American Presidents Thread I: What Went Wrong?

[Concejos Unidos]

You've said this BS constantly and it's false.

No it isn’t.

If you haven't noticed just yet, in all elections there is a massive incumbency advantage. The incumbent is more well known, may be able to direct extra pork barrel spending to their area, is likely better supported by their party, etc. Furthermore, incumbents rarely face effective primary challenges, so incumbent party voters for the general election are effectively bound to the incumbent. It isn't a level playing field.

[Prima Scriptura]

There's truth to that. It's not too Americentric either, as many Boomers do act like that in other western countries.


Honestly, I think term limits are a better solution. It doesn't arbitrarily prevent people holding office but it gets the old timers out who have been in power far too long.

We have term limits they are called elections.

Nah, fam. We need term limits. Politicians get too attracted to power and become massively corrupt or we have cases like Dianne Feinstein where it’s an open secret that she has significant dementia

[Concejos Unidos]

We would be much better off if William Jennings Bryan had beaten McKinley (or any of his other presidential election opponents).

[San Lumen]

We have term limits they are called elections.

Nah, fam. We need term limits. Politicians get too attracted to power and become massively corrupt or we have cases like Dianne Feinstein where it’s an open secret that she has significant dementia

Go ask Mexico how well term limits worked out for them.

[The United Penguin Commonwealth]

The US politicians tend to be older because the US population at large is older on average and aging.

The average American is 59 years old?

[San Lumen]

We would be much better off if William Jennings Bryan had beaten McKinley (or any of his other presidential election opponents).

No that means no Theodore Roosevelt and no Taft. The entirely history of the US would be different.

[Concejos Unidos]

We would be much better off if William Jennings Bryan had beaten McKinley (or any of his other presidential election opponents).

No that means no Theodore Roosevelt and no Taft. The entirely history of the US would be different.

Losing a pair of arch-imperialists? No loss at all.

[Concejos Unidos]

Nah, fam. We need term limits. Politicians get too attracted to power and become massively corrupt or we have cases like Dianne Feinstein where it’s an open secret that she has significant dementia

Go ask Mexico how well term limits worked out for them.

Do you really think Mexican history would be better if powerful caudillos could consolidate even more without the sexenio restriction? The sexenio isn't a cure-all, but things would have been much worse.

[Rusozak]

We would be much better off if William Jennings Bryan had beaten McKinley (or any of his other presidential election opponents).

McKinley is overrated anyways. He was a puppet of the robber barons and only has his name on things because he died in office.

[Space Squid]

We would be much better off if William Jennings Bryan had beaten McKinley (or any of his other presidential election opponents).

It is never a good idea to put a Creationist in charge.

[Concejos Unidos]

We would be much better off if William Jennings Bryan had beaten McKinley (or any of his other presidential election opponents).

It is never a good idea to put a Creationist in charge.

Bryan was a day-age creationist anyways and his anti-evolution activism only really became a thing in his later years. More importantly, he was an ardent anti-imperialist and his forward-thinking economic thought would have alleviated the economic pressures imposed by pro-business governing on the common people. He was a person who genuinely believed in Christian values of love and charity, and his passion for social teaching came through in his political philosophy. His embarrassing performance at the Scopes Monkey Trial has to be tempered with the fact that he literally died 5 days afterwards and his failing health was evident during the trial.

In any case, most people in 1896 were probably creationists.

[Space Squid]

It is never a good idea to put a Creationist in charge.

Bryan was a day-age creationist anyways and his anti-evolution activism only really became a thing in his later years. More importantly, he was an ardent anti-imperialist and his forward-thinking economic thought would have alleviated the economic pressures imposed by pro-business governing on the common people. He was a person who genuinely believed in Christian values of love and charity, and his passion for social teaching came through in his political philosophy. His embarrassing performance at the Scopes Monkey Trial has to be tempered with the fact that he literally died 5 days afterwards and his failing health was evident during the trial.

In any case, most people in 1896 were probably creationists.

1896 was late enough to know better.

There are good things about Bill. But I draw a hard line on this.

[Sordhau]

Conservatism is higher among those two generations (at least in the U.S., sorry if I'm being too Americentric here), and Boomers (at least the American ones) are known for being exceptionally arrogant.

And of course there's nothing remotely generationally arrogant about dismissing and generalising us oldies as out of touch and incapable of governing.

I'd gently suggest that there might be a middle ground to be found here.

I generally find it pointless to be nuanced because whenever I try to be I'm accused of generalizing anyway, so may as well go full-on on the generalizations just so I don't have to constantly explain myself to people who don't want to listen.

People hate middle ground. They piss on it for fun.

[Hamidiye]

The real problem is the idiotic 2-party-concept, not to mention the travesty into that it has degenerated.

[Concejos Unidos]

Bryan was a day-age creationist anyways and his anti-evolution activism only really became a thing in his later years. More importantly, he was an ardent anti-imperialist and his forward-thinking economic thought would have alleviated the economic pressures imposed by pro-business governing on the common people. He was a person who genuinely believed in Christian values of love and charity, and his passion for social teaching came through in his political philosophy. His embarrassing performance at the Scopes Monkey Trial has to be tempered with the fact that he literally died 5 days afterwards and his failing health was evident during the trial.

In any case, most people in 1896 were probably creationists.

1896 was late enough to know better.

There are good things about Bill. But I draw a hard line on this.

At a guess, abolitionism was a more widespread and popular movement in 1860 than pro-evolution was in 1896. Abraham Lincoln was elected in 1860, and he wasn't an abolitionist at the time. If 1896 is late enough to know better on evolution, then 1860 is late enough to know better on slavery. Would you have opposed Lincoln?

[Space Squid]

1896 was late enough to know better.

There are good things about Bill. But I draw a hard line on this.

At a guess, abolitionism was a more widespread and popular movement in 1860 than pro-evolution was in 1896. Abraham Lincoln was elected in 1860, and he wasn't an abolitionist at the time. If 1896 is late enough to know better on evolution, then 1860 is late enough to know better on slavery. Would you have opposed Lincoln?

It was well understood that Lincoln was the anti-slavery candidate, even if he moderated his view to get elected. It's not a good comparison.

[Concejos Unidos]

Conservatism is higher among those two generations (at least in the U.S., sorry if I'm being too Americentric here), and Boomers (at least the American ones) are known for being exceptionally arrogant.

And of course there's nothing remotely generationally arrogant about dismissing and generalising us oldies as out of touch and incapable of governing.

I'd gently suggest that there might be a middle ground to be found here.

The difficulty is that older individuals are more likely to be socioeconomically established enough and have established a solid reputation compared to younger individuals; bluntly, they are more likely to have their shit together. Furthermore, the politicians with the best connections in their party structure and greatest powerbrokers are naturally older people who have had more time in the halls of power. So the issue is there has to be some mechanism to promote diversity in age in politics in order to better represent the people and counter the natural tendency for politics to skew older, although by no means should that be through draconian ageist legislation.

[Saiwania]

The average American is 59 years old?

The median age in the US is supposedly 38 years of age. This figure was from 2019. Politics in general, favor electing someone older than the voters who're voting and not younger. If a younger candidate is wanted, it'd more easily come about if the median age were far lower than it is now.

[Concejos Unidos]

At a guess, abolitionism was a more widespread and popular movement in 1860 than pro-evolution was in 1896. Abraham Lincoln was elected in 1860, and he wasn't an abolitionist at the time. If 1896 is late enough to know better on evolution, then 1860 is late enough to know better on slavery. Would you have opposed Lincoln?

It was well understood that Lincoln was the anti-slavery candidate, even if he moderated his view to get elected. It's not a good comparison.

It's also well understood that evolution/creationism wasn't even a campaign issue in 1896. Besides, McKinley was probably a creationist too, just like everyone in 1896. Creationism wasn't contentious in 1896.

And honestly, I would have preferred creationist candidates back then like Bryan. His main criticism of evolution was against social Darwinism and the cruel oppressive thinking of eugenics that was the popular understanding of Darwin back then.

[Kannap]

I have some prime examples here, how about President Eisenhower, who in 1969, died of heart failure and who can forget President Jackson who died in 1845 from heart failure and chronic dropsy, and not to mention he had multiple problems including rotting teeth, failing eyesight, internal bleeding in the lungs, etc.

How is either of their deaths relevant? They both died many years after leaving office. I'd tell you most U.S. Presidents have died after leaving office, but it'd probably alarm you.

No age should not be factor if you can run or not.

Eisenhower did not die in office in 1955. He died in 1969 of heart failure.

Andrew Jackson died in 1845 of chronic dropsy and heart failure.

Where did you learn your history?

And that is what I like to call, inaccurate history (I mean mine, not yours). Admittedly, I did not vet the information I found, and nor did I look very long (wasn't entirely interested in that aspect of it), but to answer your question, I didn't 'learn' it, I googled it just to give some context. I can edit it regardless. My apologies for the confusion, just more proof the internet is a widespread source of disinformation.

Wikipedia has a convenient list of U.S. Presidents who have died in office. There are eight of them.

In 1841, William Henry Harrison gave a speech in a torrential downpour, got sick with pneumonia, and died on April 4th (exactly one month after taking office). Shortest U.S. presidency.

Zachary Taylor died in 1850, believed to be from cholera.

Abraham Lincoln, James A. Garfield, William McKinley, and John F. Kennedy were all assassinated.

Warren G. Harding died of a heart attack in 1923

FDR died from a brain hemorrhage in 1945.

[Kannap]

Easier said than done.

If you don’t like whose running than run for said office yourself. Start with local office or state legislature.

You always say this and it's always a shitty thing to say in response to people's valid complaints about those in office.

Given the Electoral College, you have a fair point. They just up and decide who won with no regard to legality of their actions. Funny fact, Hillary won the 2016 election but due to the Electoral College, gave their votes to Trump and made him win. Needless to say, the majority did not ask for Trump.

They could have overturned it but they were partisan hacks.

Who could have overturned what?

[Kannap]

There's a reason why the youngest president in US history is the best US president in history and all but 2 others that were older are all tied for the worst. Make of that what you will

What makes JFK the best President in history?

Theodore Roosevelt was the youngest President in U.S. history.

---

---

---

---

---

Also very cringe of people to have favorite Presidents when they all sucked. But if I had to suggest one was the best President, William Henry Harrison died after just one month in office. Perhaps that makes him the best President we've ever had (not enough time to do vile shit)

[Sordhau]

Also very cringe of people to have favorite Presidents when they all sucked. But if I had to suggest one was the best President, William Henry Harrison died after just one month in office. Perhaps that makes him the best President we've ever had (not enough time to do vile shit)

True!

[The Reformed American Republic]

What makes JFK the best President in history?

Theodore Roosevelt was the youngest President in U.S. history.

---

---

---

---

---

Also very cringe of people to have favorite Presidents when they all sucked. But if I had to suggest one was the best President, William Henry Harrison died after just one month in office. Perhaps that makes him the best President we've ever had (not enough time to do vile shit)

There is a big difference between an FDR and a Reagan, that's why, even considering Roosevelt's flaws. One did things to help the people (even if they were insufficient) while Reagan stripped that away, followed by his neoliberal successors.

Favorite does not mean that person is all sunshine and rainbows.

[Kowani]

What makes JFK the best President in history?

Theodore Roosevelt was the youngest President in U.S. history.

---

---

---

---

---

Also very cringe of people to have favorite Presidents when they all sucked. But if I had to suggest one was the best President, William Henry Harrison died after just one month in office. Perhaps that makes him the best President we've ever had (not enough time to do vile shit)

william henry harrison was a genocidal maniac who was known as being the Andrew Jackson of the Northwest before he got into office

so, lincoln still winning the best president contest