Who are the political figures which you admire the most?

[Nuroblav]

I haven't heard too much from them but Peter Kropotkin is someone I'd probably name. Maybe Noah Chomsky as well.

Note to self: Noam, not Noah

I'll also add Alexander Berkman. The guy is a legend that did a great job at outlining the faults of not only capitalism and the government, but also many of the strategies people took in trying to combat them. Bakunin as well.

Others that I share some ideas with, but don't entirely agree with (whether in some of ideas or their conclusions), probably would include Proudhon, Stirner, Marx and Luxemburg. I'll get round to reading them and see if anything changes

[Celestial Provinces]

FDR (Franklin Delano Roosevelt). Great President. His New Deal and civil and military projects brought tons of jobs to a struggling nation and made the right choice to declare war on the Axis Powers and helped bring an end to the largest conflict in history. It was sad that he did not see the end of the war. Harry Truman was a pretty good President though not gonna lie.

I have always admired FDR since I knew about him, I also always admired JFK too.

So in short: FDR and JFK are the political figures I have admired the most.

[Grand Proudhonia]

Proudhon, Kropotkin, Bakunin, Marx, Engels, Goldman, de Cleyre, Makhno, Stirner, Tito, and Debs

[The North America Union]

I know it sounds typical, but President George H.W. Bush. He was very great man. He stood up for what he believed was the right decision, and when ultimately that wasn't the popular opinion, he still kept with his beliefs and was not swayed into a different decision for political or personal reasons. Ultimately, he was grilled for what he thought was the right decision, but to me, that only shows his determination and commitment to common good.

President Obama is a strong speaker, and is a energetic and strong willed man. Strong foreign policy, and helped stand up to terrorism.

President Reagan, was also a great speaker, and was overwhelmingly supported. He also had a great sense of humor. He helped get through the cold war, with a strong, yet open and friendly foreign policy. Although with scandal, Reagan undoubtedly led to the success of the cold war and the post cold war position of the U.S.

Prime Minister Thatcher, although controversial, was a strong leader who would see the image of the U.K. hold strong. She stood strong for her beliefs, and was all business.

*If you wish to quote me, do not cut or edit my post.*

[Kowani]

President Reagan, was also a great speaker, and was overwhelmingly supported. He helped get through the cold war, with a strong, yet open and friendly foreign policy. Although with scandal, Reagan undoubtedly led to the success of the cold war and the post cold war position of the U.S.

Reagan, who supported violent right-wing extremists in Angola, Nicaragua, Cambodia, amass-murdering dictatorship in El Salvador, invaded Grenada, had an "open and friendly foreign policy?"

[Celestial Provinces]

President Reagan, was also a great speaker, and was overwhelmingly supported. He helped get through the cold war, with a strong, yet open and friendly foreign policy. Although with scandal, Reagan undoubtedly led to the success of the cold war and the post cold war position of the U.S.

Reagan, who supported violent right-wing extremists in Angola, Nicaragua, Cambodia, amass-murdering dictatorship in El Salvador, invaded Grenada, had an "open and friendly foreign policy?"

Oh come on, you cant go like 5 seconds without saying that every conservative is bad!

[Bengalstan]

Muammar Qaddafi
Hussein Bin Ali
Subhas Chandra Bose
Amin al-Husseini
Izz ad-Din al-Qassam

[The Fair Republic]

Lincoln, Yitzhak Rabin, RFK, Eisenhower, John McCain, John Lewis, Margaret Chase Smith, Truman

[Lamenia]

Alexander the Great, mainly because he was ultra-internationalist.
As for recent history, FDR.

[Grand Proudhonia]

Reagan, who supported violent right-wing extremists in Angola, Nicaragua, Cambodia, amass-murdering dictatorship in El Salvador, invaded Grenada, had an "open and friendly foreign policy?"

Oh come on, you cant go like 5 seconds without saying that every conservative is bad!

Out of all conservatives, Reagan was definitely a pretty bad one

[Leninist Haven]

Leon Trotsky. He stood up for what he believed, even when he realized it was unpopular, and would lead to his death. He constantly spoke against Stalinism until the day he died. I greatly appreciate his views on economics, social politics (especially given the time), and political organization (Anarchism --> Totalitarianism scale; up/down scale). He's one of the few politicians in human history that I genuinely believe to care about the good of the populace over the good of himself, and to genuinely care about what he claimed to believe.

While I admire him the most, I'm also willing to accept what I view as a horrid, terrible set of mistakes he made w/ respect to how he treated Anarcho-Communists.

[Phaenix]

I'd say Marcus Aurelius, Nelson Mandela, and Augustus.

[Celestial Provinces]

Leon Trotsky. He stood up for what he believed, even when he realized it was unpopular, and would lead to his death. He constantly spoke against Stalinism until the day he died. I greatly appreciate his views on economics, social politics (especially given the time), and political organization (Anarchism --> Totalitarianism scale; up/down scale). He's one of the few politicians in human history that I genuinely believe to care about the good of the populace over the good of himself, and to genuinely care about what he claimed to believe.

While I admire him the most, I'm also willing to accept what I view as a horrid, terrible set of mistakes he made w/ respect to how he treated Anarcho-Communists.

I hate communism/socialism. But at least he wasn’t responsible for the murdering of thousands to millions of lives like Stalin, Mao, and others.

[Liburia]

Altiero Spinelli, for his eurofederalism. Mahatma Gandhi for his pacifism. Tito, for defying the Soviets and keeping Yugoslavia intact. However I dislike the fact that he was a dictator. Alexander the Great, for defeating the Persians and allegedly being bisexual.

[Major-Tom]

I've always had a soft spot for Rob Ford, Marion Berry, and Charlie Wilson, but definitely not for the same reason. Obviously.

[The North America Union]

President Reagan, was also a great speaker, and was overwhelmingly supported. He helped get through the cold war, with a strong, yet open and friendly foreign policy. Although with scandal, Reagan undoubtedly led to the success of the cold war and the post cold war position of the U.S.

Reagan, who supported violent right-wing extremists in Angola, Nicaragua, Cambodia, amass-murdering dictatorship in El Salvador, invaded Grenada, had an "open and friendly foreign policy?"

I don't normally care to entertain responses to my personal opinions but I feel the need to further explain my opinions and help you better understand them.

First of all, you crossed out that Reagan was a great speaker and was overwhelmingly supported. Please do not edit my quotes, it is immature and violates my rights to speak what I believe. If you wish to quote me, quote my post in full, and do not cut out bits to skew, or further support your narrative. President Reagan won 525 electoral votes, the amount needed to win being 270. If that isn't the definition of overwhelming support, I don't know what is. I highly encourage you listen to the "Tear Down This wall Speech" as well, it highlights his gift in reading strong speeches, and will definitely make your spin chill.

Second, I said and I quote "a strong, yet open and friendly foreign policy". He was strong and no games in the fact that he took military action to support United States interests. He was also friendly and open in negotiations with the Soviet Union. He provided extensive aid to allies and friendly countries. He gained respect from most of Western Europe, and even the collapsing Eastern Bloc. He had a great sense of humor and always used it (even joking about his own assassination attempt).

I apologize if this is too long winded for you to read, but I sincerely hope you educate yourself further. I also hope you learn not to attack other people's personal opinions before educating yourself, especially when response or debate is not called for.

[Major-Tom]

Reagan, who supported violent right-wing extremists in Angola, Nicaragua, Cambodia, amass-murdering dictatorship in El Salvador, invaded Grenada, had an "open and friendly foreign policy?"

I don't normally care to entertain responses to my personal opinions but I feel the need to further explain my opinions and help you better understand them. First of all, you crossed out that Reagan was a great speaker and was overwhelmingly supported. Please do not edit my quotes, it is immature and violates my rights to speak what I believe. President Reagan won 525 electoral votes, the amount needed to win being 270. If that isn't the definition of overwhelming support, I don't know what is. I highly encourage you listen to the "Tear Down This wall Speech" as well, it highlights his gift in reading strong speeches, and will definitely make your spin chill. Second, I said and I quote "a strong, yet open and friendly foreign policy". He was strong and no games in the fact that he took military action to support United States interests. He was also friendly and open in negotiations with the Soviet Union. He provided extensive aid to allies and friendly countries. He gained respect from most of Western Europe, and even the collapsing Eastern Bloc. He had a great sense of humor and always used it (even joking about his own assassination attempt).

I apologize if this is too long winded for you to read, but I sincerely hope you educate yourself further. I also hope you learn not to attack other people's personal opinions before educating yourself, especially when response or debate is not called for.

You posted a longer response, but you didn't address the meat of his post. Kowani brought up a valid point about Reagan's disastrous policies on the domestic and foreign fronts, and you brought up his speeches and his personal humor. That's not how that works. Jimmy Carter was a nice guy by all accounts, but I doubt you'd take that and use it as a reason to say he was a successful President, because he wasn't. The issue is the way Reagan's negative legacy has been glossed over because of his charisma and his personal qualities, not his qualities as a Commander in Chief.

In other words, being popular and funny doesn't make someone a good President, it makes them a good politician. Kowani also didn't attack you, he very validly brought up Reagan's foreign policy.

[Bear Stearns]

There are political and historical figures who I like because they advanced causes I support. There are other ones who I like simply because their life story is fascinating or inspiring. Take Alexander Hamilton, for example. He is basically the forerunner to the modern neoliberal technocrat you see running around today, and for that reason, white liberals tend to rank him as their favorite Founding Father (part of it is they also believe the musical based on his life is historically accurate).

However, in spite of that, I do find him to be a very interesting person to study. The guy was definitely a psychopath and egomaniac, but he was also a hard worker and a capable business man. I think a modified version of his ideology could have been put to good use to really help the country, instead of becoming the ideological foundation for global capitalism run by banks and insurance companies.

[Major-Tom]

There are political and historical figures who I like because they advanced causes I support. There are other ones who I like simply because their life story is fascinating or inspiring. Take Alexander Hamilton, for example. He is basically the forerunner to the modern neoliberal technocrat you see running around today, and for that reason, white liberals tend to rank him as their favorite Founding Father (part of it is they also believe the musical based on his life is historically accurate).

However, in spite of that, I do find him to be a very interesting person to study. The guy was definitely a psychopath and egomaniac, but he was also a hard worker and a capable business man. I think a modified version of his ideology could have been put to good use to really help the country, instead of becoming the ideological foundation for global capitalism run by banks and insurance companies.

Hamilton is an interesting guy, I never quite understood the appeal of the musical either. It's just...overdone and way too theatrical/silly for my liking. But to each their own, I suppose I can understand why people may like it.

I don't know if he was a psychopath, an egomaniac sure, I'd be curious to hear why you think he's a psychopath.

[Kowani]

-double post-

[Kowani]

Reagan, who supported violent right-wing extremists in Angola, Nicaragua, Cambodia, amass-murdering dictatorship in El Salvador, invaded Grenada, had an "open and friendly foreign policy?"

I don't normally care to entertain responses to my personal opinions but I feel the need to further explain my opinions and help you better understand them.

First of all, you crossed out that Reagan was a great speaker and was overwhelmingly supported. Please do not edit my quotes, it is immature and violates my rights to speak what I believe. If you wish to quote me, quote my post in full, and do not cut out bits to skew, or further support your narrative.

"violates my right to speak what I believe" lol what. I crossed out the bit about his communication because it wasn't relevant to the point I was making at all. I fully acknowledge that Reagan was a charismatic guy, it's just not part of the overarching discussion.

President Reagan won 525 electoral votes, the amount needed to win being 270. If that isn't the definition of overwhelming support, I don't know what is. I highly encourage you listen to the "Tear Down This wall Speech" as well, it highlights his gift in reading strong speeches, and will definitely make your spin chill.

Mate, I called you out for historical inaccuracies in regards to his foreign policy. Nowhere did I contest his wide degree of support.

Second, I said and I quote "a strong, yet open and friendly foreign policy". He was strong and no games in the fact that he took military action to support United States interests. He was also friendly and open in negotiations with the Soviet Union. He provided extensive aid to allies and friendly countries. He gained respect from most of Western Europe, and even the collapsing Eastern Bloc. He had a great sense of humor and always used it (even joking about his own assassination attempt).

The myopic view here is strong. Ignoring for a moment the historical nuances of whether it was really in the interest of the US to uphold a dictatorship practically composed of death squads, your characterization of the Reagan Doctrine is just inaccurate. Hawkish may be too strong, due to Reagan's willingness to cultivate allies, but "friendly and open" ignores the way in which alliances work and the nature of West/Eastern Bloc negotiations.

I apologize if this is too long winded for you to read, but I sincerely hope you educate yourself further. I also hope you learn not to attack other people's personal opinions before educating yourself, especially when response or debate is not called for.

We are on a discussion and debate forum. That I disagree with your characterization of the Reagan Doctrine is not a personal attack.

[The North America Union]

You posted a longer response, but you didn't address the meat of his post. Kowani brought up a valid point about Reagan's disastrous policies on the domestic and foreign fronts, and you brought up his speeches and his personal humor. That's not how that works. Jimmy Carter was a nice guy by all accounts, but I doubt you'd take that and use it as a reason to say he was a successful President, because he wasn't. The issue is the way Reagan's negative legacy has been glossed over because of his charisma and his personal qualities, not his qualities as a Commander in Chief.

In other words, being popular and funny doesn't make someone a good President, it makes them a good politician. Kowani also didn't attack you, he very validly brought up Reagan's foreign policy.

I don't believe the question was ever about what makes someone a good president. The question was "Who are the political figures which you admire the most?" As I mentioned, this was a personal question about which politician I admire, and I answered it, and defended it, even though I never asked for my opinion to be debated. This is not about what "makes someone a good President".

As you seemed confused about, I responded to the fact that Kowani crossed out the statement that 'Reagan was overwhelming supported and made great speeches.' That is why I included the bits about his humor and speeches, as well as his factual popularity (525 electoral votes). It was never about what makes someone a good president, it was about my response to Kowani literally disputing Reagan's strong speeches and popularity.

Like I mentioned in my response to Kowani's "point", Reagan had a strong foreign policy, which included military action that supported the United States' interests. To quote myself in whole, "He was strong and no games in the fact that he took military action to support United States interests. He was also friendly and open in negotiations with the Soviet Union. He provided extensive aid to allies and friendly countries. He gained respect from most of Western Europe, and even the collapsing Eastern Bloc." I believe that answers the question over support to opposition groups in other countries fine.

Kowani's original respsonse ("Reagan, who supported violent right-wing extremists in Angola, Nicaragua, Cambodia, amass-murdering dictatorship in El Salvador, invaded Grenada, had an "open and friendly foreign policy?"") neglected part of my quote that said "strong, yet open and friendly foreign policy". Arguably, the word "strong" already covers supporting groups in Central America and other countries. Like I said, that is why I admired Reagan, he strongly supported U.S. interests. His original statement neglected key parts of my statement.

As I already said, this is my opinion, and that is not debatable or something that I asked for response to.

"violates my right to speak what I believe" lol what. I crossed out the bit about his communication because it wasn't relevant to the point I was making at all. I fully acknowledge that Reagan was a charismatic guy, it's just not part of the overarching discussion.

Why didn't you erase that crossed out bit then? You seemed all too happy to erase a key part of my opinion (strong foreign policy) for your response's advantage. Changing what I said violates my personal freedom of speech, as it literally erases my beliefs in turn for something that fits you better. By crossing out part of my opinion, it signals that you believe it is false or somehow not valid. If you mean otherwise, explicitly state it, instead of erasing or crossing out part of my opinion.

*I will not entertain any more responses to my opinion, you guys can spin, skew, or simply cut out anything I say, and responding to people who will not be told otherwise is a waste of any sane person's time.*