George Washington was good but he was an isolation. He did not have a world stage to play on because he refused to be on it.

Edited 5/22/2016 04:05:05

Truman's success was based upon the Marshall plan. Nixon was very good but in the end, I decided not to play him because even though his police's were ground breaking, if you think about it, none of it really succeeded because almost everything related to foreign policy with him died in Vietnam

George Washington was good but he was an isolation. He did not have a world stage to play on because he refused to be on it.

Precisely.

Truman's success was based upon the Marshall plan.

Some loans to Europe and Japan. Beat out starting two wars? Truman is the ground that Korea is divided today. Roosevelt and Stalin talked at Yalta and Teheran, and they agreed that there would be no military occupation of Korea - that their forces would be out as soon as the war would be over and a Korean government could be formed.

Then came Truman, and he wasn't having any of that, and said to Stalin "taking Korea up to 53rd lol" and so Stalin retaliated, and so North Korea and South Korea was made, and so came a war of it.

I picked Theodore because he literally was the guy who invented what is considered the classic successful foreign policy.

Speak softly, and carry a big stick


It worked beautifully. His time in the presidency is considered one of the most peaceful yet his military and navy growth were what put on us on par with Britain and France after Cuba.

@xbty, we clearly have disagreements over the merit of Foreign policy to the legacy of a president. I firmly believe it is the least important part, and happen to be heavy isolationist, and don't see any merit in warfare. However, I view it as the least important portion of a presidency, as the US still has, and always has had major social and economic issues, and I feel those need to get solved at all costs, and as such view them as much more important than any other part of the gov't.

As such, I view things like the Marshall plan outweighing many of Truman's acts. BTW, out of the list, only FDR would qualify as a great presidency by my definition. Obama, LBJ, and JFK fall in the good range. Truman, Clinton, Eisenhower, and Nixon are in the neutral range. Carter, Ford, Reagan, and Bush 41 I view as mediocre. Bush 43 I view as poor, and as such in the running for worst in US history.

Your right, Stalin and FDR agreed to that. But Stalin gave Kim the go ahead, trying to keep the peninsula under his influence without braking his word. Truman responded in kind especially since the majority of Koreans supported a free state. He half committed, that's why it failed. What was the over unsuccessful war?


You do also realize the Marshall plan is considered to be probably the most important aid loan package in history? It literally built Western Europe to a point where they could get off the ground. I think people over dramatize its importance but believe me, it was a major success

I firmly believe it is the least important part as the US still has, and always has had major social and economic issues

Like I said before. Who cares if there's laws against blackskins and whiteskins breeding? Or if Islam becomes illegalised? Not as bad as one death. It's the most important to count each president by death count. There are no major social or economic issues in America - everyone is rich, and there are no real problems.

Recall, Yemeni folk who are getting bombed can't vote - it's your moral responsability to vote for them.

As such, I view things like the Marshall plan outweighing many of Truman's acts.

Why? The Marshall plan is foreign policy, so Vietnam war outweighs that by far.

Your right, Stalin and FDR agreed to that. But Stalin gave Kim the go ahead, trying to keep the peninsula under his influence without braking his word. Truman responded in kind especially since the majority of Koreans supported a free state. He half committed, that's why it failed. What was the over unsuccessful war?

I understood naught's you said, rephrase.

You do also realize the Marshall plan is considered to be probably the most important aid loan package in history?

I don't know much about it, but I know that West Germany didn't get much money, and the recovery there was mostly self-done through the one kind of socialism I like: efficiency socialism. Probably something like that happened in other countries too, especially since they weren't so hurt. France, Britain, Benelux, Japan, they all barely had any wrecking upon them contrasted to Germany.

Edited 5/22/2016 04:27:02

Bush was a Keynesian just like you, you should love him.

Bush was a Keynesian? dafaq man. Bush 41 was a supply-side economist. Bush 43 is not a Keynesian economist, he's definitely in the right wing field, but I don't know exactly where to place him. edit: Clearest evidence: he removed governmental intervention in the economy.

Edited 5/22/2016 04:31:55

The Marshal Plan didn't give as much aid to West Germany probably do to hatred. It wouldn't be politically beneficial to give your formal arch enemy billions in aid now would it?. The Marshal Plan mostly helped middle nations such as Austria, Italy, Holland,etc and it did give critical money free of debt to France and Britain.


Also how did you not understand that? Lol. What I'm saying is, Stalin gave Kim the go ahead by saying I won't stop you. Truman recognised this and moved to stop communist influence. Simple. Much like the start of Vietnam except viewer lies

Yeah Smedly, Bush wasn't a Keynesian.
Republican presidents don't tend to practice liberal economic theories lol

Edited 5/22/2016 04:38:26

Clearest evidence: He advocated for more regulation in the economy and got away with doing more. He did more regulations than Obama at some points in his tenure compared to Obama's too.

Yeah, and Obama reduced the deficit by doing the same thing. Obama also intervened in more world trouble spots than Bush Jr. And Clinton's last term combined. But does that make Obama a republican? Of course not. You can't judge based on the action. You must judge on what led to that action, it's affects, and the atmosphere while doing it

This can go back to my previous statement. While Obama's regulation reduced the deficit it also only achieved 2% growth as a high water mark In economic growth.....in 8 years. So even though he was the first president in years to reduce the big D, his economic recovery is a sham because all he did was keep the economy from dying. That's not a success. Both progressive and conservative economic polices work but there is a consequence too either way. In fact, he has the lowest economic growth record out of any modern US president ( besides Hoover and Carter )

Edited 5/22/2016 04:56:35

The republican and democratic parties are not ideologies.

What Republicans are characterized by:
Warmongering
Leftist economics
Big government
What Democrats are characterized by:
Warmongering
Leftist economics
Big government

And you must judge by the actions. FDR extended the Great Depression until 1945, and had a hand in starting WW2 by refusing to stop tariffs. FDR would be a bad president.

Eisenhower is bae

I never implied political parties were philosophies. I didn't say don't judge by actions. I said judge actions AND the circumstances surrounding them. Gosh, I feel like I end up just explaining things to you instead of actual debate lol

@xbty, it appears we are disagreeing over the term problem. Here is how I define it, anything that exacerbates political inequality. As such, while I don't agree with wars, I don't find them as an inherent problem, and that's also why I view the marshall plan, along with Truman's consist push against a southern conservative legislator, advocating for civil rights and maintenance of systems to reduce economic inequality as equivalent to the wars and other stuff he did. We are also disagreeing over how to count in terms of what is a problem, you count in the number of lives lost, to which I state, so then you would have to consider people like , , FDR, TR, Bush 41, and basically every president that got us involved in an unnecessary war as bad. FDR-European theatre...TR-Spanish-American War, bush41- first gulf war, seriously a bad examination system if you ask me. I consider the success of a presidency on the number of problems solved and created, while I do assign weights to the problems, I also heavily take in motive, as I don't believe that people that do the right thing for the wrong reasons deserve large amounts of credit.

u guys are overestimating the capability of the president

the primary job of the president is to delegate roles. appoint good judges, appoint people that are good to run executive jobs and to run foreign affairs. even then he can delegate a significant portion of that role to the secretary of state

the president isnt god. it is limited in its capacity to do things.

its easy to focus on one man but really u should only look at the ppl he appoints to hold other positions. these are the ppl who dramatically affect how the country is run

who is running the CIA?
DEA?
EPA?
CDC?
FBI?
DOE?

..and so forth?

judge a president on how he appoints ppl

he cant do shit about the economy

tell that to the federal reserve and also the congress

Edited 5/22/2016 06:18:36

The circumstances Obama had:
The US is the greatest government in terms of strength, economic ability, and defensive position. It's main enemy, Al-Qaeda, has one goal, to get the US out of the Middle East. Currently, where ever the US goes in the Middle East, it goes worse than it was there. Often, Islamic Extremism follows. So why exactly couldn't he stop the wars? What's in his path? There's no government that can hold him and make him fight. No geographic features that make him vulnerable to the folk he's fighting. In fact, the geography is quite in his favor, with a superb defensive position. Two oceans and two neighbors, who are weak allies. So why, can I not judge this despicable bloke for his actions?