-->
@HistoryBuff
Left wing conspiracy theories is thinking that he colluded with Russia when the Mueller Report exonerated him
RANK your top presidents of all time
Posts
Total:
57
Top 2 that are interchangeable
- George Washington (Rejected kingship, established the two-term standard which was fucking tremendous)
- Theodore Roosevelt (Anti-trust president that brought an end to the negative effects of the Gilded Age and kickstarted the creation of the Middle Class)
3 through 5 that are also interchangeable
- Lincoln (Handled the Civil War about as well as it could have been handled)
- JFK (Pretty good on Civil Rights given the time period in the 1960's, handled the Cuban Missile Crisis beautifully, Legit aimed for the moon)
- James K Polk
^ Look into what he did during his presidency and its pretty fucking remarkable. Secured Oregon and Washington territory form the British without causing a war, annexed Texas, took a fuckton more territory in the Mexican American war that went handily in favor of the US and achieved the whole 'Manifest Destiny' goal of expanding the US to the Pacific, returned the US to an independent banking system rather than the government run Bank of the United States that controlled everything, and he did all of this in ONE TERM because he DECLINED to run for a second term.
-->
@Imabench
I can't argue with your list.
-->
@Imabench
annexed Texas, took a fuckton more territory in the Mexican American war that went handily in favor of the US and achieved the whole 'Manifest Destiny' goal of expanding the US to the Pacific,
These aren't really good things lol
-->
@Vader
Wouldn't say it was an exoneration especially in the context of it being a supposed "leftist conspiracy theory".
Per Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mueller_Report)
Volume I of the report concludes that the investigation did not find sufficient evidence that the campaign "coordinated or conspired with the Russian government in its election-interference activities".[4][5] Investigators ultimately had an incomplete picture of what happened due to communications that were encrypted, deleted or unsaved, as well as testimony that was false, incomplete or declined.[6][7][8] However, the report stated that Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election was illegal and occurred "in sweeping and systematic fashion",[9][10][11] but was welcomed by the Trump campaign as it expected to benefit from such efforts.[12][13][14] It also identifies links between Trump campaign officials and individuals with ties to the Russian government,[15] about which several persons connected to the campaign made false statements and obstructed investigations.[4] Mueller later stated that his investigation's conclusion on Russian interference "deserves the attention of every American".[16]As such, the investigation "does not conclude that the President committed a crime"; however, "it also does not exonerate him",[25][26] with investigators not confident of Trump's innocence.[27][28][29][30] The report describes ten episodes where Trump could have obstructed justice while president and one before he was elected,[31][32] noting that he privately tried to "control the investigation".
Honestly, left wing vs. right wing conspiracies are not comparable. Left wing "conspiracies" are typically genuine complaints about shady things going on in the Republican establishment, right wing conspiracies are very often completely Alex-Jones-with-a-tinfoil-hat BS to provide whataboutism and a false equivalence to the Democrats. The fact that the Q-anon (or greatawakening) and Pizzagate theories, that old Bengazi stuff, the Hillary e-mails (which really were exonerated as accidental by the FBI) exist kinda prove this.
-->
@Vader
I mean, on a personal level, Bill Clinton was a scum bag. He was a philanderer, potentially pedophile based on that whole Epstein business, etc. He is in my top 10 for the same reason that Washington isn't. I don't consider their personal issues and things done before becoming president, only policies passed during their terms and potential long-term effects of those policies. Otherwise Washington would have to be #1 on every list.
-->
@Imabench
OK, I like Ike and all, but he might have to be taken out for Polk!
-->
@Imabench
Polk was a great President, he would be my 6-7th without a doubt
-->
@Imabench
Washington is not interchangeable at all. Washington started the foundations of a successful nation without any reference of how to do it besides his own knowledge himself. A clear number 1
1-Jeffereson
2-Washington
3-James Polk
4-Abe Lincon
5-John F Kennedy, Ronald Reagan(tie)
-->
@Vader
While Washington set the country up for success going into the 1800's, Theodore Roosevelt set the country up for success going into the 1900's which is when the US became a true superpower..... 9 out of 10 times I do consider Washington as the better, but every once in a while I warm up to Teddy again and think he was the best, which is why I have those as my interchangeable top two
-->
@Username
California and Texas not becoming part of the US when they did would have fundamentally altered the entire course of US history, and world history by extension.
-->
@Trent0405
Jefferson was an extremely talented president, but a bit hypocritical
-->
@Dr.Franklin
raves about nonsense, every president does that
No. Everyone makes the odd comment that doesn't make sense. Trump is the 1st president in history that will call in to a TV show and rant for an hour and make almost no sense.
Yet liberals treated it as fact
since you clearly get all your information from Fox, I can see why you would believe that.
Giving polling data to countires is not collusion, the meeting is about non-illegal stuff
lol you have no idea what collusion means do you? Here is the definition.
Collusion is a secret cooperation or deceitful agreement in order to deceive others, although not necessarily illegal, as is a conspiracy.
Trump and his team said on multiple occasions that no member of his team had any contact with any russians. So giving russians polling data and having a secret meeting with them, then lying about it, that is collusion.
LOL BS
You clearly have completely checked out from reality. We have conclusive evidence for multiple crimes at this point.
SOME mexicans are rapists, that's a fact, non white countries like Haiti IS a shithole, facts matter
yes, facts should matter. Calling all mexicans rapists, saying that black hatians should go to africa and america should get immigrants from a white country instead, and lying to black people to keep them from living in your buildings are all examples of racism.
ExampleNo. Everyone makes the odd comment that doesn't make sense. Trump is the 1st president in history that will call in to a TV show and rant for an hour and make almost no sense.
since you clearly get all your information from Fox, I can see why you would believe that.
Because you get all your information from MSNBC, I can see why you believe that
lol you have no idea what collusion means do you? Here is the definition.Collusion is a secret cooperation or deceitful agreement in order to deceive others, although not necessarily illegal, as is a conspiracy.Trump and his team said on multiple occasions that no member of his team had any contact with any russians. So giving russians polling data and having a secret meeting with them, then lying about it, that is collusion.
giving polling data*** HUH HOW DARE HE** Oh yeah what about Saudi Arabia giving the Clintons millions?
You clearly have completely checked out from reality. We have conclusive evidence for multiple crimes at this point.
Like what, Obstruction of Justice, really name it
yes, facts should matter. Calling all mexicans rapists, saying that black hatians should go to africa and america should get immigrants from a white country instead, and lying to black people to keep them from living in your buildings are all examples of racism.
Excpet he did nothing of those
-->
@Trent0405
JFK had dreadful foreign policy.
-->
@Imabench
Regardless, Manifest Destiny is this arbitrary irredentist concept which displaced tons of Native Americans. I'm not exactly proud of the presidents who continued it.
-->
@Username
Would Native Americans made better use of that land than we did?
-->
@Username
In fairness, the Native Americans were fucked long before the colonies even gained independence. If US Presidents spared them and offered them decent protections, the Spanish and British crowns would have fucked them into oblivion instead. Spain used slave labor of natives to mine for precious metals throughout the Americas while England led to the downfall of entire tribes by utilizing the fur trade in their own favor.
-->
@Imabench
@bmdrocks21
Doesn't matter. The violence that America brought on them was pretty bad dude.
bench, you have a point but still it's not like the US was good to them either. And taking over Mexican and Native American land just isn't an accomplishment to me.
I mean you don't beat someone up to prevent a worse beating from someone else
-->
@Username
I think it does matter that we for sure used the land more productively and to the aid of more people than the Natives would have. Don't pretend like they didn't commit terrible acts against each other(scalping) and didn't attack us, either. We won a war, and we got land that we used to help a lot of people.
Winning a war is an accomplishment, at least for the winning country.
-->
@bmdrocks21
I think it does matter that we for sure used the land more productively and to the aid of more people than the Natives would have
This could justify any acts of imperialism. If the UN didn't exist, would you invade Syria? The Congo? Saudi Arabia? Venezuela? North Korea? Mexico? After all, we could use the land much more productively with our 1st world democracy, standard of living, and tech.
Don't pretend like they didn't commit terrible acts against each other(scalping) and didn't attack us, either.
Two wrongs don't make a right. We've given them so much crap (https://www.history.com/news/native-americans-genocide-united-states). Is all that stuff justified just because they killed each other and attacked us?
Winning a war is an accomplishment, at least for the winning country.
So if the Nazis won WW2, it's an accomplishment?
Pre-emptively: I'm not calling anyone a Nazi, I'm drawing a comparison.
-->
@Username
This could justify any acts of imperialism. If the UN didn't exist, would you invade Syria? The Congo? Saudi Arabia? Venezuela? North Korea? Mexico? After all, we could use the land much more productively with our 1st world democracy, standard of living, and tech.
I don't think any of those acts would work in our interest. It was rather profitable to conquer our continent, though. We could be justified in doing so, I just don't think we should.
Two wrongs don't make a right. We've given them so much crap (https://www.history.com/news/native-americans-genocide-united-states). Is all that stuff justified just because they killed each other and attacked us?
Your article seems very biased based on the way that they continuously mention skin color, but I shall examine it nonetheless. I see a supposed genocide. They were blamed for attacks on American settlements, but the article doesn't absolve them from doing so. They may very well have done it. We won the Battle of Tippecanoe, don't see what is wrong with that. "To avenge the Creek-led massacre at Fort Mims, Jackson and his men slaughtered 186 Creeks at Tallushatchee" Seems like there was some back and forth, seems normal still. Jackson saved an Indian baby from being killed and raised it himself. How civil of him.
There are like six more, but you get the point. There was no "genocide" as the article wants you to believe. The Indians fought decently, but lost. The Holocaust was a genocide. It was a one-way slaughter, not a series of wars that went back and forth. This is how war works, and while war may not be an amazing device, it was overall in the better interest of the world that we did this rather than let Indian tribes war with each other and live in backwards societies.
So if the Nazis won WW2, it's an accomplishment?Pre-emptively: I'm not calling anyone a Nazi, I'm drawing a comparison.
Would the Nazis consider winning WW2 an accomplishment? Yes. Do we consider gaining millions of acres of land in good deals and a series of wars an accomplishment? Heck yes! The only difference is we are a country that respects human rights, while Nazis don't. We currently give Natives millions of dollars and their own plantations that they can choose to live in. I doubt the Nazis would offer such liberties.
-->
@bmdrocks21
I don't think any of those acts would work in our interest. It was rather profitable to conquer our continent, though. We could be justified in doing so, I just don't think we should.
Conquering our continent would be a terrible thing to do. And we wouldn't be justified in doing so.
Your article seems very biased based on the way that they continuously mention skin color, but I shall examine it nonetheless.
its history.com
I see a supposed genocide. They were blamed for attacks on American settlements, but the article doesn't absolve them from doing so. They may very well have done it. We won the Battle of Tippecanoe, don't see what is wrong with that. "To avenge the Creek-led massacre at Fort Mims, Jackson and his men slaughtered 186 Creeks at Tallushatchee" Seems like there was some back and forth, seems normal still. Jackson saved an Indian baby from being killed and raised it himself. How civil of him.
The U.S. had already come up with these ideas of "all people are equal, all people deserve rights", and yet they still constantly killed and murdered Indians, shipped them out of their homes, I.e. Trail of Tears, and gave them smallpox blankets. The Indians did not have these Enlightenment concepts, and we did. Yet we still mistreated them.
Even if you are willing to blame the Indians for their crimes, you still can't absolve the US of it's crimes.
There are like six more, but you get the point. There was no "genocide" as the article wants you to believe. The Indians fought decently, but lost. The Holocaust was a genocide. It was a one-way slaughter, not a series of wars that went back and forth. This is how war works, and while war may not be an amazing device, it was overall in the better interest of the world that we did this rather than let Indian tribes war with each other and live in backwards societies.
no first world country goes around shooting innocents after they win battles, and the nations that do are nationally and internationally prosecuted. And how is the Trail of Tears and such not genocidal? It was literally moving Indians out through intentionally disease infested land so Americans could take their own homes.
Would the Nazis consider winning WW2 an accomplishment? Yes. Do we consider gaining millions of acres of land in good deals and a series of wars an accomplishment? Heck yes! The only difference is we are a country that respects human rights, while Nazis don't. We currently give Natives millions of dollars and their own plantations that they can choose to live in. I doubt the Nazis would offer such liberties.
Yes but clearly that "accomplishment" would be a disaster for the rest of the world.
Imagine how they feel. They get kicked out of their homes and now they have these small little acres of land to live on.
-->
@Username
Conquering our continent would be a terrible thing to do. And we wouldn't be justified in doing so.
No, I meant back in the day, when we conquered the continental US. But we would be justified in conquering this continent. We could run Honduras, Bolivia, and Venezuela much better than they are right now. Nothing changes, either, without democratic elections or violent uprisings. The citizens don't have guns, so they are SOL.
its history.com
While history.com in my experience is usually non-biased, I do only have experience reading non-controversial articles from them. These articles are written by people, though, and people have biases.
The U.S. had already come up with these ideas of "all people are equal, all people deserve rights", and yet they still constantly killed and murdered Indians, shipped them out of their homes, I.e. Trail of Tears, and gave them smallpox blankets. The Indians did not have these Enlightenment concepts, and we did. Yet we still mistreated them.Even if you are willing to blame the Indians for their crimes, you still can't absolve the US of it's crimes.
Well, yes. They had the idea that all people are equal and such, but that is in our Constitution. Our Constitution applies to our citizens, not everyone else in the world.
Yes, we killed Indians. It was a war, and generally you mistreat your enemy. I could blame Indians for their crimes and us for ours, but I don't. I don't believe in war crimes.
no first world country goes around shooting innocents after they win battles, and the nations that do are nationally and internationally prosecuted. And how is the Trail of Tears and such not genocidal? It was literally moving Indians out through intentionally disease infested land so Americans could take their own homes.
I don't know if we were classified as a first-world nation at the time. During a lot of this, we were still an agrarian society. The Trail of Tears wasn't a genocide because we didn't attempt to wipe them all out. A lot died on the journey, but our mission was relocation. A genocide would be trying to wipe them out and kill them all. Gassing non-combatants that were sent to camps is a genocide. Forced relocation of a defeated army and its tribe is not.
Yes but clearly that "accomplishment" would be a disaster for the rest of the world.Imagine how they feel. They get kicked out of their homes and now they have these small little acres of land to live on.
It would still be an accomplishment. They would have overcome an adversity, which would have been bad for the rest of the world. Our accomplishment, on the other hand, was amazing for the rest of the world. Who would give billions in foreign aid to the needy, give unprecedented amounts of personal liberty, and take in all of those millions of Irish when there was famine? We did some bad, but we did a lot more good to make up for that. I don't think you could say the Natives would have done so much good with their land.
Imagine how they feel today when they receive millions of dollars from the government and get to live autonomously on reservations. They can live in harmony with nature, practice their customs, and they can do so without fear that the Apaches will swoop in and scalp them. Sounds like they came out on top in the end.
38 days later
-->
@bmdrocks21
This has been on my mind recently so I thought I'd let you know why I didn't end up replying in the end: I came to understand that the argument we having likely wasn't going to get anywhere because it rested on shaky ground; I think we have fundamentally different values and this argument ultimately boiled down to these irreconcilable differences.
-->
@Username
That’s fair