Objectively horrible crap done by consensus-good US Presidents

It would have been far more then 100k-200k civilian deaths had the Allies invaded mainland Japan. Far more.. It would have been a massacre on a level this world has not seen.
Agreed. Who are those Japs to say how we should kill them?

Speaking of massacres, the 100% confirmed invasion without nukes would have shaken the laws of physics by exceeding the total death toll of WW2(80m), despite Japan's then-population being less(70m).
 
Obama- The extrajudicial killing of an American citizen who was unaware of any charges being brought against them. This was the instance of a United States President naming himself that judge, jury, and executioner of an American citizen. This will forever stain Obama's Legacy.

George W. Bush: The man responsible for nearly leading this world to ruin.

Bill Clinton: He committed perjury, a felony, on film. His party defended him, and descended our nation into the partisan mess it's currently in.

JFK: If you can't even be expected to uphold your vows of marriage while in the Oval Office, how could the American people ever expect you to uphold the oath of office?

FDR: The internment of Japanese-Americans during the second world war cannot be ignored. He was also slower to react to the problem of lynching than any of us would like to admit.
 
Obama- The extrajudicial killing of an American citizen who was unaware of any charges being brought against them. This was the instance of a United States President naming himself that judge, jury, and executioner of an American citizen. This will forever stain Obama's Legacy.

George W. Bush: The man responsible for nearly leading this world to ruin.

Bill Clinton: He committed perjury, a felony, on film. His party defended him, and descended our nation into the partisan mess it's currently in.

JFK: If you can't even be expected to uphold your vows of marriage while in the Oval Office, how could the American people ever expect you to uphold the oath of office?

FDR: The internment of Japanese-Americans during the second world war cannot be ignored. He was also slower to react to the problem of lynching than any of us would like to admit.


Anti Muslim sentiment might have fueled Obamas descusion to Kill Awnalwaki or whatever his name is, being of Arabic ethnicity probably did not helped.
 
. Also, Chavez didn't "run down" the country, as he did oversee great gains in GDP, living standards, literacy, etc. but unwisely tied it to the persistence of oil value.

Oil production constantly fell, poverty numbers were meddle with, violence skyrocketed.

The biggest illness in SA has been the left
 
Oil production constantly fell, poverty numbers were meddle with, violence skyrocketed.

So, basically, "fake news" on the basis of - nothing. Even the international right wing doesn't deny the improvements in living in that decade.

The biggest illness in SA has been the left

And here we have the stupidest post of the day, and it's only 8:00 AM.
 
The Carter Doctrine.

--------


Containment.
 
It would have been far more then 100k-200k civilian deaths had the Allies invaded mainland Japan. Far more.. It would have been a massacre on a level this world has not seen.
Debatable.

However, it was likely the best way to end the war and set the stage for the future.

We are talking about war. All answers are going to be immoral.
 
Bill Clinton: He committed perjury, a felony, on film. His party defended him, and descended our nation into the partisan mess it's currently in.

Holy hell. I hate Bill Clinton, but if you think him sleeping with an intern is what "descended our nation into the partisan mess it's currently in," you have no idea about even recent American history.

Forget the fact that the Reagan era ushered in a new Republican platform that was distinctly illogical, fiscally irresponsible, and based on celebrity and open whoring to the rich, before the Lewinsky scandal even hit, the GOP adopted the "forget governing, just build a majority at all costs to loot the economy" strategy:

Gingrich created something new. “There is the assumption—pioneered by Newt Gingrich himself, as early as the 1970s—that the minority wins when Congress accomplishes less,” Representative Steny Hoyer (D-MD), the number-two Democrat in the House, explainedin a 2009 speech at the Center for American Progress Action Fund. “Gingrich’s proposition, and maybe accurately, was that as long as…our party cooperate with Democrats and get 20 or 30 percent of what we want and they get to say they solved the problem and had a bipartisan bill, there’s no incentive for the American people to change leadership,” Hoyer told the Washington Post after the speech. “To some degree, he was proven right in 1994.”

In many ways, the obstructionist minority that Hoyer faced two years ago was following a playbook written by Gingrich over a decade earlier. Gingrich, in fact, took the debt ceiling hostage fifteen years before Boehner did, demanding huge, partisan cuts. In that case, the GOP backed down after President Clinton vetoed their spending bills and Moody’s warned of a credit downgrade. When Boehner refused to raise the debt ceiling, the threat of default lowered the US’s credit rating and was resolved by an complicated process involving a “supercommittee” and a two-step raising of the debt limit over a year. And it was Gingrich who, in one of his first acts as Speaker, patented the practice of refusing to approve disaster relief funds if they weren’t offset with spending cuts. Gingrich even held out after the Oklahoma City bombing later that year, prompting the Philadelphia Daily News to write, “Even Newt Gingrich must lose a little sleep at the idea of making political hay out of the mini-civil war that struck Oklahoma City.”

Of course, Gingrich’s greatest act of obstructionist brinkmanship was the 1995 and 1996 government shutdowns. Thanks to his refusal to concede on spending on social services, the government closed for five days in 1995, longer than the previous eight government shutdowns, and for a whopping twenty-one days a year later—the longest shutdown in history. Thanks to Gingrich’s obstinacy, health and welfare services for veterans were curtailed, Social Security checks were delayed, tens of thousands of visa applications went unprocessed and “numerous sectors of the economy” we negatively impacted, according to the Congressional Research Service.[...]

Meanwhile, Gingrich was busy creating the climate of nearly nihilistic partisanship that reigns today. In May of 1988, against the wishes of the more moderate GOP leadership, Gingrich brought ethics charges against then-Democratic Speaker Jim Wright relating to a book deal. “This was very much Newt’s initiative,” John Pitney, a professor at Claremont McKenna College who has studied Gingrich for years, told The Nation. Gingrich successfully forced Wright to resign “and that really, for the first time, kind of politicized the entire ethics process,” Larry Evans, a government professor at the College of William and Mary in Virginia, told NPR in December.

He exploded the number of committees, radically increasing the number of fund-raising targets. He ended any idea of bipartisanship. Instead, as Rep. Jim Cooper, D-Tennessee, has described, the focus of Congress after Gingrich's reforms became the "majority of the majority," (i.e., the majority of the Republicans) polarizing the institution to the end of assuring ever more loyal and energized troops.
Members of Congress now spend between 30%-70% of their time raising money to get re-elected to Congress or to get their party back into power. And not just the Republicans: The Democrats quickly followed the lessons of Professor Gingrich. And in the almost 20 years since he came to power, practically everything about that great institution has changed.
Gone is any semblance of deliberation, or the idea that there is a business of the nation to be done, as opposed to the business of the party in power. Instead, the institution that Gingrich inherited — the one in which Democrats worked with Republicans to pass the most important tax reform in modern history (Reagan's), and in which Republicans led Democrats to break a filibuster in the Senate and pass the most important social legislation in a century (The Civil Rights Act of 1964) — was gone. What replaced it is the completely dysfunctional institution which practically no American has confidence in today.
More important to the right, as the business of Congress became the business of fundraising, the ideals that had brought Gingrich to power quickly got compromised. Fundraising demands pushed the Republican leadership to give up on its stated goal of shrinking the size of government, so that it could better use the power of majority status to raise campaign cash. As the Washington Post's Robert Kaiser reported in his 2009 book, "So Damn Much Money":
"Republicans took over ... determined to cut the government down to size. [But] their ambitions were soon compromised. ... Gingrich initially supported ... efforts to impose discipline on spending.... But in the face of perceived political necessity, the leadership wavered. Cutting spending was good, but Gingrich, (Dick) Armey, (Tom) DeLay, and others quickly realized that 'we have another aspect to our existence here, which is that we must use the Appropriations Committee as a resource to protect our vulnerables, because once we got into power, we wanted to stay in power.'"
The job of Congress was no longer the work of the nation. The job of Congress was to help its majority "to stay in power."

https://www.thenation.com/article/how-newt-gingrich-crippled-congress/
https://www.cnn.com/2011/11/19/opinion/lessig-gingrich-change-washington/index.html

And then, old Mitch McConnell whose entire career has been devoted to taking bribes and fighting tooth and nail through the courts to eliminate oversight of his corruption, upped the Republican's soulless game:

Right now, the tone is a lot different — with Republicans pledging to embrace an agenda for the next two years that sounds a lot like their agenda for the past two: Block Obama at all costs.

And even Obama’s pre-election appeals to cooperation are wrapped in an I’m-still-the-president tone that suggests that Americans will be looking at two opposing camps glaring at each other across the barricades — gridlock all around.

Here’s John Boehner, the likely speaker if Republicans take the House, offering his plans for Obama’s agenda: “We're going to do everything — and I mean everything we can do — to kill it, stop it, slow it down, whatever we can.”

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell summed up his plan to National Journal: “The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president.”

https://www.politico.com/story/2010/10/the-gops-no-compromise-pledge-044311


Absolutely nothing to do with leftover moral vitriol over Clinton (after all, the Republican who was leading the impeachment process against Clinton, was himself cheating on his wife by fucking a young woman....the wife he would later leave while she was dying of cancer.



You're free to support who you like, but don't degrade yourself into thinking that the current hyperpartisanship is anything other than due to the fact that the Republicans are cartoon character-level evil and haven't cared about anything but personal riches for three decades.
 
What a random depressing self-hating thread about the greatest country ever to come into existence.
 
lol it's simpler than that. Slavery is on my mind because I'm studying it, so that's probably why I chose that example. I just found out recently about that pardon, and I thought it was out of character for Teddy, because I would have expected him to publicly celebrate the sentencing of a slaver in the early 20th century. It got me thinking about what other horrible shit "good" US Presidents have done. Like generally peace-loving Carter breaking character and aiding Suharto's slaughter in East Timor.
Indonesia is a good example.

And let's not forget the UN Ambassador at the time, the revered Patrick Moynihan, was right there making it happen.
 
Obama and his drone strike policy.
For Obama my choice would be inaction in Syria after the "red line" was crossed. Sure, inaction is certainly more defensible than the stuff listed in this thread but in the case of Syria inaction was a failure to stop a humanitarian crisis, one that to this day is really fucking bad.

It's really complicated and I sure as fuck don't have a better solution but this is probably the consensus black mark for Obama, which was otherwise and all around excellent presidency.
 
Good for you man. Degree in what? I'm heading back myself actually to finish up my BA in CIS, cyber security. I live by a University so I'm looking for bikes right now so i can be that cool dude who doesn't have to worry about parking. Can't wait... mostly to troll the hard left college kids and professors. Oh man it's going to be fun.
lol. Probably won't find too many troll targets in the IT department, at least I hope not. I finished a couple transfer programs (to get a good base of gen ed) geared toward management information systems and now I've been digging into web design and development. I've been confused nonstop for the last year, but being a complete noob at something again is kinda fun.
 
I mean, killing >250k people with nukes when the war was all but over is pretty bad. But yeah, allegedly gassing 40 people to death in a civil war against the world's current largest enemy is definitely worse.
This sarcasm is completely unnecessary, and it misses the point- I'm not trying to weigh one terrible act against another. The fact is that the consensus in the U.S. says that the nukes on Japan probably saved many lives by ending the war. I'm not challenging that here, though a belief like that needs to be challenged hard even if it's true. It's not simply an objectively horrible thing. There is a ton to consider. The same cannot be said of the chemical attack in Syria, which is further not a valid subject of the thread.
 
What a random depressing self-hating thread about the greatest country ever to come into existence.

People who refuse to criticize or condemn other for criticizing their own country are the biggest pieces of shit to our nation and world.
 
What a random depressing self-hating thread about the greatest country ever to come into existence.
The goal isn't self hatred, and I'm not depressed by anything I've read here. And if self examination produces self hatred, well....
 
The goal isn't self hatred, and I'm not depressed by anything I've read here. And if self examination produces self hatred, well....
@Letssnuggle 's post strikes me as very weird and reeks of tribalism because the thread is about the bad shit presidents have done! And it is patriotic to care about that stuff since we care (or should care) about our country over any one president or party. We want to protect our country from bad presidents who can ruin things.
 
Also, Chavez didn't "run down" the country, as he did oversee great gains in GDP, living standards, literacy, etc. but unwisely tied it to the persistence of oil value.

Chavez and later Maduro, systematically destroyed every aspect of Venezuela's economy that they didn't control.

They made the country even more dependent on the price of oil than it already was and then proceeded to loot and run into the ground the stat-owned oil company to such a degree that production is in hsmables.

All of his supposed accomplishments that you mention were nothing but unsustainable mirages that even as we speak are being completely undone.

Stop trying to defend the indefensible, or even better come to Peru and try to tell the 200,000 Venezuelans who have come seeking any job that will keep them from starving all about the great gains in living standards that Chavizmo brought to Venezuela.
 
@Letssnuggle 's post strikes me as very weird and reeks of tribalism because the thread is about the bad shit presidents have done! And it is patriotic to care about that stuff since we care (or should care) about our country over any one president or party. We want to protect our country from bad presidents who can ruin things.
It's a really good time for that sort of examination too. No need to fall into tribalism or even cynicism.
 
I don't mean Lincoln and the Civil War, or Truman dropping the bomb. There are strong moral arguments for doing those things, despite having terrible aspects to them.


I mean things like Teddy Roosevelt pardoning the slaver John Pace. I don't think much of Teddy, at all, but he is regarded well by history. His investigation of peonage (debt-slavery, typically fraudulently claimed) in the South was arguably a political stunt, producing relatively few convictions and investigations despite being widespread throughout the South.

Teddy, no matter how good anybody thinks he was, has to suck a gigantic fuck in hell for that one.

Well, the Tuskegee experiments span from Hoover to Nixon
 
So, basically, "fake news" on the basis of - nothing. Even the international right wing doesn't deny the improvements in living in that decade.


And here we have the stupidest post of the day, and it's only 8:00 AM.

I like how you skip the part where the oil industry was dismantled by Chavez, how production dropped constantly in his tenure, how Venezuela is one of the most dangerous places in the world. Both Chavez and Lula missed a very good opportunity with the commodities boom, both drawn their countries in chaos making poor people poorer in the end. Both meddled with poverty definition and middle class definitions.

Its laughable how some people who have no clue on what is life in South America think they know anything by reading Chomsky, who took ages to make criticism of Chavez, back then Latin America was in the path to a complete transformation according to him.

Markxism is one of the sole reasons why South America can´t prosper.
 
FDR and his jap camps.

Always stunned when the same people who can offer up "moral arguments" for dropping A-bombs on civilian populations declare the internment camps a de facto, indefensible evil.
 
Back
Top