• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Best Modern President 1960 -

Meathead

Banned
Joined
Dec 2, 2011
Messages
1,880
Reaction score
474
Location
Prague, Czech Rep.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Thought it might be interesting. How the hell do you make a poll listing? Thought prompt would be automatic.
 
Last edited:
The best Federal President since 1960 clearly was Richard von Weizsäcker 1984-1994, with Gustav Heinemann (1969-1974) as close second.
 
President Lindberg

americas_blackest_presidents_5.jpg
 
It depends an awful lot on criteria being used for evaluation. For instance, if we're looking at the most beneficent president since 1960, cases could be made for Nelson Mandela or Sarvapeli Radhakrishnan (who might also win on criteria of intelligence). If we're looking for the President who best advocated for their nation, then I would nominate Vladimir Putin, who has been playing a very deep game after leaving the post of prime minister. He might also win if we're looking for who was most politically adept.

The only real president we've had here in the U.S. during that time was shot in Dallas (perhaps for trying to be a real President, though I'll refrain from further discussion). The rest have been straw-men and generally have been rather lackluster.

I assumed the poll was meant to discuss politicial presidents. If we got into corporate presidents, or presidents of other organizations, more names would have to be thrown into the hat.
 
It depends an awful lot on criteria being used for evaluation. For instance, if we're looking at the most beneficent president since 1960, cases could be made for Nelson Mandela or Sarvapeli Radhakrishnan (who might also win on criteria of intelligence). If we're looking for the President who best advocated for their nation, then I would nominate Vladimir Putin, who has been playing a very deep game after leaving the post of prime minister. He might also win if we're looking for who was most politically adept.

The only real president we've had here in the U.S. during that time was shot in Dallas (perhaps for trying to be a real President, though I'll refrain from further discussion). The rest have been straw-men and generally have been rather lackluster.

I assumed the poll was meant to discuss political presidents. If we got into corporate presidents, or presidents of other organizations, more names would have to be thrown into the hat.
One hell of a good response, IMO.
Ask a generalized question and receive a "general" answer...
Its a large world out there....thanks to the internet.
 
One hell of a good response, IMO.
Ask a generalized question and receive a "general" answer...
Its a large world out there....thanks to the internet.
Yeah, well if I had figure out how to do the poll bit it would have been obvious (to most at least).
 
Kind of depends on what you mean by 'Best'. Best for whom? For their country? For the World? For their supporters? How are you going to introduce a degree of objectivity that would allow presidents from different political cultures, different eras and facing widely different challenges to be compared. If you are just looking for a political beauty contest then the clear front-runner would be Nelson Mandela.

Perhaps you'd like to frame your assumptions a little more clearly before we vote.
 
David Palmer.
 
David Palmer.
never heard of 'im....lol...lol
But this ignorance of mine is but passing...
I watch little commercial TV due to all the excessive commercials.
TCM is much better... or PBS..
 
Last edited:
NONE. To imply that there was a "Best" POTUS since 1960 there has to have been a Good POTUS since 1960 and I would suggest that is not true. In fact there hasn't been a Good POTUS since prior to 1860.
 
Kind of depends on what you mean by 'Best'. Best for whom? For their country? For the World? For their supporters? How are you going to introduce a degree of objectivity that would allow presidents from different political cultures, different eras and facing widely different challenges to be compared. If you are just looking for a political beauty contest then the clear front-runner would be Nelson Mandela.

Perhaps you'd like to frame your assumptions a little more clearly before we vote.
An "ugly contest" would be any of the conservative candidates, running in America..
 
Barack Obama. He has the exact "look" America needs to solve its problems. It was he who had the experience in 2008, not Sarah Palin. He is also the author of much "change" in America. Only a brain dead knuckle dragging bigot would choose anyone other than this beloved human being.
 
Last edited:
Tigger said:
NONE. To imply that there was a "Best" POTUS since 1960 there has to have been a Good POTUS since 1960 and I would suggest that is not true. In fact there hasn't been a Good POTUS since prior to 1860.

Well...I would challenge the factual accuracy of your claim, but I'm not going to, as I suspect it wouldn't lead to anything good. I would like to point out, however, that "best" and "good" are not necessarily related categories. Consider: There's no "good" place to be shot, from the perspective of the person being shot and who is trying to survive the shooting. But there are certainly "best" places to be shot. I'd much rather be shot in the love handle, or in a fleshy part of a leg or arm, than in the groin, or the central mass, or the head. Perhaps the best place to be shot would be the love handle, and second best would probably be something like the extreme periphery of the upper arm.

Similarly, there is no "good" flu virus from the point of view of the host. But there are certain strains far less virulent and debilitating than others.

So if you believe there have been no good Presidents since before 1860, you do not necessarily have to believe there isn't a best president since then. If your claim is that, in terms of quality, they're all completely indistinguishable, then of course there wouldn't be a best. But that seems like an awfully difficult position to back up.
 
If we're talking about US Presidents, I pick Clinton, with Bush sr. as a close second. Not sure about LBJ, though, I don't know enough about him. Maybe he gets honorable mention for the civil rights program.

Why? Kennedy is overrated and did not have the time to do anything extraordinary, although I really like his Berlin speech. Nixon disqualified himself with Watergate. I don't remember Ford doing anything extraordinary. And while I don't understand the bitter resentment towards Carter, and would not say he was such a bad President after all, he certainly wasn't very good either.

Reagan may be noteable for getting the economy up and running again, but was hardly the fiscal genious some paint him to be -- he too was into excessive spending next to the cutting. Also, Reagan was too deep into ugly Realpolitik excesses, such as Iran Contra and arming Saddam against Iran, arming the Taliban precursors in Afghanistan against the USSR, which created so much trouble later, which places him far, very far from the "best" label. Without Reagan's policies, Bush jr. wouldn't have had much to do, from 9/11 to Iraq. Reagan messed up, and Bush jr. later had to do the cleaning (and failed too).

Bush jr. was an abomination on all fields. He did severe damage to political discourse and political culture and failed on almost everything he did, leaving the country broken into pieces and deeply divided. He was the President of human right violations, trigger happy military adventures and economic suicide. Bush jr. played away the surplus he inherited from Clinton, totally in the pockets of big oil and weapon business. He probably was easily the worst of them all. Obama inherited the shattered pieces that once were a prospering country from Bush, restored some minimum of basic sanity, but beyond that, has not had a chance yet to prove how good he is. So let's wait and see how Obama will make in the next months or even next four years. He's still to fresh for a fair estimation.

This leaves Bush sr. and Clinton. I'm biased in favor of Bush sr., because he proved to be a good friend of my country, by supporting Germany in the exciting days between 11/9/89 and 10/3/1990, allowing a peaceful reunification. He also showed Saddam the limits, without screwing it up like his son did. And Clinton -- he's first, because there is not much bad that comes to mind when I think of him. Sure, the Lewinsky stuff, but I don't really care about that -- and he really did a very reasonable economic policy, leaving an almost balanced budget to Bush jr., who all played it away. Clinton was not a warmonger, but no wimp either, he pushed us Europeans to actions in case of humanitarian disasters such as the war in Yugoslavia, but not easy-handedly, but when all other options had failed.

So it's Clinton and Bush sr as close second.
 
Last edited:
NONE. To imply that there was a "Best" POTUS since 1960 there has to have been a Good POTUS since 1960 and I would suggest that is not true. In fact there hasn't been a Good POTUS since prior to 1860.

This is amazing but I partly agree with you minus the things about 1860.

The last really great president we had was FDR and Truman was very good as well. I would place a tie between Eisenhower and Clinton for the best of the bunch since then but both had glaring weaknesses that hurt the nation - Ike with his timidity about Civil Rights after the Brown decision postponed much of the pain until after he was gone. Clinton signing NAFTA and other deregulatory moves like the repeal of Glass-Steagal which have come back to bite us in the ass bigtime. You cannot judge the current president as the record is not done playing.

JFK was not in long enough to do much either way.
LBJ had Viet Nam.
Nixon continued Viet Nam and then there was that Watergate business which disgraced the office.
Ford had the disgraceful Nixon pardon.
Carter was weak and ineffective and the economy tanked.
Reagan started the love affair with deficits and a thirty year slide in the wrong direction in tax policy.
The 2 Bushes - the least said the better.

Just not a great one in the bunch.
 
Thought it might be interesting. How the hell do you make a poll listing? Thought prompt would be automatic.

Either Bush Senior or Carter. Bush because he brought Israel (kicking and screaming) to the table at Oslo and actually did cut support to dictatorships like the Philippines (leading to the downfall of the Marcos dictatorship) and Carter due to a similar drawdown of support for unpleasant regimes and organisations across the world (though its a shame that when he told the CIA to cease support for the Taliban, they didnt do so)
 
Barack Obama. He has the exact "look" America needs to solve its problems. It was he who had the experience in 2008, not Sarah Palin. He is also the author of much "change" in America. Only a brain dead knuckle dragging bigot would choose anyone other than this beloved human being.

I don't know, that Reagan implemented cap and trade (twice), created amnesty for illegal immigrants, raised taxes, and worked towards disarming our nuclear arsenal...

Supported terrorists, though. That's a black mark.
 
Barack Obama. He has the exact "look" America needs to solve its problems. It was he who had the experience in 2008, not Sarah Palin. He is also the author of much "change" in America. Only a brain dead knuckle dragging bigot would choose anyone other than this beloved human being.

Yes, we all love that "hope and change", don't we?

I know you're joking, just so you know I don't think you are crazy.
 
This is amazing but I partly agree with you minus the things about 1860.

The last really great president we had was FDR and Truman was very good as well. I would place a tie between Eisenhower and Clinton for the best of the bunch since then but both had glaring weaknesses that hurt the nation - Ike with his timidity about Civil Rights after the Brown decision postponed much of the pain until after he was gone. Clinton signing NAFTA and other deregulatory moves like the repeal of Glass-Steagal which have come back to bite us in the ass bigtime. You cannot judge the current president as the record is not done playing.

JFK was not in long enough to do much either way.
LBJ had Viet Nam.
Nixon continued Viet Nam and then there was that Watergate business which disgraced the office.
Ford had the disgraceful Nixon pardon.
Carter was weak and ineffective and the economy tanked.
Reagan started the love affair with deficits and a thirty year slide in the wrong direction in tax policy.
The 2 Bushes - the least said the better.

Just not a great one in the bunch.

Ford's pardon was both necessary and courageous. Ford knew it would cost him the election and he did it to heal the country. Carter was the worst in terms of efficiency and achievement. LBJ was the worst in terms of what he achieved. Obama is on his way to surpassing Carter as the least efficient and LBJ if his idiotic health care is not stricken by the USSC
 
Ford's pardon was both necessary and courageous. Ford knew it would cost him the election and he did it to heal the country. Carter was the worst in terms of efficiency and achievement. LBJ was the worst in terms of what he achieved. Obama is on his way to surpassing Carter as the least efficient and LBJ if his idiotic health care is not stricken by the USSC

I strongly suspect - and someday it may come out - that the pardon was a condition of the Nixon resignation and Ford agreed to it going in. It spit in the face of the concept that no man is above the law. I have no problem with Nixon going to trial and a verdict rendered and then a pardon issued if one was needed. But the rule of law needed to run its full completed course and that was aborted by Ford.

btw - I actually like Ford a great deal. If any member is near Grand Rapids, Michigan - his library and museum is a wonderful place to visit and you walk away with a great respect for the total career of the man. It is well worth a visit.

Turtle - you and I agree on Carter being a failure. LBJ could have achieved true greatness but was done in by Viet Nam.

As for Obama, I never decide who wins the game in the third inning.
 
JFK didn't have time to do anything, but the US National currency might have prevented today's banking problem, and he was the first to have the CIA work against him. LBJ and civil rights was a real stroke, but didn't stop the Vietnam War. Nixon's overture to China was a real stroke and he also realized the CIA was working against him. Ford , mediocre at best. Carter, sabotaged from within, by both Republicans and CIA, tried to mitigate Global Warming and you never doubted his sincerity and honesty. Reagan, sock puppet, deficits, ship jobs overseas, absentee management of the intelligence services or else inept. Bush 1 had to be behind Iran Contra and maybe much more because this is the man who controlled the CIA. Clinton seemed effective, but still no jobs, but the eight year economy was real good and he tried to whack OBL.. Bush 2 screwed up everything he touched and he touched everything. Obama, at least he got one pick on the Court, but the Libya deal is just wrong. The bankers owe him, so he'll get a second term. Money talks. So for me, I like Carter's behavior.
 
NONE. To imply that there was a "Best" POTUS since 1960 there has to have been a Good POTUS since 1960 and I would suggest that is not true. In fact there hasn't been a Good POTUS since prior to 1860.

... lol yeah. I figured this would be a date you disliked quite a bit.
 
Back
Top Bottom