best/worst US presidents and WHY!

[Colonel Valerio]

i disagree with that smithsonian article. i think the interpretation of the numbers are wrong and misleading, but we can go in circles about that.
you bring up some good points for thought-- i dont know when it wouldve ended, but i personally dont think it wouldve gone on much longer. besides, it would actually be advantageous for factories at that time period to have workers who are paid a pittance instead of slaves which require food, shelter, and clothing to be under their care. remember, there were no child labor laws nor safety/hazard regulations. slave owners had to care for their slaves-- they were an investment to them as distasteful as that might sound to you. if they got hurt and were out of work, they were losing money. having a worker who was hurt was simply cast aside and replaced.

i am certainly not saying the confederacy was angelic and was totally innocent. i AM saying (and the entire crux of my review on lincoln) that the mainstream history of lincoln and the war is very slanted and has whitewashed a great deal of atrocities.

again, we dont know what the south would have done. i really dont think they wouldve went on a town burning rampage like the union army did. why? southerners are very proud of their heritage-- at least they were years ago. northerners were a far more heterogeneous group due to the influx of immigrants. established southern families took a great deal of pride in gentlemanly behavior and fair play. i dont get that impression from the northerners-- many were bitter and unwilling to fight and angry and miserable about it while the south was fighting for its existence. they had no real reason to wipe out the north because they simply (as did everyone) wanted to simply go back home. this strong pride in being from the south may have been exacerbated further because of the lost war-- due to the reconstruction misery, the southern communities knit closer together. maybe someone from the south could explain this a little better.

anyway, lincoln was never in favor of freeing the slaves-- it was never a war for moral rights. it was a war for consolidating the powers of the federal government. like i said, only 2% of the northerners were abolitionists, so he would never get elected running on a platform to free the slaves.
he deserves his vilification... and then some.

Fair enough, I maintain you are wrong if you think the war wasn’t about slavery, but I’m not about to defend all actions of the North or pretend that most viewed it as a human rights issue, it’s sad that slavery happened in the first place and it’s also sad that in America a devastating war had to be fought to stop it. History being as it is though you can’t give moral high ground to the South and you can’t pretend that to the South it wasnt all about slavery, they state as much that it is what it’s about

History being as it is, maybe had Lincoln not been assanitated the North could have seen reconstruction through.

Good talk.

 

[free2018]

my picks, in no particular order:

best:
JFK: i believe he was going to end the federal reserve.
jefferson: a real libertarian. LA purchase.
coolidge: small gvt, low on spending, libertarian: civil rights for blacks + catholics, wary of foreign entanglements, cut debt by 25%, grew local governments
madison: biggest in creating the constitution
john tyler: HUGE states rights advocate, anti-bank, sided with secessionists (due to states rights).


worst:
lincoln: responsible for the bloodshed of the civil war
GWB: 9-11 criminal; patriot act, overseas wars
obama: surveillance state president + the root cause of recent racial strife; killed american overseas without a trial (ill never forget that)
clinton: sold US national parks away (unesco, world heritage), drug kingpin of AR, corruption, sex fiend, etc. waco.
last one is hard to choose...
grant: presided over the act of 1871, turning the US into a corporation
wilson: federal reserve, league of nations
FDR: socialist, pushed the US for war, new deal (bad), completely screwed up negotiations with stalin, causing untold suffering in europe for decades to come

ill go with... grant. that act started the gears turning against us.

JFK and Lincoln are my favorites.

 

[Colonel Valerio]

Truman bungled the end of the war and helped start the Cold War, it would have been better if Henry Wallace had succeeded FDR.

 

[Vytas]

Best Andrew Jackson..worst Obama.

 

[polymoog]

JFK and Lincoln are my favorites.

ugh. after all i just posted about lincoln? well, everyone is entitled to their opinion.
JFK was one of the better ones.

 

[polymoog]

Truman bungled the end of the war and helped start the Cold War, it would have been better if Henry Wallace had succeeded FDR.

lets talk non-NWO influenced history here.
how would you have wanted truman to proceed? the japanese refused to surrender and lose honor. im sure you saw how dug in they were on all of those tiny japanese islands. i am very much opposed to nukes, but my mind is open if you want to try and change my mind with info on how a nipponese ground assault wouldve saved lives.

i think the cold war was inevitable. i cant blame truman for that. matter of fact, i think the cold war started as early as 1943 when FDR, churchill and stalin began jockeying for positions of spheres of influence in europe as the allies began to close in.

 

[free2018]

ugh. after all i just posted about lincoln? well, everyone is entitled to their opinion.
JFK was one of the better ones.

I hear you. My favorite thing about Abe was his quotes about the banks.
JFK was pretty faulty, but I still have him as one of my favorites.

 

[Colonel Valerio]

lets talk non-NWO influenced history here.
how would you have wanted truman to proceed? the japanese refused to surrender and lose honor. im sure you saw how dug in they were on all of those tiny japanese islands. i am very much opposed to nukes, but my mind is open if you want to try and change my mind with info on how a nipponese ground assault wouldve saved lives.

i think the cold war was inevitable. i cant blame truman for that. matter of fact, i think the cold war started as early as 1943 when FDR, churchill and stalin began jockeying for positions of spheres of influence in europe as the allies began to close in.

Actually the Japanese had been willing to surrender for months, as long as the Imperial Dynasty remained intact. In fact the bombs had very little to do with the Japanese surrender, after all they had been subjected to fire bombings that whole year, what matters if its one bomb or a thousand destroying your city? No, what forced the Japanese to surrender was the Soviet invasion of Manchuria.

Truman began alienating and excluding the Russians as soon as he was President, causing them to be more reactionary as well.

It’s one of the great American tragedies that the Democratic Convention rigged it in favor of Truman and against Wallace.

 

[polymoog]

Actually the Japanese had been willing to surrender for months, as long as the Imperial Dynasty remained intact. In fact the bombs had very little to do with the Japanese surrender, after all they had been subjected to fire bombings that whole year, what matters if its one bomb or a thousand destroying your city? No, what forced the Japanese to surrender was the Soviet invasion of Manchuria.

Truman began alienating and excluding the Russians as soon as he was President, causing them to be more reactionary as well.

It’s one of the great American tragedies that the Democratic Convention rigged it in favor of Truman and against Wallace.

the soviets invading manchuria forced japans hand? no chance. opening up another theater for them to fight is one thing, but they were of no consequence at all. all they had was tanks. the soviets were forced to go into manchuria, against their will, honestly, because the western allies took a great deal of stress off of them by opening up fronts in the EU theater. id have to check it, but their aid against japan was also part a deal where they would get to occupy specific european zones, which would eventually turn into soviet spheres of influence.

when truman took office, the soviets were moving in quickly. given the position he was in at the time, i thought he did a pretty good job. i thought the soviets were given far too much leeway after the war, though. that caused a great deal of suffering and misery under communist dictatorships for decades to come.

 

[Colonel Valerio]

the soviets invading manchuria forced japans hand? no chance. opening up another theater for them to fight is one thing, but they were of no consequence at all. all they had was tanks. the soviets were forced to go into manchuria, against their will, honestly, because the western allies took a great deal of stress off of them by opening up fronts in the EU theater. id have to check it, but their aid against japan was also part a deal where they would get to occupy specific european zones, which would eventually turn into soviet spheres of influence.

when truman took office, the soviets were moving in quickly. given the position he was in at the time, i thought he did a pretty good job. i thought the soviets were given far too much leeway after the war, though. that caused a great deal of suffering and misery under communist dictatorships for decades to come.

The Japanese developed a significant fear of the Soviet Union after this

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battles_of_Khalkhin_Gol

After Manchuria it was a clear shot to the home islands. There are quotes on record from US officials saying that the a-bombs were barely mentioned by the Japanese during peace negotiations , all they were talking about was Manchuria. Also, they were willing to talk prior to that and surrender, so long as the Imperial Family remained intact.

The Soviet’s invaded Manchuria because Stalin agreed with Roosevelt to help fight the Japanese from their side after the war in Europe was done, he was fulfilling his end of the bargain.

The lions share of the blame for the Cold War is to the US. From choosing a side in Greece and Turkey to not giving the Russians a fair and promised aid package, especially considering what we gave to the UK. Truman was acting belligerently from the beginning and never acted fairly towards the Russians. Remilitarizing Germany against agreements made with FDR was a huge mistake.

The Soviets just lost 30m people, they did the bulk of the fighting against Germany ( the allies sure took a long time to open up another front didn’t they? Let’s fuck around protecting colonial interests in North Africa and go waste a year in Italy.) I don’t think they were looking to fight and tbh most of their worst post war actions are as a reaction to American moves.

Truman signed the National Security Act and created the CIA and began to prop up and install rabid military dictators all across the world, that was escalated under Ike ( who also pretty much sucks ).

 

[polymoog]

that event happened in 1939, not in 45.

The Soviet’s invaded Manchuria because Stalin agreed with Roosevelt to help fight the Japanese from their side after the war in Europe was done, he was fulfilling his end of the bargain.

we agree on this, at least.

The lions share of the blame for the Cold War is to the US. From choosing a side in Greece and Turkey to not giving the Russians a fair and promised aid package, especially considering what we gave to the UK. Truman was acting belligerently from the beginning and never acted fairly towards the Russians. Remilitarizing Germany against agreements made with FDR was a huge mistake.

why in the world would the US give aid to the communists?? it was the soviets who acted belligerently. nobody wanted to live under communism (then, at least). it was horrible and miserable-- i doubt i need to describe these accounts to you.
for the US to give a great deal of aid to the UK is understandable from the american POV, considering they were allies and were still a major power of the free world.

remilitarizing germany after the war? whats the difference if it was remilitarized in the west if the soviets had east germany while the US/UK occupied free, western germany? germany still does not have their own army.

The Soviets just lost 30m people, they did the bulk of the fighting against Germany ( the allies sure took a long time to open up another front didn’t they? Let’s fuck around protecting colonial interests in North Africa and go waste a year in Italy.) I don’t think they were looking to fight and tbh most of their worst post war actions are as a reaction to American moves.

well, the soviets were the ones who were set to invade germany two weeks before germany invaded them. check into this if you like. it was the soviets who were being belligerent. the germans found out about it so they pre-emptively attacked to catch the soviets by surprise.
yes, the allies did take a bit of time to open up another front, but theres a story behind that (like there is for all of history. churchill was stalling on purpose to allow the pressure to build on stalin).
the americans were not willing to get involved-- this was a european war, and they had enough of that already.
check your sources-- the soviets moved first in establishing spheres of influence, not the west.

Truman signed the National Security Act and created the CIA and began to prop up and install rabid military dictators all across the world, that was escalated under Ike ( who also pretty much sucks ).

well, it was the OSS to begin, and it was the UK who was far ahead of the US in terms of military intelligence. angelton learned all he ever knew from MI6.
do you honestly think that only the west was sticking in all of the puppet dictatorships? the truth is that between the soviets and the americans, countries wanted to do their own thing. they neither wanted the american system nor communism. with MAD and the two superpowers negating each others power, countries who were not under the direct thumb of either of them were free to choose their own way.

 

[Colonel Valerio]

that event happened in 1939, not in 45.



we agree on this, at least.



why in the world would the US give aid to the communists?? it was the soviets who acted belligerently. nobody wanted to live under communism (then, at least). it was horrible and miserable-- i doubt i need to describe these accounts to you.
for the US to give a great deal of aid to the UK is understandable from the american POV, considering they were allies and were still a major power of the free world.

remilitarizing germany after the war? whats the difference if it was remilitarized in the west if the soviets had east germany while the US/UK occupied free, western germany? germany still does not have their own army.




well, the soviets were the ones who were set to invade germany two weeks before germany invaded them. check into this if you like. it was the soviets who were being belligerent. the germans found out about it so they pre-emptively attacked to catch the soviets by surprise.
yes, the allies did take a bit of time to open up another front, but theres a story behind that (like there is for all of history. churchill was stalling on purpose to allow the pressure to build on stalin).
the americans were not willing to get involved-- this was a european war, and they had enough of that already.
check your sources-- the soviets moved first in establishing spheres of influence, not the west.



well, it was the OSS to begin, and it was the UK who was far ahead of the US in terms of military intelligence. angelton learned all he ever knew from MI6.
do you honestly think that only the west was sticking in all of the puppet dictatorships? the truth is that between the soviets and the americans, countries wanted to do their own thing. they neither wanted the american system nor communism. with MAD and the two superpowers negating each others power, countries who were not under the direct thumb of either of them were free to choose their own way.

I’m going to get back on this with you in more detail soon. I think anti-communism/Russian fever led to the creation of the exact thing you fear, your mythical “New World Order”, every totalitarian and anti-freedom measure that has been imposed upon us, those of the West, started with anti-Communism and continued with anti-Terrorism/Islam which was elevated in an anti-communist action.

It should be interesting to discuss the Cold War as I may be seen as the “revisionist” in this instance.

I do want to say before my detailed reply ok this, that this won’t be a defense of Stalin, I do not deny his crimes, the crimes of the Soviet Union and I’m not even a Marxist, but I will say that post war American policies are responsible for the Cold War, and that damage inflicted by US proxies/interventions is far worse than that of the USSR.

Stalin was a monster, the Russians did bad things, but I can’t help but think if we took a different path with Henry Wallace that maybe all the ensuing horror could have been avoided. As reprehensible as I believe Truman to be, as evil as I find many of his actions, the worst thing about him is that he wasn’t Henry Wallace, that we never got that chance is truly an American Tragedy.

 

[polymoog]

I’m going to get back on this with you in more detail soon. I think anti-communism/Russian fever led to the creation of the exact thing you fear, your mythical “New World Order”, every totalitarian and anti-freedom measure that has been imposed upon us, those of the West, started with anti-Communism and continued with anti-Terrorism/Islam which was elevated in an anti-communist action.

It should be interesting to discuss the Cold War as I may be seen as the “revisionist” in this instance.

I do want to say before my detailed reply ok this, that this won’t be a defense of Stalin, I do not deny his crimes, the crimes of the Soviet Union and I’m not even a Marxist, but I will say that post war American policies are responsible for the Cold War, and that damage inflicted by US proxies/interventions is far worse than that of the USSR.

Stalin was a monster, the Russians did bad things, but I can’t help but think if we took a different path with Henry Wallace that maybe all the ensuing horror could have been avoided. As reprehensible as I believe Truman to be, as evil as I find many of his actions, the worst thing about him is that he wasn’t Henry Wallace, that we never got that chance is truly an American Tragedy.

sounds good to me, but lets make a separate 'cold war' thread when youre ready.
i dont have my sources here, so ill have to recall what i remember and dig through the net to get the details.
as far as defending stalin and your own hard left political persuasion is concerned, we ought to judge history strictly on a factual basis, and any person or leader ought to be villified, condemned, or embraced based on his actions. stalins strong leadership had nothing to do with his atrocities, and i wont attack you if you state such a thing. however, he did kill people en masse, sic the NKVD on his entire population, and he did misdevelop eastern USSR, so his past actions will be a factor if we start speculating.

by the way, theres nothing "mythical" about the existence of the NWO.

see you on the new thread.

 

[bbsion]

I am not a huge historian so I cannot give a lot of details.

But, I like George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams for all they did to bring forth the constitution and declaration of independence in America. I don't care of any affiliation with masonry this far back as I do not associate it with the evil associations it has today. I think they were imperfect men led by God to establish a constitutional government. I liked JFK because I believe he was assassinated for trying to bring truth to light. Right now I do not mind Trump. Oh yeah, and I also liked Jefferson Davis.

I did not like the Bush's, Obama, and Clintons. They are all NWO and evil men. They have created wars for profit, either killed or let people be killed, pushed LGBTQ and racial agenda, and lied on hundreds of occasions. This is just to name a few reasons. I did not like Wilson for his work on the Federal Reserve, one of the most unconstitutional and evil acts that has ruined this nation. I did not like Truman for his work during WW2 and atomic bombs. I did not like FDR because I believe he knew about and possibly helped with the bombing of Pearl Harbor.

 

[bbsion]

I forgot to mention I did not Lincoln either. I read The Real Lincoln and that mentions several reasons why I don't like him. The media and schools are making him and the Union a hero and making everyone from the Confederacy the villain. That's a big red flag. The history taught about the Civil War is messed up and completely one sided. Ignorance will kill America.

 

[NPC]

my picks, in no particular order:

best:
JFK: i believe he was going to end the federal reserve.
jefferson: a real libertarian. LA purchase.
coolidge: small gvt, low on spending, libertarian: civil rights for blacks + catholics, wary of foreign entanglements, cut debt by 25%, grew local governments
madison: biggest in creating the constitution
john tyler: HUGE states rights advocate, anti-bank, sided with secessionists (due to states rights).


worst:
lincoln: responsible for the bloodshed of the civil war
GWB: 9-11 criminal; patriot act, overseas wars
obama: surveillance state president + the root cause of recent racial strife; killed american overseas without a trial (ill never forget that)
clinton: sold US national parks away (unesco, world heritage), drug kingpin of AR, corruption, sex fiend, etc. waco.
last one is hard to choose...
grant: presided over the act of 1871, turning the US into a corporation
wilson: federal reserve, league of nations
FDR: socialist, pushed the US for war, new deal (bad), completely screwed up negotiations with stalin, causing untold suffering in europe for decades to come

ill go with... grant. that act started the gears turning against us.

Wilson 100% the worst.

 

[Janus]

worst:
FDR: socialist, pushed the US for war, new deal (bad), completely screwed up negotiations with stalin, causing untold suffering in europe for decades to come

How was he a socialist?

Well it wouldn't have been a world war without the US' involvement. He raised the stakes, there's something to admire about that. War should be waged on a grandiose scale.

FDR's declining health was strictly to blame for disastrous Yalta conference. Yet Stalin is the lesser evil, it's the man who handed over the European territories despite knowing of their ambitions who has the greater iniquity. FDR was not truly world orientated, he is to blame for the arbitrariness found in the expression "freedom". Maintaining the peace of the status quo is not internationalism/globalism.