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

Edited 5/22/2016 04:38:26

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

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

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

Edited 5/22/2016 04:56:35

The republican and democratic parties are not ideologies.

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

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

Eisenhower is bae

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

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

u guys are overestimating the capability of the president

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

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

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

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

..and so forth?

judge a president on how he appoints ppl

he cant do shit about the economy

tell that to the federal reserve and also the congress

Edited 5/22/2016 06:18:36

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

The Conservative is actually far closer to Democrat than Libertarian or Conservative :P

Man, the waco is making more sense than a few of you, that's pretty great

The Republicans of the early 1800s were very good imho. The Republicans of the late 1800s were very bad imho.

WW & FDR just made us too involved, we just fucked off until those two idiots decided to say screw the Monroe Doctrine, let's try to get rich off of war!

We did ^

Actually , Modern Republicans are going back to the Democratic-Republican positions of old

CORRECTION:

Al-Qaeda is fighting for the death of America and Israel. That is not " Propaganda ". It. Is. Fact.

Correction: The stated goal of Al-Qaeda has always been to drive the US out of the Middle East.

This has been known to everyone for quite sometime, except blokes like you choose to ignore it and cry over your non-existent freedoms being attacked by non-existent threats. If you had ever paid attention to history, you would know the biggest threat to freedom is the government at war.

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.

West Germany got the 3rd highest amount of money.

http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/marshall-plan-iraq

rapid economic growth in countries that had been occupied by Germany during the war occurred “irrespective of the timing and extent of Marshall Plan aid.” In West Germany—the plan’s most often cited success because of the subsequent “German Miracle”—economic recovery began before aid started flowing and coincided with Ludwig Erhard’s elimination of many of the Allied Control Commission’s extensive restrictions on trade, production, prices and distribution.

The arrival of Marshall Plan funds did not correlate with the resumption of growth.

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.

Ok, so basically what I said before - Truman refused to let Korea be united.

Popular discontent stemmed from the U.S. Military Government's support of the Japanese colonial government; then once removed, keeping the former Japanese governors on as advisors; by ignoring, censoring and forcibly disbanding the functional and popular People's Republic of Korea (PRK); and finally by supporting United Nations elections that divided the country.

There were colossal riots against American rule.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autumn_Uprising_of_1946

while I don't agree with wars, I don't find them as an inherent problem

Would you like it if you were killed? I far think that you'd rather atheism be banned in America than to be killed. How can you not see war as the biggest problem?

how to count in terms of what is a problem, you count in the number of lives lost, to which I state, so then you would have to consider people like , , FDR, TR, Bush 41, and basically every president that got us involved in an unnecessary war as bad. FDR-European theatre...TR-Spanish-American War, bush41- first gulf war, seriously a bad examination system if you ask me.

If you ask me, it's the only valid examination system there is, unless there's a tie in death count (0). Nothing is as bad as a death, nothing can weigh over it - Marshall Plan, civil rights - not worth thousands dead.

I also heavily take in motive, as I don't believe that people that do the right thing for the wrong reasons deserve large amounts of credit.

Yeah, and Nixon is bad there, I agree - he was very pragmatic. But so were all the others, he just happened to do way better deeds.

Would you like it if you were killed? I far think that you'd rather atheism be banned in America than to be killed. How can you not see war as the biggest problem?
Nope, I would gladly go into a full revolution to preserve the rights of atheists, and risk getting killed. I find there to be much bigger problems than wars, which I view as just diplomacy failures.

If you ask me, it's the only valid examination system there is, unless there's a tie in death count (0). Nothing is as bad as a death, nothing can weigh over it - Marshall Plan, civil rights - not worth thousands dead.
And I think that's where we massively disagree. You assign the value of life to be infinite, I find it finite and very limited, as such I view the actions taken in the presidency to alleviate global and domestic social and economic problems having the potential to outweigh the botched warfare of a presidency.

But so were all the others, he just happened to do way better deeds. By your definition of better deeds. Also, some did actually do the right stuff for the right reasons. Truman pushed for civil rights despite it costing him popular support, the same goes for LBJ. Eisenhower eventually turned against McCarthy, despite that action also costing him popular support. I view Nixon's actions as mostly those that were popular, he cut back on enforcement of civil rights for instance.

Nope, I would gladly go into a full revolution to preserve the rights of atheists, and risk getting killed.

Would that be fair to your family and friends? That's who your death hurts most, and you're just throwing away their feelings in the masturbation of ridiculous principles.

You assign the value of life to be infinite, I find it finite and very limited, as such I view the actions taken in the presidency to alleviate global and domestic social and economic problems having the potential to outweigh the botched warfare of a presidency.

How is taking a right away as bad as taking a life away, you tell me that.

Truman pushed for civil rights despite it costing him popular support

You said something about him refusing a conservative legislator. That's antidemocratic, that's all I've to say about that. Likely your other exemples are, too.