Remember that all mentions of and allusions to Trump and Biden are not allowed on our subreddit in any context.
If you'd still like to discuss them, feel free to [join our Discord server](https://discord.gg/k6tVFwCEEm)!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Presidents) if you have any questions or concerns.*
(Ignoring the obvious FDR) Jackson, Grant, (Theodore) Roosevelt, Wilson, and for those who had opportunities to do so but actively chose, Cleveland and Coolidge. Also as vice presidents who served a former president's term as well as another term, who *could've* ran for a second election term but also chose not to, were Truman and (Lyndon) Johnson.
I don't exactly know why people idolize FDR and Wilson like they do, and I'll say I'm a bit surprised to find someone on this sub who doesn't. I like your take on it.
Wilson was a racist piece of shit. And all Roosevelt did was save Western civilization from the modern barbarians. That’s all. Some of us think that’s kind of a big deal.
My two favorite FDR stories. One journalist said “He stood up on his legs, to lift America from its knees.”
Another newspaperman was watching FDR’s funeral train go by, and saw a man in dirty work clothes, with tears running down his cheeks. “Did you know the president?” “No”, the man answered. “But he knew me.”
I love that last quote, even apart from saving the world from nazis (Britain and ussr almost certainly folds without our lend lease and similar programs)
Programs like social security the CCC , TVA and FDIC insurance of the banks have done tremendous good that few others can come close to. He absolutely saved capitalism in this country which even conservative detractors should give him credit for.
Because they aren't actually knowledgeable about US history at all so they picked 2 famous ones.
Other than ending slavery, Lincoln was objectively a tyrant and awful president (and he really only ended slavery to punish the South for seceding, he didn't actually care about the slaves and was perfectly willing to allow the South to continue slavery if they didn't secede).
Washington wasn't terrible by any means, but he certainly wasn't the best either. Anybody who claims that he's the best has little to no knowledge about US history and is simply picking one of the "famous" presidents because that's all they know.
It's hard to choose the "best" president that served two terms, but if I had to pick one, I'd probably pick Grover Cleveland. He is one of few presidents that didn't abuse his power, respected liberty, and actually performed his presidential duties in a way that aligned with our founding fathers' blueprint.
I don't see what's funny. He did one good thing during his presidency, and even then, only did it as a retaliatory measure and didn't actually care about the slaves and was perfectly fine with keeping slavery if the South didn't secede.
Other than that, he was a tyrant who massively overstepped his role as president and increased the power of the executive branch to levels not seen before his presidency. He didn't give a shit about the Consitution that he swore to uphold when he became president. He was a tyrant.
It'd be like if Hitler did one good thing during his time in power (and I'm not saying Lincoln is as bad as Hitler, but I'm using Hitler as a logical extreme to prove a point). Let's say hypothetically, before Hitler came to power, there was still slavery in Germany. Let's say Hitler freed the slaves when he became Fuhrer. He didn't actually care about the slaves, but he freed them for some political or retaliatory reason. Then, he did all of the awful shit that he ended up doing. Should he be regarded as a good ruler because he did one good thing? That's Lincoln. No, he isn't as tyrannical as Hitler, but the same line of logic applies. I literally can't name one good thing about Lincoln's presidency, other than his abolition of slavery, and even then, though it's obviously a good thing, you can't give Lincoln too much credit for it because he didn't actually give a shit about slaves and only did it to piss off the South for seceding.
I urge you to actually educate yourself about Lincoln and his political views and practices. He really didn't care about individual rights and liberties and felt that the executive branch should have far more control over our lives. The reason why so many people think he was good is because they have an elementary-level understanding of him. School only teaches you that he freed the slaves. They don't go into detail about his suspension of habeas corpus, him throwing people in jail for merely speaking out against the war (which clearly violates the 1st amendment), his outspoken contempt for the Constitution and the protections it gave citizens, his condoning of Native American massacres, etc, etc.
The dude was really a piece of shit individual. He did one good thing as a political move in a retaliatory manner.
Your education is, I’m afraid, a little soft. Lincoln was an abolitionist long before he became president. It was the basis of his run for the one term he served in the US House of Representatives. I know why you’re trying to label him a tyrant. He suspended habeas corpus during the only civil war we have experienced. Nice try.
Nothing I said is untrue. Lincoln specifically stated in his inaugural speech that he had no plans to end slavery. He changed his mind later on to punish the South for seceding.
Not sure about your comments regarding Lincoln, but I agree 100% on Cleveland. Had his presidency not get cut short, US history might look very different, in a positive sense.
Eisenhower. Not a perfect president by any means, but he did a lot of good for people, especially with enforcing expansion of civil rights as well as expanding government assistance programs created by FDR
The Executive Branch does not have “power of the purse.” That authority rests with the House of Representatives. For you younger people, there was a time when the House writ large had integrity and were serious people, not just partisan hacks.
What? I said “Congress” as well, however LBJ should get credit as well for the surplus as he negotiated over and signed bills enacting fiscal tightening.
LBJ was a terrible President - domestically and with regard to foreign policy. He deserves “credit” for nothing except having the intestinal fortitude to realize he should not accept the DNC nomination for a second term. Nothing personal.
You’re fundamentally fucked up. He was Speaker and he controlled the budget process. He was hand in hand with Clinton on the balanced budget. Allegedly, the had a deal in place for massive Social Security reform but Monica Lewenski happened and made Bill radioactive.
Yeah, Gingrich was the intellectual soul of the Clinton years. HE WAS A FUCKING HISTORY MAJOR. How smart could he be?
Also, let us never forget that Fatso got kicked out of the speaker’s chair when he was caught butt fucking his legislative assistant while his wife was getting chemotherapy.
Ok, so competent yes, transformative no. Keep in mind this was the end of the post-Cold War era. We strategically mirror-imaged (“if we think like this the Russians must too.”) Many promises in the Bush I era were made to the Russian Federation, while their guard was down: “NATO will not move an inch east,” for example. And so on and so forth. By 1993, NATO had expanded hundreds of miles east, on Bush’s watch.
To that end, check out this lecture by Prof. John Mearsheimer, “Uncommon Core: The Causes and Consequences of the Ukraine Crisis.” University of Chicago (2015):
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=JrMiSQAGOS4
Why? He’s an internationally renowned scholar. Listening to academics, whether you agree or not, helps you understand different ways of addressing global challenges.
He’s credentialed, sure, but seeing as half of Europe and a good chunk of the middle east have spent the last 80 years trying to get out from underneath the Russian boot, I wholeheartedly disagree with him that NATO expansion is America’s fault.
He had some faults but, the interstate system of highways was not one of them. Everyone in the country benefits from that bit of legislation pretty much every day. If it were properly funded, and had more emphasis put into improving the flow of traffic through cities, it would be amazing.
The best 2 term president who actually served a full 2 terms (and no more than that to exclude FDR)? I think it would be Washington followed by Eisenhower.
I mean, Ike was okay but Eisenhower over Grant, Jackson, Wilson, Jefferson, and Truman is a bit much. I don't think any of those others left us with nearly as many hanging chads as the Eisenhower administration did
See I’m not counting Truman since he served only 1 full term (otherwise he would be my answer behind Lincoln). But I think Ike was very, very good. There’s definitely an argument for Jefferson though, can’t argue with that. Wilson’s second term was not great (being bedridden for the last two years along with massive social unrest will do that) and I don’t consider Jackson amazing personally. Very hit or miss.
I'll credit Ike for the Highway System, that's a major accomplishment, but I also wish we still had trains so I'm in a bit of a bind over that one.
His foreign policy against China and the USSR was good, but he utterly fumbled Iran and Latin America. Mixed bag for me
But mainly, he mass-deported American citizens, that's pretty scary. I do not like that about him. Like FDR didn't even deport the Japanese, and we were at war with Japan. What did California do?
The intelligence indicated that a Tudeh coup against Mosaddegh was imminent. The operation was originally a raid against the Tudeh, but was amended to include Mosaddegh for fear that the country would fall to either the Tudeh or Islamic fundamentalists. A lot of people don’t understand that Iran was occupied by the Soviets during WW2, and they stuck around and created two communist states within Iran borders. There was considerable communist influence and they were making plays at the government themselves. The Soviets tried to clip the Shah four year prior.
In fairness to Ike, an awful lot happened in the decades between the coup and when the shah was ultimately toppled. The Shah was a pivotal ally in the region for decades and was certainly favorable to a Tudeh Iran. To put it bluntly, Carter did not offer sufficient support.
Blaming Ike for Iran’s current regime is like blaming Wilson for the Nazis.
>A lot of people don’t understand that Iran was occupied by the Soviets during WW2, and they stuck around and created two communist states within Iran borders.
That's a very good point and not a lot of people know that, but if Iran had become a Soviet satellite, it likely would have collapsed at the same time as the others. They could be a reliable ally today, like Vietnam
That’s a lot of foresight to ask of for Ike though, and Soviet control over Iran would’ve posed a lot of problems for the U.S. The coup was successful at the time it just led to later and worse backlash which arguably has more to do with failures by the Shah himself than just a straight line from the coup to the backlash. And ofc it bought the US 26 years of a pro west Iran during the Cold War.
I think Ike gets too much criticism for it, all things considered. It wasn’t the best idea and the modern problems certainly suck but that isn’t all Ike’s fault. If Iran had fallen to the Soviets Ike would probably be criticized for that today instead.
I just don't know where Ike thought he got his authority from. Iran is not covered by the Monroe Doctrine. It's just one of many mistakes Ike made internationally that still give us problems to this day
Lincoln technically was a two term president so him, but if we only count two full terms it's Washington, and if we count more than two terms but not less it's FDR
Grover Cleveland. The guy who spent his first term getting shit done, lost reelection because he was politically inconvenient, and then everyone said "No wait, we need him back".
Clinton was a morally bankrupt criminal who reaped the benefits of NAFTA and reduced restrictions on China (cheap products from off-shoring) without having to deal with the eventual costs (lost jobs and stagnant wages from off-shoring) but he was also charming.
Yeah, Clinton was an horrible human being. But evidently people hated him because too many people had jobs, and the federal budget was balanced. No one can explain to me why those are bad things.
Thank you .You can go glorify some guy then,and show how grown up you are , tell him how much you admire him and how you like his big hands .Tell everyone what a wonderful person he is , Maybe he will take you home and take care of you, give you something to eat .
You think making fun of people is easy? Medicine is easy. Comedy is extremely difficult. For example, several countries don’t even have a word in English that could be classified as an ethnic slur.
Eh, we’ve had some good one term presidents as well and people who didn’t get an exact two terms. People usually like to point to James K. Polk as an example of a successful one term president and sometimes people like to mention George H.W. Bush as another decent one term president. In the case of presidents who had one full term and a partial second term you have figures like Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, Truman, and LBJ that people like to point to all of the time. We’ve also got plenty of two term presidents that people don’t like such as Woodrow Wilson and George W. Bush for example.
Washington established the precedent and he deserves a ton of praise for that, but for the more modern era, Eisenhower. Established the Interstate Highway System + NASA, expanded social security, ended McCarthyism, and passed the first Civil Rights Act. Not to mention he oversaw one of the most economically prosperous periods in US history. He also oozed charisma and his farewell address is still the stuff of legend.
the repeal of glass-steagal, doubling of federal prisoners on his watch, impeachment, interns, economy was helped by republican congress restraints, but he still managed to cause the 2007 crash, NAFTA,rwanda, black hawk down, cutting nasa budget, failing to pass healthcare reform, etc and hes the one that let osama bin laden go with a capture order instead of a kill order.
Ulysses.
His shortcomings (nativity that allowed corruption) were pretty short lived. His advancements continue to benefit society today.
The post civil war would have gone far worse without him. He was 100 years early on civil rights.
Well there’s no real us v. them. And no, there’s no good argument to have treated the South worse than they were treated during reconstruction. How would that have reconciled anything?
Honestly I would’ve exiled every family that fought in the war. Used their land and money to give to the newly freed black people and recover the economic losses the war took on the country.
You’re entitled to your opinion, of course. The only reason I “don’t like” your answer is because that course of action would have been culturally and economically counterproductive. Despite the Southern Democrats best attempts (look it up), Northern Republicans won the war. To the victor goes toe spoils. And that consisted of Post-War national reconciliation (look it up), and that included economic dimensions. Hence, seizing assets would have been counterproductive and the same Democrats that started the Civil War, would have had no reason to stop fighting if there was nothing to lose. Remember, the Southern Confederacy was not structured like the U.S. was at the time.
Southern States and the armies of those States surrendered individually. Lee’s April 1865 surrender at Appomattox was highly significant. But it was not the end of the war because the confederate government did not have the authority to surrender on behalf of all the Southern Democrat state governors.
Why do you think there is a “Juneteenth”?
It’s very condescending for you to assume I don’t know A) who was on what side of the war B) what post war reconciliation was and C) why we celebrate Juneteenth.
My whole point is I wouldn’t have gone through reconciliation I would’ve killed every last traitor. Public executions for weeks. I would’ve seized their dead assets and given all the dead traitors land to the slaves from which were freed. I would’ve used the money seized to refill the spent coffers in DC and I wouldve marked every surviving member of their families as traitors exiled them and barred anyone with their family name from ever entering the country.
Again why is it Civil Rights only includes African Americans? He helped pass some pretty racist legislation against Asians and his stance on Native Americans pretty much guaranteed their genocide.
Grant’s results were mixed, but he did emphasize treating Native Americans well and funded programs to do so. His assimilation policy didn’t age well but he didn’t advocate genocide like most of his predecessors.
He also appointed a Native American to the post that ran the program.
Clearly Washington- he could have done so many things to increase the power of that position but instead he spent his time setting standards and precedents that basically stayed unchanged until FDR ….
IKE was a much better President than Clinton. Consider as a Republican he founded NASA, integrated the military, ended Jim Crowe, passed the first Civil Rights legislation since the Civil War, expanded Social Security, and otherwise kept the New Deal intact, which every following President nipped away at including Clinton and Kennedy.
FDR was the greatest and best President. Won WWII and fixed the great depression, which, had it gone on, would have brought Marxist-Lenninist communism to our country. FDR creating the greatest and most prosperous middle class in history.
Abraham Lincoln is second along with George Washington.
One of the most important presidents after the three I named was Nixon. Nixon's policies ended the Cold War, eventualled settled the oil markets, and Nixon completely redid the dollar assuring US hegemony after the Cold War. Nixon also founded OSHA and the EPA and passed the Clean Water Act. He couldn't quite get the Clean Air Act done before he resigned. However, the War on Drugs, which it turns out was intended to be a war on political enemies, black Americans and the anti-war hippie generation.
I put Clinton middle of the pack. Clinton put 200,000 people in my state into food insecurity when he signed the "Personal Responsibility Act."
You can thank Clinton for giving China MFN status and enabling their rise to be a dangerous power. So he has that going for him.....now let's talk rape allegations....
Eisenhower. His failing was to not doing away with castro
America is now pinned between 3 nation states sucking our bodily fluids. Mexico, Canada. USA, I'll add most of south America
Which Clinton Policy did you like better? The massive increase in black incarceration, or planting the seeds for the 2008 mortgage meltdown? Personally I liked the smaller but more poignant "Bombing of a medicine factory to distract from personal scandals, leading to hundreds of thousands of deaths."
But using your charisma to land your 50 year-old ass some 22 year-old interns is pretty awesome too.
I mean Clinton was fine but you're ignoring Lincoln technically two terms, he died a year into his second term but you didn't put qualifications on the terms had to be equal in greatness. FDR another obvious choice. Jefferson, Washington, Eisenhower was great too. Clinton was ok but likely not top ten in two term presidents.
If he had taken out Bin Laden when he had multiple chances and done something about the Rwanda genocide he would have an amazing legacy, but he didn't.
Very subjective topic but I’ll give my two cents:
Grant is often slept on but I’d say Eisenhower, Washington, or Obama.
Washington is an easy choice since he set the bar. Response to the Whiskey Rebellion, implemented Hamilton’s economic strategy, neutrality, Jay Treaty, Pinckney Treaty.
Eisenhower - Interstate highway system, social security expansion, ending the Korean War, and his economic policies are mostly what I agree with.
Obama - Affordable care act is not perfect but a good first step, got us out of the Great Recession of 2009, LGBTQ rights, end of Iraq War, Bin Laden raid, DACA, relations with Cuba.
All three are well within of receiving criticism although from this thread alone I see Obama receive a lot more criticism probably due to recency bias. If we look back at everything he did though, in my opinion, he did a lot of great things.
Gave liberal branding to conservative bullshit: anti gay marriage, dont ask dont tell, demonization of poor people and public assistance, racist crime policy, xenophobic immigration policy, took the reins off banks...it was like he spent the 80s jerking off to Regan's presidency and finally got to blow his load in 92. Dude kept the US firmly planted in the dark ages after 12 years straight years of backsliding. But he played the sax so people were like "ah cool." He's trash.
He didn’t inhale
You’re right he rebranded the same shit from proceeding administrations
He was the last Democratic candidate that wasn’t owned by Wall Street
Agreed, except for the last part. He was all for repealing regulations on financial institutions. Wall Street loved that shit. Let them combine their retail and investment operations and REALLY fuck us over.
Remember that all mentions of and allusions to Trump and Biden are not allowed on our subreddit in any context. If you'd still like to discuss them, feel free to [join our Discord server](https://discord.gg/k6tVFwCEEm)! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Presidents) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Washington. He literally invented the two term presidency.
Well, FDR broke that mold.
I think Grant tried to at one point too
Several did.
Which ones?
Wilson wanted to prior to his final stroke
(Ignoring the obvious FDR) Jackson, Grant, (Theodore) Roosevelt, Wilson, and for those who had opportunities to do so but actively chose, Cleveland and Coolidge. Also as vice presidents who served a former president's term as well as another term, who *could've* ran for a second election term but also chose not to, were Truman and (Lyndon) Johnson.
He’s no doubt smart, that’s for sure. But has no moral compass, slimy imo. He’s the perfect career politician. lol
I don't exactly know why people idolize FDR and Wilson like they do, and I'll say I'm a bit surprised to find someone on this sub who doesn't. I like your take on it.
Thanks, but then why did you list them as top-tier Presidents?
Wilson was a racist piece of shit. And all Roosevelt did was save Western civilization from the modern barbarians. That’s all. Some of us think that’s kind of a big deal. My two favorite FDR stories. One journalist said “He stood up on his legs, to lift America from its knees.” Another newspaperman was watching FDR’s funeral train go by, and saw a man in dirty work clothes, with tears running down his cheeks. “Did you know the president?” “No”, the man answered. “But he knew me.”
I love that last quote, even apart from saving the world from nazis (Britain and ussr almost certainly folds without our lend lease and similar programs) Programs like social security the CCC , TVA and FDIC insurance of the banks have done tremendous good that few others can come close to. He absolutely saved capitalism in this country which even conservative detractors should give him credit for.
Teddy Roosevelt did’t run after serving 7 years, but changed his mind four years later.
I mean…. It was an understandable circumstance
And Congress broke the three term mold 👋
FDR had what could be considered reasonable justifications.
facts
Abraham Lincoln is the best President *elected* to two terms, but George Washington is the best President to *serve* two terms.
Because….
Because they aren't actually knowledgeable about US history at all so they picked 2 famous ones. Other than ending slavery, Lincoln was objectively a tyrant and awful president (and he really only ended slavery to punish the South for seceding, he didn't actually care about the slaves and was perfectly willing to allow the South to continue slavery if they didn't secede). Washington wasn't terrible by any means, but he certainly wasn't the best either. Anybody who claims that he's the best has little to no knowledge about US history and is simply picking one of the "famous" presidents because that's all they know. It's hard to choose the "best" president that served two terms, but if I had to pick one, I'd probably pick Grover Cleveland. He is one of few presidents that didn't abuse his power, respected liberty, and actually performed his presidential duties in a way that aligned with our founding fathers' blueprint.
“Other than ending slavery” 😂
I don't see what's funny. He did one good thing during his presidency, and even then, only did it as a retaliatory measure and didn't actually care about the slaves and was perfectly fine with keeping slavery if the South didn't secede. Other than that, he was a tyrant who massively overstepped his role as president and increased the power of the executive branch to levels not seen before his presidency. He didn't give a shit about the Consitution that he swore to uphold when he became president. He was a tyrant. It'd be like if Hitler did one good thing during his time in power (and I'm not saying Lincoln is as bad as Hitler, but I'm using Hitler as a logical extreme to prove a point). Let's say hypothetically, before Hitler came to power, there was still slavery in Germany. Let's say Hitler freed the slaves when he became Fuhrer. He didn't actually care about the slaves, but he freed them for some political or retaliatory reason. Then, he did all of the awful shit that he ended up doing. Should he be regarded as a good ruler because he did one good thing? That's Lincoln. No, he isn't as tyrannical as Hitler, but the same line of logic applies. I literally can't name one good thing about Lincoln's presidency, other than his abolition of slavery, and even then, though it's obviously a good thing, you can't give Lincoln too much credit for it because he didn't actually give a shit about slaves and only did it to piss off the South for seceding. I urge you to actually educate yourself about Lincoln and his political views and practices. He really didn't care about individual rights and liberties and felt that the executive branch should have far more control over our lives. The reason why so many people think he was good is because they have an elementary-level understanding of him. School only teaches you that he freed the slaves. They don't go into detail about his suspension of habeas corpus, him throwing people in jail for merely speaking out against the war (which clearly violates the 1st amendment), his outspoken contempt for the Constitution and the protections it gave citizens, his condoning of Native American massacres, etc, etc. The dude was really a piece of shit individual. He did one good thing as a political move in a retaliatory manner.
Your education is, I’m afraid, a little soft. Lincoln was an abolitionist long before he became president. It was the basis of his run for the one term he served in the US House of Representatives. I know why you’re trying to label him a tyrant. He suspended habeas corpus during the only civil war we have experienced. Nice try.
Given that the Repúblican party was founded specifically to end slavery the Lincoln comment is ignorant.
Nothing I said is untrue. Lincoln specifically stated in his inaugural speech that he had no plans to end slavery. He changed his mind later on to punish the South for seceding.
Not sure about your comments regarding Lincoln, but I agree 100% on Cleveland. Had his presidency not get cut short, US history might look very different, in a positive sense.
Eisenhower. Not a perfect president by any means, but he did a lot of good for people, especially with enforcing expansion of civil rights as well as expanding government assistance programs created by FDR
Fun fact. Eisenhower was the last Republican to run a budget surplus. Nixon was the last Republican to balance a budget.
Over the line, Smokey
Am I the only one here who gives a shit about the rules?!
Listen, Pandejo. You pull a piece on me, I’m going to take it from you, stick it up your ass, and pull the trigger ‘til it goes CLICK.
Wouldn’t be the last time he crossed the line.
Nixon didn’t balance the budget, the 1969 budget was decided by LBJ and Congress.
The Executive Branch does not have “power of the purse.” That authority rests with the House of Representatives. For you younger people, there was a time when the House writ large had integrity and were serious people, not just partisan hacks.
What? I said “Congress” as well, however LBJ should get credit as well for the surplus as he negotiated over and signed bills enacting fiscal tightening.
LBJ was a terrible President - domestically and with regard to foreign policy. He deserves “credit” for nothing except having the intestinal fortitude to realize he should not accept the DNC nomination for a second term. Nothing personal.
Yeah, you’re right. Fuck the civil rights bill and the voting rights bill. SOMEBODY would have done those eventually.
I wouldn't go that far but I agree he's awful.
Arguably, Eisenhower was the last real Republican.
Only Clinton has done it for the dems and he had the benefit of an increase in tax revenue due to the dot com boom.
He had Gingrich
Fat Fuck #1. George Will said it best. “Newt Gingrich is what a stupid person thinks a smart person sounds like.”
You’re fundamentally fucked up. He was Speaker and he controlled the budget process. He was hand in hand with Clinton on the balanced budget. Allegedly, the had a deal in place for massive Social Security reform but Monica Lewenski happened and made Bill radioactive.
Yeah, Gingrich was the intellectual soul of the Clinton years. HE WAS A FUCKING HISTORY MAJOR. How smart could he be? Also, let us never forget that Fatso got kicked out of the speaker’s chair when he was caught butt fucking his legislative assistant while his wife was getting chemotherapy.
Depends on how you count 2001
It was golden age of America it is declining country now.
So many of our foreign policy problems seem to stretch back to him
Many, but that spotlight should also include George HW Bush, as well.
Elaborate? HW always seemed incredibly competent to me.
Ok, so competent yes, transformative no. Keep in mind this was the end of the post-Cold War era. We strategically mirror-imaged (“if we think like this the Russians must too.”) Many promises in the Bush I era were made to the Russian Federation, while their guard was down: “NATO will not move an inch east,” for example. And so on and so forth. By 1993, NATO had expanded hundreds of miles east, on Bush’s watch. To that end, check out this lecture by Prof. John Mearsheimer, “Uncommon Core: The Causes and Consequences of the Ukraine Crisis.” University of Chicago (2015): https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=JrMiSQAGOS4
I’ve had it up to here with this Mearsheimer guy https://youtu.be/FVmmASrAL-Q?si=Kbpoq31-aomTwLpC
Why? He’s an internationally renowned scholar. Listening to academics, whether you agree or not, helps you understand different ways of addressing global challenges.
He’s credentialed, sure, but seeing as half of Europe and a good chunk of the middle east have spent the last 80 years trying to get out from underneath the Russian boot, I wholeheartedly disagree with him that NATO expansion is America’s fault.
How so?
The only nation that ever pushed Ukraine to join NATO was Russia
*cough* Intervention in Iran *cough* *cough*
Yeah the beginning of the foreign coup era should be a huge demerit for his presidency
I like Ike but yIKEs.
I like Ike but I detest Dulles
Exactly why?
That wasn’t the “beginning of the foreign coup era.” There’s nothing new there. As old as the beginning of recorded history.
He had some faults but, the interstate system of highways was not one of them. Everyone in the country benefits from that bit of legislation pretty much every day. If it were properly funded, and had more emphasis put into improving the flow of traffic through cities, it would be amazing.
Ngl, sorta wish he focused on commuter rail than highway. Would've been great for the country.
Sure, if you want to be a sheep and reduce your independence. Maybe follow California’s high speed rail paradigm?
Taking the train reduces our freedom!!?? You ARE as stupid as you look.
We have the same avatar, idiot.
The best 2 term president who actually served a full 2 terms (and no more than that to exclude FDR)? I think it would be Washington followed by Eisenhower.
I mean, Ike was okay but Eisenhower over Grant, Jackson, Wilson, Jefferson, and Truman is a bit much. I don't think any of those others left us with nearly as many hanging chads as the Eisenhower administration did
See I’m not counting Truman since he served only 1 full term (otherwise he would be my answer behind Lincoln). But I think Ike was very, very good. There’s definitely an argument for Jefferson though, can’t argue with that. Wilson’s second term was not great (being bedridden for the last two years along with massive social unrest will do that) and I don’t consider Jackson amazing personally. Very hit or miss.
I'll credit Ike for the Highway System, that's a major accomplishment, but I also wish we still had trains so I'm in a bit of a bind over that one. His foreign policy against China and the USSR was good, but he utterly fumbled Iran and Latin America. Mixed bag for me But mainly, he mass-deported American citizens, that's pretty scary. I do not like that about him. Like FDR didn't even deport the Japanese, and we were at war with Japan. What did California do?
The intelligence indicated that a Tudeh coup against Mosaddegh was imminent. The operation was originally a raid against the Tudeh, but was amended to include Mosaddegh for fear that the country would fall to either the Tudeh or Islamic fundamentalists. A lot of people don’t understand that Iran was occupied by the Soviets during WW2, and they stuck around and created two communist states within Iran borders. There was considerable communist influence and they were making plays at the government themselves. The Soviets tried to clip the Shah four year prior. In fairness to Ike, an awful lot happened in the decades between the coup and when the shah was ultimately toppled. The Shah was a pivotal ally in the region for decades and was certainly favorable to a Tudeh Iran. To put it bluntly, Carter did not offer sufficient support. Blaming Ike for Iran’s current regime is like blaming Wilson for the Nazis.
>A lot of people don’t understand that Iran was occupied by the Soviets during WW2, and they stuck around and created two communist states within Iran borders. That's a very good point and not a lot of people know that, but if Iran had become a Soviet satellite, it likely would have collapsed at the same time as the others. They could be a reliable ally today, like Vietnam
That’s a lot of foresight to ask of for Ike though, and Soviet control over Iran would’ve posed a lot of problems for the U.S. The coup was successful at the time it just led to later and worse backlash which arguably has more to do with failures by the Shah himself than just a straight line from the coup to the backlash. And ofc it bought the US 26 years of a pro west Iran during the Cold War. I think Ike gets too much criticism for it, all things considered. It wasn’t the best idea and the modern problems certainly suck but that isn’t all Ike’s fault. If Iran had fallen to the Soviets Ike would probably be criticized for that today instead.
I just don't know where Ike thought he got his authority from. Iran is not covered by the Monroe Doctrine. It's just one of many mistakes Ike made internationally that still give us problems to this day
It’s pretty clearly part of the Truman doctrine
Truman Doctrine only applies to Europe. Iran is in SW Asia
Jackson's greatest accomplishment was keeping South Carolina in line.
Eisenhower also gave us the Dulles Brothers. Sort of Dr. Oz and Dr. Phil to his Oprah.
Unpack that unusual comment please.
>I don't think any of those others left us with nearly as many **\*unresolved issues** as the Eisenhower administration did
To be fair, very different circumstances for each but contextually complex for their respective operational environment.
Very complex. Probably the wrong job for a military man
Examples?
Internationally: Iran, Cuba, North Korea, Israel, Central America... Domestically: Illegal deportations of American citizens
Lincoln technically was a two term president so him, but if we only count two full terms it's Washington, and if we count more than two terms but not less it's FDR
Elected to? Lincoln Completed? Washington
Does Lincoln count? He got a 2nd term, it just ended up being extremely short.
Speaking of extremely short, Madison wasn’t bad.
Hahahaha, I don’t even like Madison, but I freaking love this joke!
Washington *siding with Hamilton over Jefferson on damn near everything was pretty smart*
Why?
all of them (good president theory)
Grover Cleveland. The guy who spent his first term getting shit done, lost reelection because he was politically inconvenient, and then everyone said "No wait, we need him back".
I'm currently reading the man of iron about him.... seems really interesting man.
Clinton was a scumbag and a rapist who's reputation is artificially inflated by the tech boom.
Clinton was intellectually brilliant but he was also a hillbilly skirt chaser.
Clinton was a morally bankrupt criminal who reaped the benefits of NAFTA and reduced restrictions on China (cheap products from off-shoring) without having to deal with the eventual costs (lost jobs and stagnant wages from off-shoring) but he was also charming.
Yeah, Clinton was an horrible human being. But evidently people hated him because too many people had jobs, and the federal budget was balanced. No one can explain to me why those are bad things.
Reagan
Eisenhower
Quite frankly, if you look at the economy we had in the Clinton years, I would pay into a fund to keep that guy in cigars, booze, and prostitutes.
You can only reap the benefits of offshoring all the manufacturing jobs once.
Ike and Reagan.
Don’t sleep in Grant. He did some good stuff in regards to Reconstruction following Andrew Johnson.
The question here is really just who's the best president.
I'm really better at criticism than glorifying though ..Glorifying is ikky ..The flame is cleansing .
Most kiddos are better at criticism because it’s easy.
Thank you .You can go glorify some guy then,and show how grown up you are , tell him how much you admire him and how you like his big hands .Tell everyone what a wonderful person he is , Maybe he will take you home and take care of you, give you something to eat .
Are you like 12? I mean you don’t have any logic and your grammar is terrible.
Do you like 12 year olds . I will report your ass in a new york minute you pedophile.
Oh, you’re a bot.
Fek around
You think making fun of people is easy? Medicine is easy. Comedy is extremely difficult. For example, several countries don’t even have a word in English that could be classified as an ethnic slur.
Eh, we’ve had some good one term presidents as well and people who didn’t get an exact two terms. People usually like to point to James K. Polk as an example of a successful one term president and sometimes people like to mention George H.W. Bush as another decent one term president. In the case of presidents who had one full term and a partial second term you have figures like Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, Truman, and LBJ that people like to point to all of the time. We’ve also got plenty of two term presidents that people don’t like such as Woodrow Wilson and George W. Bush for example.
A very subjective question that in my opinion defaults to Washington.
Washington established the precedent and he deserves a ton of praise for that, but for the more modern era, Eisenhower. Established the Interstate Highway System + NASA, expanded social security, ended McCarthyism, and passed the first Civil Rights Act. Not to mention he oversaw one of the most economically prosperous periods in US history. He also oozed charisma and his farewell address is still the stuff of legend.
[удалено]
But perhaps it was due or at least partially because of Clinton’s presidency.
the repeal of glass-steagal, doubling of federal prisoners on his watch, impeachment, interns, economy was helped by republican congress restraints, but he still managed to cause the 2007 crash, NAFTA,rwanda, black hawk down, cutting nasa budget, failing to pass healthcare reform, etc and hes the one that let osama bin laden go with a capture order instead of a kill order.
Washington, closely followed by Eisenhower
Washington and Eisenhower, interesting.
Washington Eisenhower TR
I mean, gotta be Washington or Lincoln, right?
Ulysses. His shortcomings (nativity that allowed corruption) were pretty short lived. His advancements continue to benefit society today. The post civil war would have gone far worse without him. He was 100 years early on civil rights.
Arguably we should’ve been harder on the South but it probably would’ve led to more conflicts and a more shattered country than we have now.
No way. If we hang Robert E. Lee and Jefferson Davis, the next 150 years are a skip through a dewy meadow.
Well there’s no real us v. them. And no, there’s no good argument to have treated the South worse than they were treated during reconstruction. How would that have reconciled anything?
Honestly I would’ve exiled every family that fought in the war. Used their land and money to give to the newly freed black people and recover the economic losses the war took on the country.
Exiled them? It was a domestic conflict. How would your suggestions recover the economic losses?
Seize their assets. Do you read?
I read quite well. It’s your logic that is at fault.
Nah you just don’t like the answer.
You’re entitled to your opinion, of course. The only reason I “don’t like” your answer is because that course of action would have been culturally and economically counterproductive. Despite the Southern Democrats best attempts (look it up), Northern Republicans won the war. To the victor goes toe spoils. And that consisted of Post-War national reconciliation (look it up), and that included economic dimensions. Hence, seizing assets would have been counterproductive and the same Democrats that started the Civil War, would have had no reason to stop fighting if there was nothing to lose. Remember, the Southern Confederacy was not structured like the U.S. was at the time. Southern States and the armies of those States surrendered individually. Lee’s April 1865 surrender at Appomattox was highly significant. But it was not the end of the war because the confederate government did not have the authority to surrender on behalf of all the Southern Democrat state governors. Why do you think there is a “Juneteenth”?
It’s very condescending for you to assume I don’t know A) who was on what side of the war B) what post war reconciliation was and C) why we celebrate Juneteenth. My whole point is I wouldn’t have gone through reconciliation I would’ve killed every last traitor. Public executions for weeks. I would’ve seized their dead assets and given all the dead traitors land to the slaves from which were freed. I would’ve used the money seized to refill the spent coffers in DC and I wouldve marked every surviving member of their families as traitors exiled them and barred anyone with their family name from ever entering the country.
Garfield too
Again why is it Civil Rights only includes African Americans? He helped pass some pretty racist legislation against Asians and his stance on Native Americans pretty much guaranteed their genocide.
Grant’s results were mixed, but he did emphasize treating Native Americans well and funded programs to do so. His assimilation policy didn’t age well but he didn’t advocate genocide like most of his predecessors. He also appointed a Native American to the post that ran the program.
He ignored Sherman and Sheridan and didn't stop them from massacring the bison.
Washington and Eisenhower
George.
Lincoln and Washington.
Clinton was winner unlike his loser wife lost to socialist.
lolwut?
Washington
Clearly Washington- he could have done so many things to increase the power of that position but instead he spent his time setting standards and precedents that basically stayed unchanged until FDR ….
Me
I saw Clinton at a small event of 200 people post presidency. The dude just attracts people. Kind of remarkable to be honest.
Ike
Monroe. He laid the foundations of America foreign policy that Brenton Woods would be built upon.
IKE was a much better President than Clinton. Consider as a Republican he founded NASA, integrated the military, ended Jim Crowe, passed the first Civil Rights legislation since the Civil War, expanded Social Security, and otherwise kept the New Deal intact, which every following President nipped away at including Clinton and Kennedy. FDR was the greatest and best President. Won WWII and fixed the great depression, which, had it gone on, would have brought Marxist-Lenninist communism to our country. FDR creating the greatest and most prosperous middle class in history. Abraham Lincoln is second along with George Washington. One of the most important presidents after the three I named was Nixon. Nixon's policies ended the Cold War, eventualled settled the oil markets, and Nixon completely redid the dollar assuring US hegemony after the Cold War. Nixon also founded OSHA and the EPA and passed the Clean Water Act. He couldn't quite get the Clean Air Act done before he resigned. However, the War on Drugs, which it turns out was intended to be a war on political enemies, black Americans and the anti-war hippie generation. I put Clinton middle of the pack. Clinton put 200,000 people in my state into food insecurity when he signed the "Personal Responsibility Act."
Ike was great, but I believe Truman integrated the military.
Ronald Reagan The Best Two Term President.
At what? Remembering not to shit in his pants?
In my lifetime? President Obama. I’m 62.
You can thank Clinton for giving China MFN status and enabling their rise to be a dangerous power. So he has that going for him.....now let's talk rape allegations....
Clinton is a piece of shit who had a painting of himself in a dress on Epsteins wall
REAGAN
Eisenhower. His failing was to not doing away with castro America is now pinned between 3 nation states sucking our bodily fluids. Mexico, Canada. USA, I'll add most of south America
Which Clinton Policy did you like better? The massive increase in black incarceration, or planting the seeds for the 2008 mortgage meltdown? Personally I liked the smaller but more poignant "Bombing of a medicine factory to distract from personal scandals, leading to hundreds of thousands of deaths." But using your charisma to land your 50 year-old ass some 22 year-old interns is pretty awesome too.
Washington because all the better presidents had an irregular two terms lol.
I mean Clinton was fine but you're ignoring Lincoln technically two terms, he died a year into his second term but you didn't put qualifications on the terms had to be equal in greatness. FDR another obvious choice. Jefferson, Washington, Eisenhower was great too. Clinton was ok but likely not top ten in two term presidents.
Ronald Regan
Obama
OBAMA hands down
lol - you’re probably a uni undergrad who doesn’t know the first thing about Vietnam, strategy, or how to stay on topic. Go do your woke homework.
Stay ignorant and uneducated.. it suits you.
That’s all you’ve got in response? I can run circles around you.
Smart guy, regarding domestic politics. But from a realist perspective, he was as terrible as Bush I and II regarding international affairs.
FDR because they elected him two more times.
Washington? If you mean post 1945 and elected/served two FULL terms, Reagan or Obama depending on if your a republican or democrat.
FDR. Because he was two great two-term presidents rolled into one guy
If he had taken out Bin Laden when he had multiple chances and done something about the Rwanda genocide he would have an amazing legacy, but he didn't.
Hypothetically, it should've been JFK....
Kennedy couldn't even get tax cuts passed by Congress. Vietnam would have ruined his second term as much as it did Johnson.
Controversy aside? Wow. That leaves his legacy as the complete co-opting of the Republican agenda, and 'don't ask, don't tell'.
Very subjective topic but I’ll give my two cents: Grant is often slept on but I’d say Eisenhower, Washington, or Obama. Washington is an easy choice since he set the bar. Response to the Whiskey Rebellion, implemented Hamilton’s economic strategy, neutrality, Jay Treaty, Pinckney Treaty. Eisenhower - Interstate highway system, social security expansion, ending the Korean War, and his economic policies are mostly what I agree with. Obama - Affordable care act is not perfect but a good first step, got us out of the Great Recession of 2009, LGBTQ rights, end of Iraq War, Bin Laden raid, DACA, relations with Cuba. All three are well within of receiving criticism although from this thread alone I see Obama receive a lot more criticism probably due to recency bias. If we look back at everything he did though, in my opinion, he did a lot of great things.
Don't forget Obama had to do it as the first black man. No easy feat.
And he had to do it with the mentally challenged Republicans making up untruths non stop to get him out of office.
Reagan
Single handedly killed the country
Reagan
Clinton was a slimy scumbag. He was Reagan Part II. Set this country back decades. We're still fucked from that shit.
I'd love to hear your logic behind this one...
Gave liberal branding to conservative bullshit: anti gay marriage, dont ask dont tell, demonization of poor people and public assistance, racist crime policy, xenophobic immigration policy, took the reins off banks...it was like he spent the 80s jerking off to Regan's presidency and finally got to blow his load in 92. Dude kept the US firmly planted in the dark ages after 12 years straight years of backsliding. But he played the sax so people were like "ah cool." He's trash.
I came here to write "Everything Clinton did Regan did better" but this is more detailed so +1 to you.
Yours is a good one liner though. I'll probably steal it from you
You mean the hyper-Keynesianism that brought the economic boom that the ‘goloids have branded as the Trickle Down Reaganomics?
He didn’t inhale You’re right he rebranded the same shit from proceeding administrations He was the last Democratic candidate that wasn’t owned by Wall Street
Agreed, except for the last part. He was all for repealing regulations on financial institutions. Wall Street loved that shit. Let them combine their retail and investment operations and REALLY fuck us over.
He and his shrew wife cost the Democrats two presidential elections. The damage was enormous, and may yet prove irreparable.
[удалено]