View Poll Results: Was Grover Cleveland overall successful as president?

Voters
18. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    13 72.22%
  • No

    3 16.67%
  • 50/50

    2 11.11%
Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 33

Thread: Was Grover Cleveland generally successful as president or not?

  1. #1
    Mr. Professional
    Mensch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Last Seen
    08-24-17 @ 04:07 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    3,666
    Blog Entries
    2

    Was Grover Cleveland generally successful as president or not?


  2. #2
    User MajinLink's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    10-01-10 @ 11:22 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    15

    Re: Was Grover Cleveland generally successful as president or not?

    Really messed up with the Pullman strike

  3. #3
    Global Moderator
    I'm a Jedi Master, Yo

    CaptainCourtesy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:38 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    152,692

    Re: Was Grover Cleveland generally successful as president or not?

    Good President for the most part. No-nonsense. Tended to promote and assign because of merit, not patronage. Reduced government where appropriate. Improved the military (Navy especially). Reduced the tariff so the government wouldn't be taking in more money than it needed for operation. Sound economic policies... his repeal of the Sherman Silver Purchase Act helped to bring the economy back from the Panic of 1893. His position on the Pullman strike was Constitutionally sound. Though his opinions on civil rights (he did not support vigorous enforcement of the 15th Amendment) and on Native Americans would probably be seen as racist, today, they were probably appropriate for the time. Overall, one of our better Presidents of the late 19th-early 20th Centuries.
    "Never fear. Him is here" - Captain Chaos (Dom DeLuise), Cannonball Run

    ====||:-D

    Quote Originally Posted by Wiseone View Post
    This is what I hate about politics the most, it turns people in snobbish egotistical self righteous dicks who allow their political beliefs, partisan attitudes, and 'us vs. them' mentality, to force them to deny reality.

    Quote Originally Posted by Navy Pride View Post
    You can't paint everone with the same brush.......It does not work tht way.


    Quote Originally Posted by Wessexman View Post
    See with you around Captain we don't even have to make arguments, as you already know everything .
    Quote Originally Posted by CriticalThought View Post
    Had you been born elsewhere or at a different time you may very well have chosen a different belief system.
    Quote Originally Posted by ernst barkmann View Post
    It a person has faith they dont need to convince another of it, and when a non believer is not interested in listening to the word of the lord, " you shake the dust from your sandels and move on"

  4. #4
    Educator ronpaulvoter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Last Seen
    07-18-16 @ 04:25 PM
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    627

    Re: Was Grover Cleveland generally successful as president or not?

    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainCourtesy View Post
    Good President for the most part. No-nonsense. Tended to promote and assign because of merit, not patronage. Reduced government where appropriate. Improved the military (Navy especially). Reduced the tariff so the government wouldn't be taking in more money than it needed for operation. Sound economic policies... his repeal of the Sherman Silver Purchase Act helped to bring the economy back from the Panic of 1893. His position on the Pullman strike was Constitutionally sound. Though his opinions on civil rights (he did not support vigorous enforcement of the 15th Amendment) and on Native Americans would probably be seen as racist, today, they were probably appropriate for the time. Overall, one of our better Presidents of the late 19th-early 20th Centuries.
    He was one of the VERY BEST Presidents.

    I wish we had someone like him today.

  5. #5
    Mr. Professional
    Mensch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Last Seen
    08-24-17 @ 04:07 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    3,666
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Was Grover Cleveland generally successful as president or not?

    Quote Originally Posted by ronpaulvoter View Post
    He was one of the VERY BEST Presidents.

    I wish we had someone like him today.
    I agree. If anyone ever asks you when we'll have a libertarian president, tell them his name is Grover Cleveland.

  6. #6
    Advisor
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Soviet Technate
    Last Seen
    10-25-10 @ 06:29 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    359

    Re: Was Grover Cleveland generally successful as president or not?

    Grover had some good points, but he wasn't that great if you are coming from the perspective of the poor, the unlucky, and non-business community, He was an arch opponent of any type of governmental assistance, even when it was morally justified.

  7. #7
    Mr. Professional
    Mensch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Last Seen
    08-24-17 @ 04:07 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    3,666
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Was Grover Cleveland generally successful as president or not?

    Quote Originally Posted by Technocratic View Post
    Grover had some good points, but he wasn't that great if you are coming from the perspective of the poor, the unlucky, and non-business community, He was an arch opponent of any type of governmental assistance, even when it was morally justified.
    And when, exactly, is it justified (besides the obvious equal protection under the law, which Cleveland supported)?

    And how is it justified?

  8. #8
    Advisor
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Soviet Technate
    Last Seen
    10-25-10 @ 06:29 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    359

    Re: Was Grover Cleveland generally successful as president or not?

    Quote Originally Posted by ElijahGalt View Post
    And when, exactly, is it justified (besides the obvious equal protection under the law, which Cleveland supported)?

    And how is it justified?

    It's morally justified to provide assistance to those whose lives are destroyed by freak accidents or impoverished through systemic problems. Unless, of course, you're a Libertarian. In that case, the maxim is: "**** the poor, screw you, I got mine." A Libertarian has a naive, and very impractical concept of social ethics. They're applying an idealized Sociopathic Disorder to politics. I understand you, as a Libertarian, do not see the moral bankruptcy of your excessively individualist ethic. THat's okay. It's not your fault you were born that way. You just need help.

    The whole concept of redistribution of wealth is morally justified based on utilitarian grounds and for more practical reasons (social insurance against revolutions).

    Societies that do not help the impoverished, and actually increase the inequality levels, do not last very long, nor are they stable.
    Last edited by Technocratic; 10-02-10 at 08:53 PM.

  9. #9
    Mr. Professional
    Mensch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Last Seen
    08-24-17 @ 04:07 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    3,666
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Was Grover Cleveland generally successful as president or not?

    Quote Originally Posted by Technocratic View Post
    It's morally justified to provide assistance to those whose livelihoods are destroyed by freak accidents or systemic problems. Unless, of course, you're a Libertarian. In that case, it's "**** the poor, screw you, I got mine." The whole concept of redistribution of wealth is morally justified based on utilitarian grounds and for more practical reasons (social insurance against revolutions).

    Societies that do not help the impoverished, and actually increase the inequality levels, do not last very long, nor are they stable.
    In that case, a beggar in the street who steals food from the local convenient store should not be punished. Theft, no matter the perpetrator, is unethical. And redistributing wealth through the force of the government is theft.

    I don't believe those who meet misfortunes should be "screwed" anymore than you believe we should eat the rich. My idea is that local, private charities and developers should rebuild damaged cities and help those who have fallen victim to unpreventable disasters. The greatest organizations that do this are not run by government. And, who do you think rebuilt San Francisco after the 1906 Quake?

  10. #10
    Advisor
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Soviet Technate
    Last Seen
    10-25-10 @ 06:29 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    359

    Re: Was Grover Cleveland generally successful as president or not?

    Quote Originally Posted by ElijahGalt View Post
    In that case, a beggar in the street who steals food from the local convenient store should not be punished. Theft, no matter the perpetrator, is unethical. And redistributing wealth through the force of the government is theft.
    This is a typical Libertarian response, and it fails for the same reason it always does.

    1. Theft isn't always necessarily unethical. That's an absolutist Kantian assumption. For example, he wouldn't be morally wrong, unless there was no social support mechanism with greater scope that could avoid the nasty systematic issues of vigilantee justice. And theft in general of the government kind can yield benefits that outweigh the harms. Any proper ethic is a comparison of cost-benefit analysis, not silly absolute rules. The ethics of a problem rest in its consequences, not whether an action is of one type or another. One might say that allowing widespread vigilantee action such as this itself has negative consequences, thus requires punishment anyway, even if it were morally understandable in this specific instance. Likewise, government "theft" would have a justification as well, even if theft in general is wrong.


    2. Wealth redistribution isn't theft. That's an emotional term uses by Libertarians to poison the well. Theft is an legal construct. Taxation by definition isn't theft, because theft is the illegal removal of property. To claim taxes are theft, and therefore wrong, is nonsensical literally. You might as well say the DP is murder. It's not, because murder is a legal concept, and death penality doesn't meet the definition any more than taxes do.

    3. Even if we assumed the sensible position that theft in most cases is morally wrong, and that taxes are unethical, your argument has practical applicative problems. It collapses into hypocrisy unless you advocate complete Anarchy, as you must assume the use of theft in your terms to make any system of government work. You, and all "taxes are immoral theft" proponents already are theives, because you actaully support theft, only for the particular hobby horses and sacred cows you support. So cut the bull**** here. You aren't fooling anyone. According to your theory, you are a theif arguing for selective theft. You are not really against government theft. Only theft for reasons you don't like! Not only do you support the crime you accuse others of, you are complicit in its maintenence.

    4. Assuming taxes = theft and theft is generally wrong, it's quite clear regulated theft is better than total anarchy and a lack of tax-theft, to a degree. It creates a safer, happier, healthier, more stable society. This is different from allowing random theft without limits from vandals and vigilantees.



    I don't believe those who meet misfortunes should be "screwed" anymore than you believe we should eat the rich. My idea is that local, private charities and developers should rebuild damaged cities and help those who have fallen victim to unpreventable disasters. The greatest organizations that do this are not run by government. And, who do you think rebuilt San Francisco after the 1906 Quake?
    Private charity can easily be just as corrupt and inefficient and slow as government, not to mention entirely of inaequate volume to meet the need. It failed in the 19th century to make any significant impact, so there's little reason to assume it would do much else. Only government has the scope to alleviate any real problems.
    Last edited by Technocratic; 10-02-10 at 09:20 PM.

Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •