If you HAD to choose:

Post Reply New Topic

If - which heaven forfend - there were NO option, is there any American president who held office in the 20th century that you would be willing to see elected in 2012?

Not saying ANXIOUS to see him elected, not saying you are campaining or even voting for him, but it would be fine with you were he our next president?

Me, I would be okay with Coolidge. Truman and Eisenhower I'm not so sure. Probably forget the rest.

[oh - feel free to mention somebody dead, it's not like we are talkking a real probability here]

I wouldn't want to pick anyone very far back in history. They would be technologically illiterate, likely racist and sexist, and wouldn't understand today's domestic and foreign policy issues.
I guess another round of Clinton would be okay, especially as he has backed away from his support of NAFTA.

Either Herbert Hoover, or Ike Eisenhower though I'm no expert on presidents, I would favor any president who sets limits on presidential power and avoids deficits like the plague.

Herbert Hoover for not meddling in the economy during the Great Depression of 1920 (the depression was more severe than the 1929 Great Depression but it recovered more quickly because the government did not get in the way of liquidation.

Ike Eisenhower for his war on the "Military Industrial Complex" and for following General McArthurs post war plans. (This lead to the rapid reindustrialization of both Japan and East Germany because of free trade and reduced taxation which resulted from the prohibition on defense spending.)

If we weren't talking about past presidents I would say Ron Paul 100%. He understands more than anybody the toxic effects inflationary policies have on the economy. He knows that the collusion between the Federal Reserve and the U.S. government not only violates the Constitution but also the Federal Reserve's founding charter.

How about not wanting to pick from among presidents of the 20th century? But I suppose if I must choose one: JFK, for his setting the goal of going to the moon within a decade. Next president ought to do the same regarding sending humans to Mars within a decade, if for no other reason to have it be that we finally set foot on another planet.

Why not liquidate the poor and unemployed? Just throw them in the smelting pot.

While I'd like to see him refreshed on the progress of civil rights legislation and the economic history of America over the past near seventy years, Franklin Delano Roosevelt. By far. Even though he was initally timid when it come to stimulus spending and not all of his works programs were perfectly designed, he eventually realized the importance of proping up demand and build a glorious social safety net. Such a shame it's been torn down since the 1970s.

Either Ike or Regan.

If that is a joke it is in very bad taste.

If it is not a joke it is in even worse taste.

What point are you trying to make here?

Because the upper middle class will need something to eat when Obama destroys the economy. It would sure make some interesting complaints from their kids about what's for dinner:

Kids: Awww, Mexican again? Why can't we have Chinese or Italian for a change?

Eisenhower:


Only to prove to the contemporary republicans and con-servatives that SOME of them used to be remotely sane, intelligent, civilized, humane, free of anti-social personality disorders, etc....



Oh.....and that there was a time when many repubs didn't shamelessly and cynically pander to the whackjob religious ruminants in this country. Aka.....poor trailer trash who consistently vote against their own economic interests cuz Tom Delay told them he hates gay people and baby killers too.

Eisenhower would always be a good bet. Clinton again would, at the least, mean basically competent management. And actually, I would be OK with Nixon again. He was a pretty good president, aside from a bit of pandering to southern racists and treating the campaign like some type of spy movie.

Aside from that... nope, no 20th-century presidents that I really want a repeat of.

During the Great Depression Andrew Mellon advised Herbert Hoover to "liquidate labor, liquidate stocks, liquidate farmers, liquidate real estate… it will purge the rottenness out of the system. High costs of living and high living will come down. People will work harder, live a more moral life. Values will be adjusted, and enterprising people will pick up from less competent people."

The problem is liquidationism punishes the poor for the mistakes of the rich. The whole idea is one sick joke.

During the time of Ike's administration, congress was not so removed from the religious values most of their constituents held in some form or other so no special lobbying effort to connect with those voters was required for about another decade. The religious right's values have been around in politics in some form all along. And why is it that so many liberals don't understand that some people do not place the welfare of their wallet as their top concern when voting if doing so would be bad for the nation? Some people's, even poor people's, biggest concerns would not all break down into numbers even if nobody ever invented homosexuality. There are people out there that have enough sense to now that attempting to augment their wealth through bureaucracy would be detrimental to the whole country. Liberals also don't seem to understand that some predominantly conservative communities genuinely DON'T WANT government social services that politicians spend so much money on. Some seem to assume that because they are poor communities that they want and need all those services, but it just doesn't work that way. They prefer to do tings themselves and liberals just get in their way.

Couldn't you practice some form welfare liquidationism? Just curious. Or even liquidationism with an eye towards keeping employment higher if possible using tax incentives for hirings?

But would not that be an evil gubbermint beurocracy meddling with the holy and rightious free market? That can lead to no good.

I'm sure homosexuality wouldn't exist today if some ditsy pantywaist liberals hadn't invented the concept. After all there are no homosexuals in Iran. At least not according to Mahmoud Ahmadinedouche.