Find and be included in our regional map here!
| Welcome to Democratic Socialist Assembly. We hope that you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means that you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features that you can't use. If you join our community (register) in the Democratic Socialist Assembly, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
| American Presidents; The good, the bad, and the ugly | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: 12 Nov 2014, 09:56 (332 Views) | |
| Borq | 12 Nov 2014, 09:56 Post #1 |
|
"Spokesperson"
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Since this seems to be of interest to our Omerican residents and not only to them, let's have a discussion about which presidents should be considered the best, and why. Also, why some presidents, even though remembered by everyone, should never ever be included on a list of good presidents. For us non-Americans, this could serve as a history lesson. We surely aren't taught in school the names of any American presidents, except maybe in the contest of Americans wanting (for no good reason) to break away from their rightful European rulers ![]() So, please, feel free to share your knowledge. Also, in fairness to the scientific approach, and because we're in the Information Collective forum, it would not hurt if any claims would be accompanied by a reliable source. |
![]() |
|
| Guertonia | 12 Nov 2014, 11:29 Post #2 |
|
"Representative"
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Well since you insist, I would be hopeful that LBJ would be pretty high on that list. Although the Great Society was kind of a flop in terms of execution, it was one of the more socialist-like policies to come out of the White House since the New Deal and the greatest thing about it was that LBJ did it knowing fully that if he tried it he would lose the southern vote...one of the few programs enacted to better society and not the advancement on ones own career. |
|
Minister of Domestic Affairs of the 13th, 14th, 15th Cabinet Minister of Foreign Affairs of the 18th Cabinet | |
![]() |
|
| Terlibe | 12 Nov 2014, 20:08 Post #3 |
|
"House Chairman"
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
One thing I did like about LBJ is that he didn't run for a second term. Although a part of me thinks he may have had a hand the Kennedy Assassination. As for Kennedy, I think, if he had more time, he would be remembered as one of the greats. Aside from his personal life, I suppose. |
![]() |
|
| Guertonia | 13 Nov 2014, 00:28 Post #4 |
|
"Representative"
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Who didnt assassinate Kennedy? And I dont think he was allowed to run for a second term. If im not mistaken when you inherit the office as vp the piece of term you serves counts as your 1st no matter how long but I could be wrong |
|
Minister of Domestic Affairs of the 13th, 14th, 15th Cabinet Minister of Foreign Affairs of the 18th Cabinet | |
![]() |
|
| Borq | 13 Nov 2014, 09:54 Post #5 |
|
"Spokesperson"
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Here's some easy reading on the Great Society and on LBJ: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Society http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyndon_B._Johnson |
![]() |
|
| Lemur Isles | 13 Nov 2014, 21:55 Post #6 |
![]()
Charter Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Lincoln was the first and last 'good' president. |
| Former Secretary General | |
![]() |
|
| Guertonia | 15 Nov 2014, 23:04 Post #7 |
|
"Representative"
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
What makes him "good?" |
|
Minister of Domestic Affairs of the 13th, 14th, 15th Cabinet Minister of Foreign Affairs of the 18th Cabinet | |
![]() |
|
| Lemur Isles | 16 Nov 2014, 01:07 Post #8 |
![]()
Charter Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
To elaborate (just a little) further, all of the presidents up to Abraham Lincoln did nothing to challenge the slavocracy in the South. Lincoln, on the other hand, represented the radical liberal wing of the Northern industrialists at the time. In that way, he was an agent for progressivism, finally uniting the United States with a strong central government, ending chattel slavery in favour of wage labour, extended democratic rights to all. In short, he brought the bourgeois revolution, which had started with independence from England, to completion. http://socialistparty.ie/2013/08/the-second-american-revolution/ All the subsequent presidents were also representatives of the bourgeoisie, but they weren't radical like Lincoln, they were conservative. The presidents people here tend to prefer, are the likes of the Roosevelts, Kennedy and LBJ. The first Roosevelt was an imperialist, as can be seen with the territories taken after the Spanish-American war. The second Roosevelt might have brought about the New Deal, but that was in the face of a more militant working class, and a stagnant economy that demanded spending anyhow. In reality, FDR just went along with what the situation demanded, and shouldn't really be romanticized for it. He also allowed the internment of Japanese nationals in camps. Also, all these presidents were happy to let segregation go on in the South. Kennedy is only liked because he was shot. He was a hawkish president, elected on the basis of his tough stance on the Soviets and closing the so-called "missile gap". Vietnam also intensified under him. LBJ did want to bring about the "Great Society" alright, but I would say that his motives were more cynical, and he could just tell what way the wind was blowing. Also, like all the presidents from at least 1890 (or even since the Manifest Destiny) were imperialists, overseeing the destruction of peoples for US geopolitical interests and profit. Ultimately, you have to remember that the presidency is a Bonapartist position that shouldn't even exist. Of course, the role of the position is to look after the interests of the propertied classes, something which must be blatantly observable now. http://weeklyworker.co.uk/worker/548/finish-the-american-revolution/ Edited by Lemur Isles, 16 Nov 2014, 01:08.
|
| Former Secretary General | |
![]() |
|
| Guertonia | 16 Nov 2014, 02:50 Post #9 |
|
"Representative"
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Well that was a very compelling arguement! But look into Lincoln's handling of the Copperheads in Maryland. I dont think it will effect your opinion nor should it discredit your great arguement im just interested in hearing what you think of it |
|
Minister of Domestic Affairs of the 13th, 14th, 15th Cabinet Minister of Foreign Affairs of the 18th Cabinet | |
![]() |
|
| Terlibe | 17 Nov 2014, 02:14 Post #10 |
|
"House Chairman"
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
It is also important, however, to point out that Lincoln didn't issue the Emancipation Proclamation because he was an abolitionist. He did it to undermine the South economically. Don't get me wrong, it was great thing for this country and he was a fantastic president, but all presidents have underlying imperfections like the ones Lemur pointed out with Teddy Roosevelt, FDR, JFK and LBJ. My guess is that Lincoln was also an imperialist like most people were back then, he just didn't show it, or just didn't get the chance to. |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · General Discussion · Next Topic » |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2





![]](http://z3.ifrm.com/static/1/pip_r.png)





12:14 AM Jul 11