DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Plane on August 31, 2016, 09:48:33 PM
-
http://us-presidents.insidegov.com/stories/5134/most-influential-presidents?utm_medium=cm&utm_source=outbrain&utm_campaign=ao.cm.ob.dt.5134
This is a ranking of presidents in order by which were the most agenda driven!
The presidents are considered most successful if they pushed big programs , enacted strong executive orders ,signed landmark bills into law.
Nope nope nope.
It is un-American to consider it proper for the role of government to be intrusive and life shaping .
Calvin Coolidge ranks low in this list even though as a president he ran a nearly perfect government.
Hillary Clinton has recently stated her intention to change the minds of Christians about the meaning and value of life especially in respect to abortion. She also stated that she wants to change everyone's mind about the right to self defense especially in respect to gun registration and regulation.
Nope nope nope.
The American way is the people telling the government what they want , not the government shaping the people to its likes.
-
Coolidge was an asshole. He did nothing but visit Louisiana when there was a great flood in 1927.
I agree with the premise that a great president LEADS the country.
Your criteria would result in Buchanan being a greater president than Lincoln, because he avoided the Civil War. No one wanted the Civil War as it actually turned out.
-
Necessary, such as a civil war that couldn't have been ignored, without the country splitting up, is not the same as an ideologically driven political agenda. The latter is NOT leadership. At worst, its dictatorship
-
Lincoln revoked habeas corpus and was regularly accused of being a tyrant many times.
The last words he heard were John Wilkes Booth saying "Sic semper tyrannus! (Thus always to tyrants, the motto of the state of Virginia).
-
Because if he hadn't, he country would have split. As I said, dealing with an imminent war is leadership. Dealing with a political agenda is NOT
-
The country actually did split. Everyone knows that.
Lincoln got 39.6% of the vote. His name was not even on the ballot in my home town.
-
So you accept as a good premise that the government should shape the people ?
Why didn't we keep King George then?
-
The country actually did split. Everyone knows that.
That's why there was a war. THAT's where leadership is shown....in the face of war. NOT in pushing some ideologically driven political agenda
-
NOT in pushing some ideologically driven political agenda
Whaaaa!
The Republican party was int pushing some ideological agenda?
Read the 1860 Republican Party Platform. It is online.
Then read the party platforms of the Southern Democratic Party, the Northern Democratic Party and the Constitutional Union Party. Every one of them had an agenda, and they all addressed slavery as a very important issue, along with the preservation of the Union.
They all had intensely driven political agendas.
-
We weren't talking about political parties now, were we Dr Deflection. We were discussing leaders & leadership...particularly in Presidents. ::)
-
NOT in pushing some ideologically driven political agenda
Whaaaa!
The Republican party was int pushing some ideological agenda?
Read the 1860 Republican Party Platform. It is online.
Then read the party platforms of the Southern Democratic Party, the Northern Democratic Party and the Constitutional Union Party. Every one of them had an agenda, and they all addressed slavery as a very important issue, along with the preservation of the Union.
They all had intensely driven political agendas.
Perhaps they should not have been.
There were Quakers using moral suasion to reduce the popularity of slave owning and trading.
Was the war better than letting the process run for a few more decades?
-
Leadership and ideology are inseparable. That is not a deflection.
Coolidge, for example, had a simple ideology: "The business of America is business.", despite the fact that no more than 10% of the population actually had a real business, About 40% were farmers, and small farms are not really a business, they are simply suppliers of raw materials at whatever the going rate was. Coolidge cared only about businessmen and did not give a shit about workers, women's rights, Blacks and farmers. He was at best a placeholder between the nincompoop Harding and the rather useless and disappointing Hoover.
-
Of course they can be seperable. Lincoln's leadership in executing the Civil War had squat to do with ideology. ::)
-
Why didn't we keep King George then?
King George was not interested in shaping the people,. He was interested in taxing them to finance world domination.
Yeah, slavery and secession were entirely related to ideology. Suuure.
-
Yeah, slavery and secession were entirely related to ideology. Suuure.
Perfect example.....that has squat to do with leadership.....particularly in a President. Thank you for proving my point, once again
-
The only point you have ever proven is at the top of your pointy head, sirs.
-
Why didn't we keep King George then?
King George was not interested in shaping the people,. He was interested in taxing them to finance world domination.
................
And world domination has a lot to do with changing the society in the dominion.
King George was self aggrandizing , as almost any king would be , that is typical of the specie.
King George also had duty as leader of his church to promote Christ within his dominion, and after the revival that swept England ,he co-operated with the Parliament ,set his Navy and Army to eradication of Slavery in the empire and suppressing the slave trade at sea.
The Parliament was a lot more democratic than the monarch , this part of history is interesting for having both a powerful monarch and a democratic institution with a lot of power in remarkable co-existence.
But not far away in France was this Voltaire fellow living with a ridiculously intrusive and powerful monarch writing that people need to think for themselves. This took a while to influence the situation.
-
No one considers Coolidge to have been a great leader. Coolidge at most just occupied the White House and let Congress take over.
Lincoln was perhaps a great war leader, but at no point between 1860 and 1865 could he have ever been the preferred president of all the people of this country (including all the south and the north).
-
The only point you have ever proven is at the top of your pointy head, sirs.
Oooooo.......Brilliant, albeit typical leftist rebuttal. Point remains unrefuted of course, that of course you can seperate leadership from partisan ideology. In particular, in a President....should they choose such a path
-
No one considers Coolidge to have been a great leader.
This is untrue.
You may prefer leaders that show up a lot telling you what to do, but some people prefer their leadership light and Calvin Coolidge has indeed a lot of admirers.
When the White House staff was but a fraction of the size it is today, a popular story of Coolidge concerned the question of how many people he had working for him at the White House. "About half of them," came the reply.
http://www.thenewamerican.com/culture/history/item/14546-calvin-coolidge-and-the-greatness-of-a-not-great-president"I am for economy," Coolidge said. "After that I am for more economy." President Clinton came into office promising to "focus like a laser beam" on the economy. (Bush 43, sinking his teeth into a task, described himself "a pit bull on the pant leg of opportunity.") While the 42nd president did preside over a thriving economy, Coolidge's laser beams were far more powerful and effective. Coolidge was the vice president who inherited the chief executive job when the scandal-plagued Warren Harding died in August 1923. Elected in his own right in 1924, he presided over a nation still enjoying record prosperity when he retired from the White House on March 4, 1933. In a new biography, titled simply Coolidge, Amity Shlaes has highlighted some of the remarkable achievements the nation ...........
-
Well said......and again demonstration of leadership minus partisan ideology
-
You may prefer leaders that show up a lot telling you what to do, but some people prefer their leadership light and Calvin Coolidge has indeed a lot of admirers.
================================================================
Most admired him only because Reagan decided to make a hero of him.Most likely not Reagan, but one of Reagan's handlers.
-
Well considering there's not 1 shred of proof to back your latest claim, I guess we all know where we can toss that one
-
You may prefer leaders that show up a lot telling you what to do, but some people prefer their leadership light and Calvin Coolidge has indeed a lot of admirers.
================================================================
Most admired him only because Reagan decided to make a hero of him.Most likely not Reagan, but one of Reagan's handlers.
I thought he was popular in his own day.
What did Reagan actually do , I mean what are you referring to?
-
I think the goal was simply another invalid swipe at President Reagan, at President Coolidge's expense