• 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 should be added to Mount Rushmore?

Would you ad anyone else?

  • Franklin Roosevelt

    Votes: 12 28.6%

  • Ronald Reagan

    Votes: 10 23.8%

  • John F. Kennedy

    Votes: 4 9.5%

  • Dwight D. Eisenhower

    Votes: 3 7.1%

  • Other

    Votes: 18 42.9%
  • Total voters
    42
Bigfoot 88

Bigfoot 88

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 16, 2011
Messages
2,027
Reaction score
1,169
Location
Georgia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Or should it stay the same?

Just to be fair, I will include two Republicans and two Democrats in the poll, along with an other category.
 
Facts About Mount Rushmore

The four presidents carved in the mountain are George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Theodore Roosevelt, and Abraham Lincoln.

Thomas Jefferson was originally started on George Washington's right. However, after 18 months they realized that it was not working. Jefferson's face was dynamited off and carved on the other side.

It took 14 years to complete Mount Rushmore.

No one died while building Mount Rushmore.

The sculpture cost $989,992.32 to build.

There is a cave behind the carving called the "Hall of Records." It was intended to house the story of Mount Rushmore but was never completed due to lack of funding.
Click to expand...

Mount Rushmore - Facts About Mount Rushmore

It was intended to be a tourist attraction, but I am not sure how that is working out for the state. I wouldn't want to go there just to see Mount Rushmore...
 
Out of that list? Ike. WWII general and had a pretty decent run at president.
 
I voted other just because I don't see any point in changing it.
 
Just leave it the way it is.
 
Well if they were to put someone up there.. Either FDR or JFK...
 
If you were to add another president it should be Calvin Coolidge. After all, he is the one who fought to make it happen.

However, I'd prefer no additions be made.
 
Last edited:
No one. I've been there and it's ...... majestic. It's perfect the way it is.
 
SheWolf said:
Mount Rushmore - Facts About Mount Rushmore

It was intended to be a tourist attraction, but I am not sure how that is working out for the state. I wouldn't want to go there just to see Mount Rushmore...
Click to expand...

That's not the only thing in SD. Custer State Park is beautiful and a great place to go camping, fishing, hiking, etc. They have numerous museums and a great train ride that takes you from one town to another. So you can start in Hill City (perhaps have a hotel there) and ride the train to Keystone to shop or go to museums. Then catch the train when you're done back to your hotel. I love it there.
 
Same...no changes. What purpose would it serve? Its like painting in Waldo behind the Mona Lisa.
 
By the way, they have a mock old west cowboy shootout in Hill City every night. :)
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
He was a pretty good president, not really partisan, more of a "maintain" things rather than the highly partisan "bold changes" type of platform.
Click to expand...

I agree; I think he was a good president, not a bad one but not "great" either. However I think the Presidents that qualify as "great," including the ones that are already enshrined on Mt. Rushmore, would likely fail your "bold changes" criteria.
 
StillBallin75 said:
I agree; I think he was a good president, not a bad one but not "great" either. However I think the Presidents that qualify as "great," including the ones that are already enshrined on Mt. Rushmore, would likely fail your "bold changes" criteria.
Click to expand...

Most likely.

I typically view the greatest presidents as those who were not interested in taking a highly partisan platform of changing things (supposedly) for the better.

Grover Cleveland was a great president, but doesn't get much acclaim.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Most likely.

I typically view the greatest presidents as those who were not interested in taking a highly partisan platform of changing things (supposedly) for the better.

Grover Cleveland was a great president, but doesn't get much acclaim.
Click to expand...

Interesting take.

Leaders who maintain the status guo generally aren't seen as "great."
 
Lincoln breached the constitution and should be removed

The same for Teddy. None of the people in the poll deserve to be replacements.
 
Henrin said:
Lincoln breached the constitution and should be removed

The same for Teddy. None of the people in the poll deserve to be replacements.
Click to expand...

Teddy certain seemed to care more about his image as a tough guy, than actually managing the government, as it was intended.
The public eats that crap up and that's why he's remembered so fondly.
 
I think if everyone shelved their political bent...we could see that the presidents may have been more or less effective or more in line with a certain ideology, but were all good men in their own ways. In reverse order, I believe Bush was as honorable and sincere a president as they come. Agree or disagree with the wars, he advanced the war on AIDS in Africa providing more support for that country than all others combined, he presided over the rebuilding following two horrible tragedies, and enacted prescription pill programs that he believed was the right thing to do. Clinton was an effective leader and worked well with a republican led congress to do good things for the country. He took a principled stand in Bosnia. Bush Sr did an effective job of rallying the world against Saddam in the first GW. Reagans mere presence and personality helped the US recover from a dismal 20 year span of war and economic misery. Carter in his heart (feelings towards jews aside) was a good man. Ford was the perfect fall guy...his following Nixon guaranteed there was no way he would ever be elected president, but he managed to transition the country from VietNam, Nixon, and Watergate. Nixon ended VietNam and attempted to open effective relationships with China. He has been described as a total prick in person but a good foreign policy president. Johnson...that poor bastard...what are you supposed to do when you get served up VietNam on a platter?

Point being...every president had their strengths and weaknesses. For every anonymous internet blogger that attacks a presidents inteligence or presidency...well...just remember you are doing it from the safety of moms basement. We'll see what you actually manage to accomplish in your own life.

We have no saints. I can see no reason to change Rushmore. And if we did, they should stand alone somewhere.
 
Last edited:
StillBallin75 said:
I'm not anti-Ike, but what exactly makes Eisenhower so special?
Click to expand...

Kept unemployment and inflation low, maintained a balanced budget. Interstate highway system, fight against spread of Communism, civil rights.

Pretty well rounded.
 
Mount Rushmore has nothing to do with glorifying great presidents. It has to do with glorifying expansionism, imperialism and the subjugation of peoples. If I was a President, I'd be insulted to have my face up there. It's a monument to ethnocentrism.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom