Elections Greatest?

[Islam Imamate]

Despite the black mark of Japanese internment I chose FDR. I think Lincoln is also a great candidate.

 

[Islam Imamate]

I had GW down.

Now side question.


Did any democrats vote for Republican? And did any Republican vote Democratic?

Ya got me there, voted for FDR and I'm a registered Democrat.

@Jack V Savage picked Lincoln though and I'd bet he's a registered Democrat as well.

 

[Trotsky]

Other than dividing a nation, attempting to socialize healthcare and driving costs up the majority of tax payers, what else did he accomplish?

I know he said a gang banger could have been his son and engaged in vitriol against police. What else? oh he tried to make illegal criminals legal. Did he accomplish anything?

Seriously?

He
(1) authored a recovery from the worst financial crisis in 80 years,
(2) created the longest period of sustained job growth in US history,
(3) cut the country's uninsured rate in half while improving healthcare quality and slowing price growth,
(4) more than halved the deficit from 10% GDP to 3% GDP while also stabilizing the economy,
(5) considerably improved perception of the United States in just about every country except Russia and Israel,
(6) negotiated a deal to block the imminent gaining of nuclear capabilities by an enemy country,
(7) established net neutrality,
(8) boosted fuel efficiency and emission standards,
(9) cut veteran homelessness in half, and
(10) was the first president since the 1960s to serve two full terms without a major scandal.

How bogged down by delusional identity politics can you be?

 

[USA!USA!]

legit lol at Obama getting that many votes

 

[danny23]

Between FDR and Lincoln. I'd say Lincoln because he preserved the union and oversaw the country during its most testing time. There would be no USA today without him.

FDR was most impressive. He got USA through the great depression, defeated the big threat of Nazi Germany and turned USA into a superpower.

Eisenhower and Clinton were very good as well. Both led during a period of peace and growth.

 

[Jack V Savage]

legit lol at Obama getting that many votes

Realistically, he might be the best, but partly that's because we've advanced a lot in our overall understanding as a country so ranking him more highly than Lincoln is like ranking Seager higher on an all-time shortstop list than Honus Wagner.

 

[Armbars]

Other. George Bush.

 

[MikeMcMann]

I picked George Washington because of the precedent that he set.

Even the title "Mr. President" was set by Washington. Congress was kicking around ideas like "His exalted mightiness" and other very British royalty sounding titles like "his Majesty" and "His excellency." George Washington intentionally allowed the stripped down title to avoid the grandeur and pomp.

He also chose to give up power after two terms when he could have reigned as President for life, essentially becoming King. He handled enormous power in a dignified and responsible way, in a time when he really could have done almost anything he wanted.

He set the standard for how an American president behaves and handles power. If he set a different standard, who knows what our country would have become.

This is why I picked Washington. Well said. How many would have turned away such power that he could have easily had given to him?

 

[Trotsky]

Realistically, he might be the best, but partly that's because we've advanced a lot in our overall understanding as a country so ranking him more highly than Lincoln is like ranking Seager higher on an all-time shortstop list than Honus Wagner.

It will be telling how history treats his failures, though. He implied economic populism, yet delivered pragmatic liberalism. He implied an end to, or at least meaningful departure from, the status quo in engaging in foreign conflict and siding with power over people, yet failed woefully the people of Libya and Honduras.

Returning to a Republican presidency has jogged the American memory of just how ignorant, hateful, and violent the two-party alternative is, but Obama also failed in many regards his most passionate surrogates.

Trump's actions towards Venezuela (now in a deepening and increasingly violent economic depression from which they could fairly easily recover absent US sanctions), Cuba, and Iran all, to be sure, make me (and should make most all the world) nostalgic for Obama.

 

[Jack V Savage]

It will be telling how history treats his failures, though. He implied economic populism, yet delivered pragmatic liberalism. He implied an end to, or at least meaningful departure from, the status quo in engaging in foreign conflict and siding with power over people, yet failed woefully the people of Libya and Honduras.

Returning to a Republican presidency has jogged the American memory of just how ignorant, hateful, and violent the two-party alternative is, but Obama also failed in many regards his most passionate surrogates.

Trump's actions towards Venezuela (now in a deepening and increasingly violent economic depression from which they could fairly easily recover absent US sanctions), Cuba, and Iran all, to be sure, make me (and should make most all the world) nostalgic for Obama.

I think you're confusing his ability to be inspiring while selling competence with populism. He ran as a highly competent moderate technocrat. One of the things that marked his political career and life before becoming president was his ability to find common ground between opposing groups (that's one of the things that drove Republicans crazy--they need to accuse any Democrat of being a radical but he was so reasonable and moderate that they had to badly distort reality to make that peg fit). I also would say we did, in fact, get an end to the status quo in foreign conflict, etc. (that is, we got a change of direction).

 

[Trotsky]

I think you're confusing his ability to be inspiring while selling competence with populism. He ran as a highly competent moderate technocrat.

It's been several years, of course, but I do not recall his candidacy being that of a "moderate technocrat" at all. That sounds like Clinton's 2016 campaign. Obama's Hope and Change campaign was not that.

One of the things that marked his political career and life before becoming president was his ability to find common ground between opposing groups (that's one of the things that drove Republicans crazy--they need to accuse any Democrat of being a radical but he was so reasonable and moderate that they had to badly distort reality to make that peg fit).

Well, they did a good job. Obama is currently regarded, although we'll see how kind history is, as a very divisive president.

I do agree that he was fairly centrist, but I am also of the opinion that he detrimentally relied on the (increasingly nonexistent) returns of his conscious centrism. For instance, he neglected the political representation of racial minorities to pander to conservative white fragility, only to have them call him a divisive, identity politicking racist for even throwing his people the smallest of crumbs ("could be my son," police are sometimes/super rarely possibly in the wrong). Likewise, he furthered destructive actions vis-a-vis immigration in good faith reliance that upon doing so the GOP would come to the table, which of course they did not. Instead they lied, said he was bringing in immigrants by the busload, and doubled down on their rhetoric that they had before he took action.

I also would say we did, in fact, get an end to the status quo in foreign conflict, etc. (that is, we got a change of direction).

Meh.

If you've seen my posts on this subject, you likely know that I blame Hillary Clinton much, much more than Obama for some missteps in this sphere (I think Kerry was for the most part fairly good). But he certainly continued the American legacy of "democracy spreading" while consciously backing and supporting autocratic regimes that benefit the United States against populist insurrection and, in the case of places like Venezuela and Honduras, consciously undermining democracy to further US economic interests.

Again, in the shadow of Trump, Obama's foreign policy looks beautiful, but he was nevertheless a giant let down to internationalists, libertarians, anti-interventionists, etc.

 

[USA!USA!]

Realistically, he might be the best, but partly that's because we've advanced a lot in our overall understanding as a country so ranking him more highly than Lincoln is like ranking Seager higher on an all-time shortstop list than Honus Wagner.

Maybe we should let it breathe a little first before crowning Obama the GOAT.

 

[zebby23]

legit lol at Obama getting that many votes

He was a great president

 

[USA!USA!]

He was a great president

GOAT tho?

 

[Trotsky]

GOAT tho?

I talked about this earlier. I don't think, with a full historical knowledge, that he's a reasonable choice for GOAT.

But for people who aren't history buffs and don't know much about FDR, Lincoln, Madison, etc., he is easily the best of this era.

 

[USA!USA!]

I talked about this earlier. I don't think, with a full historical knowledge, that he's a reasonable choice for GOAT.

But for people who aren't history buffs and don't know much about FDR, Lincoln, Madison, etc., he is easily the best of this era.

Agreed, but the poll isn't for who is the best of this era, right?

 

[Trotsky]

Agreed, but the poll isn't for who is the best of this era, right?

Yeah, but you always have to account for people making good faith judgments on their own observations. Also, as JVS said, if you were to try to make some objectivist appraisal of pure competency, Obama would have a strong case.

I personally think that FDR and Lincoln are the unarguable top two, so I presume that any ranking that has Obama above either is coming from someone who either doesn't have a deep bevy of historical knowledge (which is okay - not everyone had access to good education), is a partisan, or is someone (such as a young black man) who was personally and uniquely very inspired by him.

 

[12ga.]

hi all!

hmmmf.

in my lifetime? probably President Carter.

i'd give him points for being the most fiscally conservative POTUS in the last half century or so.

deregulated the airlines, which bought prices way, way down for consumers.

the Camp David Peace accords. the SALT II nuclear arms reductions treaty. no new foreign military adventures under his watch...cut funding to Noriega.

a thumbs up for his embrace of energy conservation, and executive order 10023 which codified it.

- IGIT

Carter started Al Qeda and did EL Salvador coup which killed 100K

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Cyclone
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salvadoran_Civil_War

None as far as I'm concerned. All dirt dags and war criminals in thrall to Wall Street and plunder the world for profits.

If I had to vote JFK but they killed him too soon to be sure.

 

[Trotsky]

hi all!

hmmmf.

in my lifetime? probably President Carter.

i'd give him points for being the most fiscally conservative POTUS in the last half century or so.

deregulated the airlines, which bought prices way, way down for consumers.

the Camp David Peace accords. the SALT II nuclear arms reductions treaty. no new foreign military adventures under his watch...cut funding to Noriega.

a thumbs up for his embrace of energy conservation, and executive order 10023 which codified it.

- IGIT

....do you still think that was a good thing? Airlines have consolidated and prices have increased considerably in the past ten years, despite further developments toward fuel efficiency.

Also, saying deregulation caused the drop is prices is ignoring a bunch of variables, such as exponential growth in amount of flights (and therefore ability to offer less per flight) and technological innovation.

 

[12ga.]

Yeah, but you always have to account for people making good faith judgments on their own observations. Also, as JVS said, if you were to try to make some objectivist appraisal of pure competency, Obama would have a strong case.

I personally think that FDR and Lincoln are the unarguable top two, so I presume that any ranking that has Obama above either is coming from someone who either doesn't have a deep bevy of historical knowledge (which is okay - not everyone had access to good education), is a partisan, or is someone (such as a young black man) who was personally and uniquely very inspired by him.

Obama the guy who turned Libya from richest most just Nation in Africa to a literal hellhole with Slave markets (Francis addressed this in a post fight speech). Continued with Bush's slaughter of muslims around the world and generally in bed with bankers and wall street. Only people saying Obama don't know anything but he's cute or looks like them.