The Good Company Of US Presidents

[ICU 812]

No More, No Less

The Good Company Of The US Presidents

The public discussion of policy issues; Corona Virus policy, societal racism, economic policy and international relations to name a few topics, are frequently overshadowed or distorted by one's view of President Donald Trump. This interferes with the evolution or implementation of well examined policy. One may have strong views on mandatory vaccination or carbon emission limits for vehicles, but if the person of the President is paramount in the discussion, the policy outcome may be ineffectual or at best sub-optimal..
We have had presidents in the past who, in retrospect, were open to strong criticisms much as President Trump is today.

Franklin Roosevelt was a womanizer before becoming paralyzed. He is also considered to have high-handedly violated The Constitution in many ways during The Great Depression and later during WW-II.

President Truman the use of nuclear weapons, and later nationalized railroads and steel mills with federal troops.

President Kennedy had extramarital affaires while he was president, some assignations took place inside the White house.

President Nixon systematically abused power to ensure that he remained in power. Eventually heresigned before he could be impeached.

President Clinton was an a self-confessed womanizer in and out of office. He too was impeached. Eventually he was charged with perjury and disbarred.

With all that said, each of these men are today recognized for accomplishing significant things while in office.

President Trump with his personal faults, is in good company historically speaking. Let's focus on the policy discussions, not the man.

[the_real_Barleycorn]

To be honest I have to ask what was "systematic" about Nixon's actions? He DID NOT politicize the IRS and Justice department like Obama did. The dems liked to say that but Archibald Cox, the special prosecutor, admitted a decade later that he not get a conviction in an actual court. Nixon did not murder Americans like Obama with his "Disposition Matrix" forgetting about due process. Nixon was not a womanizer but he was paranoid at the end. He drank heavily and his loyalty to his subordinates led him to breaking several minor laws trying to protect them.
This more than sex.
Clinton gave away the farm and some cattle to the Chinese with the Loral giveaway, and the Kray supercomputers. Clinton also politicised the Justice department and gave Hillary over 900 FBI files on both democrat and republican politicians. A future enemies list.

[The_Waco_Kid]

Originally Posted by ICU 812

No More, No Less

The Good Company Of The US Presidents

The public discussion of policy issues; Corona Virus policy, societal racism, economic policy and international relations to name a few topics, are frequently overshadowed or distorted by one's view of President Donald Trump. This interferes with the evolution or implementation of well examined policy. One may have strong views on mandatory vaccination or carbon emission limits for vehicles, but if the person of the President is paramount in the discussion, the policy outcome may be ineffectual or at best sub-optimal..
We have had presidents in the past who, in retrospect, were open to strong criticisms much as President Trump is today.

Franklin Roosevelt was a womanizer before becoming paralyzed. He is also considered to have high-handedly violated The Constitution in many ways during The Great Depression and later during WW-II.

President Truman the use of nuclear weapons, and later nationalized railroads and steel mills with federal troops.

President Kennedy had extramarital affaires while he was president, some assignations took place inside the White house.

President Nixon systematically abused power to ensure that he remained in power. Eventually heresigned before he could be impeached.

President Clinton was an a self-confessed womanizer in and out of office. He too was impeached. Eventually he was charged with perjury and disbarred.

With all that said, each of these men are today recognized for accomplishing significant things while in office.

President Trump with his personal faults, is in good company historically speaking. Let's focus on the policy discussions, not the man.

FDR was a strange bird to be sure. a terrible president during the great depression. his new deal was shit and actually prolonged the depression. would have been better if he did nothing and let it recover by itself. same with Obama. as a war time president he was rather good. won't say great but knew enough to know he wasn't a General and thus smart enough to leave it to the real Generals and Admirals.


one wonders what would have happened if Hitler had done that? clearly better that he didn't. he made so many mistakes during WWII it's amazing from a strictly military point of view that Germany was as successful as they were. no wonder some of their Generals eventually tried to kill that lunatic. and they could have deposed him any number of times. part of why that didn't happen is that about half the General's staff were fucking nazis but the other half were not. but all went along because they wanted Germany to be strong again.



by violating the Constitution in peacetime i presume you mean confiscating Gold? i'd agree with that completely. in WWII i take it you mean internment of US citizens of Japanese decent? that is a tricky one to evaluate. there were Japanese spy's at Pearl Harbor, that is known. even some posing as tourists along with the usual diplomat types.

in the end i think it was a step too far. the odds that more than a handful of US citizens of Japanese decent would have committed any terrorist acts is very small. too small to justify FDR's action.

FDR also listened to none other than Albert Einstein about the need to develop the atomic bomb. Einstein was a known pacifist but clearly smart enough to know what it would mean to the world if Hitler had gotten there first.



ultimately i side with Truman's decision to use the atomic bombs. that's been hashed out in this forum several times. it wasn't strictly a military call in my opinion, there were geopolitical issues too. part of that was stopping Stalin from grabbing up China. based on what he did in western Europe it's not a stretch to see him do that in China too if he had continued his invasion late in the war and if we had tried to simply bomb Japan into surrendering with convention means the length of time to accomplish that if at all would have given Stalin all the time he needed to grab up China. and it was the US that pressured Stalin to invade to help bring about Japan's defeat. at best Stalin was luke warm over it, his real focus was revenge against Hitler. and an actual US invasion of Japan would have been a nightmare. not that we wouldn't have succeeded, it's the cost of it. the Japanese leadership had primed their citizens to fight to the death prepared or not. they used .. wait for it .. racist propaganda to influence that in their citizens by portraying the US as war mongering murderers.

[ICU 812]

Re. Nixon"

I was first able to vote in 1972. As a College Junior I wanted to vote Democrat to end the Viet Nam War right away and other labral feel-good reasons attractive to a young man. I listened carefully to the back and forth during the Democrat Primary season and concluded that Hubert Humphry was an Buffon who could only talk in platitudes. George McGovern sounded like The Guy to me with his economic plan . . .until the "plan" was announced in detail and did not add up in any rational way. Then he dumped his Vice Presidential candidate, John Eagleton, whom he had just a week before endorsed " ...a thousand percent!"


I took a step back and voted for Nixon as he seemed to have a rational approach to things.

Two years later, Watergate broke and things looked different. As the story has unfolded, Nixon surrounded himself with menwho would do about anything to subvert the election process and keep Nixon in office. To avoid reliving that again, let me say that TO ME, it seemed to be a systematic abuse of power to retain power.

One tragic aspect of all that is that Nixon might probably have won handily any way . . .without all the dirty tricks and skulking around with suitcases full of money.

The point of the OP is notto vilify any specific president; it is to say that most great men of accomplishment have flaws. Donald Trump is in good company.

[The_Waco_Kid]

Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

FDR was a strange bird to be sure. a terrible president during the great depression. his new deal was shit and actually prolonged the depression. would have been better if he did nothing and let it recover by itself. same with Obama. as a war time president he was rather good. won't say great but knew enough to know he wasn't a General and thus smart enough to leave it to the real Generals and Admirals.


one wonders what would have happened if Hitler had done that? clearly better that he didn't. he made so many mistakes during WWII it's amazing from a strictly military point of view that Germany was as successful as they were. no wonder some of their Generals eventually tried to kill that lunatic. and they could have deposed him any number of times. part of why that didn't happen is that about half the General's staff were fucking nazis but the other half were not. but all went along because they wanted Germany to be strong again.



by violating the Constitution in peacetime i presume you mean confiscating Gold? i'd agree with that completely. in WWII i take it you mean internment of US citizens of Japanese decent? that is a tricky one to evaluate. there were Japanese spy's at Pearl Harbor, that is known. even some posing as tourists along with the usual diplomat types.

in the end i think it was a step too far. the odds that more than a handful of US citizens of Japanese decent would have committed any terrorist acts is very small. too small to justify FDR's action.


also it was knee jerk reaction to Japan's sneak attack, however Japan never intended it to be a sneak attack in the strictest sense. the Japanese embassy was supposed to deliver a document at the same time as the attack was to begin but didn't decode it in time and/or there was some sort of transmission delay. it was not an outright declaration of war more like a cessation of relations.


FDR also listened to none other than Albert Einstein about the need to develop the atomic bomb. Einstein was a known pacifist but clearly smart enough to know what it would mean to the world if Hitler had gotten there first.


ultimately i side with Truman's decision to use the atomic bombs. that's been hashed out in this forum several times. it wasn't strictly a military call in my opinion, there were geopolitical issues too. part of that was stopping Stalin from grabbing up China. based on what he did in western Europe it's not a stretch to see him do that in China too if he had continued his invasion late in the war and if we had tried to simply bomb Japan into surrendering with convention means the length of time to accomplish that if at all would have given Stalin all the time he needed to grab up China. and it was the US that pressured Stalin to invade to help bring about Japan's defeat. at best Stalin was luke warm over it, his real focus was revenge against Hitler. and an actual US invasion of Japan would have been a nightmare. not that we wouldn't have succeeded, it's the cost of it. the Japanese leadership had primed their citizens to fight to the death prepared or not. they used .. wait for it .. racist propaganda to influence that in their citizens by portraying the US as war mongering murderers.

added a point above.


not to turn this into a Pearl Harbor thread but since one of the topics is FDR and he was President for the bulk of WWII and of course when Pearl Harbor happened. the US should have more prepared. No i'm not saying FDR intentionally allowed the attack. there is no credible evidence i've seen or heard of to support that.


while history judged Admiral Kimmel and General Short rather harshly, and perhaps justifiably so the US knew tensions were high and could have had Pearl Harbor on a higher alert status. this should have come from Washington rather than leave it to Kimmel and Short, even if they clearly had knowledge of the situation and the authority to act.


ideally the US fleet should have been out on patrol. most of the battle ships would have been out at sea during the attack. also the Enterprise was delayed returning to Pearl Harbor and might have been docked when the attack happened. again if the US had recognized the clear potential of hostilities the Enterprise would have sortied out with the battle ships and bulk of the Pacific fleet. the Enterprise was delayed because back in the day aircraft carriers served as refueling tankers for other fleet ships due to their far greater fuel reserves. as i recall reading, the Enterprise was delayed for just this reason as they had to refuel some of the other ships. this was a lucky accident as it turned out.


also, Gen. Short should have had Army Air Corps planes on patrol, again given the tense situation. this along with the bulk of the fleet out at sea also on patrol would have all but thwarted the success Japan had. and even could have led to a defeat to Japan although given the size of the Japanese strike force with four carriers to one US carrier the odds were still in Japan's favor. regardless what if the US fleet had engaged and sunk one or two carriers in the strike force? especially if the US fleet was able to engage while the Japanese aircraft were at Pearl Harbor? a completely different outcome.


and one last thing that could have lessened the disaster is that there was this new technology just placed in operation that should have given just enough warning to at least get fighters in the air in good numbers and alerted the fleet, they could have at least been at battle stations already even if it was unlikely the fleet especially the battle ships could have fired up their boilers and gotten underway in time. what was this new tech? Radar. we had just installed a radar site on a mountain on Hawaii that did detect the Japanese incoming planes. it was not acted on in part because there was a squadron of B-17's expected in, except that the B-17's weren't scheduled to arrive until later that afternoon and the obvious fact that the Radar contact was incoming from the East not from the West from the mainland.


Japan got every break there was to make the attack at Pearl Harbor the disaster for the US that it was.

[oeb11]

Your history is accurate - TWK.

One question - why were the carriers at sea - and the battleships moored at Pearl?
the Navy brass were battleship centric - the brass always wants to fight the previous war again. They had not truly realized that the carriers supplanted their beloved battlewagons and big guns. the brass had no clue as to managing air combat and war from carriers.



is it just fortunate that the Pearl harbor attack forced the navy to adjust to a carrier style war in the pacific?

One can only wonder.


And if the attack had been prevented - leaving the navy brass to their battleship centric strategy and tactics - how much longer would the Pacific War have lasted due to delays by the brass in switching to a carrier centric mode of warfare?


ICU and TWK - thanks for the discussion!
he who knoweth not history - is condemned to repeat it.

[dilbert firestorm]

Originally Posted by oeb11

Your history is accurate - TWK.

One question - why were the carriers at sea - and the battleships moored at Pearl?
the Navy brass were battleship centric - the brass always wants to fight the previous war again. They had not truly realized that the carriers supplanted their beloved battlewagons and big guns. the brass had no clue as to managing air combat and war from carriers.

is it just fortunate that the Pearl harbor attack forced the navy to adjust to a carrier style war in the pacific?

One can only wonder.

And if the attack had been prevented - leaving the navy brass to their battleship centric strategy and tactics - how much longer would the Pacific War have lasted due to delays by the brass in switching to a carrier centric mode of warfare?

ICU and TWK - thanks for the discussion!
he who knoweth not history - is condemned to repeat it.

Its said that FDR knew the attack on Hawaii was coming from the radio intercepts and ordered the carriers out to sea on a training exercise.


i've never heard of the carriers were involved in refueling other ships.

[ICU 812]

As I wrote above: Many great men accomplish great things while also being deeply flawed in character or judgement.

Returning to WW-II (but not FDR or Pearl Harbor), Gen McArthur also ignored warnings and was not prepared for the Japanese invasion of the Philippines. This resulted in a total rout with a major garrison abandoned (by MacArthur) in caves on Corregidor Island.

Please, let us return to the topic" President Trump is as flawed as many other forer presidents. Now let us look at the difference a second Trump term would bring as apposed to a Biden administration.

[the_real_Barleycorn]

Cancel the space program with the return to the moon and a mission to Mars. Space is racist.

The suburbs will be under assault with the return of the Obama order to withhold funds from municipalities who not build low level housing in more affluent areas.

Forget the claw backs from China. It will be a global fire sale with China the beneficiary. The Chinese now have the largest navy, not with our capabilities, but the largest. Philippines have invited the US to copy the Chinese and build naval bases in the small islands and atolls between the two countries. Hong Kong will be crushed once and for all. Ditto Taiwan.

Higher taxes for everyone. Forget the bullshit of only the richest, Clinton lied about that and so did Obama. Then the rich will flee the country if they are not part of the inner circle like Gates, Bezos, and Zuckerberg.

Goodbye cracking and energy independence. Goodbye to call and the money made from exporting it. Oil supplies will become strained again with resulting price increases. Now that they know you will pay four dollars a gallon they're coming for it.

Guns and second amendment rights? Are you kidding? Gun czar Swalwell will do what he said and, hell yes, we're coming for your guns.

They will celebrate every Antifa and BLM appointees to local government posts.

The cancel culture will become government policy. If you don't how down then federal funds are not for you, your town, or state. Remember, what that milksop Jimmy Carter did with it. Imagine a hardcore Marxist.

That's just the first 100 days while they can blame any failure on Joe Biden.

[oeb11]

TBC - i believe you are correct in prognosticating the DPST harris marxist plans after takeover. .

BTW- not to say Swalwell is not anti-gun - i believe it was betabeto upon being appointed biden gun Czar that is on video - "Hell Yes, we are coming for your guns"!


DPST's are fomenting civil War if they think they can 'command' the disarmament of Middle America.

fuck them in their coastal 'woke' palaces -

Come and pry my weapons from my cold dead hands.

With a pile of dead 'woke' DPST 's in front of me.

[the_real_Barleycorn]

Yes, you're right, It was Beto who said that he is coming for our guns but it was Swalwell that promised nuclear weapons could be used on Americans and their guns.

[oeb11]

you are correct - TRBC!
Swalwell did threaten to use nukes on middle America if we refuse to comply with his Marxist dictatorship.

Shows the moral and intellectual bankruptcy of the DPST terrorists.

From my cold dead hands!

[rexdutchman]

Dumb ass betooo and Joey Hoey want to disarm ^ I fully agree bankruptcy and idiocracy in guberment is outstanding