American Politics Discussion Thread

[Mjmd]

@Jowy, there are options between “nothing” and “nuclear war”.  They aren’t jacking their own spending up for the heck of it.

@superdeath, because I hate corruption and he was the most corrupt President in history.

Darrell

Corrupt president and tax cuts for the wealthy! Good thing we haven't had anyone like that recently. To be fair to Harding, it doesn't sound like he was directly involved in a lot of it, but did turn a blind eye to or let people involved in off light. Bad yes, long term damaging, medium. Purposeful? Maybe some of it? I agree that 6-10 worst is probably a good place for him.

[superdeath]

Ya I need an explanation for Harding as well.

Wilson was a blatant racist, segregated the federal government causing tons of damage; worse than Johnson? No. Johnson was also working against the war that had just happened and allowed traitors to regain power. Violation of rights during war, not unprecedented. Messing up the peace process; plenty of blame to go around. Joining the war late, as someone from the "traitor state" most of the US didn't want to enter the war for a long time. Should we have entered earlier; probably, but he literally got reelected on keeping us out, so can't blame him for that too much.

his Wilsonian interventionism is what has brought (or been a major factor in bringing) the USA into basically every major conflict/war we have been in since. The best thing that ever happened to him was being in a coma so that his wife could basically be the president.

[superdeath]

@Jowy, there are options between “nothing” and “nuclear war”.  They aren’t jacking their own spending up for the heck of it.

@superdeath, because I hate corruption and he was the most corrupt President in history.

Darrell

RutherFRAUD B Hayes i would put as more corrupt..

[Mjmd]

I mean blame McKinley or either Roosevelt for American interventionalism. You can argue that US staying on world stage after WWII was needed though.... (although what we did you can very much critique)

[superdeath]

I mean blame McKinley or either Roosevelt for American interventionalism. You can argue that US staying on world stage after WWII was needed though.... (although what we did you can very much critique)

The video i posted proves that Wilson had more to do with it than either of those two. "Making the world safe for democracy" Was coined by him.

[Mjmd]

I mean the difference is he couldn't get it to stick right. The US population wanted to be isolationist, even though something like the league wasn't a bad idea. He was big on self determination, which is good, but England and France kept that from happening a lot. However, Spanish American war / peace treaty and us keeping the Philippines can easily be seen as the start of American imperialism.

[Miguelito]

Where does Bush II figure in this list?
Notable achievements:

1. Invaded and occupied two countries, one very much illegally, without having a plan what to do. Went about as terribleor worse than the critics expected, with hundreds of thousands dead.
   
2. Set up the economy to run into the worst crisis in 80 years.
   
3. Introduced practices of torture, abduction, assassination and so on. Besides the catastrophe for human rights it also tainted the US's image in the world badly, and serves as justification for all sorts of abuses elsewhere.
   
4. Did more than anyone to sabotage the fight against climate change when the chances were still much better. The science was clear since the early nineties, but the guy in power was an oil baron.
   
5. All the crises that seem to be plaguing the country till this day (speaking as an outside observer) seem to have gotten worse or at least not better under him - debt (national and private), healthcare, education, mass incarceration, public shootings, the antiquated political system, deindustrialization and worker disenfranchisement, ... ?
   

And that's just a top five that I pulled from my head.
Noting that he took the reins at the peak of American power and recognition. Also arguably cheated his way into office. Now if Trumpism ultimately ends in dictatorship or civil war (we don't know yet) you might argue that he was worse, we don't know yet, but otherwise I'd think Trump doesn't top the above. If he was better or worse than an 1860s president seems also rather irrelevant. Having him below Wilson, the president under whom the country won a world war, seems fanciful.

[superdeath]

Id put bush jr probably between 8th-12th worst. His leadership in his first term after the 9/11 bombings ect basically prevent him from being in top 5 worst, even with the katrina/wars.

Wilson being the president that we had when we helped win ww1 is basically irrelevant as he kept us out of the war until Russia had its revolution, and France/Britain were still going to win vs Germany without USA help, was just going to take a little bit longer. AND, his attitude of "America is above going to war" continued WHILE AT WAR.

I personally dont like ranking the last 30years or so of presidents due to them being recent. Rankings change, and recent presidents will have alot of bias towards how they were as presidents/affected the country. Take for example Woodrow Wilson. He was once ranked among our best because all that was taught in school was the 14points, and him wanting the League of Nations. Also WW1. Now that time has passed and people have begun to see him for the terrible human being and president that only won on a fluke (teddy and taft splitting the ticket) he has dropped a ton of ranks.

I dont have much bias to begin with because im not affiliated with either Democrats or Republicans, but i cannot comment on say, Trump or Obama's ranking because its too soon.

[Mjmd]

I mean with any there is context and comparison. To truly be way down the list you have to go above and beyond. People always want to say "most recent president of x party is the worst" with no historical context. So just going down your list.

1) US sticking its nose in where it belongs with no plan is bad. Sadly not a rare occurrence. Messing up a different countries reconstruction through negligence is different than purposefully messing up your own.
2) Presidents messing with various widgets on the economy ending poorly, also not a rare occurrence.
3) Having shitty human rights policies, has been done within our own borders. I know I've been praising Andrew Jackson for not starting a civil war, but he has Bush II beat easy here.
4) Its only that this particular crisis is so dire that might move this above normal "president being in an industries pocket"
5) Lot here, but again, not sure it rises to level of reinstating traitors or civil war happened on your watch.

Ya I mean again 2000 election a lot of Democrats would argue was stolen from them. Kerry did the right thing and conceded right after the supreme court ruling. I know its contentious to this day, but it was the right thing to do.

Bush II - I don't know. Somewhere in the bottom 15. Does he break into the 6-10 range; unsure. This was about the same range I had Trump in pre trying to overthrow the election. Again lot of Democrats were saying worst president ever, in reality he was just bottom 10-15. Edit: although saying that I might have to bump Harding into the same range which seems wrong, so maybe 6-10. Again, trying to overturn an election probably just puts you straight to bottom 3 if not bottom.

[Gustaran]

"Election Denying Primary Candidates Are Crying Fraud, Win Or Lose"

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/ele...n-or-lose/