-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
When was the last time there was a good president in USA?
- Thread starter fireflame
- Start date
Depends on your definition.
If the qualification for "good" that that they never made a poor decision.... then there has never been a good person born on this earth. Let alone a good president.
If the qualification is that on the balance they made the nation better.... then Obama, Carter, Johnson, Eisenhower, FDR, etc.
If the qualification for "good" that that they never made a poor decision.... then there has never been a good person born on this earth. Let alone a good president.
If the qualification is that on the balance they made the nation better.... then Obama, Carter, Johnson, Eisenhower, FDR, etc.
Yeah, no. Obama did nothing to "erode democracy in the US".
Obama's long-term legacy would include eight years of relatively good government, healthcare reform, extensive investment in the development of green energy, big advances in LGBT rights, etc. He could have done more, of course, but Congress after 2011 was unworkable.
John Quincy Adam's was not bad for the time but he did most of his work before and after office actually
Subjective
Federalist Societys idea for healthcare that no one likes
Not even a tenth what is necessary
Definitely good, but that entire admin came into office not caring about it
Not a single one of those offsets mass deportation, not lowering military spending, drone war escalation, not prosecuting iraq war criminals or bankers and industry heads despite coming into office with the power to do so.
His best policy maneuvers were the ACA which sucks and is a stopgap and the Iran deal which was immediately removed
Subjective
Federalist Societys idea for healthcare that no one likes
Not even a tenth what is necessary
Definitely good, but that entire admin came into office not caring about it
Not a single one of those offsets mass deportation, not lowering military spending, drone war escalation, not prosecuting iraq war criminals or bankers and industry heads despite coming into office with the power to do so.
His best policy maneuvers were the ACA which sucks and is a stopgap and the Iran deal which was immediately removed
Umm you should read about Carter in Salvador and Nicaragua.
Anyone who was president during Vietnam is automatically like bottom 10. JFK's rehabilitation as someone who wanted de escelation is ahistorical nonsense
If you're asking about decent human beings who were President, and not holding them to the absolute standard of good, then...
John Quincy Adams
Abe Lincoln
US Mutha fuckin Grant
Teddy Roosevelt
Eisenhower
Carter
Obama
End of list.
There were some who were not complete shit or were only somewhat shitty or were accidentally pretty okay, but those are the only one's who ever impressed me with their humanity.
Fuck these popular pieces of shit though:
Jefferson
FDR
Kennedy
Clinton
John Quincy Adams
Abe Lincoln
US Mutha fuckin Grant
Teddy Roosevelt
Eisenhower
Carter
Obama
End of list.
There were some who were not complete shit or were only somewhat shitty or were accidentally pretty okay, but those are the only one's who ever impressed me with their humanity.
Fuck these popular pieces of shit though:
Jefferson
FDR
Kennedy
Clinton
Last edited:
Eisenhower is the last defensible Republican President.
EDIT: Even then, he destabilized other nations and the outcomes were very poor.
EDIT: Even then, he destabilized other nations and the outcomes were very poor.
Last edited:
Which is the true answer.
But Obama was one of the less bad ones. If we ignore the bailouts of the criminals who threw millions of people into poverty and homelessness. Before him, maybe Lyndon Johnson? I'm not American though, so my knowledge on dead presidents is bad.
Edit: yeah fuck Johnson. Forgot about Vietnam :/
Last edited:
Obama.
Every single president going forward in our life is going to make the decision on how to reign death--full stop. It can be easy to criticize Obama's drone attacks when we are not privy to the intel he received.
If you fundamentally disagree with this then you probably need to question whether those who hold the power of presidency can ever be considered good.
Every single president going forward in our life is going to make the decision on how to reign death--full stop. It can be easy to criticize Obama's drone attacks when we are not privy to the intel he received.
If you fundamentally disagree with this then you probably need to question whether those who hold the power of presidency can ever be considered good.
fuck JFK
JFK role in brazil 1964 military coup
The Kennedy administration worried about President Goulart, because of the sup-port for him from leftist trade unions and parties, and the climate of excitement on the left generated by the Cuban revolution. Publicly, Kennedy spoke of respecting Brazilian sovereignty, but privately, in the Oval Office, he discussed ways to destabilise Brazil.
On30 July 1962, Kennedy spoke with some of his advisors about the situation in Brazil. The meeting was secretly recorded. The US Ambassador to Brazil Lincoln Gordon, called'Linc' by Kennedy, was present.
Gordon said: I think one of our important jobs is to strengthen the spine of the military. To make it clear, discreetly, that we are not necessarily hostile to any kind of military action whatsoever if it's clear that the reason for the military action is..
'Kennedy interrupted: 'Against the Left'.
Gordon: 'he's giving the damn country away to the...
'Kennedy: 'Communists'.
Later, Gordon said of the Brazilian military, 'they are very friendly to us: very anti-Communist, very suspicious of Goulart.' A little later in the conversation, the presidential advisor Richard Goodwin said, 'Because we may very well want them [the Brazilian military] to take over at the end of the year, if they can.' Further on in the discussion,
President Kennedy asked: 'What kind of liaison do we have with the military?'
Gordon: Well, it's pretty good.
The military is not united. This is one of the things that make it complicated.' And later, 'Well, we need, we need a new Army attaché badly...The Army is much...that's the...most important [of the three Brazilian armed services]. This is the key fellow in the relationship.
(...)
This was a significant meeting. It led to the sending to Rio of Vernon Walters, who had an important role in the 1964 coup, but one that is still not fully understood dueto the persistence of classified documents that have not been made public (de Oliveira,2009).
(...)
From the Kennedy administration's point of view, Bobby Kennedy's meeting withGoulart had not gone well. In January 1963, the opportunity the meeting representedwas lost, because Goulart won the referendum that restored full powers to his presidency,and he became increasingly autonomous of the US. In this regard, the interpretation ofLoureiro (2014) seems correct. Loureiro argues that in 1963, the Kennedy administra-tion began to block economic assistance to Goulart and abandon the attempt to useeconomic incentives to induce his government to move to the centre-right. Over thecourse of 1963, the White House became more and more interested in overthrowingGoulart's government, and actively sought partners in this endeavour.
(...)
there's more that just a part of it
JFK role in brazil 1964 military coup
The Kennedy administration worried about President Goulart, because of the sup-port for him from leftist trade unions and parties, and the climate of excitement on the left generated by the Cuban revolution. Publicly, Kennedy spoke of respecting Brazilian sovereignty, but privately, in the Oval Office, he discussed ways to destabilise Brazil.
On30 July 1962, Kennedy spoke with some of his advisors about the situation in Brazil. The meeting was secretly recorded. The US Ambassador to Brazil Lincoln Gordon, called'Linc' by Kennedy, was present.
Gordon said: I think one of our important jobs is to strengthen the spine of the military. To make it clear, discreetly, that we are not necessarily hostile to any kind of military action whatsoever if it's clear that the reason for the military action is..
'Kennedy interrupted: 'Against the Left'.
Gordon: 'he's giving the damn country away to the...
'Kennedy: 'Communists'.
Later, Gordon said of the Brazilian military, 'they are very friendly to us: very anti-Communist, very suspicious of Goulart.' A little later in the conversation, the presidential advisor Richard Goodwin said, 'Because we may very well want them [the Brazilian military] to take over at the end of the year, if they can.' Further on in the discussion,
President Kennedy asked: 'What kind of liaison do we have with the military?'
Gordon: Well, it's pretty good.
The military is not united. This is one of the things that make it complicated.' And later, 'Well, we need, we need a new Army attaché badly...The Army is much...that's the...most important [of the three Brazilian armed services]. This is the key fellow in the relationship.
(...)
This was a significant meeting. It led to the sending to Rio of Vernon Walters, who had an important role in the 1964 coup, but one that is still not fully understood dueto the persistence of classified documents that have not been made public (de Oliveira,2009).
(...)
From the Kennedy administration's point of view, Bobby Kennedy's meeting withGoulart had not gone well. In January 1963, the opportunity the meeting representedwas lost, because Goulart won the referendum that restored full powers to his presidency,and he became increasingly autonomous of the US. In this regard, the interpretation ofLoureiro (2014) seems correct. Loureiro argues that in 1963, the Kennedy administra-tion began to block economic assistance to Goulart and abandon the attempt to useeconomic incentives to induce his government to move to the centre-right. Over thecourse of 1963, the White House became more and more interested in overthrowingGoulart's government, and actively sought partners in this endeavour.
(...)
there's more that just a part of it
I'm pretty sure the only way for any world leader to not have blood on their hands or some shitty policies is to lead a nation so small that they're ability to project power abroad is zero in which case they're doing all they can not to get completely exploited. But most of those countries end up with shitty dictators so...
If you make the thread I promise to necrobump it the night before the US election.
Obama was a moderate neoliberal. Subpar president. In terms of progressive left politics, FDR came the closest, so I say him.
all american presidents are shit, just look at their foreign policies.
just look at the last administration with Obama using U.S warships to blockade Yemen that has caused a massive humanitarian crisis, the vassal state of the U.S will do the whatever its overlord KSA expects.
funny also how so many people on this forum are so pro whistleblower now when I remember on GAF and even now, until recently, how anti whistleblower they were and how Obama led a war against whistleblowing. yet now they've done a 180.
just look at the last administration with Obama using U.S warships to blockade Yemen that has caused a massive humanitarian crisis, the vassal state of the U.S will do the whatever its overlord KSA expects.
funny also how so many people on this forum are so pro whistleblower now when I remember on GAF and even now, until recently, how anti whistleblower they were and how Obama led a war against whistleblowing. yet now they've done a 180.
Last edited:
Lots of presidents have blood on their hands. It's sadly the reality of life and we never wish anything bad on good people. Obama was a good President regardless of Bush or Trump around him.
Jimmy Carter
Lol no.
I mean, yes.
Being concerned over hundreds of thousands of innocent lives being taken away is not a fucking purity test.
cool, another thread where we get to pretend President Jimmy Carter was anything but a barely-competent micromanager who managed to botch a Democratic trifecta 2 years after Watergate so badly that it gave us Reagan
