NationStates Jolt Archive

Who? Its really hard to figure out. I dont know but Im in a really depressed mood right now, maybe its because Im drinking Beer, and listening to The Piano Man. Or maybe its because I am sick of sitting here while Bush steels the elections, and nobody cares. Eitherway, its got me wondering, who was our last honest president who was in it for the good of the country?

Ill say Harry S. Truman.

Even the last Semi-person in it for the good of the country, Bill Clinton, seems like a LLOOOOONG time ago.

I would have said JFK. But we didnt get enough time to see him. :( Oh great, now Im thinking of that, and Bobby Kennedy. :( :( :( *Chugs*

Now, seriously, how did Bush "steal" the election when he won both the electoral and the popular vote :rolleyes:

And on topic: I'll go for Reagan.

Eisenhauer BTW did I just massacre the spelling of his name?

Now, seriously, how did Bush "steal" the election when he won both the electoral and the popular vote :rolleyes:

And on topic: I'll go for Reagan.

I knew someone would say him.

And to some extent I will agree with you.

But first of all, he wouldnt be running for re-election if the system of the Electoral Collage was deleted. I seriously doubt they would have nominated again. And plus its pretty obvious he rigged Ohio, this time.

But lets stay on topic.

Eisenhauer BTW did I just massacre the spelling of his name?

Yeah.

Eisenhower.

Even the last Semi-person in it for the good of the country, Bill Clinton, seems like a LLOOOOONG time ago.

BILL CLINTON?!??!?!

Are you serious? Clinton was one of the most corrupt presidents of the our lifetime! Bush isn't any better, but seriously, no.

Kenedy was good, though he is suspected to have had some shady dealings with less than characters.

In my mind the perfect president is TR. Now that was a Pres who didn't take crap. Sadly, in todays political climate, he wouldn't stand a chance.

Ill say Harry S. Truman.

Even the last Semi-person in it for the good of the country, Bill Clinton, seems like a LLOOOOONG time ago.

I would have said JFK. But we didnt get enough time to see him. :( Oh great, now Im thinking of that, and Bobby Kennedy. :( :( :( *Chugs*
Clinton? Errr... no.

Now, seriously, how did Bush "steal" the election when he won both the electoral and the popular vote :rolleyes:

And on topic: I'll go for Reagan.
Reagan? Errr... no.

I don't see why you partisan Americans don't see that Reagan and Clinton were very similar. Reagan was a tad more right-wing than Clinton, but not much different. They were in different parties, but they were both conservative.

I knew someone would say him.

And to some extent I will agree with you.

But first of all, he wouldnt be running for re-election if the system of the Electoral Collage was deleted. I seriously doubt they would have nominated again. And plus its pretty obvious he rigged Ohio, this time.

But lets stay on topic.
Its not going to work to blatantly lie and say "oh but anyway lets stay on topic."

I think most Presidents worked for what they thought was the good of the country. Whether people agree with their views is a different matter...

The current President Bush.

While you may not agree that he's honest, or working for the good of the country, I'm sure that's his personal belief.

Now, seriously, how did Bush "steal" the election when he won both the electoral and the popular vote :rolleyes:

And on topic: I'll go for Reagan.

Hmmmmm, Iranian-Contra anyone? I would also say Truman.

In my mind the perfect president is TR. Now that was a Pres who didn't take crap. Sadly, in todays political climate, he wouldn't stand a chance.
I assume you mean Teddy Roosevelt. I agree, within five minutes of announcing his candidature for the leftist wing on the Democratic Party, the Republican establishment would be spreading propaganda about what a "dirty commie" he is.

Clinton? Errr... no.


Reagan? Errr... no.

I don't see why you partisan Americans don't see that Reagan and Clinton were very similar. Reagan was a tad more right-wing than Clinton, but not much different. They were in different parties, but they were both conservative.

I didnt say Clinton...

"Some men are born great, some achieve greatness...and some people get it as a graduation present." -Robin Williams

Anyways, I wouldn't say Reagan because of, oh I don't know, our trillions of dollars of national debt. Really, I don't think there has been an honest president since George Washington because he didn't have to worry about elections. ;)

I assume you mean Teddy Roosevelt. I agree, within five minutes of announcing his candidature for the leftist wing on the Democratic Party, the Republican establishment would be spreading propaganda about what a "dirty commie" he is.
TR never ran as a Democrat, who were conservative just like the Republicans back then anyway.

I should say conservative in the American sense.

an honest politician...now that would be novel
how can u judge a president's honesty? when the media is privately owned by good old Mr Murdoch - u only get half truths anyway. Well i suppose they do say that half truths do make the best lies! :rolleyes:

The current President Bush.

While you may not agree that he's honest, or working for the good of the country, I'm sure that's his personal belief.
You could say that for every president. I doubt that any of them were secretly working against the USA's best interests deliberately.

I'd have to say...probably Kennedy, even though even he botched some affairs; Bay of Pigs, anyone?

TR never ran as a Democrat, who were conservative just like the Republicans back then anyway.

I should say conservative in the American sense.

Actually, as a major party candidate I don't think he could lose. I could be wrong, but didn't he run again for a third party and almost won.

The last five presidents who legitimatly tried to work for the good of the nation;

George W. Bush
Bill Clinton
George H. W. Bush
Ronald Reagan
Jimmy Carter

I can't think of a single president who hasn't honestly believed he was working for the good of the people. Some presidents (Carter, Ford, Grant, etc) did some real harm to the country, but they were acting the way they felt was right. For all of our complaining, we've had some great presidents in the last few years.

G. W. Bush is a great president who led us through the crisis of September eleventh with skill. He oversaw two campaigns of the War on Terror, and has treated the office with class and respect.

Clinton, for all his personal failings, was a good caretaker president. Nothing really happened in his presidency, and he didn't really screw anything up too badly. He went with the currents and got us through his eight years no worse off than when he got in.

George H. W. Bush was someone I didn't support much because he was far too trusting of congress, but none-the-less, he led us through a war, tackled major domestic issues and oversaw the end of the cold war.

Ronald Reagan was one of the greatest presidents in our history. Through his skillfull handeling, the United States fought the Soviet Union where the Soviets couldn't win, economy. His economic policies led us to the greatest peace-time economic expansion in the history of the country, and out of the depression he inherited.

Our last four presidents have been perfect for their time, and three of them have been rewarded with second terms. I'm not sure why you're all complaining about them.

One of my personal favorite Presidents was Reagan, but probably not the most honest, but up there. Teddy was probably the last greatest president we have had. FDR wasn't that dishonest, I just didn't like his political agenda.

Lets try not to get honesty and political opinions mixed up here.

I didnt say Clinton...


> Even the last Semi-person in it for the good of the country, Bill Clinton, seems like a LLOOOOONG time ago. <


Was that taken the wrong way?

I'll second (third?) Eisenhower. He had his head on straight.

How about looking forward? As a Kerry Republican, I'm hoping against hope that I'll be able to vote for a Powell or a Rice in 2008.

My pessimistic side tells me it will be Jeb Bush vs. Hillary Clinton, though.

/me starts looking up immigration requirements for other countries... :rolleyes:

Actually, as a major party candidate I don't think he could lose. I could be wrong, but didn't he run again for a third party and almost won.
Yeah, he ran on the Progressive/Bull-Moose ticket.

I am sick of sitting here while Bush steels the elections, and nobody cares. Eitherway, its got me wondering, who was our last honest president who was in it for the good of the country?
Um ... I suspect you mean "steals," although "steels" would be a better explanation of what is actually taking place. :D

I thought this was most honest, but if we're talking favorites I would say Wilson. The League of Nations was ahead of its time. True Visionary

Ronald Reagan was one of the greatest presidents in our history. Through his skillfull handeling, the United States fought the Soviet Union where the Soviets couldn't win, economy. His economic policies led us to the greatest peace-time economic expansion in the history of the country, and out of the depression he inherited.

Not to be a wet towel, but the USSR was would have collapsed reguardless of Reagan's excessive spending or not. Reagan *hastened* the demise of the USSR, but I don't believe it was worth the cost, especially for something that was going to happen anyway. Ironically, the international 'pull' that the megasized military we created during that era, was responsible for us currently needing to sustain such a military.

The current President Bush.

While you may not agree that he's honest, or working for the good of the country, I'm sure that's his personal belief.

*coughs*

That was funny!

How can you claim honesty when he has one of the most secretive administrations ever?

Not to be a wet towel, but the USSR was would have collapsed reguardless of Reagan's excessive spending or not. Reagan *hastened* the demise of the USSR, but I don't believe it was worth the cost, especially for something that was going to happen anyway. Ironically, the international 'pull' that the megasized military we created during that era, was responsible for us currently needing to sustain such a military.
Um ... I hate to be the one to spoil all your childhood illusions, but the military was considerably smaller when 9/11 occurred; almost too small.

I'll second (third?) Eisenhower. He had his head on straight.

How about looking forward? As a Kerry Republican, I'm hoping against hope that I'll be able to vote for a Powell or a Rice in 2008.

My pessimistic side tells me it will be Jeb Bush vs. Hillary Clinton, though.

/me starts looking up immigration requirements for other countries... :rolleyes:

Powell, yes
Rice, no. She would bring too much baggage to the ticket.

I wouldn't hold my breath for Powell to run though. He thought about it in 96 but decided he wasn't going to. He defintly would have gotten my vote though. He's the most honest polititian I can think of. Sadly, Much of America still isn't ready for a black president.

You could say that for every president. I doubt that any of them were secretly working against the USA's best interests deliberately.

This would be my response to the question. Generally most our presidents have worked for the good of the country, whether or not they actually did good. Best phrased here:

The last five presidents who legitimatly tried to work for the good of the nation;

George W. Bush
Bill Clinton
George H. W. Bush
Ronald Reagan
Jimmy Carter

I can't think of a single president who hasn't honestly believed he was working for the good of the people. Some presidents (Carter, Ford, Grant, etc) did some real harm to the country, but they were acting the way they felt was right. For all of our complaining, we've had some great presidents in the last few years.

G. W. Bush is a great president who led us through the crisis of September eleventh with skill. He oversaw two campaigns of the War on Terror, and has treated the office with class and respect.

Clinton, for all his personal failings, was a good caretaker president. Nothing really happened in his presidency, and he didn't really screw anything up too badly. He went with the currents and got us through his eight years no worse off than when he got in.

George H. W. Bush was someone I didn't support much because he was far too trusting of congress, but none-the-less, he led us through a war, tackled major domestic issues and oversaw the end of the cold war.

Ronald Reagan was one of the greatest presidents in our history. Through his skillfull handeling, the United States fought the Soviet Union where the Soviets couldn't win, economy. His economic policies led us to the greatest peace-time economic expansion in the history of the country, and out of the depression he inherited.

Our last four presidents have been perfect for their time, and three of them have been rewarded with second terms. I'm not sure why you're all complaining about them.

*coughs*

That was funny!

How can you claim honesty when he has one of the most secretive administrations ever?
Strange ... it didn't amuse ME! :D

I also believe all presidents were good presidents and worked for the good of the country but i really like George W. Bush: He has helped many families on 9-11-01, he is help fighting terorism that most countries don't really do internationally that much, giving our soldiers the proper fundings(mostly conservatives do this). I know Bill Clinton didn't give our troops proper funding in Panama when they declared war on the U.S. He gave our troops 7 rounds of pistol ammo and thats not fair when we are fighting a drug war. But he did help with relations with China and other countries.

TR never ran as a Democrat, who were conservative just like the Republicans back then anyway.
Yes, I know, but if he were running today he would be a Democrat, just like Denis Kucinich.

My pessimistic side tells me it will be Jeb Bush vs. Hillary Clinton, though.



It won't be Hilary. She practicly started her campaign before Kerry was defeated. She'll run out of momentum before the primaries. Also remember that she needs to win her senate seat first.

The democratic candidate will be one of two people; If the party reforms and heads more towards the center, they'll go with Liebermen, who I like a great deal. If they keep going further left and getting more corrupt, then we'll see Howard Dean, or a similar candidate.

Sharpton will again run in the primary, but won't get the nomination.

Jeb, however, is the likely candidate from the Republican side. Guliani is a smart choice for the republicans as a vice-president, as they should easily capture New York, a very blue state. As much as I like Rudy, I disagree with him on alot of fundimentals, so this should be an interesting race for me.

I also believe all presidents were good presidents and worked for the good of the country but i really like George W. Bush: He has helped many families on 9-11-01, he is help fighting terorism that most countries don't really do internationally that much, giving our soldiers the proper fundings(mostly conservatives do this). I know Bill Clinton didn't give our troops proper funding in Panama when they declared war on the U.S. He gave our troops 7 rounds of pistol ammo and thats not fair when we are fighting a drug war. But he did help with relations with China and other countries.

I recall a soldier in Iraq telling Rumsfeld that they had to use scrap metal from junkyards to armor their humvees. And Rumsfeld basically told him to stop whinning. I don't think this current administration is doing all it can to protect the men and women in the millitary.

Yes, I know, but if he were running today he would be a Democrat, just like Denis Kucinich.
Really? I don't think he would fit into any party. He was progressive in terms of social equality, but he was also an imperialist who had no qualms about goign to war like the Democratic left does now. He also equated contraception to murder IIRC.

In their own opinion, all of them. In actual fact, probably none. Honest men do not good politicians make.

I don't see why you partisan Americans don't see that Reagan and Clinton were very similar. Reagan was a tad more right-wing than Clinton, but not much different. They were in different parties, but they were both conservative.

Amen. And the whole giving-weapons-to-terrorists-thing should rob Reagan of any praise but somehow he managed to get it in spades by an army of supporters. It's mind-boggling how he didn't get reamed for that, especially with his piss-poor excuse (be folksy enough and you can get away with anything apparently). Christ. The crap that went down in Reagan's rule is much scarier than anything Clinton did.

(Reagan rant ends)

Anyway I'll give JFK props since his cool head saved us from nuclear war and for the good job he did during the civil rights days.

Anyway I'll give JFK props since his cool head saved us from nuclear war and for the good job he did during the civil rights days.

I'll agree, but for getting us into Vietnam, we'll ream his butt a few strokes before we let him into Heaven.

I like JFK too, but he didn't do much for civil rights. He promised a lot but never got to fullfill them. it was mostly LBJ

Um ... I hate to be the one to spoil all your childhood illusions, but the military was considerably smaller when 9/11 occurred; almost too small.
Smaller than what?

If the party reforms and heads more towards the center, they'll go with Liebermen, who I like a great deal. If they keep going further left and getting more corrupt, then we'll see Howard Dean, or a similar candidate.

Two things.

One - Lieberman scares me. He just outright scares me. Not that I'm saying Dean would be a better choice, but if I had to pick between either of those two and a Republican canadiate, I would think long and hard.

Two - The implication there is that more radical is more corrupt. Is that what you were going for? (Not trying to sound accusatory, but that's just how it sounds.)

Definitely Truman, possibly Eisenhower, maybe JFK. But here's a couple that most people won't think of....

Lyndon Baines Johnson: though perhaps not honest in the sense you're thinking of, and certainly not "nice", LBJ single-handedly made huge strides in the areas of civil rights, poverty, health care and education, and did so out of a desire to see the country a better place (well, that and secure his place in history :)). Alas, Vietnam probably knocks him off the list...

Nixon and honesty? Ahahahaha...

Which leaves us with Jimmy Carter, probably the last of the truly honest Presidents. Inept, ineffective, and ultimately a failed presidency, yet everything he did or tried to do was motivated by a desire to better the country.

I know this is off topic but why would the USSR have colapsed even if thecold war hadent hapened, they wouldnt have had to spend all their money on nukes and internal security.

anyways my favorite americain president would have to clinton, I liked the fact that he enlarged the social security net.

I'll second (third?) Eisenhower. He had his head on straight.

How about looking forward? As a Kerry Republican, I'm hoping against hope that I'll be able to vote for a Powell or a Rice in 2008.

My pessimistic side tells me it will be Jeb Bush vs. Hillary Clinton, though.

/me starts looking up immigration requirements for other countries... :rolleyes:
How, in the name of all that's holy, can you justify voting for Colin Powell or Condoleeza Rice if you voted for Kerry??? This simply does NOT compute!

I recall a soldier in Iraq telling Rumsfeld that they had to use scrap metal from junkyards to armor their humvees. And Rumsfeld basically told him to stop whinning. I don't think this current administration is doing all it can to protect the men and women in the millitary.

He was a national guardsmen who was coached by reporters. What he did was inexcusable, if a soldier has those concerns, he brings them up to his superior officer.

Also, the problem is not money, it's logistics. It's hard to get the new Hummers over there.

And furthermore, troops are not going through scrap-metal piles. None of my friends over there are doing anything like that.

Jeb, however, is the likely candidate from the Republican side. Guliani is a smart choice for the republicans as a vice-president, as they should easily capture New York, a very blue state. As much as I like Rudy, I disagree with him on alot of fundimentals, so this should be an interesting race for me.

I personally would rather have an mccain, guliani ticket... I have nothing but the upmost respect fo mccain even though i disagree with him on some things.

I personally would rather have an mccain, guliani ticket... I have nothing but the upmost respect fo mccain even though i disagree with him on some things.

Two centrist Republicans? No, it won't win you elections. At least one of your candidates has to appeal to your base.

I like JFK too, but he didn't do much for civil rights. He promised a lot but never got to fullfill them. it was mostly LBJ

Didn't Kennedy sorta snuff it during the height of the whole civil rights movement? Can't really do much if you are dead.

I honestly don't know much about LBJ other than he was from texas and that he grabbed the Canadian PM by the collar when he said that Canada wouldn't join Vietnam.

BTW I thought Vietnam was LBJ's call and not really JFK's. I thought there was some pressure on him to make the move into Vietnam. Bah, I need to watch those PBS documentaries closer.

Besides we all know 1 Texan Democrat = 2 Massachusetts Republicans :D

IIRC JFK used LBJ as VP as Kerry used Edwards, to win votes through cultural North/South barriers. Would you guys say the same?

He was a national guardsmen who was coached by reporters. What he did was inexcusable, if a soldier has those concerns, he brings them up to his superior officer. So what if he is a national guardsman? that does nto make him any less of a soldier... What he did was perfactly legitament, and it was a perfactly legit question... HE did have those concerns and he DID address them with his superrior officer. and to call his actions inexcuseable, just goes to show how little people know of military law.

Also, the problem is not money, it's logistics. It's hard to get the new Hummers over there. no the problem is not logistics...we cna ship the hummers over there jsut fine...the issue is that the factories wthat they are beign produced in are workign as quickly as they can to get them over there...the other issues is that a hummer is not designed to withstand an RPG round. if you look at what the hummer was replaced you will find it was the Jeep... the hummer is just supossed to be the general purpouse vehical...and that is why it's not doing so well for waht it is being used for.. a better vehical would be the Bradly fighting vehical(although that's not so great either. it's designed to fight in and German urban enviroment.) or maybe some of the armys new strykers... however i dont know a whole lot about them honestly. Anyway my point is people are comming up with the wrong solution to the problem... upgradign the hummers will not protect them for and RPG round. all it will do is add semi needless weight to the vehicals.
a cheeper and more effective solution to protecting hummers from IED and mines woudl be to pur sandbags on the floors(this is no joke it's been done before...in jeeps though.)
And furthermore, troops are not going through scrap-metal piles. None of my friends over there are doing anything like that. uhmm...Soldiers alwasy dig through scrap piles... do you know why? because we can always find somthing useful lying around...because we are trained to adapt and over come..

And furthermore, troops are not going through scrap-metal piles. None of my friends over there are doing anything like that.

Funny. I've talked to someone who's been over there several times, and, according to him, some soldiers are picking up scrap metal for armour.

Whose anecdotal evidence shall we pick? Hmmmm

Who? Its really hard to figure out. I dont know but Im in a really depressed mood right now, maybe its because Im drinking Beer, and listening to The Piano Man. Or maybe its because I am sick of sitting here while Bush steels the elections, and nobody cares. Eitherway, its got me wondering, who was our last honest president who was in it for the good of the country?

Ill say Harry S. Truman.

Even the last Semi-person in it for the good of the country, Bill Clinton, seems like a LLOOOOONG time ago.

I would have said JFK. But we didnt get enough time to see him. :( Oh great, now Im thinking of that, and Bobby Kennedy. :( :( :( *Chugs*

RONALD REAGAN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Then before that Kennedy (all the others in between were crap)
Then FDR and the first Roosevelt, then Lincoln and so on

PS- You spelled "Steels" wrong its "S-T-E-A-L" and also Bush did not "Steel" anything he won outright and you just were not paying attention or intelligent enough to notice it.

RONALD REAGAN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Hmmm.... I suppose he was probably being honest when he said "I don't remember." Of course, he wasn't very honest when he covered the whole thing up, but why should that matter?

Eisenhauer BTW did I just massacre the spelling of his name?

Yes, you did. It's "Eisenhower." And I liked him too. But I also liked Reagan.

Carter.

Which is exactly why he failed miserably, was crucified, and why certain people actually consider his successor something other than Antichrist.

His successor's actually being said to be liked is probably an in joke, such as how some people claim to like "Story of the Year."

Funny. I've talked to someone who's been over there several times, and, according to him, some soldiers are picking up scrap metal for armour.

Whose anecdotal evidence shall we pick? Hmmmm

Erm... Your anecdote is a second-hand, single source. His consists of multiple firsthand sources. While I personally am closer to believing yours, on an objective basis, you wouldn't have ground to stand upon.

Okay.

To be the president, you need to be a politician.

Being actually HONEST and being a politican are mutually exclusive. Thus, we have had no honest, good presidents, because while they may have been good, they were certainly not honest.

Grover Cleveland or Silent Cal, IMO.

who was our last honest president who was in it for the good of the country?

Those of you who replied, please note the question. He didn't ask who was the greatest president in your opinion.

GW lied about weapons of mass destruction
Clinton lied about Monica
GH lied about no new taxes
RR lied about Iran Contra


Jimmy Carter was the most recent honest president but he wasn't necessarily good for the country, although as Citizen Carter he's been good for the world. Name one other U. S. president who was awarded a Nobel Peace Prize.

Before him, probably Abraham Lincoln was the last honest president but whether you think he was good for the country depends upon whether you are a Yankee or a Southerner.

Name one other U. S. president who was awarded a Nobel Peace Prize.

TR and Woodrow Wilson.

I'd have to say...probably Kennedy, even though even he botched some affairs; Bay of Pigs, anyone?
IIRC, Kennedy inherited Bay of Pigs from his predecessor.

Eisenhauer BTW did I just massacre the spelling of his name?
Spelling yes. But if you pronounce it as if it were German it would sound ok.