• 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 US President

Who Was the Best US President?

  • Abraham Lincoln

    Votes: 15 19.0%

  • Franklin Roosevelt

    Votes: 20 25.3%

  • George Washington

    Votes: 9 11.4%

  • Thomas Jefferson

    Votes: 5 6.3%

  • Theodore Roosevelt

    Votes: 4 5.1%

  • Woodrow Wilson

    Votes: 1 1.3%

  • Andrew Jackson

    Votes: 2 2.5%

  • Harry Truman

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Lyndon Johnson

    Votes: 1 1.3%

  • Other (please list below)

    Votes: 22 27.8%
  • Total voters
    79
TheDemSocialist said:
Yea but history shows us that it never fell threw and was struck down..
So that is a excuse that does not apply here..



Sure...

Just like its FDR's fault at Yalta.. :roll:

Anything else?
Click to expand...

This sentiment was exacerbated by the Great Depression. In 1935-36, the Court struck down eight of FDR's New Deal programs, including the National Recovery Act (NRA) and the Agricultural Adjustment Act (AAA). Public antijudicial sentiment intensified; many critics questioned the constitutionality of the concept of judicial review itself. As a result of this reaction, several constitutional amendments were introduced into Congress in 1936, including one that would require a two-thirds vote of the Court whenever an act of Congress was declared unconstitutional; another that would permit Congress to revalidate federal laws previously declared unconstitutional by repassing them with a two-thirds vote of both houses, and even one that would abolish altogether the Court's power to declare federal laws unconstitutional.
Click to expand...

Constitutional Issues - Separation of Powers
 
TurtleDude said:
actually FDR's New Deal nonsense was struck down in the first major ruling on it in
Click to expand...
cool one part of the new deal..

FDR got a huge victory in 1936 and buoyed by that he threatened to pack the court figuring with his popularity he could get awe with it.
Click to expand...
Yea he tried and the bill was struck down..........
So.. Whats your point here?
It got struck down so he could do noting...


No excuse-facts- I don't think you want to argue constitutional law and history with me
Click to expand...
Ohh ahh im scared...
But still how does this make FDR's policies a failure or bad?


and read up on Yalta-many analysts conclude FDR was too senile to figure out what Stalin was up to
Click to expand...
I have...
 
TheDemSocialist said:
cool one part of the new deal..


Yea he tried and the bill was struck down..........
So.. Whats your point here?
It got struck down so he could do noting...



Ohh ahh im scared...
But still how does this make FDR's policies a failure or bad?



I have...
Click to expand...

it was bad because it violated the constitution as it was intended. I understand socialists oppose the constitution being correctly interpreted because such an interpretation would stem the stench of socialism
 
TurtleDude said:
it was bad because it violated the constitution as it was intended. I understand socialists oppose the constitution being correctly interpreted because such an interpretation would stem the stench of socialism
Click to expand...

I am not a socialist. What would you like undone or redone here. How would you fix this situation where it would work in today's economy and work for the current needs of society regrading the evils that FDR wrought.
 
Connery said:
I am not a socialist. What would you like undone or redone here. How would you fix this situation where it would work in today's economy and work for the current needs of society regrading the evils that FDR wrought.
Click to expand...


1) the commerce clause would not be used to regulate firearms, ban weed etc. Claiming that stuff that once moved in interstate commerce can be regulated by the federal government long after it has been shipped is an abomination to the tenth amendment.

2) Wickard v. Filburn struck down. Saying the government could prevent someone from growing wheat for his own use is another abomination. No wickard-no Obamacare.

we don't need federal gun control or a federal ban on weed. we don't need Obamacare.

Now you do raise a good point. Americans have become addicted to much of the crap passed by the FDR administration (social security for example) and getting rid of much of the nonsense would cause problems. But that is no reason to claim the actions were legitimate to begin with
 
TurtleDude said:
1) the commerce clause would not be used to regulate firearms, ban weed etc. Claiming that stuff that once moved in interstate commerce can be regulated by the federal government long after it has been shipped is an abomination to the tenth amendment.
Click to expand...

Thank you for answering.

I see your point here. I have a hard time myself with the idea that an all encompassing hand reaches into that which would be within the state's jurisdiction and preview; if the guidelines were adhered to.

2) Wickard v. Filburn struck down. Saying the government could prevent someone from growing wheat for his own use is another abomination. No wickard-no Obamacare.

we don't need federal gun control or a federal ban on weed. we don't need Obamacare.
Click to expand...

This again is problematic because it forces economic issues to be decided by the courts and compels the individual to spend their own money on that which they can supply for themselves.

Now you do raise a good point. Americans have become addicted to much of the crap passed by the FDR administration (social security for example) and getting rid of much of the nonsense would cause problems. But that is no reason to claim the actions were legitimate to begin with
Click to expand...
It is more than Americans it is the economy as those who are recipients of these funds stimulate the economy through spending. The legality of which has long since been forgotten and more or less swept under the rug.
 
Bork terrified the left because he said if precedent was based on bad constitutional reasoning or faulty logic it should be overturned. Most of the latter New Deal decisions were both
 
TurtleDude said:
the least educated people are also more likely to vote dem. I guess the lesson is that those who want to rule people and those who want to be ruled want big government
the former because they think they will run it, the latter because they think it will take care of them
Click to expand...

The whole small government = Republican, big government = Democrat meme is just a right wing bumper sticker. It isn't real. Obviously. The Republican party wants a much bigger military. They want a government that is much more involved in people's personal lives- deciding who people can marry and which pregnancies should be carried to term and whatnot. The difference isn't big vs. small it is that Democrats want a government that is bigger on the economic side, smaller on the social and military sides. Republicans want a government that is bigger on the military and social sides and smaller on the economic side. You already knew that though.
 
ARealConservative said:
I like liberty more then democracy.
Click to expand...

Right.. so that liberty down in Florida where the governor is trying to exclude people before they even have a chance to vote.... Is that the type of liberty you are all for.. or how about you explain to me exactly what type you are for?

Do you even know wtf liberty means? I sometimes wonder with conservatives.. I think they assume that liberty means it only applies to them...

Via Wikipedia:

Liberty refers to the ability of human beings to have agency (control over their own actions). There are different conceptions of liberty, which articulate the relationship of individuals to society in different ways, including some which relate to life under a "social contract" or to existence in a "state of nature", and some which see the active exercise of freedom and rights as essential to liberty. Understanding liberty involves how we imagine the roles and responsibilities of the individual in society in relationship to conceptions of free will and determinism, which involves the larger domain of metaphysics.
Individualist and classical liberal conceptions of liberty typically consist of the freedom of individuals from outside compulsion or coercion, also known as negative liberty. This conception of liberty, which coincides with the Libertarian point-of-view, suggests that people should, must, and ought to behave according to their own free will, and take responsibility for their actions, while in contrast, Social liberal conceptions of (positive liberty) liberty place an emphasis upon social structure and agency and is therefore directed toward ensuring egalitarianism.
In feudal societies, a "liberty" was an area of allodial land in which the rights of the ruler, or monarch, had been waived.
 
Last edited:
TurtleDude said:
it was bad because it violated the constitution as it was intended. I understand socialists oppose the constitution being correctly interpreted because such an interpretation would stem the stench of socialism
Click to expand...

Yes or course we think that the Constitution is just a pos piece of paper... Why do you think that TD?
 
TheDemSocialist said:
How did he make it worse? Specifics please...
Click to expand...

I snipped all your idiocy because frankly, arguing the merits of FDR, or economics in general with an admitted socialist is futile.

he is to blame for our 15 trillion dollar debt because it was his actions that made future constitutional amendments unnecessary. his expansion of the commerce clause made it so the feds will never again be limited by what they wish to do. Thanks to him, the federal government put out their open for business sign and the lobbyists have been lining up ever since.
 
OnWisconsin said:
Liberty refers to the ability of human beings to have agency (control over their own actions).
Click to expand...

voting certainly doesn't give me control over my actions. you annoying progressives continue to use your vote to control more and more of my actions in the economic sphere while the annoying social conservatvies use their vote to control more of my actions in the social sphere.

so as I first stated, I cherish liberty over democracy. Democracy can rightly be described as two wolves and a sheep deciding on dinner.
 
teamosil said:
The whole small government = Republican, big government = Democrat meme is just a right wing bumper sticker. It isn't real. Obviously. The Republican party wants a much bigger military. They want a government that is much more involved in people's personal lives- deciding who people can marry and which pregnancies should be carried to term and whatnot. The difference isn't big vs. small it is that Democrats want a government that is bigger on the economic side, smaller on the social and military sides. Republicans want a government that is bigger on the military and social sides and smaller on the economic side. You already knew that though.
Click to expand...

most of that involves state vs federal powers. military is an obvious federal power. income redistribution and other attempts to gain power by creating "fairness" is not
gay marriage is not a federal matter, nor is abortion
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Yes or course we think that the Constitution is just a pos piece of paper... Why do you think that TD?
Click to expand...

because people with your philosophy crap all over it
 
I became of age to vote for Presidents in 1967, you still had to be 21 to vote then...For all the presidents in my lifetime that ive been able to vote for, I reluctantly have to say Reagan. Reason: Jimmy Carter had this country in such a deep depression, the worst depression Ive ever experienced. With allowing the hostage Crisis to go on for over a year and after months of doing nothing authorizes a poorly planned failed rescue attempt. Fights and murders over GASOLINE, gas lines 4 blocks long and only being able to buy gas on an ODD or EVEN day depending on the last digit of your license plate. Reagan gave us back our sense of Patriotism and Lifted the veil of depression off the country, by ending the hostage crisis immediately upon taking office...now because of his lifting that depression and gaining the american peoples admiration...it allowed him to screw the working class for the next 7 yrs non stop....
 
See avatar at left for my votes. :)

TurtleDude said:
He was a great president for those of you who want to destroy this nation and turn it into another Eurosocialist Greece
Click to expand...
Comparing the US to Greece is like comparing an Abrams to a Tonka. :lamo
 
lpast said:
it allowed him to screw the working class for the next 7 yrs non stop....
Click to expand...

and only a year ago this person claimed to be conservative. bwahahaha
 
SgtRock said:
Isn't it strange that the President who founded the Democratic Party was a genocidal murderer of indigenous people and the President who was responsible for freeing the slaves was a Republican?
Click to expand...
You can't really compare "ancient" political parties that way - unless you're simply noting the way they have switched sides since the 1960's. :shrug:
 
MoSurveyor said:
You can't really compare "ancient" political parties that way - unless you're simply noting the way they have switched sides since the 1960's. :shrug:
Click to expand...

You can’t claim any sides were switched as the radical republicans weren’t for the incorporation of the bill of rights as we know it today and certainly would not of been in favor of the civil rights legislation that stripped previously held employer rights
 
TurtleDude said:
it was bad because it violated the constitution as it was intended. I understand socialists oppose the constitution being correctly interpreted because such an interpretation would stem the stench of socialism
Click to expand...
And, of course, SCOTUS doesn't "correctly interpret" the constitution - you do. LOL!
 
ARealConservative said:
You can’t claim any sides were switched as the radical republicans weren’t for the incorporation of the bill of rights as we know it today and certainly would not of been in favor of the civil rights legislation that stripped previously held employer rights
Click to expand...
:yawn: ...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom