Foreign policy will always be the most important factor in determining a leader of a government. A good leader won't start wars or bomb folk. A bad one, will not just do that, but have policies that lead up to that happening.

Actually, a common misconception was that Cambodia was a separate invasion and war. Nixon ordered troops to only terminate the supply line being used by the NVG. Troops pulled out before very long after destroying it. After that, no major incursions into south Vietnam happened until the U.S. withdrawal. Cambodia is considered the last major successful operation of the American involvement in Vietnam

@MSGB Extended the great depression to 1945?, you clearly can't read graphs. The US recession ended in 39 as mobilizing of foreign forces created a demand for US arm goods, bolstering the economy as we sent arms to Britain and France initially.

Also, for people arguing he did just what Hoover did, Hoover didn't create social security, medicare, or nationalize industries, implement a minimum wage, or was willing to run a deficit to employ people to literally just build stuff(CCC and other organizations). Please get eyes. Hoover literally did minor spending increases,but no increase in the deficit, and did create gov't jobs, but not clearly enough, which would be obvious to anyone with the economic data, which he had.

Also, FDR can be argued for having extended the recession in 1937-38, when he tried to balance the budget, and there was a dip in economic output, which tells me, he probably should have continued with the same policies, which he did revert to after the economy faltered.

Also, Nixions carpet bombing of the north Is what forced them to sign the accords. I personally would not have done that particularly, but it worked

I gotta agree with japan, there was no " Great Depression " of 1945. Maybe the market tanked once or twice because the demand of raw materials drastically went down, but that's nothing compared to 1929.


FDR in my opinion, exercised probably one of the few examples where progressive economics worked in America. People seem to think that only Democrat or Republican economic policies work. Truth is, both raising taxes and lowering taxes work if done properly. The difference is which solution least affects the middle class in the least negative way. That's why both Reagenomics and Progressivism claim that there ideas work, because they both did.



Presidential success can't be measured on one scale.


DOSMETIC AND ECONOMICALLY SUCCESSFUL:

1: FDR
2: Reagan
3: T.R.
4: Clinton
5: Nixion
6: Coolidge
7: LBJ
8: Taft
9: Truman
Worst: Carter


FOREIGN POLICY SUCCESS

1: Theodore Roosevelt
2: Kennedy
3: Abraham Lincoln
4: Truman
5: Reagan
6: Eisenhower
7: FDR
8: Wilson
9: Bush Sr.
Worst: Carter

he did after promising to end it on his first presidential election, and didn't do it until after his reelection, kind of extended it unnecessarily to "keep american face"

Doesn't matter much the details, he still gets +1k points more than Truman - he ended a war, not began one.

didn't, he did what was usually done during peace time, which is the end of the use of the draft for putting people in the military. 18 year olds in the US still have to register for the draft.

Actually, America was still involved in Vietnam even after he ended his presidency, but something like 95% troops were pulled out, and the rest were pulled out the year after the next president took office. Also, the draft system was put back into site by his afterunners in 1981.

-valid point, but it could be argued that he was just taking advantage

As I said before, yeah, his motivations were all really pragmatic, but he still did these great things that are just totally ignored.

-valid point, but they definitely could have been much better written, and given more power to the EPA.

Still beats all those before him - since they did nothing of such.

yeah, he happened to be the first president during the time period in which the bipolar world began to become non-bipolar.

No, it's not just being in the right time in the right site. Lyndon Johnson, his forerunner wanted nothing at all of the kind, and was very antagonist.

"We don't propose to sit here in our rocking chair with our hands folded and let the Communists set up any government in the Western Hemisphere. "

Then Nixon (to Khrushchöv): "Isn't it better to talk about the relative merits of washing machines than the relative strength of rockets? Isn't this the kind of competition you want? " (and this was way back in 1959, he also proposed disarment mutual, but was shot down there.).

Anyways, the scandal to me is a huge dock

It is not bigger than saving lives. End.

His supression of socialism does get him docked, but pretty much every president while the Cold war was active did that

He set the tradition.

Edited 5/22/2016 04:28:56

http://www.cato.org/policy-report/mayjune-2010/stimulus-spending-cuts-lessons-1946

http://www.cato.org/publications/briefing-paper/herbert-hoover-father-new-deal

Politicians and pundits portray Herbert Hoover as a defender of laissez faire governance whose dogmatic commitment to small government led him to stand by and do nothing while the economy collapsed in the wake of the stock market crash in 1929. In fact, Hoover had long been a critic of laissez faire. As president, he doubled federal spending in real terms in four years. He also used government to prop up wages, restricted immigration, signed the Smoot-Hawley tariff, raised taxes, and created the Reconstruction Finance Corporation—all interventionist measures and not laissez faire. Unlike many Democrats today, President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s advisers knew that Hoover had started the New Deal. One of them wrote, “When we all burst into Washington … we found every essential idea [of the New Deal] enacted in the 100-day Congress in the Hoover administration itself.”[/quote]

FOREIGN POLICY SUCCESS

1: Theodore Roosevelt

Oh, boy. You started this, not me.

FOREIGN POLICY SUCCESS

1: Theodore Roosevelt
2: Kennedy
3: Abraham Lincoln
4: Truman
5: Reagan
6: Eisenhower
7: FDR
8: Wilson
9: Bush Sr.
Worst: Carter

Nixon needs to be on there, and Truman needs to be rotting in Hell.

1: GEORGE CHRIST WASHINGTON (how the hell does he not beat out all the others???)

^

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