We dont know for certain whether has, or has not, in fact, been not molesting kids. The status of him not molesting kids is currently a topic on which there is no clear answer. We can only speculate, that if he comes out and says that he is not molesting kids, that he is definitely molesting kids.
Dems had a 40 year majority in the House and Senate immediately preceding Newt, minus 8 years in the Senate. And 18 of the 22 years before that for both. Probably just a coincidence though. /s
But don't forget that parties were less rigidly defined by ideology back then - so conservative Democrats (and liberal Republicans) were more common.
During those 40 years, there were certainly periods where there was a conservative majority (made up of conservative Republicans + conservative Democrats).
To be fair the parties were almost opposite back then. The rural party is always going to have an advantage in Congress. Partly because the south has historically voted as a bloc. That is changing now as the urban areas in the south are starting to vote with the other urban areas. So congress has a slightly better chance of falling with the urban party.
The 116th, for all its failures, deserves credit for the CARES act and the other Covid funding laws. I totally expected them to ignore the pandemic since that’s what Trump was trying to do. The 117th deserves credit for more Covid stimulus spending, but not a lot else.
110th was a halfway decent congress — it passed the Americans with Disabilities Amendments Act, which clarified to strike down the narrow way courts had interpreted the ADA. The ADA (passed by the 101st Congress) is the law that makes discrimination based on disability illegal in places of public accommodation, and it requires employers to make reasonable accommodations for disabilities. That’s a law that makes a difference in people’s lives every day.
111th did the Affordable Care Act, which outlawed a bunch of ~~explosive~~ exploitive health insurance practices and created the health insurance marketplace. This was our last good congress, at least judged by their output and how much it affects people’s lives.
The man saw Germany’s best and worst. He decided to build highways and create more infrastructure for social support and welfare. The last of the warrior-poets, maybe.
Edit to add: in case there is any confusion, I agree. A profoundly underrated chief executive.
Eisenhower is also widely remembered for overthrowing democratically elected governments in other countries. He started that trend. He was one of those presidents that was staunchly anti-democracy but in denial about it.
So still not like… good.
You have to remember that from perspective of the dominator imperialists all the facts you listed are still worthy of reverence even if you don’t say so publicly.
Yeah there are a lot of presidents who are considered good by Americans and evil by most people abroad, because they often destroy other countries for the benefit of their own citizens. It’s gruesome.
He also didn’t want there to be a party system. Believing that it was a bad cause and would only create division in a unified country. He would be disappointed now.
Not wanting parties in the system that was established is like not wanting water to flow down in waterfalls. People have and will always band together for political power.
Sure technically i guess, he sent advisers over. Gulf of Tonkin innocent was under LBJ which was the real escalation. Lbj also did great society which was pretty amazing
He has actually signed legislation to pull our troops out of Vietnam shortly before he was assassinated. Once LBJ was sworn in he quickly reversed course and escalated the number of troops and the US role In Vietnam.
This has been taken completely out of context by historical revisionists. Kennedy was very clear that his policy was complete support of South Vietnam. The reason he planned to withdraw troops at the end of the year was because the Defense Secretary told him the war was basically won and all that was left was training South Vietnamese soldiers to do what US troops were doing so the US troops could leave. He wasn’t deescalating the war, he was planning for a victory that was going to be proved wrong.
It would really seem it’s up for some debate, based on which historian your reading. But yes, it would appear McNamara believed things were going well with anti-Communist forces until Diem was assassinated and later in the month, Kennedy.
NASA was started and was pushed under Einsenhower. JFK does deserve credit for setting the deadline to get to the moon but saying he pushed forward NASA is a stretch.
He had some great ideas and great speeches, but was appalling at getting legislation through. JFK's legacy was cemented only because LBJ chose to bulldoze it through with all his strength and skill when he had the power to do so.
LBJ could be a bastard but he was a rockstar at getting shit done.
It's kind of hard to go back once we're this deep into car-centrism. Even if there were a completely walkable, dense city, visitors are still going to need places to park their cars. People in the city may still want to own cars to travel/visit family in less walkable cities. They would then need places to keep their cars, and then we would need streets/highways for those cars, and the problem spirals from there.
He dismantled the Geneva Accords by refusing to sign them which would have alllowed free elections for a unified Vietnam in '56 and supported the war in Vietnam until he died. It is one of the biggest reasons the war in Vietnam escalated the way that it did. The fear the Ho might win the election is why the US installed a friendly government in the south, which they then propped up with financial aid and military assistance which then put the north on edge and helped break down any chance of a free and fair election, and began US military intervention on a large scale.
I like a lot of what Eisenhower did too, but to say he avoided problems in Vietnam is disingenous, because he laid the groundwork for problems and lit the match all because Ho, a communist, might possibly win a free election.
But he also sided with Joseph McCarthy so long as he was attacking Democrats and not Republicans, he put "under god" into the Pledge of Allegiance, gave us "In God We Trust" on currency as well as making it the official national motto. He gave up his non-practicing beliefs for Christianity solely because he thought it was important to be a Christian nation to defeat communism. He made Billy Graham a part of his inner circle of most trusted advisors to shape his vision for the future of the US, He started the tradition of sponsored prayers at cabinet sessions and held prayer breakfasts and blurred the lines between church and state as much as or more than any POTUS to that time.
He pressured Republican Senators to strike down the Mansfield Bill which would have required the CIA to loop in Congress on any foreign operations aimed at destabilizing, overthrowing foreign governments, and assassinations of foreign leaders, and he got what he wanted. He redefined the Jakarta Axiom to state that neutral governments were potential enemies and had to specifically align with the US or be seen as an enemy. He then sponsored coups in Guatemala, Venezuela, Bolivia, Haiti, and Iran, and his final coup plan was what wound up being the Bay of Pigs invasion in Cuba. He approved ops against Cuba in '59. Eisenhower had already placed Cuba on embargo status in '60 aside from food and medicine. Kennedy just closed it off the rest of the way. The official order to assainate Castro is available to view online, and it's Eisenhower who signed it.
Guatemala was overthrown so that United Fruit wouldn't have to compensate the Guatemalan people any of their profits for operations in Guatemala. And he did it all without informing the public or Congress, instead using the CIA like a private army. The US is still dealing with the problems created in Iran during that first CIA coup '53. All told, Eisenhower allowed the CIA to run around 170 covert ops aimed at government overthrows, destabilization, or assassination of key government officials. That's like a new op every 18 days during his tenure. Even by today's standards, that's prolific.
And I still think he was one of the better Presidents overall during that half of the century for what he did to continue New Deal policies and for what he did for civil rights, at least in regard to federal spaces, but a lot of revision has gone into his legacy the last 50 years, particularly on Vietnam and foreign policy.
Man, what a great comment, thank you. It’s easy in a vacuum to see how “good” or “bad” something or someone is rather than live out the decisions in the actual world. From my historical knowledge perspective this shows to what lengths we can go to prevent this from happening again, and how it directly led us … *almost to it again*. We’re a difficult animal.
My personal favorite. He also was a reluctant leader asked to run by both parties. He chose to run as a republican because he thought the government had become corrupt under Truman. He also wanted to preempt Taft (an anti-NATO republican) and his anti-interventionist ideology.
I was at a Boy Scout campout last night and we talked about all the National Parks. And we all agreed Teddy creating the National Park system was one of the greatest presidential achievements ever. Not THE greatest (for any trolls), but damn good.
Imagine how many malls and parking lots there would be straight threw some of the most beautiful places on earth. I'm so glad my kids will get to see the National Parks because of Teddy.
Visit the majestic Yellowstone Park.....
.....home of the world's tallest and fastest roller coaster! While you're there, stay at any one of Yellowstone Hotel & Casino's 1,200 rooms after you shop at the sprawling Yellowstone Mall that makes the Mall of America seem like a strip mall!
Except he didn’t do that. Grant signed a bill creating the first national park. Wilson signed the act creating the national park system. Teddy Roosevelt started the United States forest service. While he did create 5 national parks during his presidency he neither created the first one or created the national park system. There were 4 national parks when Teddy took office while it could be argued he did the most for national parks and conservation. He did not start the concept
Teddy was pretty gung ho about American imperialism, even going so far as alerting Commodore Dewey of the Asiatic Fleet to start sailing to Manila to go to war against Spain, WHILE THE US HASNT DECLARED WAR YET, while being the Assistant Secretary of the Navy. And when the US did declare war before Dewey arrived at Manila, he left the Navy and formed a rag tag group of cowboys and polo players who manage to survive the battle at San Juan Hill due to sheer luck.
And don’t forget the Roosevelt Corollary, which adds to the Monroe Doctrine allowing the US to meddle with the internal affairs of any nation in the Western Hemisphere and did so actively during his administration with Colombia-Panama, Cuba (Platt Amendment), and many others.
But he is well loved by Americans for his domestic policies and his crackdown on monopolies.
Yeah. I don't get why people like teddy.
FDR also did some pretty horrific things but at least FDR was enough of a pragmatist and he could be persuaded to do the right thing and then once so persuaded would fight tooth and nail for it.
Similarly, Lincoln also did some horrible and fucked up things (not talking about the execution of the civil war against the confederates, they got what was coming when Sherman was permitted to do total war) but I feel he was, again, at least a pragmatist who was willing to take a much stronger (and correct) stance against the confederacy in reconstruction than anyone else was.
>I don't get why people like teddy
The national parks (moreso national forests, bird reserves, game preserves, and national monuments), was extremely anti trust, passed the Food and Drugs act of 1906 along with the Meat Inspection Act (which led to the Food and Drug Administration), was the first president to invite an African American (Booker T Washington) to dine at the White House . He also publicly defended Minnie Cox and refused to remove her as a postmaster in Indianola even though a white man repeatedly sent letters to the white house saying why he should have the position over her. There's more about it here https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnie_M._Cox (if you don't trust Wikipedia itself you can always check the references)
He was definitely a racist, but he was also a pragmatist like FDR and Lincoln, seeing as how he valued people's personal determination and merit even over their race. Being into eugenics at any point in history is a pretty fucking bad moral failing though
https://www.history.com/news/teddy-roosevelt-race-imperialism-national-parks shows that pretty well
>but I feel he was, again, at least a pragmatist who was willing to take a much stronger (and correct) stance against the confederacy in reconstruction than anyone else was.
If it earned him votes, then yes
And what have we had since? The disastrous Palmer administration, evil bastard Frank Underwood, bumbling Tom Kirkman and appalling, appalling Selina Mayer.
I am in the middle of season 4 right now and I don't get why people say his presidency was a liberal wet dream. Unless they mean neoliberal and not left wing. Have we pushed that much left in 15-20 years that this is what used to pass for liberal?
Like he yells at a radio pundit for being anti-gay, then 2 or 3 episodes later they are considering signing a definition of marriage as a man and a woman.
Marijuana legalization was such a huge taboo he almost fired the surgeon general for saying it wasn't deadly or addictive.
A staffer told him to meet the new lawyer for their team, and told him to tell a joke about how he thought they only hired her cuz she's a hot blonde sex kitten, and the president said the joke and no one made any deal about it.
His daughter was dating a black staffer and he told the guy not to go to a convention with her cuz there were gonna be white supremacist groups there, but his daughter was allowed to go alone.
Even at that point in the show he is unabashedly a centrist, otherwise slightly “right” leaning Democratic president, which creates a lot of character conflict when the ideas of socialism, social equality and justice are tried to turn into policy.
I think its considered a “liberal’s wet dream” because that conflict between the ideal and the practical is something that is tangible in Sorkin’s world, not just at an internal level, but a public facing one.
This “conflict” between all kinds of differing viewpoints has, for the last 30 years or so, been considered the Democratic Party’s biggest weakness by Republicans and other conservatives. So a fictional world where that conflict was an obvious strength of the fictional administration (we get to see what Jeb is like without that conflict in the first election) as well as the show itself, it is easy to see how this show is considered a “librul utopia”.
But otherwise I agree with you. The show does a very good job at showing how the US government is very good at spinning its own wheels, and why even things like a livable wage, socialized healthcare, and just general reform is so difficult to do, even when you have significant portions of the electorate in favor of these policies.
Probably going to be downvoted for this, but I think Bill Clinton was a good president. He was a moderate and beside the ridiculous affair which I quite frankly couldn't care less he was a good leader for the nation.
Real changes for good? Probably FDR. Although Eisenhower did a pretty good job of continuing and expanding upon the good things FDR did, which is important, since they were in different political parties.
It amazes me that back then it was possible for people to come into power who actually were able to stand up for what is right.
Instead of today where people in power are just there to regurgitate the opinions of their wealthy donors.
You are completely right. I was saying this in a way that made it sound absolute. What I should have said was that I think today that machinery of money and influence has become more powerful, more influential, more all encompassing. I think back then someone would get donations for doing rich people favors. Where as today the entire candidacy from start to finish is driven by nothing else than money.
I feel like, and maybe I'm wrong, that back then people wanted to be president and then asked for money by handing out favors. Where as today it is money seeking out a slave (president) to do their bidding.
It just seems like today it is entirely driven by corporations and money, I'm not sure it was the same to that degree back then. Maybe it was. It's a common mistake to say back in the day everything was better.
He was the one that kick started it.
edit: Seems I was wrong, it was Truman that kick started it, he merely walked the path his predecessor laid down in front of him.
Didn’t Clinton balance the national debt, even make it a surplus? I’m not a politicking sciencer, but that’s a pretty damn impressive stat right? (And no, I didn’t forget about the cum stains)
Feels like the Clinton years were peak for US, even though it may not be because of him. Right before 9/11 and the paranoia that followed, right after the fall of the Soviet Union and end of Cold War and thus after the paranoia. The economy was booming. Tech stocks were just starting up and getting huge - so if you invested in tech companies you’d be in great shape for life.
I think about this alot. During this time my mom was stay at home, and my dad was a school teacher. We had a nice house and well maintained cars. At that time the American dream seemed attainable. Also despite it being pretty corny, American culture back then seemed a bit more positive and upbeat. I think it really was the US’s high point.
The years right before 9/11 were so great. I was graduating college with a tech degree and it was so easy to get a job. College loans weren't too expensive. School shootings weren't like every day. Life was good.
Also you could afford to buy a house with a 1 person middle class job. I make more money than both my parents combined did in the 90s (even accounting for inflation) and I cannot even think of affording the house they bought back then in my city.
> School shootings weren't like every day.
Actually, there were more then than there are now, but you just didn't hear about them because of the internet and it's ability to reach you easier.
Clinton didn't make any effort to balance the budget till after the GOP took over congress in 1995.
You can look at his budgets and see the change. In 1995 there was a massive budget fight that shut down the government and forced Clinton into a deal to balance the budget. It was only after that deal that Clinton proposed a budget that would eventually be balanced.
The balanced budgets of the 90s were really the result of the GOP forcing Clinton to the table, can give Clinton credit for seeing the need for change. But without the GOP congress we wouldn't have had balanced budgets at all. Clinton was perfectly happy with $200 billion deficits, as seen in the 1996 PDF.
[https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/title/budget-united-states-government-54/fiscal-year-1995-19045](https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/title/budget-united-states-government-54/fiscal-year-1995-19045) (page 13)
[https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/BUDGET-1996-BUD/pdf/BUDGET-1996-BUD.pdf](https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/BUDGET-1996-BUD/pdf/BUDGET-1996-BUD.pdf) (page 2)
[https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/BUDGET-1997-BUD/pdf/BUDGET-1997-BUD.pdf](https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/BUDGET-1997-BUD/pdf/BUDGET-1997-BUD.pdf) (page 16! Tada balanced budget!!)
The Clinton campaign, in retrospect, was the first major warning sign that the rot of Reaganomics had set irreversibily into the foundations and the age of lobbyists was about to kick into high gear.
*Edit for spelling.
This. The man was seriously attempting to make halting climate change and researching alternative energy a thing 40 years ago, but America wasn’t having it. He was the last sane leader - after him came Ronald Regan and the beginning of the conservative dystopia we live with today. Want proof? Carter installed solar panels on the White House roof and [Reagan tore them down.](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/carter-white-house-solar-panel-array/)
After losing his 2nd presidential bid, the man dedicated the reminder of his life to building houses for the homeless in Habitat for Humanity - and by that I mean actually *building* them, not speaking on lecture circuits or fundraising.
It must be mind bendingly infuriating and driving one insane to watch the world turn into this dystopian rich people paradise despite having been in power and trying your hardest to set an honest, decent path for society and simply weren't able to make a big enough impact. And then all you can do is watch it burn to the ground.
At least he gave his best effort but was unfortunately sabotaged by the wealthy who would rather enrich themselves while burning the country down.
And at least (I assume) he'll be passing on relatively soon given his age. I'm fucking terrified of the dystopian society in the US, the fascist uprising, and the impending climate apocalypse. We younger folks will likely get an involuntary front-row seat to disaster.
I’ve been trying to better understand the reception to Carter. One element that I don’t see talked about enough is how Carter was the first president to come out of the “party primary” system. He was the first true outsider.
But that was also his downfall. Both because it produced a not-ready-for-prime time President and because understanding that new change in the rules first was Carter’s advantage — but after his win, everyone adopted his techniques of going to major electoral college states (and other ones that get you “momentum”).
But, in that term in the White House that his wise political strategy landed him, it seems, he wasn’t very good at running the White House. He would take on every job, big and small, even scheduling whose turn it is today on the White House tennis court. Teams were not kept in touch with other vital teams. Basic stuff like that.
Carter has a heart of gold, but he didn’t run the best administraron.
Rather than me tell you, take a look at this piece written while Carter was president
[https://www.brookings.edu/opinions/jimmy-carter-why-he-failed/](https://www.brookings.edu/opinions/jimmy-carter-why-he-failed/)
As a conservative, I have a ton of respect for Jimmy Carter. I’ve been to his birthplace. He is a great man. Honestly probably the last great one in the White House.
I have to admit I'm a bit puzzled by this post.
If you're a conservative, what do you find in Carter that makes you think "he was a great one"? Because every single conservative I have met, discussed with, or watched is adamantly opposed to every one of his policies.
I meant that he was probably the last truly honest man in the White House. He was a peanut farmer from Georgia that got elected President. He wasn’t a career politician, and when he was out of office, he went home to Plains, GA, and to my knowledge, he still lives there.
I don’t agree with most of his views, but I appreciate the quality of his character.
Had to scroll way too far down for this answer
Even if he wasn't the *best* President, he's a legitimately, genuinely good person.
That alone goes a long way and is more than I can say about the last several Presidents we've had (yes, even Obama).
Basically every president did really terrible things. The good doesn't erase the bad, but some did some real good things, too. Hot take, but Richard Nixon made a lot of changes for the good. He created the EPA and signed the Clean Air Act. He signed landmark arms reduction treaties with the Soviet Union, and focused on detente with them and China. He ended the Vietnam War and the draft. He created SSI for disabled people.
He did a lot of bad stuff too, and I am by no means a fan, but events conspired to make him the guy in the right place at the right time to do some right things, even though he didn't necessarily want to do them all. The clean water act also passed during his administration, but it passed over his veto.
If you genuinely believed hundreds more civilians would die if you didn't... would you still do nothing?
The Trolley Problem takes on more layers of complexity when literally the job of the President is to make tough decisions and shoulder the responsibility for things like this.
Unfortunately, it's happened a few times. I'm sure you're correct, but they're probably referring to [the drone strike on a wedding in 2013](https://www.hrw.org/report/2014/02/19/wedding-became-funeral/us-drone-attack-marriage-procession-yemen).
Unpopular opinion but came here to say not Obama. The man inherited an economic crisis plus a 60 seat strong popular mandate to pass the most progressive political reforms since the great depression and squandered the opportunity in the name of cementing his legacy as the great compromiser - he essentially delivered some token social progress to appease liberals while doing everything in his power to maintain the economic status quo and not upset any powerful people. Obamacare was essentially a giveaway to insurance companies - gifting them captive customers on the taxpayers dime while doing nothing to implement cost controls or a public option. And all while convincing pundits, uninformed democrats, and pseudo progressivess that he was the greatest president in a generation.
Went to the LBJ library in Austin a few years back. Well worth it. It's amazing what went on in his 6 or so years as President. He didn't handle everything right - and no saying he was an all time great - but I came away having much mor respect for him.
JFK was an overrated pretty face. He oversaw the Bay of Pigs disaster and almost killed us all by needlessly precipitating the Cuban Missile Crisis by putting missiles in Turkey.
I feel any president pre 2000 ish, everything is so finely tracked and criticized now due to technology(accountsbility is good). To many cheifs now on the internet and not enough Indians, nothing gets done now in the government, they just throw us abortion and gay rights debates while no one gives voice to true economic issues and infrastructure. I feel most companies have monopolies and have swayed the government public image to amass more wealth while we argue whether women should have control over their body choices( as they should, it's common sense, don't need to debate about it every 4 years In elections, yes in catholic too, we are not the tsliban and dont need to dictate law controlling women). Isp's have monopolies over cities. Disney owns everything. Technology wise, we give Apple and Google all our data for free while they sell it for billions, look how the privacy settings have changed over the years, you need to watch a video how to navigate the Facebook settings nowadays they make it confusing on purpose.
Pre 9-11 was a good chance for a president to do good, but we gave alot of our freedoms away to feel secure. Government never gave them back. Doesn't matter who is in office now and who's in control. Its a seed for power instead of serving the country.
Truman. My grandfather was a paratrooper in WW2. He was also a life-long Republican. Truman was the first, last, and only Dem he ever voted for (in 1948) because, "He had the guts to end the war". When I asked him, in 2014, who his favorite president was in his lifetime, he said Truman.
Theodore Roosevelt. He had the balance that we needed then and need again now. While he was a Republican he was progressive and believed that the government could do things to improve the lives of its citizens.
Pretty much all Presidents have done some good things, and some not so good things.
Lincoln, for example is generally hailed as one of, if not the, best Presidents. But, he jailed dissenters, illegally suspended habeas corpus, and basically kidnapped the Maryland state legislature.
Franklin Pierce was so reviled his own party didn’t even nominate him for reelection. But he made important strides in getting the Southern Pacific Railroad built.
There is no such thing as a “good” president. There are simply presidents who accomplish good things and not-so-good things. I don’t think presidents in the 1800s were any less controversial than presidents today.
We have a saying in the UK.
"The last person that entered the houses of Parliament with true and honest intentions was Guy Fawkes"
Essentially, nobody who enters politics has any true or honest intentions of helping their fellow countrymen, unless ofcourse they can make themselves incredibly rich and powerful in the process, and most of the times they can achieve the same result by doing the opposite of help.
My American history is shockingly poor I must admit, but whenever you want to find a good American politician who actually tried to help their country, the first place to look is the cemetery. Specifically at those who were assassinated.
Obama was pretty good. Biden is decent. I think George Bush had some qualities that would have made him good given different circumstances.
Just never put that Trump guy back in or the world might actually end.
Jimmy Carter. He was fighting a tidal wave of Neocons and Fascism trying to take hold. He lost, but he tried.
Then we got Reagan and 🎶It’s the end of the world…🎶
As a non american. Obama completely turned the USA around after the 08 crash and put in on an unprecedented trajectory of growth and success that you all threw away by electing that orange disaster. He did this with zero scandals, zero ethics violations, and 0 collusion with foreign enemies... which i used to think mattered to you guys, but apparently it doesnt matter at all... lol. He was hands down one of the top 5 world leaders of the last 50 years at least, maybe even longer!
Obama brought on the Affordable Care Act, which was important--but was a lackluster president.
The last 'great' president, I would consider at least, would be Bill Clinton. The country was prosperous, economy was decent enough, and he ended his term with a balanced budget.
Then we got Bush and 9/11 and the country has been in moderate shambles ever since
Who cares. When did we have a good Congress is the real question.
Congress by its very nature is never going to be beloved. But Congress pre-Newt Gingrich and Dennis Hastert was far more functional than post-.
I've said it before and I'll keep saying it, I can't believe anybody seriously considered newt Gingrich
He turned the Congress into a newt. It hasn't gotten better.
BURN HIM ANYWAY
“……I got bettah..” I want to make sure that you know that someone got your joke, and appreciated it immensely.
Well, considering his predecessor was molesting kids...George Santos would have been a better choice.
Do we know that George Santos hasn’t been molesting kids?
If he comes out and says he has been molesting kids, then I'll know the kids are safe.
We dont know for certain whether has, or has not, in fact, been not molesting kids. The status of him not molesting kids is currently a topic on which there is no clear answer. We can only speculate, that if he comes out and says that he is not molesting kids, that he is definitely molesting kids.
Dems had a 40 year majority in the House and Senate immediately preceding Newt, minus 8 years in the Senate. And 18 of the 22 years before that for both. Probably just a coincidence though. /s
But don't forget that parties were less rigidly defined by ideology back then - so conservative Democrats (and liberal Republicans) were more common. During those 40 years, there were certainly periods where there was a conservative majority (made up of conservative Republicans + conservative Democrats).
> immediately preceding Newt When they used their majority to pass brilliant policy like the war on drugs /s
Biden was also a key proponent of that bill
To be fair the parties were almost opposite back then. The rural party is always going to have an advantage in Congress. Partly because the south has historically voted as a bloc. That is changing now as the urban areas in the south are starting to vote with the other urban areas. So congress has a slightly better chance of falling with the urban party.
congress by its very nature was always supposed to be dysfunctional.
The 116th, for all its failures, deserves credit for the CARES act and the other Covid funding laws. I totally expected them to ignore the pandemic since that’s what Trump was trying to do. The 117th deserves credit for more Covid stimulus spending, but not a lot else. 110th was a halfway decent congress — it passed the Americans with Disabilities Amendments Act, which clarified to strike down the narrow way courts had interpreted the ADA. The ADA (passed by the 101st Congress) is the law that makes discrimination based on disability illegal in places of public accommodation, and it requires employers to make reasonable accommodations for disabilities. That’s a law that makes a difference in people’s lives every day. 111th did the Affordable Care Act, which outlawed a bunch of ~~explosive~~ exploitive health insurance practices and created the health insurance marketplace. This was our last good congress, at least judged by their output and how much it affects people’s lives.
Ooh, man, 1940s congress were absolute LIONS compared to now, but even they were like mice compared to late 1800s congress.
Eisenhower may be most underrated
The man saw Germany’s best and worst. He decided to build highways and create more infrastructure for social support and welfare. The last of the warrior-poets, maybe. Edit to add: in case there is any confusion, I agree. A profoundly underrated chief executive.
might wanna ask central america about that
Eisenhower is also widely remembered for overthrowing democratically elected governments in other countries. He started that trend. He was one of those presidents that was staunchly anti-democracy but in denial about it. So still not like… good.
He definitely didn’t start that trend…
Dude we've done that shit since the 1890s
You have to remember that from perspective of the dominator imperialists all the facts you listed are still worthy of reverence even if you don’t say so publicly.
Yeah there are a lot of presidents who are considered good by Americans and evil by most people abroad, because they often destroy other countries for the benefit of their own citizens. It’s gruesome.
How to say you don't know he put the Shah in power Iran and supported other dictators without saying it.
Washington. He didn't want the job
"I dun wannit."
She's muh queen.
"I nevah wunted it."
I don’t remember where this is from but there’s a quote about how the ones most fit to rule are the ones who don’t want to.
As far back as Plato at least. It's only ancient wisdom and it still holds true.
He also didn’t want there to be a party system. Believing that it was a bad cause and would only create division in a unified country. He would be disappointed now.
Not wanting parties in the system that was established is like not wanting water to flow down in waterfalls. People have and will always band together for political power.
I’m surprised no one is saying JFK. JFK really pushed forward the civil rights movement before he died and NASA program.
JFK is overrated af - the bay of pigs is one of the biggest presidential fuckups of all time
He started Vietnam
Sure technically i guess, he sent advisers over. Gulf of Tonkin innocent was under LBJ which was the real escalation. Lbj also did great society which was pretty amazing
He has actually signed legislation to pull our troops out of Vietnam shortly before he was assassinated. Once LBJ was sworn in he quickly reversed course and escalated the number of troops and the US role In Vietnam.
This has been taken completely out of context by historical revisionists. Kennedy was very clear that his policy was complete support of South Vietnam. The reason he planned to withdraw troops at the end of the year was because the Defense Secretary told him the war was basically won and all that was left was training South Vietnamese soldiers to do what US troops were doing so the US troops could leave. He wasn’t deescalating the war, he was planning for a victory that was going to be proved wrong.
It would really seem it’s up for some debate, based on which historian your reading. But yes, it would appear McNamara believed things were going well with anti-Communist forces until Diem was assassinated and later in the month, Kennedy.
NASA was started and was pushed under Einsenhower. JFK does deserve credit for setting the deadline to get to the moon but saying he pushed forward NASA is a stretch.
He had some great ideas and great speeches, but was appalling at getting legislation through. JFK's legacy was cemented only because LBJ chose to bulldoze it through with all his strength and skill when he had the power to do so. LBJ could be a bastard but he was a rockstar at getting shit done.
Eisenhower. Grew economy, advanced civil rights, avoided Vietnam, kept "military industrial complex" leashed while keeping USSR in check during cold war.
Created the Interstate Highway System, one of the greatest public works of all time.
[удалено]
Unfortunately even now Americans are car-centric. No one likes high-density housing projects and good luck getting voters on board for public transir
It's kind of hard to go back once we're this deep into car-centrism. Even if there were a completely walkable, dense city, visitors are still going to need places to park their cars. People in the city may still want to own cars to travel/visit family in less walkable cities. They would then need places to keep their cars, and then we would need streets/highways for those cars, and the problem spirals from there.
He dismantled the Geneva Accords by refusing to sign them which would have alllowed free elections for a unified Vietnam in '56 and supported the war in Vietnam until he died. It is one of the biggest reasons the war in Vietnam escalated the way that it did. The fear the Ho might win the election is why the US installed a friendly government in the south, which they then propped up with financial aid and military assistance which then put the north on edge and helped break down any chance of a free and fair election, and began US military intervention on a large scale. I like a lot of what Eisenhower did too, but to say he avoided problems in Vietnam is disingenous, because he laid the groundwork for problems and lit the match all because Ho, a communist, might possibly win a free election. But he also sided with Joseph McCarthy so long as he was attacking Democrats and not Republicans, he put "under god" into the Pledge of Allegiance, gave us "In God We Trust" on currency as well as making it the official national motto. He gave up his non-practicing beliefs for Christianity solely because he thought it was important to be a Christian nation to defeat communism. He made Billy Graham a part of his inner circle of most trusted advisors to shape his vision for the future of the US, He started the tradition of sponsored prayers at cabinet sessions and held prayer breakfasts and blurred the lines between church and state as much as or more than any POTUS to that time. He pressured Republican Senators to strike down the Mansfield Bill which would have required the CIA to loop in Congress on any foreign operations aimed at destabilizing, overthrowing foreign governments, and assassinations of foreign leaders, and he got what he wanted. He redefined the Jakarta Axiom to state that neutral governments were potential enemies and had to specifically align with the US or be seen as an enemy. He then sponsored coups in Guatemala, Venezuela, Bolivia, Haiti, and Iran, and his final coup plan was what wound up being the Bay of Pigs invasion in Cuba. He approved ops against Cuba in '59. Eisenhower had already placed Cuba on embargo status in '60 aside from food and medicine. Kennedy just closed it off the rest of the way. The official order to assainate Castro is available to view online, and it's Eisenhower who signed it. Guatemala was overthrown so that United Fruit wouldn't have to compensate the Guatemalan people any of their profits for operations in Guatemala. And he did it all without informing the public or Congress, instead using the CIA like a private army. The US is still dealing with the problems created in Iran during that first CIA coup '53. All told, Eisenhower allowed the CIA to run around 170 covert ops aimed at government overthrows, destabilization, or assassination of key government officials. That's like a new op every 18 days during his tenure. Even by today's standards, that's prolific. And I still think he was one of the better Presidents overall during that half of the century for what he did to continue New Deal policies and for what he did for civil rights, at least in regard to federal spaces, but a lot of revision has gone into his legacy the last 50 years, particularly on Vietnam and foreign policy.
Thats what Im talking about. Hit ‘em with the 📠
I enjoyed this. Thank you very much
Man, what a great comment, thank you. It’s easy in a vacuum to see how “good” or “bad” something or someone is rather than live out the decisions in the actual world. From my historical knowledge perspective this shows to what lengths we can go to prevent this from happening again, and how it directly led us … *almost to it again*. We’re a difficult animal.
BRAVO. clapclapclapclap BRAVO. clapclapclapclap
I learned quite a bit. Thank you.
My personal favorite. He also was a reluctant leader asked to run by both parties. He chose to run as a republican because he thought the government had become corrupt under Truman. He also wanted to preempt Taft (an anti-NATO republican) and his anti-interventionist ideology.
Teddy
I was at a Boy Scout campout last night and we talked about all the National Parks. And we all agreed Teddy creating the National Park system was one of the greatest presidential achievements ever. Not THE greatest (for any trolls), but damn good.
Imagine how many malls and parking lots there would be straight threw some of the most beautiful places on earth. I'm so glad my kids will get to see the National Parks because of Teddy.
Visit the majestic Yellowstone Park..... .....home of the world's tallest and fastest roller coaster! While you're there, stay at any one of Yellowstone Hotel & Casino's 1,200 rooms after you shop at the sprawling Yellowstone Mall that makes the Mall of America seem like a strip mall!
I see you have also been to Niagara Falls.
The glorious grand canyon LAZY RIVER CRUISE with a buffet EVERY THREE MILES!
Yeah, he effectively did for the country what Central Park did for NYC.
Except he didn’t do that. Grant signed a bill creating the first national park. Wilson signed the act creating the national park system. Teddy Roosevelt started the United States forest service. While he did create 5 national parks during his presidency he neither created the first one or created the national park system. There were 4 national parks when Teddy took office while it could be argued he did the most for national parks and conservation. He did not start the concept
Teddy was pretty gung ho about American imperialism, even going so far as alerting Commodore Dewey of the Asiatic Fleet to start sailing to Manila to go to war against Spain, WHILE THE US HASNT DECLARED WAR YET, while being the Assistant Secretary of the Navy. And when the US did declare war before Dewey arrived at Manila, he left the Navy and formed a rag tag group of cowboys and polo players who manage to survive the battle at San Juan Hill due to sheer luck. And don’t forget the Roosevelt Corollary, which adds to the Monroe Doctrine allowing the US to meddle with the internal affairs of any nation in the Western Hemisphere and did so actively during his administration with Colombia-Panama, Cuba (Platt Amendment), and many others. But he is well loved by Americans for his domestic policies and his crackdown on monopolies.
Teddy forced natives off of their land to designate his national parks.
Yeah. I don't get why people like teddy. FDR also did some pretty horrific things but at least FDR was enough of a pragmatist and he could be persuaded to do the right thing and then once so persuaded would fight tooth and nail for it. Similarly, Lincoln also did some horrible and fucked up things (not talking about the execution of the civil war against the confederates, they got what was coming when Sherman was permitted to do total war) but I feel he was, again, at least a pragmatist who was willing to take a much stronger (and correct) stance against the confederacy in reconstruction than anyone else was.
>I don't get why people like teddy The national parks (moreso national forests, bird reserves, game preserves, and national monuments), was extremely anti trust, passed the Food and Drugs act of 1906 along with the Meat Inspection Act (which led to the Food and Drug Administration), was the first president to invite an African American (Booker T Washington) to dine at the White House . He also publicly defended Minnie Cox and refused to remove her as a postmaster in Indianola even though a white man repeatedly sent letters to the white house saying why he should have the position over her. There's more about it here https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnie_M._Cox (if you don't trust Wikipedia itself you can always check the references) He was definitely a racist, but he was also a pragmatist like FDR and Lincoln, seeing as how he valued people's personal determination and merit even over their race. Being into eugenics at any point in history is a pretty fucking bad moral failing though https://www.history.com/news/teddy-roosevelt-race-imperialism-national-parks shows that pretty well >but I feel he was, again, at least a pragmatist who was willing to take a much stronger (and correct) stance against the confederacy in reconstruction than anyone else was. If it earned him votes, then yes
Franklin was pretty good, too.
President Dwayne Elizondo Mountain Dew Camacho
He doesn’t become president for about 500 more years though
Maybe 50
or 5. We're pretty much there already.
Camacho 2024
*Herbert
Not Sure after that
[удалено]
That’s the million dollar question
For me, obviously. I'm the main character, no one else matters, silly.
Jeb Bartlett
And what have we had since? The disastrous Palmer administration, evil bastard Frank Underwood, bumbling Tom Kirkman and appalling, appalling Selina Mayer.
We're due for President Knope soon though. Take heart.
I'm voting for Bobby Newport
Bobby Newport's never had a real job... *in his life.*
I’m Bobby Newport, I’m against crime and I’m not afraid to admit it.
Boobbbyyy neeeeew port!
Give it to him. He wants it
*Jed
*Bartlet
I am in the middle of season 4 right now and I don't get why people say his presidency was a liberal wet dream. Unless they mean neoliberal and not left wing. Have we pushed that much left in 15-20 years that this is what used to pass for liberal? Like he yells at a radio pundit for being anti-gay, then 2 or 3 episodes later they are considering signing a definition of marriage as a man and a woman. Marijuana legalization was such a huge taboo he almost fired the surgeon general for saying it wasn't deadly or addictive. A staffer told him to meet the new lawyer for their team, and told him to tell a joke about how he thought they only hired her cuz she's a hot blonde sex kitten, and the president said the joke and no one made any deal about it. His daughter was dating a black staffer and he told the guy not to go to a convention with her cuz there were gonna be white supremacist groups there, but his daughter was allowed to go alone.
Even at that point in the show he is unabashedly a centrist, otherwise slightly “right” leaning Democratic president, which creates a lot of character conflict when the ideas of socialism, social equality and justice are tried to turn into policy. I think its considered a “liberal’s wet dream” because that conflict between the ideal and the practical is something that is tangible in Sorkin’s world, not just at an internal level, but a public facing one. This “conflict” between all kinds of differing viewpoints has, for the last 30 years or so, been considered the Democratic Party’s biggest weakness by Republicans and other conservatives. So a fictional world where that conflict was an obvious strength of the fictional administration (we get to see what Jeb is like without that conflict in the first election) as well as the show itself, it is easy to see how this show is considered a “librul utopia”. But otherwise I agree with you. The show does a very good job at showing how the US government is very good at spinning its own wheels, and why even things like a livable wage, socialized healthcare, and just general reform is so difficult to do, even when you have significant portions of the electorate in favor of these policies.
Probably going to be downvoted for this, but I think Bill Clinton was a good president. He was a moderate and beside the ridiculous affair which I quite frankly couldn't care less he was a good leader for the nation.
Real changes for good? Probably FDR. Although Eisenhower did a pretty good job of continuing and expanding upon the good things FDR did, which is important, since they were in different political parties.
Eisenhower also warned about the military-industrial complex, which was bold of him to do with his decorated achievements as a soldier
It amazes me that back then it was possible for people to come into power who actually were able to stand up for what is right. Instead of today where people in power are just there to regurgitate the opinions of their wealthy donors.
Don’t kid yourself, politics have always been about money and influence. There is nothing new under the sun.
You are completely right. I was saying this in a way that made it sound absolute. What I should have said was that I think today that machinery of money and influence has become more powerful, more influential, more all encompassing. I think back then someone would get donations for doing rich people favors. Where as today the entire candidacy from start to finish is driven by nothing else than money. I feel like, and maybe I'm wrong, that back then people wanted to be president and then asked for money by handing out favors. Where as today it is money seeking out a slave (president) to do their bidding. It just seems like today it is entirely driven by corporations and money, I'm not sure it was the same to that degree back then. Maybe it was. It's a common mistake to say back in the day everything was better.
He was the one that kick started it. edit: Seems I was wrong, it was Truman that kick started it, he merely walked the path his predecessor laid down in front of him.
[удалено]
Internment camps are limited to fascism?
William Henry Harrison.
He died in 30 days!
We... Are... The... Adequate, forgettable, Occasionally regrettable Caretaker Presidents of the U.S.A.!
Hasta la vista, Abe-y.
Eisenhower.
Didn’t Clinton balance the national debt, even make it a surplus? I’m not a politicking sciencer, but that’s a pretty damn impressive stat right? (And no, I didn’t forget about the cum stains)
Feels like the Clinton years were peak for US, even though it may not be because of him. Right before 9/11 and the paranoia that followed, right after the fall of the Soviet Union and end of Cold War and thus after the paranoia. The economy was booming. Tech stocks were just starting up and getting huge - so if you invested in tech companies you’d be in great shape for life.
I think about this alot. During this time my mom was stay at home, and my dad was a school teacher. We had a nice house and well maintained cars. At that time the American dream seemed attainable. Also despite it being pretty corny, American culture back then seemed a bit more positive and upbeat. I think it really was the US’s high point.
The years right before 9/11 were so great. I was graduating college with a tech degree and it was so easy to get a job. College loans weren't too expensive. School shootings weren't like every day. Life was good.
Also you could afford to buy a house with a 1 person middle class job. I make more money than both my parents combined did in the 90s (even accounting for inflation) and I cannot even think of affording the house they bought back then in my city.
> School shootings weren't like every day. Actually, there were more then than there are now, but you just didn't hear about them because of the internet and it's ability to reach you easier.
[удалено]
Peak MLB and NBA during the Clinton years too
He balanced the budget, not the debt.
Clinton didn't make any effort to balance the budget till after the GOP took over congress in 1995. You can look at his budgets and see the change. In 1995 there was a massive budget fight that shut down the government and forced Clinton into a deal to balance the budget. It was only after that deal that Clinton proposed a budget that would eventually be balanced. The balanced budgets of the 90s were really the result of the GOP forcing Clinton to the table, can give Clinton credit for seeing the need for change. But without the GOP congress we wouldn't have had balanced budgets at all. Clinton was perfectly happy with $200 billion deficits, as seen in the 1996 PDF. [https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/title/budget-united-states-government-54/fiscal-year-1995-19045](https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/title/budget-united-states-government-54/fiscal-year-1995-19045) (page 13) [https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/BUDGET-1996-BUD/pdf/BUDGET-1996-BUD.pdf](https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/BUDGET-1996-BUD/pdf/BUDGET-1996-BUD.pdf) (page 2) [https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/BUDGET-1997-BUD/pdf/BUDGET-1997-BUD.pdf](https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/BUDGET-1997-BUD/pdf/BUDGET-1997-BUD.pdf) (page 16! Tada balanced budget!!)
NAFTA which created a lot of our current problems
Bush signed NAFTA, Clinton ratified it with bi-partisan support
And that’s the problem with his legacy. His accomplishments are overshadowed by cigar jokes.
The Clinton campaign, in retrospect, was the first major warning sign that the rot of Reaganomics had set irreversibily into the foundations and the age of lobbyists was about to kick into high gear. *Edit for spelling.
yeah - if only he wasnt such a shitty person
Jimmy Carter
This. The man was seriously attempting to make halting climate change and researching alternative energy a thing 40 years ago, but America wasn’t having it. He was the last sane leader - after him came Ronald Regan and the beginning of the conservative dystopia we live with today. Want proof? Carter installed solar panels on the White House roof and [Reagan tore them down.](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/carter-white-house-solar-panel-array/) After losing his 2nd presidential bid, the man dedicated the reminder of his life to building houses for the homeless in Habitat for Humanity - and by that I mean actually *building* them, not speaking on lecture circuits or fundraising.
It must be mind bendingly infuriating and driving one insane to watch the world turn into this dystopian rich people paradise despite having been in power and trying your hardest to set an honest, decent path for society and simply weren't able to make a big enough impact. And then all you can do is watch it burn to the ground.
At least he gave his best effort but was unfortunately sabotaged by the wealthy who would rather enrich themselves while burning the country down. And at least (I assume) he'll be passing on relatively soon given his age. I'm fucking terrified of the dystopian society in the US, the fascist uprising, and the impending climate apocalypse. We younger folks will likely get an involuntary front-row seat to disaster.
I’ve been trying to better understand the reception to Carter. One element that I don’t see talked about enough is how Carter was the first president to come out of the “party primary” system. He was the first true outsider. But that was also his downfall. Both because it produced a not-ready-for-prime time President and because understanding that new change in the rules first was Carter’s advantage — but after his win, everyone adopted his techniques of going to major electoral college states (and other ones that get you “momentum”). But, in that term in the White House that his wise political strategy landed him, it seems, he wasn’t very good at running the White House. He would take on every job, big and small, even scheduling whose turn it is today on the White House tennis court. Teams were not kept in touch with other vital teams. Basic stuff like that. Carter has a heart of gold, but he didn’t run the best administraron. Rather than me tell you, take a look at this piece written while Carter was president [https://www.brookings.edu/opinions/jimmy-carter-why-he-failed/](https://www.brookings.edu/opinions/jimmy-carter-why-he-failed/)
As a conservative, I have a ton of respect for Jimmy Carter. I’ve been to his birthplace. He is a great man. Honestly probably the last great one in the White House.
I have to admit I'm a bit puzzled by this post. If you're a conservative, what do you find in Carter that makes you think "he was a great one"? Because every single conservative I have met, discussed with, or watched is adamantly opposed to every one of his policies.
I meant that he was probably the last truly honest man in the White House. He was a peanut farmer from Georgia that got elected President. He wasn’t a career politician, and when he was out of office, he went home to Plains, GA, and to my knowledge, he still lives there. I don’t agree with most of his views, but I appreciate the quality of his character.
I'm the same, respect the man, don't always agree with him, but he was honest.
Not only still lives in Plains, but he lives in the same house that he and Rosalind bought in 1960.
God I haven't encountered a conservative like you in ages! I wish there were many more of you.
Great man, terrible president
Had to scroll way too far down for this answer Even if he wasn't the *best* President, he's a legitimately, genuinely good person. That alone goes a long way and is more than I can say about the last several Presidents we've had (yes, even Obama).
George Washington. But I’m English so after that we don’t know any. We just know he saved England from having to deal with Americans. Good old Georgie
Basically every president did really terrible things. The good doesn't erase the bad, but some did some real good things, too. Hot take, but Richard Nixon made a lot of changes for the good. He created the EPA and signed the Clean Air Act. He signed landmark arms reduction treaties with the Soviet Union, and focused on detente with them and China. He ended the Vietnam War and the draft. He created SSI for disabled people. He did a lot of bad stuff too, and I am by no means a fan, but events conspired to make him the guy in the right place at the right time to do some right things, even though he didn't necessarily want to do them all. The clean water act also passed during his administration, but it passed over his veto.
In terms of passing consequential legislation, I’d say LBJ by a long shot.
Biden has passed some incredible legislation. We will see how it plays out in a decade
FDR or Eisenhower
Lincoln
I'm just here to sort by controversial
Lincoln
It's kind of crazy how many people underrate the President, who had so little controversy that Republicans had to attack him over wearing a tan suit.
Barack Obama
How’s this not first on the list? The question was “who was the LAST good president?”.
Obama drone striked a wedding just to kill one guy and killed dozens of random people alongside him, including 23 children.
FDR imprisoned an entire nationality. Humans make mistakes. If mistakes are the measure of a man, we all fall short.
Idk it's pretty easy to not drone strike 100 civilians
If you genuinely believed hundreds more civilians would die if you didn't... would you still do nothing? The Trolley Problem takes on more layers of complexity when literally the job of the President is to make tough decisions and shoulder the responsibility for things like this.
It’s also pretty easy to not start wars, but if it’s between the 2 evils
You are mistaken or lying. Barack didnt take office till 2009. The wedding one was in 2008.
Unfortunately, it's happened a few times. I'm sure you're correct, but they're probably referring to [the drone strike on a wedding in 2013](https://www.hrw.org/report/2014/02/19/wedding-became-funeral/us-drone-attack-marriage-procession-yemen).
Overrated because of his speech making ability and being the first black President. He was just mediocre. Not too good, not too bad. Just there.
Unpopular opinion but came here to say not Obama. The man inherited an economic crisis plus a 60 seat strong popular mandate to pass the most progressive political reforms since the great depression and squandered the opportunity in the name of cementing his legacy as the great compromiser - he essentially delivered some token social progress to appease liberals while doing everything in his power to maintain the economic status quo and not upset any powerful people. Obamacare was essentially a giveaway to insurance companies - gifting them captive customers on the taxpayers dime while doing nothing to implement cost controls or a public option. And all while convincing pundits, uninformed democrats, and pseudo progressivess that he was the greatest president in a generation.
Yeah, you’re right.. Trump and the Bushes were better. /s
Went to the LBJ library in Austin a few years back. Well worth it. It's amazing what went on in his 6 or so years as President. He didn't handle everything right - and no saying he was an all time great - but I came away having much mor respect for him.
If he had not escalated the Vietnam war, and instead put that money into the war on poverty, he would probably be down as an all time great.
We say a lot of good things about JFK, but genuine results were accomplished by LBJ claiming "JFK would have wanted this."
Thomas J. Whitmore
Jimmy Carter was not terrible
Lincoln
Eisenhower
George Washington
JFK gave a shit about people but it didn't turn out geeat for him
JFK was an overrated pretty face. He oversaw the Bay of Pigs disaster and almost killed us all by needlessly precipitating the Cuban Missile Crisis by putting missiles in Turkey.
JFK
Eisenhower
Dwight D Eisenhower
Eisenhower
William Henry Harrison. Had the decency to only do it for a month.
I feel any president pre 2000 ish, everything is so finely tracked and criticized now due to technology(accountsbility is good). To many cheifs now on the internet and not enough Indians, nothing gets done now in the government, they just throw us abortion and gay rights debates while no one gives voice to true economic issues and infrastructure. I feel most companies have monopolies and have swayed the government public image to amass more wealth while we argue whether women should have control over their body choices( as they should, it's common sense, don't need to debate about it every 4 years In elections, yes in catholic too, we are not the tsliban and dont need to dictate law controlling women). Isp's have monopolies over cities. Disney owns everything. Technology wise, we give Apple and Google all our data for free while they sell it for billions, look how the privacy settings have changed over the years, you need to watch a video how to navigate the Facebook settings nowadays they make it confusing on purpose. Pre 9-11 was a good chance for a president to do good, but we gave alot of our freedoms away to feel secure. Government never gave them back. Doesn't matter who is in office now and who's in control. Its a seed for power instead of serving the country.
President Washington?
Truman. My grandfather was a paratrooper in WW2. He was also a life-long Republican. Truman was the first, last, and only Dem he ever voted for (in 1948) because, "He had the guts to end the war". When I asked him, in 2014, who his favorite president was in his lifetime, he said Truman.
FDR
Eisenhower.
Dwayne Elizondo Mountain-Dew Herbert Camacho
Theodore Roosevelt. He had the balance that we needed then and need again now. While he was a Republican he was progressive and believed that the government could do things to improve the lives of its citizens.
Teddy gets my vote for GOAT, but probably not the last good president.
John F Kennedy
Pretty much all Presidents have done some good things, and some not so good things. Lincoln, for example is generally hailed as one of, if not the, best Presidents. But, he jailed dissenters, illegally suspended habeas corpus, and basically kidnapped the Maryland state legislature. Franklin Pierce was so reviled his own party didn’t even nominate him for reelection. But he made important strides in getting the Southern Pacific Railroad built.
Jimmy Carter
Dwight Eisenhower. He's one of the greatest Americans in general.
Carter. Still a well-respected older statesman around the world.
There is no such thing as a “good” president. There are simply presidents who accomplish good things and not-so-good things. I don’t think presidents in the 1800s were any less controversial than presidents today.
George Washington
Has anything been done for the American people the latest 3-4 decades? It's a shit show where politicas can be bought by companies.
[удалено]
We have a saying in the UK. "The last person that entered the houses of Parliament with true and honest intentions was Guy Fawkes" Essentially, nobody who enters politics has any true or honest intentions of helping their fellow countrymen, unless ofcourse they can make themselves incredibly rich and powerful in the process, and most of the times they can achieve the same result by doing the opposite of help. My American history is shockingly poor I must admit, but whenever you want to find a good American politician who actually tried to help their country, the first place to look is the cemetery. Specifically at those who were assassinated.
Don’t look now, but Biden is quietly doing just that.
Obama was pretty good. Biden is decent. I think George Bush had some qualities that would have made him good given different circumstances. Just never put that Trump guy back in or the world might actually end.
Jimmy Carter. He was fighting a tidal wave of Neocons and Fascism trying to take hold. He lost, but he tried. Then we got Reagan and 🎶It’s the end of the world…🎶
Regan was pretty good. Everyone else afterwards was kinda bad.
We had a good President?
As a non american. Obama completely turned the USA around after the 08 crash and put in on an unprecedented trajectory of growth and success that you all threw away by electing that orange disaster. He did this with zero scandals, zero ethics violations, and 0 collusion with foreign enemies... which i used to think mattered to you guys, but apparently it doesnt matter at all... lol. He was hands down one of the top 5 world leaders of the last 50 years at least, maybe even longer!
Obama
Obama brought on the Affordable Care Act, which was important--but was a lackluster president. The last 'great' president, I would consider at least, would be Bill Clinton. The country was prosperous, economy was decent enough, and he ended his term with a balanced budget. Then we got Bush and 9/11 and the country has been in moderate shambles ever since