the nature of the beast.

But like I said, I am not versed in his domestic policies, I am just going on what I know from the Cold War, specifically his second term which is what my essay had to focus on and have based my findings on the events that occured, the context behind them, the historopgraphy of the period and what historians today think about it in hindsight. I disagree he did more bad than good personally but there are also many historians who would agree with you on that one.

One point I do agree on is a description of him as a Hollywood President, I did a bit of research into the idea of "Cowboy Presidents" last year and looked specifically at Teddy Roosevelt and how his appearance and background as a so called "Cowboy President" influence Reagan and Bush Jr and how they used this idea to sway public perceptions. It wasn't that indepth but I had to do a presentation on it and my conclusion from that little bit of research was that outside of the Cold War events I was very much on the fence about Reagan :lol:


May I ask--What country are you from and what line of study are you pursuing?
I ask because I love both history and politics getting some pointers on what to pursue would be appreciated. And perhaps someone to discuss politics and history with who's actually interested.

To save this going off topic I'll PM you.

6lfBCJD.jpg





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users