• 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!

Who was the best president of the last ten

Who was the best

  • Total voters
    78
falcata said:
Ah I get the jist of what you're trying to say, but I'd like to make an adaption to it.

What you are saying is that Khrushchev wanted a level playing field. This could be achieved by with a status quo of missiles in Turkey and Cuba or with a absence of both. However the United States couldn't stand-by with Missiles a stone's throw away from Miami. So the only real end result would be mutual "demisslizing" of those areas.

If this is the case though would you say the Cuban missile crisis was actually no real crisis at all?

Actually if I'm not mistaken didn't we never actually take our missiles out of Turkey?
Click to expand...

The "Cuban Missile Crises" was real, we came extremely close to war.

JFK ordered the NATO missiles in Turkey to be removed, They were.

This caused a problem in NATO, JFK was not the commander of NATO and had no authority of issuing the order without involving the other NATO members.

>" On Saturday evening, after a day of tense discussions within the "ExComm" or Executive Committee of senior advisers, President Kennedy decided on a dual strategy—a formal letter to Khrushchev accepting the implicit terms of his October 26 letter (a U.S. non-invasion pledge in exchange for the verifiable departure of Soviet nuclear missiles), coupled with private assurances to Khrushchev that the United States would speedily take out its missiles from Turkey, but only on the basis of a secret understanding, not as an open agreement that would appear to the public, and to NATO allies, as a concession to blackmail. The U.S. president elected to transmit this sensitive message through his brother, Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy, who met in his office at the Justice Department with Soviet ambassador Anatoly Dobrynin... "<

The Cuban Missile Crisis, 1962: Anatomy of a Controversey
 
Xsnake1 said:
John F. Kennedy - 1961-1963
Lyndon B. Johnson - 1963-1969
Richard Nixon - 1969-1974
Gerald Ford - 1974-1977
Jimmy Carter - 1977-1981
Ronald Regan - 1981-1989
George Bush Sr. - 1989-1993
Bill Clinton - 1993-2001
George W. Bush - 2001-2009
Barack Obama - 2009-pres.
Click to expand...

LOL ... over 200 presidential scholars have Obama 15 overall ... and you have him last on this short list ... :lamo:doh
 
Xsnake1 said:
John F. Kennedy - 1961-1963
Lyndon B. Johnson - 1963-1969
Richard Nixon - 1969-1974
Gerald Ford - 1974-1977
Jimmy Carter - 1977-1981
Ronald Regan - 1981-1989
George Bush Sr. - 1989-1993
Bill Clinton - 1993-2001
George W. Bush - 2001-2009
Click to expand...
Barack Obama - 2009-pres.
Click to expand...




I have to say that even though he is one of the last ten George W Bush shouldn't even be on the list.

I'm not going to say that he's the worst ever, but he's mighty close to the bottom of the list.
 
haymarket said:
I will gladly take the eight years of peace and prosperity that the nation had under Clinton again and again and again.
Click to expand...

You'd take it, as would most, but you wouldn't get it if Clinton was president again and again and again.
 
APACHERAT said:
How cold anyone even consider JFK unless they have been indoctrinated in revisionism.

JFK's administration was one failure after another.

JFK signs off on the Bay of Pigs invasion rejecting former President Eisenhower's warnings and advice.

Allowing the Berlin Wall going up.

JFK giving Khrushchev exactly what he wanted during the Cuban Missile Crises.

Rejecting former President Eisenhower's strategy in Southeast Asia and JFK thinking he could fall back to the 17th parallel and stop Communist expansion there.

And JFK's biggest mistake of them all, was when he signed off on the CIA backed military coups of removing the President Diem regime from power in the Republic of Vietnam that went wrong and Diem was executed and from that day on America owned Vietnam, it became America's problem. The end game being, 58,000 American dead.
Click to expand...

You have to admit one good thing about Kennedy - he proved that a Democrat President could push for lower taxes and grow the economy - a lesson none of his Democrat successors have carried forward.
 
due to the economic times, which makes it a nonpolitical issue, but nice try
CanadaJohn said:
You have to admit one good thing about Kennedy - he proved that a Democrat President could push for lower taxes and grow the economy - a lesson none of his Democrat successors have carried forward.
Click to expand...
 
Captain Adverse said:
JFK was sworn into office on January 1, 1961. The Eisenhower Administration had already concocted a plan to invade Cuba using Cuban expatriates led the CIA “officers.” They fully expected to go for it if then Vice-President Nixon had been elected President. Once he lost to JFK the CIA spent Kennedy’s first two months in office convincing him of the effectiveness of the plan and that it would result in a general uprising which would require NO AMERICAN troops in support. That timing was of the essence.

Kennedy trusted Eisenhower and the CIA so he ordered the action on April 17, 1961; and two days later the rebels were all caught by the Cuban military...gee kinda reminds me of several subsequent mistakes by the CIA misleading Presidential policy; like the Shah’s Iran, and the WMD’s in Iraq.

Kennedy was not about to commit American troops to any invasion of Cuba. That might have led to real war in Europe with the Soviet Union. He did exactly what he said he would to the CIA, back a newly formed democratic Cuban government or try his best to get the rebels out.

As for the Cuban missile crisis? That was the first time a U.S. President stared down the nuclear armed Soviet Union and the Soviet's blinked first. Everything that came after was built on Kennedy's non-appeasement policy with the Soviet Union. Reagan and his "administration" stood on the shoulders of JFK. Without that "Liberal President" standing up during the Cuban Missile Crisis the Soviets wouldn't have worried about "Hard liner" Reagan at all. :twocents:
Click to expand...

More to the story, on the day JFK took the oath of office, Eisenhower informed JFK of the CIA plan to invade Cuba. Eisenhower never signed off on the plan. Eisenhower told JFK not to sign off on the Bay of Pigs invasion until there was a "popular" Cuban government in exile. Then if you sign off on the plan you must use U.S. military aircraft to control the air space over the beach and provide close air support for the invading forces. As usual JFK ignored Eisenhower's advice and relied on the advice of those Harvard educated buddies he always surrounded himself with known as "The Young and Brightest" who would also be responsible for getting us in a shooting war in Vietnam.
 
I'll take two of those three agains, but I would be comfortable with C. Christie. And it is still 38.7 months away. See why we need a 6-year term? I like two of them, not one. And then up the House to 3 years and have a better denominator.
CanadaJohn said:
You'd take it, as would most, but you wouldn't get it if Clinton was president again and again and again.
Click to expand...
 
NIMBY said:
due to the economic times, which makes it a nonpolitical issue, but nice try
Click to expand...

Government ALWAYS has more money than it actually needs to perform the functions it is mandated to perform. However, with more money comes wandering and wondering and governments then venture into areas they are not mandated to perform and thus they discover they need more money.

It is ALWAYS the right time to reduce taxes and tighten the belt and focus of government.
 
NIMBY said:
I'll take two of those three agains, but I would be comfortable with C. Christie. And it is still 38.7 months away. See why we need a 6-year term? I like two of them, not one. And then up the House to 3 years and have a better denominator.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't argue with that - the ability of your President to govern for the times and for the short-term future is hampered by their need to try to accomplish too much in too short a time and they become irrelevant far too quickly. Like great companies, great countries shouldn't need to shuffle the deck at the top just for something to do.
 
I voted Clinton, mostly due to his foreign policy - considered, moderate and effective - although I have to say that the name that came to mind first was Slim Pickens.
 
Wouldn't taxes eventually reach zero? How does that work North of the border? I would love to see Obama go toe-to-toe with Congress once a day when in session. Whenever that is. Mr. Can'tor? Can you hear me? Can you schedule more than 126 days next year? Please?
CanadaJohn said:
Government ALWAYS has more money than it actually needs to perform the functions it is mandated to perform. However, with more money comes wandering and wondering and governments then venture into areas they are not mandated to perform and thus they discover they need more money.

It is ALWAYS the right time to reduce taxes and tighten the belt and focus of government.
Click to expand...
 
Exactly. And we never hear people talk about how every other Country and Entity in this World can and does use this against us. And look at the economic trench, between terms. Hostages released to start a new term. Inability to overlap foreign policy, as we hear today with IKE/JFK.
CanadaJohn said:
I wouldn't argue with that - the ability of your President to govern for the times and for the short-term future is hampered by their need to try to accomplish too much in too short a time and they become irrelevant far too quickly. Like great companies, great countries shouldn't need to shuffle the deck at the top just for something to do.
Click to expand...
 
Andalublue said:
I voted Clinton, mostly due to his foreign policy - considered, moderate and effective.
Click to expand...
The day he rained down bombs on Iraq to distract from the impeachment hearings my belief in this country died
and there was the whole Yugoslavia thing
 
NIMBY said:
Wouldn't taxes eventually reach zero? How does that work North of the border? I would love to see Obama go toe-to-toe with Congress once a day when in session. Whenever that is. Mr. Can'tor? Can you hear me? Can you schedule more than 126 days next year? Please?
Click to expand...

No, taxes need not go to zero - taxes need only go low enough to cover the mandated responsibilities of a particular level of government. Both in your country and mine, we could be lowering taxes gradually for decades and still have more money coming in than is necessary, that's how over taxed we are at all levels.

I'll tell you what though, if we could get governments to agree to limit spending to mandated areas, I'd be in favor of keeping taxes at current levels until we pay off the deficits we've incurred and not leave them for our children and children's children. That we keep spending and keep racking up additional debt is criminal.
 
shrubnose said:
I have to say that even though he is one of the last ten George W Bush shouldn't even be on the list.

I'm not going to say that he's the worst ever, but he's mighty close to the bottom of the list.
Click to expand...

He didn't do a terrible job. He handled the war on terror well unlike a certain muslim (Obama)
 
CanadaJohn said:
No, taxes need not go to zero - taxes need only go low enough to cover the mandated responsibilities of a particular level of government. Both in your country and mine, we could be lowering taxes gradually for decades and still have more money coming in than is necessary, that's how over taxed we are at all levels.
Click to expand...
I believe our growth in population and technology precludes a decrease in the budget. I'll always refer back to Sen. Coburn's plan for now. Where are the jobs bills House? REAL jobs bills! No Trans. or Farm bills. Good one.
 
windowdressing said:
LOL ... over 200 presidential scholars have Obama 15 overall ... and you have him last on this short list ... :lamo:doh
Click to expand...

I have the list in chronological order. And Obama is terrible so his place makes sense for more reasons than chronological order
 
CanadaJohn said:
I'll tell you what though, if we could get governments to agree to limit spending to mandated areas, I'd be in favor of keeping taxes at current levels until we pay off the deficits we've incurred and not leave them for our children and children's children. That we keep spending and keep racking up additional debt is criminal.
Click to expand...

We've uselessly cut a million public sector jobs since the assclown repups came to town. What happened to trickle-down? More like torrential up since the 1980's. What about that $1 creating $1.7? Reaganomics = $17 trillion TAD
 
NIMBY said:
I believe our growth in population and technology precludes a decrease in the budget. I'll always refer back to Sen. Coburn's plan for now. Where are the jobs bills House? REAL jobs bills! No Trans. or Farm bills. Good one.
Click to expand...

Firstly, new growth in population should pay for itself without any increase in tax rates.

Secondly, technology is absolutely useless unless it makes things easier and less costly to perform so if technology is increasing the budget, something's wrong. Technology is great for businesses and starting new businesses - running a government should be simple, keep it that way.
 
CanadaJohn said:
You have to admit one good thing about Kennedy - he proved that a Democrat President could push for lower taxes and grow the economy - a lesson none of his Democrat successors have carried forward.
Click to expand...

JFK's agenda was good. He hated communist and socialist. Brother RFK was probably the biggest anti communist war hawk that ever lived.

But JFK was young and a weak President and the Soviets knew it. JFK refused to listen to his elders who were more experienced than he was. He kept making stupid decisions.

In 1960 the American people went to the polls and the issues weren't the economy or civil rights but who was more anti communist, Nixon or Kennedy ? JFK was elected.

The Kennedy Democrats of today are known as neoconservatives.

BTW: Do you know why LBJ ended up sending American combat ground forces to Vietnam ? He said that he believed that if he didn't RFK would call LBJ weak on stopping Communist expansion and would challenge him for the Democrat nomination in 68. Remember, back in 65 RFK was still a big time warhawk.
 
Xsnake1 said:
He didn't do a terrible job. He handled the war on terror well unlike a certain muslim
Click to expand...
(Obama)
Click to expand...




He did a terrible job.

He lost 3,000 Americans on 9/11, then he topped that by losing 4,500 US troops in Iraq which was no threat to the USA. That's just the dead, we'll be taking care of the wounded for a long time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom