Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    runners up-Clinton, Lincoln or washington
    worst-fdr his laws on gold holding
    best-Nixon repealing the gold laws
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    My pick would probably be Ulysses S. Grant.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    Indeed. I'd have made a very good Liberal Party PM before 1914 when they lost their way. Bit of imperialism, eugenics but also free trade and a bit of social liberalism.

    True although i don't think many over there rave about him.
    I prefer 19th-century British politics to be quite honest.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    President Trump.

    (Original post by Dumachi)
    Abraham Lincoln.
    Because he was a vampire hunter?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Cato the Elder)
    Since the U.S. Presidential Elections are soon, I was wondering who all your favourite U.S. Presidents are. Personally mine would be Reagan.

    *waits for an idiot to say Obama*
    None of them.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Trump.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    JFK or Malcom X oh how nice the world would be!
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Cato the Elder)
    Since the U.S. Presidential Elections are soon, I was wondering who all your favourite U.S. Presidents are. Personally mine would be Reagan.

    *waits for an idiot to say Obama*
    "Idiot" reporting for duty. Why you hating tho?

    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    The vast majority of them have been terrible, and every President since WWII would have been hanged for war crimes at Nuremberg if the principles were applied.

    Franklin D. Roosevelt, Jimmy Carter and Barack Obama would be the top three for me. I've recently warmed to Obama again after this excellent (but very long) article about his foreign policy.

    He's smart, logical, measured and takes some surprising stances on Saudi Arabia and similar regimes, and is unique for being a President who actually admits his mistakes and who actually says that he regrets the disastrous Libyan intervention in 2011. He understands the perils of military intervention; understands that, statistically speaking, terrorism is less dangerous than driving a car or standing in a bathtub; and wants to focus more on Asia, Africa and Latin America, which have great potential.

    On the Republican side, Dwight Eisenhower was probably their best (or, rather, least worse).

    Economically, we had a good string of Presidents from FDR to Nixon who implemented sensible Keynesian policies. Reagan, though, started off a terrible economic agenda which we still haven't got rid of to this day. When combining both economic and foreign policy (with his terrorist campaigns against Nicaragua and other Latin American countries), I'd have to say that Reagan is one of the United States' worst Presidents in history.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by viddy9)
    The vast majority of them have been terrible, and every President since WWII would have been hanged for war crimes at Nuremberg if the principles were applied.

    Franklin D. Roosevelt, Jimmy Carter and Barack Obama would be the top three for me. I've recently warmed to Obama again after this excellent (but very long) article about his foreign policy.

    He's smart, logical, measured and takes some surprising stances on Saudi Arabia and similar regimes, and is unique for being a President who actually admits his mistakes and who actually says that he regrets the disastrous Libyan intervention in 2011. He understands the perils of military intervention; understands that, statistically speaking, terrorism is less dangerous than driving a car or standing in a bathtub; and wants to focus more on Asia, Africa and Latin America, which have great potential.

    On the Republican side, Dwight Eisenhower was probably their best (or, rather, least worse).

    Economically, we had a good string of Presidents from FDR to Nixon who implemented sensible Keynesian policies. Reagan, though, started off a terrible economic agenda which we still haven't got rid of to this day. When combining both economic and foreign policy (with his terrorist campaigns against Nicaragua and other Latin American countries), I'd have to say that Reagan is one of the United States' worst Presidents in history.
    LOL

    That said, it isn't surprising that a leftist like yourself is happy when America has weak Presidents.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Cato the Elder)
    LOL

    That said, it isn't surprising that a leftist like yourself is happy when America has weak Presidents.
    If you want to label me a 'leftist', then fine, but I don't consider myself one. Looking at politics based on policy is far more helpful.

    I'd venture to say, though, that many Americans believe FDR to have been a strong President. Certainly, he's one of the most popular Presidents, if not the most popular President, in history.

    I also don't know where you got the notion that Obama is a weak President from. Putin invaded Georgia under Bush's watch, despite Bush having illegally invaded and occupied Iraq with tens of thousands of US troops. Unlike Obama, Bush failed to understand that his so-called "strong" policies led to more terrorism, so being "strong" is, unfortunately, pretty irrelevant when it usually equates to being stupid. You can scream at a problem and call for it to be smashed with a sledgehammer, or you can, as Obama has tried to do, analyse the costs and benefits of a specific policy before going in all guns blazing.

    Just another symptom, to quote Christopher Hitchens, of the fact that George W. Bush was unusually incurious, abnormally unintelligent, amazingly inarticulate, fantastically uncultured, extraordinarily uneducated, and apparently quite proud of all these things.

    These Presidents certainly aren't perfect, but I'd rather favour some relatively intelligent ones over some of the more prolific human rights abusers, warmongers and idiots, George W. Bush and Ronald Reagan being the most prominent of these.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by viddy9)
    If you want to label me a 'leftist', then fine, but I don't consider myself one. Looking at politics based on policy is far more helpful.

    I'd venture to say, though, that many Americans believe FDR to have been a strong President. Certainly, he's one of the most popular Presidents, if not the most popular President, in history.

    I also don't know where you got the notion that Obama is a weak President from. Putin invaded Georgia under Bush's watch, despite Bush having illegally invaded and occupied Iraq with tens of thousands of US troops. Unlike Obama, Bush failed to understand that his so-called "strong" policies led to more terrorism, so being "strong" is, unfortunately, pretty irrelevant when it usually equates to being stupid. You can scream at a problem and call for it to be smashed with a sledgehammer, or you can, as Obama has tried to do, analyse the costs and benefits of a specific policy before going in all guns blazing.

    Just another symptom, to quote Christopher Hitchens, of the fact that George W. Bush was unusually incurious, abnormally unintelligent, amazingly inarticulate, fantastically uncultured, extraordinarily uneducated, and apparently quite proud of all these things.

    These Presidents certainly aren't perfect, but I'd rather favour some relatively intelligent ones over some of the more prolific human rights abusers, warmongers and idiots, George W. Bush and Ronald Reagan being the most prominent of these.
    Once you said Jimmy Carter it was hard for me to continue taking you seriously...
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Cato the Elder)
    Once you said Jimmy Carter it was hard for me to continue taking you seriously...
    Somebody who doesn't explain their positions except by using ambiguous language such as "weak" is hard to take seriously.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Death Grips)
    "Idiot" reporting for duty. Why you hating tho?
    hold on guys, I think it's trying to communicate
    Spoiler:
    Show
    think about people like washington (and jefferson, adams, etc) who created a nation, and lincoln who freed the slaves. and LBJ for repealing segregation laws. and reagan for finalising the cold war. what the hell has obama done compared to them? oh my god how can you say obama? I need to understand you - do you consider making fat lies a form of presidential competence?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    One for the future, Jesus Christ and John Smith as VP.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sleepysnooze)
    hold on guys, I think it's trying to communicate
    Spoiler:
    Show
    think about people like washington (and jefferson, adams, etc) who created a nation, and lincoln who freed the slaves. and LBJ for repealing segregation laws. and reagan for finalising the cold war. what the hell has obama done compared to them? oh my god how can you say obama? I need to understand you - do you consider making fat lies a form of presidential competence?
    Lincoln was not anti-slavery. These ****ers are just politicians very few have any human decency. Washington owned slaves too.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by dozyrosie)
    Lincoln was not anti-slavery. These ****ers are just politicians very few have any human decency. Washington owned slaves too.
    I know - even jefferson owned slaves which was the worst of all because his philosophies were clearly meant to repel things like slavery. and lincoln, though not massively in favour of abolitionish *still* freed the slaves, whether his intentions were political or not. I never said these people were saints - no president is/was or will be.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sleepysnooze)
    I know - even jefferson owned slaves which was the worst of all because his philosophies were clearly meant to repel things like slavery. and lincoln, though not massively in favour of abolitionish *still* freed the slaves, whether his intentions were political or not. I never said these people were saints - no president is/was or will be.
    So what makes Obama less of a choice? He may be a weak president, but that is more to do with the fact that the senate and congress are not behind him.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by dozyrosie)
    So what makes Obama less of a choice? He may be a weak president, but that is more to do with the fact that the senate and congress are not behind him.
    you could say the same things about former presidents whom nobody labels good/great presidents. why obama in particular? I mean, he isn't a good public speaker; he "ums" and "ers" constantly. is it because of his views? well, he's almost completely a branded democrat
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by dozyrosie)
    Lincoln was not anti-slavery.
    Yes, he was. He was no abolitionist, sure, but he was opposed to slavery.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Brussels sprouts
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.