Who's your favorite president of the United States of America?
1) as a person
2) as a politician
1) is pic related 2) is Theodore Roosevelt
FDR
Teddy
https://youtu.be/unmdZ7llP8A
>>1401499
Washington and FDR.
Obama
None. I dislike all of them too much to have a favorite politically.
1. James Garfield
2. Obama
1. Obama
2. LBJ. I don't like him but he is undeniably one of the shrewdest presidents we've ever had.
>>1401559
>>1401563
>>1401620
>everyone spends 8 years shitting on Obama
>when they see the choices for who's going to replace him everyone promptly decides he's actually a pretty cool guy
1) Bill Clinton, shame about his wife though
2) Thomas Jefferson
>>1401730
The world is more than one person. I didn't like Obama in 2008 and I still don't like him.
1. Bill Clinton
2. James K. Polk
1. Bill "First Lady Second Hoe" Clinton
2.FDR
>>1401735
I have much more in common with him than I do with just about any other president. He's into comedy, he's internet-savvy, he's a genuinely likeable person, he's an introvert whose personal recharge habits are similar to my own. I would love to have a beer with him and it seems like he'd enjoy that too.
>>1401797
>I would love to have a beer with him
The very phrase that got Dubya elected
>>1401800
Read the OP and go fuck yourself.
>>1401499
1. Lincoln
2. FDR
If you said Bill Clinton for either you obviously didn't pay close attention to his presidency
>>1401813
>not wanting to get drunk with Bill "the first black president" Clinton
>>1401808
what
>>1401838
>Who's your favorite president of the United States of America?
>1) as a person
>2) as a politician
You fucking retard.
>>1401854
I'm not even him you fucking idiot. You're sperging out over nothing
>>I would love to have a beer with him
>The very phrase that got Dubya elected
1) Gerald Ford
2) Dwight "Ike" Eisenhower
>Dubya Bush
>Teddy
>>1401875
The entire thread is premised on a distinction between characteristics you like in a person and characteristics you admire in a politician. If someone addresses the former you don't get to pretend that it was instead an answer to the latter.
>>1401499
>Tie between Jefferson and Jackson
Gonna assume second is based on his effectiveness
>Tie between both Roosevelt
Reagan
Polk
Andrew Jackson for both.
>>1401752
Ye, but his favorability ratings have been climbing like crazy ever since the Herr Trumpenfuehrer v Shillary matchup seemed likely.
1) JFK because as a person he was pretty based
2) FDR because of how effective he was
>>1401752
Pardon my ignorance, but as a Canadian I don't understand why some Americans get triggered by Obama so hard?
Why do some Republicans seemingly hate his guts?
>>1401499
1) Obama (he's literally un-unlikeable)
2) Teddy or JFK
>>1402252
Racism.
Also they are trained to pretty much view every Democrat as another Hitler, regardless of his actual personal qualities.
>Teddy Roosevelt
>Not sure desu, maybe Washington. Honestly I'd say Hamilton if he ever were president.
>>1402293
Whenever I think that the "everyone who disagrees with me is a racist" thing isn't true, I come to /his/ to remember it actually is
>>1401499
1) Jackson
2) Jackson
>>1401499
Nixon for both
1 Eisenhower
2. Roosevelt (either one)
1) Obama or Bill desu
2) FDR
>>1402252
Barring the actually real, but fairly minimal, racism, there are a few reasons at least.
1. He was an inexperienced politician and more so as a leader.
2. A bit of an extension of 1, but we were in the middle of a war he promised to end, but he had no idea how to do that, so we ended up with a kinda shitty leader for the military.
3. Over time all the shitty things happened under him just fueled the fires like a bitch.
4. How most democrats view Bush is how most Republicans view Obama.
5. He got elected because of a strong reactionary sentiment the public held
6. He's reactionary like mad
7. A lot of people think/thought he is/was going to force extreme (American) liberal policies like universal health care, free college, anti-climate change policies (Yeah, for a sadly large portion of Americans this is considered a lie from the Liberal media/agenda), etc
8. He gets a lot of flack from stuff previous presidents did or set in motion
That's what I'd say at least, but for the record, we legit did get a fair amount of 'Keep the White House white' signs
>>1401499
>1) as a person
Andrew John was a bit of a badass
>2) as a politician
From what I know Bill was actually pretty decent as a president, but I admit I don't know much, especially pre-90s or even worse pre-20th century.
>>1402387
I'm not calling people who disagree with me racist, though. But the question was why some people seem irrationally to hate his guts. And racism is one reason.
>>1401499
>1) as a person
Jimmy Carter (Shoutout to Nixon, he's a tremendous piece of shit but boy is he inspirational.)
>2) as a politician
Lincoln/FDR/LBJ
Lincoln was probably the best of the three, though. FDR was legit evil when he wasn't helping the poor, and LBJ had really good domestic policy and really awful foreign policy.
>>1401730
I dislike Obama more than ever now that I'm more of a lefitst, but he's wayyy better than the two choices we have coming up. Watching the fight over the Democratic/Republican platforms for the next 4 years killed my faith in American politics.
>>1401800
People genuinely forget how charismatic Dubya was, especially compared to Gore and Kerry.
>>1402785
>but he's wayyy better than the two choices we have coming up.
That's basically anyone who isn't Trump or Clinton.
1) William Henry Harrison
2) Warren G. Harding
>>1402286
>He's literally un-unlikable
Am I supposed to ignore how incredibly pretentious he is because he's black. He's charming and funny, but also incredibly holier than thou
>>1403495
What makes him seem pretentious?
>>1402252
Aside from some elements of racism, he's very deliberately divisive and dismissive towards those who disagree with him. It's telling that he and his administration have used the term "right (or wrong) side of history" more than any other president, with the possible exception of Clinton.
The great irony of Obama's presidency is that, due to his lack of experience, people feared that he would be a better campaigner than policy maker. Upon taking office, he showed himself to be a very astute policy wonk. He's used the power of the executive branch to create literally thousands of regulations that will shape both business and government in the coming century. However, he never bothered to pitch these ideas to the public. He felt that they were so self evidently right that people would just agree with them.
When he failed to use and build on his very clear mandate, Republicans made the obvious play: take control of the narrative. Sure, some of them may have been motivated by race, but it was mostly sound politics.
When Obama emerged for the legislative fight over the ACA, the public was a lot less receptive to his message than the were in 2008. And he failed to win them back, because once again he was convinced that his policies were self evidently right. His message became that those who opposed him were closed minded and stuck in the past. Instead of being told how Obamacare would help them, half the public was told that they were in the wrong side of history. And that line gets trotted out for every issue now.
Like guns? Wrong side of history
Reduced immigration? Wrong side of history
Oppose free trade? Wrong side of history
Through the use of a viral marketing campaign that showcases his personal charisma, Obama has reminded the public that they like him. But they don't like his policies, and that's entirely his own fault.
>>1403529
Perhaps pretentious is the wrong word, but he is dismissive of those that disagree with him, regardless of if their concerns have merit
>>1403544
That reminds me of an article I read in the Atlantic
>>1404057
It's a common topic these days. I read a lot of that on politico. Turns out honest analysis produces more content than "they hate him because they're racist"
>>1401499
>as a person
I don't like any of them as people. They're all shitbags in different ways. Even George "Sockpuppet" Washington.
>as a politician
Madison
>>1403544
The obvious question is what he could have done to control the narrative.
The GOP has pet news outlets, like FOX and a huge amount of AM radio.
The Democrats have CNN, kind of, but nothing really to compare.
>>1404487
>The Democrats have CNN, kind of, but nothing really to compare
>what is MSDNC
It's funny that you would point out Fox News when it has the least amount of opinion time of the three big networks.
>person
Carter
>Politician
Polk
>>1402735
>5. He got elected because of a strong reactionary sentiment the public held
>6. He's reactionary like mad
>Obama
>reactionary
>the people when Obama was elected
>reactionary
The word you're looking for is emotional. Obama isn't a reactionary in any sense of the word. He's a progressive.
>>1404487
Democrats have MSNBC
1. Clinton
2. Clinton
>>1404487
Putting aside the fact that Democrats have MSNBC, Comedy Central, HBO, and really most late night and morning talk shows in the tank for them, it wasn't access to the public that was the problem. It was what they did with that access.
A guy named Mike Lofgren talked about this in "The Party Is Over." There were several problems.
1) Clinton's "New Democrats" are basically Republican lite. Sure, they bicker with social conservatives, but it's hard to differentiate your message when you support the same banksters and wars as the opposition.
2) Republicans and the media conglomerate that surrounds them are really good at harping on the negative and putting Democrats on the offensive. This is partially because, as the more progressive party, Democrats have the more difficult task of defending changes. Meanwhile, the GOP just has to say that everything is fine as is, any problems stem from activist liberals, and any proposed solutions will just make things worse. This problem is compounded by...
3) Democrats are too pseudo intellectual for their own good. That's not too say the education bashing on the right is a good thing; that's ultimately damaging. But this is what led to Obama assuming that his policies would stand on their own merit. He forgot that most Americans only have a high school education.
The example Lofgren uses is the stimulus bill. Sure, part of the message could be restructuring the economy and putting energy and all that. But the core should have been "Jobs. This is a jobs bill, it will create jobs." Jobs are simple. Everyone knows what a job is, and during a recession, it's what they want to hear about. Not everyone knows what "stimulus" means. It sounds vaguely sciencey and intellectual, and the steelworker who just got laid off wasn't in a trusting mood in 09.
worst president is lincoln
best is jfk
your opinion is wrong
>>1402293
Fuckin tumblr
>>1401730
>>1402785
if you think obama is a great president then you're a brainwashed prole who's political knowledge stops at line item campaign talking points
obama has continued to destabilize the middle east, arm islamic terrorist groups, and overthrow secular governments abroad while at home he continues to refuse to enforce statutes of law passed by congress and continue to grow the executive branch and grab more power while not honoring the separation of powers
>>1404487
The people watching fox and the like are already solid GOP. No independent thinks "I'm not sure who I'm going to vote for. I bet Rush Limbaugh will give me a balanced appraisal of the candidates!"
>>1404904
I believe that some form of condiment is in order.
1) Jimmy Carter
2) Probably either one of the roosevelts interchangeably
>>1402032
autism and bait in one post. damn, here's your (You), man, relax.
>>1401499
FDR
>>1401499
Teddy and Teddy
a true hero
>>1405483
gonna add an addendum to this
runner up for person category for me, though, is woodrow wilson. before the presidency he was a historian, and I also kind of like his idealism even if it was completely 100% misguided.
1. Reagan
He was a fucking dumbass and I love to read about him. I would watch a few movie with him.
2. FDR
Not much explanation needed. The guy knew how to run a country and his presidency shaped the US for the reminder of the century. His wife was pretty based too.
>>1401499
1) as a person
Abe, Teddy, Jefferson, Coolidge.
2) as a politician
Same as above.
1) Bill Clinton
2) George H.W. Bush
I miss the 90s bros
>>1401499
1) obama
2) eisenhower
JFK, bro-tier genuinely good guy who may have had shady dealings in the past, but genuinely wanted to change the world for the better. His brother even more so.
FDR, guided us through the Depression and WW2. Reversed the tide of income inequality to the point that it's taken generations for the Reaganites and neocons to undo finally undo it.
Honorable mention for Eisenhower as a stellar president.
>>1405827
I just had an odd thought.
Reagan was the Erdogan to FDR's Ataturk.
>>1405840
A great leader takes the throne in troubling times and rebuilds a struggling nation to ensure that its institutions benefit everyone, giving it long term stability.
Some asshole comes along later and tears down the great leader's legacy for decidedly ignoble motives. The comparison is apt.
>>1401499
Obama seem like a decent guy that's obligated to do stuff that he hates. Pretty sure he'll be the happiest person in USA at the day he gives his goodbye speech.
Lincoln looks /fa/ as fuck. Does anyone know why he is related with vampire hunters in movies?
Also read about JFK, he seem pretty based but his and his family's destiny was horrible. I'm not an American history expert, but pretty sure he did horrible stuff that made some people mad. I remember reading on that matter too, but from Fed reserves to his relationship with monroe, there were shittons of conspiracies to read and my mind isn't read for all of those theories yet. Hell I even remember theories about aliens too.
t. non american
>>1405900
He spent a lot of time trying to kill Castro, and in general he really, really hated communists.
His political allies helped to rig the 1960 election for him, but he probably would have won without it.
He also increased the number of US troops in Vietnam from 100 advisers to 16,000 """advisers.""" He was actually drawing down the number of troops when he got shot, but then the Buddhists started setting themselves on fire, and he ended up giving the green light to remove the president of South Vietnam (Ngo Dinh Diem, who was a complete tossbag) in a coup.
The coup worked, but one of the officers detaining Diem shot him and his brother, which Kennedy was shocked at because Diem had been a personal friend of his since the 50s.
Also, he couldn't get as much done on civil rights than Eisenhower or Johnson, because half of the Democrat party was in favor of segregation, and he wasn't quite the crooked son of a bitch Johnson was.
Lincoln is a badass hero in memes because he was the guy that abolished slavery and cracked down on slave owning. It got him a war that a hell of a lot of people died in, but Lincoln kept the union together, won the war and made slavery a legal no, so the country was better off for it in the long urn.
>>1405919
That's pretty much the only thing he did.
Teddy and Eisenhower.
>>1405928
He also owned a pub.
>>1405914
JFK got less than 3 years into what would likely have been a two-term presidency before they killed him. He advocated an increased advisory role in Vietnam, but opposed expansion into combat roles. He wanted to pass broad, sweeping civil rights legislation.
JFK was a more reserved progressive of the era, but he was certainly a progressive. RFK was the one who wanted to really change the country. He would have cracked down on corruption and the influence of money in politics. Bobby Kennedy was the next FDR. They shot him for it.
>>1405961
This is a good question for the what-if machine.
If Kennedy hadn't gotten domed, would the Voting Rights Act have passed.
Because LBJ was an excellent machine politician, and extremely competent at getting votes together for bills.
Would he have done it on his bosses behalf? Because LBJ didn't really like Kennedy much from what I understand.
>>1405978
LBJ also pushed the legislation as a Kennedy legacy initiative in the wake of his assassination. I think you'd be hard pressed to say that JFK, if he had lived, could get legislation like that passed in '64. Maybe down the line, but '64 was unlikely.
It was the late-60s assassinations of MLK, RFK, etc. that stopped the forward progress of the progressive movement.
>>1405943
Didn't know that
>>1405961
>He would have cracked down on corruption and the influence of money in politics. Bobby Kennedy was the next FDR. They shot him for it.
The irony of your statement is that Bobby and John WERE the corruption and influence of money in politics.
>>1406034
Revisionist garbage. I can't wait to hear how FDR made the Depression worse by abandoning Hoover's "Free Market" policies.
>>1406053
>get caught red-handed in midst of voter fraud
>hand wave it away because you're President AND Attorney General
>not corruption
It's not even revisionist. It's been widely known to be true and has been proven to be true since before Kennedy even assumed office.
>>1406055
The election of 1960 had some question marks. A lot of elections in American history have question marks. 2000 and Florida comes to mind.
The point I was making was what JFK was going to do with his presidency once he had it. JFK would have pushed civil rights, tried to avoid too much commitment in Vietnam, and taken on the issue of poverty.
What did W do after he won a controversial election? How did that turn out?
>>1406083
>the faults of others absolves the Kennedy brothers of their corruption
That's not how it works and you know it.
>had some question marks
>some
A few hundred convictions and the entire state of Illinois are not "some" question marks. They're not even question marks. It's a fucking exclamation point. Add on the fact that RFK was proven to have covered it up on a federal level by forcibly removing the FBI from any investigation into the matter speaks volumes. Your idols were just as corrupt as the worst of them.
>>1406098
You're going to whine and play the victim card like all right wingers do, because they have no real argument.
Leaders who come from the right are shit-tier. They always have been, and they always will be. Your best modern president is Eisenhower, who would be a modern Democrat by any stretch of the imagination. Massive public works spending to build a nation-wide highway was the greatest achievement of his administration.
Both sides have done questionable things. Only a child wouldn't acknowledge that. But your side did it to benefit the wealthy allies of the Bush clan who started a war for oil in Iraq that created ISIS. Our side did it to beat Nixon.
Fuck you.
>>1406117
>projecting this hard because your idols aren't the saints you're making them out to be
I'm sure it wouldn't help if I spoiled the fact I'm not a right-winger. I'm not even American. Stay mad, though.
>>1406117
Are you okay?
1) TJ
2) TJ
>>1405928
I mean, when the country is literally being torn apart, there's not much else that you can do.
>>1401499
Teddy Roosevelt
>>1406117
>started a war for oil
muh lefty conspiracy theories
>>1401563
He Loved Lasagne?
>>1401499
1) Theodore Roosevelt
2) FDR was incredibly skilled as a politician, having to navigate a whole bunch of shitstorms throughout his career and often simultaneously. Personal memoirs from his aides and contemporaries reveal someone who absolutely loved the political game, and I think that's what allowed him to do what he did.
>>1406144
The funny thing is, it's better than the truth, which is that they started a war for Pure Ideology.
>>1406126
I think he's lost in some mythical alternate reality where Kennedy lived, passed overwhelming liberal reforms far outstripping LBJ's (nvm that Kennedy wasn't a supporter of civil rights at all in the early years of his presidency), America clapped and he forever abolished the Republican Party. Who else uses terms like "your side" and "our side"? I'm not a Republican voter nor a conservative by any stretch, but this is why US politics is sad.
>>1406171
>which is that they started a war for Pure Ideology
That and incriminating gas caches leftover from the Iraq-Iran War which Saddam refused to hand over. Leftists always seem to leave that part out. They also conveniently forget that we found them.
>>1406098
But Kennedy won Texas by 42,000 votes, and he only needed Texas.
There was election rigging, but he would have won either way.
>>1406260
It's funny that you mention Texas because it's also a state that was found to have numerous cases of voter fraud. Particularly in those counties along the Mexican border. Either way, if he was going to clinch it, there was no need to commit voter fraud. It doesn't matter though. There's no excuse. The Kennedy brothers were corrupt. You can't excuse corruption. It doesn't matter how much you shuck and jive to make it okay. It's not okay.
>>1406182
>Leftists
Please anon. Your ideology is pilling up on top of your ideology. It is unseemly.
>>1406273
Go ahead and point out the part which is factually incorrect then so I can blow you the fuck out.
>>1406269
There was documented voter fraud against Kennedy too.
That's just how politics were in those days. You're not going to find an election in US history for a long time that doesn't involve these kinds of reindeer games.
But yeah, nobody ever came up with a credible way that Johnson could steal 42,000 or more votes from Nixon. It's just not feasible with the ballot stuffing available at that time.
>>1406276
>There was documented voter fraud against Kennedy too.
Yeah, well. That wasn't covered up a federal level by the actors in question, now was it? Stop trying to make it okay. It wasn't okay then, it's not okay now. It's treason.
>>1406275
Let's start with the part where Colon Powell's presentation to the UN was total fiction, there was no chemical weapon production program, and you're waifu a shit.
>>1406275
Your statements aren't even in the realm of fact, never mind factually incorrect.
>>1406280
There were a ton of lawsuits on the state and federal level though.
This was something that was investigated, and people went to jail over it.
Nixon abandoned them, because he knew that he would have lost either way.
>>1406285
Except when the FBI investigated it, they were purposefully stopped by the attorney general. Riddle me this: Who was the Attorney General in 1961?
>>1406288
>Between 2004 and 2010, according to The Times, troops found thousands of rusty, corroded chemical munitions throughout Iraq, though all were manufactured before 1991.
None of this is even remotely relevant to America's casus belli for the war, or is a surprise to anyone.
Why don't you cite the Iraq Survey Group, who were the actual people assigned to answer that question?
Oh, right, because you're spinning the facts as hard as you can.
>>1406291
>Except when the FBI investigated it, they were purposefully stopped by the attorney general
I'm interested to see if this is true.
Condiments are in order.
>>1404927
trump voters don't really mind how stable the middle east is, but they are pretty concerned about whether obama is a muslim or not
soooo.... racism.
>>1406296
>On the other hand, some fraud clearly occurred in Cook County. At least three people were sent to jail for election-related crimes, and 677 others were indicted before being acquitted by Judge John M. Karns, a Daley crony. Many of the allegations involved practices that wouldn't be detected by a recount, leading the conservative Chicago Tribune, among others, to conclude that "once an election has been stolen in Cook County, it stays stolen." What's more, according to journalist Seymour Hersh, a former Justice Department prosecutor who heard tapes of FBI wiretaps from the period believed that Illinois was rightfully Nixon's. Hersh also has written that J. Edgar Hoover believed Nixon actually won the presidency but in deciding to follow normal procedures and refer the FBI's findings to the attorney general—as of Jan. 20, 1961, Robert F. Kennedy—he effectively buried the case.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/history_lesson/2000/10/was_nixon_robbed.html
>>1406304
You should know this by now.
If a news story is a question, the answer is no, and Seymour Hersh's anonymous informants are just his imaginary friends.
And again, the state of Texas is what decided the election. Illinois didn't matter at all.
>>1406312
>it's okay because the state didn't matter
>>1401532
Rossevelt fanboy.
>>1406117
>But your side did it to benefit the wealthy allies of the Bush clan who started a war for oil in Iraq that created ISIS
ISIS is more things than just fucking Bush, including Hillary Clinton fueling rebel ideology through the arab spring together with her media buddies at google, Obama wanting to get rid of Assad, Saudi Arabia propelling wahabbism with oil fortunes, Israel securing their position as the definite power on the middle east, Russia not wanting Obama to get rid of Assad and I don't even know.
Why is Syria so fucked guys
>>1406312
>If a news story is a question, the answer is no, and Seymour Hersh's anonymous informants are just his imaginary friends
>ANY SOURCE THAT DISAGREES WITH ME IS FAKE
Fuck off.
>>1406320
>ISIS is more things than just fucking Bush, including Hillary Clinton fueling rebel ideology through the arab spring together with her media buddies at google, Obama wanting to get rid of Assad, Saudi Arabia propelling wahabbism with oil fortunes, Israel securing their position as the definite power on the middle east, Russia not wanting Obama to get rid of Assad and I don't even know.
Other than the part about Saudi Arabia, this is literally all nonsense.
>>1406321
Rude.
But seriously, Seymour Hersh is infamous for making up anonymous informants.
>>1406322
>rebels during the Arab Spring didn't get support from Hillary and Obama
>Obama didn't try to bomb Assad in 2013
okay
>>1406325
>Obama didn't try to bomb Assad in 2013
Acktually, he was the one who stopped it from happening.
Everyone was pushing for it, and he decided to kick the decision to Congress, because it felt like a repeat of April 2003.
>>1406322
How is it nonsense? Hillary was pivotal for the arab spring, which led to peaceful protest, which in turn led to violent repression by Assad, which in turn led to violent revolt, which eventually ended up with current ISIS.
I know Hillary Clinton isn't a fucking evil master of foresight, I'm just saying it's not just bushdidit
>>1405840
>>1405895
meh, Reagan had somewhat good intentions (at least when it came to economics) and there were a lot of benefits to his policies. Also, FDR himself was a economic conservative and wanted a balanced budget, perhaps that makes him an even better man, he went against his political beliefs, but whatever, Reagan's NET effect on the economy is too unclear to condemn him entirely.
>>1406337
>Hillary was pivotal for the arab spring
I strongly doubt this.
The US had no interest in creating unrest in Egypt, being that they're a US ally.
Besides, you think Arabs give a shit what some white bitch is up to?
I think it's just the natural consequence of a youth bulge and incompetent governments.
>>1406333
He was one of the fucking guys pushing for it. The one that stopped it from happening was John Kerry, and that was by accident.
>>1406345
>The US had no interest in creating unrest in Egypt, being that they're a US ally.
Except, you know, ideology
>>1406346
If he wanted it, it would have happened.
Like, that's the thing about being commander in chief. He has the ability to begin a bombing campaign unilaterally. And in 2013, international opinion was in favor of one.
>>1405442
>using the autism meme invented by /v/
>using the bait meme also invented by /v/
>using the you meme invented by /s4s/
TRIPLE MEME COMBO
WOW!
>>1406350
If you didn't notice, the US didn't fuck with military aid to Egypt, or do anything except for "strongly condemn" the killing of protesters.
And we sure as hell didn't do anything after Morsi got booted, and the Muslim Brotherhood got cracked down on a second time.
>>1406288
Its a well documented fact that Saddam was afraid of the US and disposed of "WMDs" as quickly as possible to avoid a US invasion, didnt work lol
>>1406362
I think he wanted to leave some ambiguity about the weapons to prevent an Iranian invasion.
>>1406364
Sure, but the level of WMD material found in the country was laughable. Ofcourse thats a hindsight thing, but i don't feel like its a huge stretch of the imagination to say that the largest information gathering organization on the planet didnt at least have an idea of Iraq's level of munitions of the more dangerous sort. Either way I don't care, Saddam was a bad guy, but we fucked up.
1. Lincoln
2. Thomas Jefferson
>>1406357
He did want it.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-syria-crisis-usa-idUSBRE97T0NB20130903
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/08/president-obama-faces-mounting-pressure-to-stay-out-of-syria/279154/
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/31/syrian-air-strikes-obama-congress
>He has the ability to begin a bombing campaign unilaterally
Yes, he does. He didn't use it because everyone threw a shitfit. Senators were begging for a vote.
>>1401499
Unique Nose.
>>1401499
Jefferson Davis
JFK perhaps too
George III definitely as last proper sovereight
>as a person
Carter
>as a politician
Wilson
>>1406297
I don't really care if theres a fire somewhere in the world. I do care if theres a fire in my apartment.
You dip.
>>1406357
And if he had done that, the 2014 mid term elections would have gone even worse for him. You need to remember that Obama had effectively no mandate coming out of the 2012 elections, that's why he continuously has to rely on
>Muh polls
>Muh 90% of Americans support
>>1406117
>It's okay if we break the law because we're doing it for PROGRESS
>No, I don't know what we're progressing, but I'm sure my team will tell me by November
>There are no corporate oligarchs on our side
>I'm not a low information voter, they only support reTHUGlicans
>FuckH8
t. Hillary supporter
>>1401499
1) Obama
2) Wilson
I love that history has continued its trajectory of looking at Johnson as a great, if but flawed, President.
1. Thomas Jefferson
2. Thomas Jefferson
>>1408766
>USA President
>Jefferson Davis
>George the Third
This is some shit tier bait.
>>1409043
Right, because fires don't spread at all. And forget our trading partners, their homes can burn right the fuck down. Oh and forget that the fire repeatedly states its goals are burning our house down with our decapitated bodies inside the house then pissing on the ashes. Yeah, no reason to care at all.
1. Lincoln
2. Coolidge
>>1406117
Man, a sense butthurt.
>>1401499
Andrew Jackson
Andrew Jackson
>>1410147
The problem is our house is in disrepair, our kid and our wife's son are about to have a race war, the house has a quintuple mortgage on it and were about to lose our job at the mill.
>>1402252
it could have something to do with doubling the debt ceiling, having the highest racial and cultural tensions in decades, and ruining libya, iraq and syria
and being blissfully ignorant like about ahmed the clock boy which was an obvious scam
he's the justin trudeau of USA
>>1413873
I have to do this line by line
>doubling the debt ceiling
Damn that Obama, repealing the Glass-Steagall Act and then flatlined interest rates for the 6 years leading up to the recession, leading to unsustainable debt.
OH WAIT
>having the highest racial tensions in decades
April29th1992.jpg
>having the highest cultural tensions
Damn that Obama, for creating the most watched news network in the country then turning it into a propaganda mouthpiece for the DNC, propagating a bunch of lunatics on AM radio, and founding the Tea Party.
>ruining libya, iraq and syria
Damn that Obama, ordering the Libyan and Syrian militaries to fire on protesters until army defections turned the protests into civil wars. Especially damn him for releasing ISIS from Syrian jails, and openly cracking down on Sunnis and concentrating on moderate rebels in an effort to turn the conflict into a sectarian mess.
Especially damn him for creating what is now a parliamentary democracy fighting off ISIS with Egyptian help.
And damn him for selecting a former terrorist to be Prime Minister of Iraq, and then having that terrorist ruin Iraq's democracy with sectarianism to the point where Sunni tribal leaders would rather deal with ISIS than the Shia death squads, and then demanding that US troops leave.
>>1403544
I love this board. Thanks for an objective and thorough explanation, anon.
>>1413941
not an argument
>>1406182
So? It was their fucking problem. Only the people of Iraq had the right to get rid of Saddam.
Are they better than before? No.
Waste of time, waste of people, waste of money, waste of resources.
>>1414006
>Only the people of Iraq had the right to get rid of Saddam.
You're right, I'm sure they could have held a recall referendum, or waited for the next election to vote him out.
I think the war was dumb, but that's a dumb argument against it.
>>1414004
Sure it is. It pretty concisely demonstrates how Barack Obama isn't responsible, or, indeed, even mostly to blame, for any of the things you've mentioned.
Do you have reading comprehension difficulties?
>>1413947
Sometimes this website surprises you. Sure, most people post shit for cheap (you)s, but sometimes you get a bored poli-sci major who's willing to rant for a few paragraphs.
>>1413941
What the fuck did the Tea Party even do that you're seriously citing it as an example of 'cultural tensions'? Wasn't it mostly a few uneventful, peaceful protests by old white people about the bailouts and there were a few signs that said Obama was a Muslim? Honestly, it's baffling that you think this is in any way comparable to the literal murders and riots wrought by BLM.
>>1414006
>Waste of time, waste of people, waste of money, waste of resources.
So are you, but we still keep you around.
>jfk
Kawaii uguu that erped with the Kremlin
>LBJ
edgelord himself, napalmer of commie scum
>>1401499
>as a person
JFK
>as a politician
Lincoln
>>1414086
Poli-sci is cancer. I liked this board a few months ago but the more I read the more I realize this board is up its own ass.
>>1402771
>created the precedent of suspending habeas corpus
>best
get fucking real
>>1405919
I think its pretty safe to say the GDP has never recovered since the abolition of slavery and the rate of violent crimes has soared
Take off the rose colored glasses
>cultural tensions in decades
Guess you were born after the LA riots
>>1419436
>the GDP has never recovered since the abolition of slavery
What? You do realize that the South more-or-less fully recovered economically during reconstruction right?
Also you just straight up defended slavery. I thought the Confederacy was formed over "States Rights" (TM), not slavery
>>1402785
>People genuinely forget how charismatic Dubya was
This.
https://youtu.be/bxR1tZ08FcI
>>1402771
>and LBJ had really good domestic policy
Yeah, the war on poverty and the creation of the welfare state was such a resounding success.
>>1419446
That "recovery" could've been profit
>Also you just straight up defended slavery.
I defend the free market. You cannot prevent demand from existing.
