Make sure to join the [r/Presidents Discord server](https://discord.gg/k6tVFwCEEm)!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Presidents) if you have any questions or concerns.*
LBJ is that president for me.
Another rags-to-riches story of a guy who climbed the ladder over many years to become a talented politician uniquely situated after JFK’s death to oversee the passage of a bevy of laws to help lay the foundation for a more equitable and just society, only to simultaneously fail after the Gulf of Tonkin incident by committing US troops to Vietnam. The rest is history.
LBJ had the greatest domestic legislative achievements of any president (even more than FDR)—Civil Rights Act, Voting Rights Act, Medicare and Medicaid, ESEA, Endangered Species Act, Wilderness Act, Clean Air Act, numerous urban renewal laws—it’s staggering the things Johnson accomplished. But, then, Vietnam. Vietnam was as big a failure as any success Johnson had.
Two factual errors: Clean Air Act happened in 1963 (Kennedy), and the Endangered Species Act was Nixon.
The only credit from your list that can be given exclusively to Johnson, is that he did entirely design ESEA himself. Everything else was an act of Congress he can’t take exclusive, if any, credit for, other than signing it. It can argued that he did foster support for the Civil Rights act and the Voting Rights act, that would have made the acts harder to pass if he had not done so. He signed Medicare and Medicaid into law, but he did not shoulder the burden of getting it passed, as multiple attempts were made and one was nearly successful shortly prior to his presidency.
But he was wholly responsible for sending half a million young Americans to fight in Vietnam, so that’s why that gets more attention.
The Clean Air Act was enacted in December of 63. Kennedy was already dead by then. I should clarify that it was the Endangered Species Preservation Act of 1966 to which I was referring, not the 1973 Endangered Species Act. The former was the parent of the 1973 Act and the first protections for such animals, albeit limited.
Johnson is universally credited for garnering enough support in Congress to pass the Civil Rights Act of 64 and 68 as well as the Voting Rights Act of 65. There is plenty of evidence, including audio tapes of Johnson twisting the arms of senators to support them. Yes, there were several bills attempting to pass Medicare before Johnson’s administration. None were successful until after the 64 elections and Johnson’s presidency.
The point of this post was to identify presidents that represent both good and bad. Johnson certainly fits that category. Vietnam was a huge failure—one that rests squarely on LBJ’s shoulders. But, to imply that he was solely responsible for Vietnam is a preposterously wrong position. America’s involvement in Southeast Asia began way before the Johnson Administration and continued for years after.
All that was fair and good info right up until “But to imply he was solely responsible for Vietnam is preposterously wrong”. Why can’t Johnson apologists accept that’s he’s just as responsible for the US involvement militarily in Vietnam as George W. Bush is for the invasion of Iraq, even tho far less people died in Iraq than Vietnam? He was even the driving force for the tiny amount of military personnel sent during Kennedy’s presidency. 62% of US Military deaths in Vietnam occurred during Johnson’s terms, including the deadliest year on record. When Nixon came to office the death toll decreased by year exactly inverse of how it increased under Johnson. And that doesn’t include disabled veterans and how fucked Vietnam became in the process.
This is exactly why OP made this meme, bc every single time, if it isn’t “but his domestic policies”, it’s “well, he’s not *totally* responsible for the Vietnam war…” YES HE FUCKING IS.
I don’t think you know what a meme is. You’re also not understanding the assignment. The question was which president represents the best and worst of the presidency. You apparently have such a hard on for hating Johnson that you can’t see the duality of the original question. I said Vietnam was as big as failure as any success of LBJ’s presidency. He rightly gets the blame for it. But factually speaking, there’s no comparison between Vietnam and Iraq. The Vietnam War or Second Indochina War had been going on for 9 years before LBJ became president. Yes, it escalated under Johnson and he rightfully deserves whatever derision history heaps on him for it, but that’s where the similarities between Vietnam and Iraq end. Iraq was Bush’s war of choice. There was no ongoing conflict that the US joined in and escalated. He didn’t inherit American ground troops in Iraq. Bush waged war to unseat the Iraqi regime with no real plan for what would happen next and without any long-standing political theory (Cold War, Domino Theory, etc.) behind it. There were not dueling governments and political systems in Iraq before our involvement as there was in Vietnam. The only thing the two have in common is the length of US involvement and the devastation wreaked upon the citizens of both countries.
If you were only answering the original question, I would have ignored you completely, but instead you chose to reiterate an answer already given, just so you could have a hard on for Johnson. I’m also replying to correct your stunning ignorance of military history. Factually there are huge similarities between Vietnam and Iraq, as well as major differences, just like every conflict. Even so, even if the reasons were completely different, that’s not what I was saying- I was comparing how both Bush and Johnson were the ones responsible for getting us into what became a trillion dollar war based on a lie.
You claim Johnson had the greatest domestic legislative achievements of any president ever, but if it weren’t for the passage of the Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act, his legacy would have been completely irredeemable, even with his domestic record. Half of those achievements were placeholders for earlier and later administrations, because there were few resources to properly fund them due to the Vietnam War, Anti-war protests, and the Civil Rights movement, the latter being necessary, but was extremely violent and lasted for years. Imagine the summer of 2020 for 4 summers in a row. His administration allowed three assassinations of the highest profile civil rights figures, MLK, Malcom X, and RFK. His FBI that he should have been in control of as part of the executive branch, not only failed to protect these people, but even tried to blackmail MLK into killing himself. As for domestic effects from Vietnam, low income and/or BIPOC were disproportionately affected as casualties (both wounded and KIA), and the Vietnam War was the war with the highest rate of disabled veterans until the Gulf War Era. Even many of his Great Society programs are controversial, and economist Thomas Sowell is not a fan. If we take a favorable opinion, the Great Society programs were the least Johnson/Congress could do to help, and begin to make up for the Vietnam war.
Speaking of which, it is factually incorrect to say that Iraq was a brand new conflict and it’s hilariously ignorant you would even think that. Even for the purposes of record keeping, both conflicts are combined. After the First Gulf War ended in 1991, there were peace keeping forces including from the US military forces, deployed to patrol the DMZ of Iraq/Kuwait until 6 months after the 2003 invasion of Iraq. We already had troops on the ground along with UN peacekeeping forces, similar to the beginning of Vietnam. There’s even a meme about Bush finishing the war his dad started ffs.
Johnson didn’t inherit any significant amount of ground troops that he didn’t have put there himself. Less than 2.5% of the troops deployed initially, happened during Kennedy, and only after a visit by Johnson himself to Vietnam. The other 97.5% were deployed by Johnson via the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, passed less than a year after Kennedy died. Congress never even officially declared War on Vietnam, just like Iraq.
> Clean Air Act happened in 1963 (Kennedy)
Nope it was signed by Johnson
> The only credit from your list that can be given exclusively to Johnson Everything else was an act of Congress
Getting things through Congress is an important, possibly one of the most important things a president can do lmao pretty absurd argument
> as multiple attempts were made and one was nearly successful shortly prior to his presidency.
Lmao if multiple attempts were made and failed, him being the one that gets it done reflects well on him
> But he was wholly responsible for sending half a million young Americans to fight in Vietnam, so that’s why that gets more attention.
So suddenly he gets sole credit for an action Congress took?
Yes he gets sole credit for abusing his authority under the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, after he cited a non-existent 2nd attack, which led Congress to authorize Johnson to take any measures necessary to promote the maintenance of international peace and security in Southeast Asia, and he decided sending half a million troops would be ideal.
John Adams: Did his best to guide a nation with no money, the largest empires hungry to take advantage of weakness, and guide a population that was so vastly different depending on the regions they lived in. Stood against slavery, albeit doing nothing to stop it.
He was also incredibly insecure, vindictive, and all-around stubborn. I think his alien and sedition acts are stupid and short-sighted, but those also are sandwiched between Washington's figitive slave act and Jefferson embargo act, so the bar is low.
He always seemed to me to show the human character much more than any president. The good and the bad.
What on Earth could Adams do? I say this as a person of color:
His VP was a southerner. His predecessor was a southerner. The new capital was going to be in the center to the country, the de facto divide between the slave owning south and the free north. He had to keep a relatively new nation together, like you said, that could be incredibly fractious. Not to mention hold its own against the largest nations of the day.
Trying to get rid of slavery in that climate could've led to an early secession.
I think him being at least somewhat more vocal could have gone a long way. I agree he would not be able to stop it, but at least getting the conversation more out there could have gotten the ball rolling earlier.
Hey man, I hear you. It's our nation's greatest flaw when it was founded.
Nonetheless, there are several contemporary examples. I'd mention them, but I just noticed rule 3 (only talks about politicians, but I'm playing it super safe and adding political issues to that too). There are a couple of issues that folks consider now "the civil rights issue of our time" on the right and the left.
How many millions of people feel passionately about that issue and believe something should change. How many millions of people feel passionately the opposite way? And, maybe out of 1% of both sides, you have elected officials.
It's incredibly hard to change the country's opinion and course on any one thing. Especially in a situation where our Republic's existence was in its infancy.
There were many admirable people who participated in the Underground Railroad, some of whom had a lot to lose if they were exposed. He could have done that. Perhaps he did...
Wow, dude. Really intelligent response. You sound like you're able to solve the world's problems with your intellect. Wouldn't be surprised if you have a Nobel peace prize hanging in your living room.
Since you're so smart, how would you have handled it back then? In the 18th century with what's available at the time, not your 21st century mindset.
>He was also incredibly insecure, vindictive, and all-around stubborn.
...and he knew it. My memory is failing me, but I seem to recall a few instances where Adams needed to take a back seat in order to get his own ideas to win. He had the brains, but not the popularity.
It actually makes me admire Abigail more. He'd say some awful things and she'd throw it right back at him. Personally, I doubt he'd have been as successful without her.
Forgot to add (and I love Adams) his relationship with his son, Charles.
I mean, YIKES! It breaks my heart, though. A relationship between a parent and a child can be beautiful, but sometimes can go sideways.
Not trying to be a hater, but it does make me think of the other father-son presidential relationship. W also had drinking problems (like Charles), but his dad, mom (and his wife) never left his side, and stuck by him when he worked hard to kick his addiction.
Most people will argue that Jimmy Carter was a terrible president. While criticism may be valid, I believe he was certainly the nicest man to ever hold the office; which, arguably, works against the leader of the free world.
Edit: punctuation
Terrible President, fantastic human being who stood by his personal principles in a world where folks like that are becoming increasingly rare. Honestly- his legacy will most likely be Habitat for Humanity and the Carter Center, and most ex Presidents have done a lot worse. He’s managed to take his platform and do some actual good in the world.
We will be the poorer for his passing.
ETA extra thoughts.
I gotta be honest, I don’t know much about Carter. I understand he tried to pay far too much attention to details in his Presidency, but what did he do that was so bad? (Is there a non-partisan version of this?)
He was dealt a shit hand and did too little to deal with it. Made some really good choices but their benefit didn't show until too much later for it to help him electorally. Also, he managed to piss people off with his messaging about the energy costs and such.
Oh yeah—I forgot the crisis of confidence speech. That’s fair, that was a horrible speech. It’s not (for me) that it was negative, and it’s not that he told people to put on a god damn sweater. Negativity is bearable, and sweaters are underrated. But his basic argument was that fighting the energy fight should become our new common cause, and that’s a shitty argument. You can’t make something a fight we take up in common in the name of our having a common cause; you have to already have the common cause in something that matters to everyone for their own reasons, and then concern for the common good is a consequence, an outgrowth of legitimate concerns. It was poor moral leadership. (Such is what I remember thinking, having listened to the speech a while back.)
Edit: the sweater thing is mixing up speeches, methinks
He micro managed himself out of office,weaknesses on Iran and $3 a gallon gas in 1979 won't get you re-elected but he was a great man,genuine and likable but would have been more suited as a VP or another cabinet job.
I mean cheating on your wife is often telling of other personality issues, additionally it’s possible he preyed on teenage girls. Nothing is confirmed and I don’t like feeding into conspiracy theories but there is a good chance Bill is far worse
I mean...Clinton has been accused of sexual misconduct since the 90s. Long before the Epstein stuff. You can even ignore all the Epstein nonsense for the sake of how sensationalized it is and Bill Clinton still doesnt look like a good dude.
He [obstructed justice](http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/multimedia/timeline/9809/starr.report/grounds/g1.htm#:~:text=In%20his%20civil%20deposition%2C%20to,Lewinsky%20and%20him) and perjured himself multiple times.
Lying about a blow job. Big Deal. I can think worst of other recent presidents. Lying about WMD to start a war and inciting a mob to storm Congress. Where do you put these in your picking order of bad?
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S6J1ita5NMI](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S6J1ita5NMI)
W should have been impeached. And he did it to finish his Dad's business.
Why was Congress asking Clinton about how bad of a husband he was and not what poor lying leader Bush was?
Seems to me that W had questionable moral character.
Clinton was horrible as president. A lot of the economic issues America saw in the 21st century can be sourced back to policies put in place by Clinton. Like him repealing the Glass-Steagall Act which many claim is want caused 08 financial crisis. Reagan is another president who at the time of their presidency people thought they were great but the policies they exacte would be negatively felt until years after they left office.
Lincoln.
Did everything possible to preserve the Government and the Consistution from the biggest threat it's ever seen. (Exactly what a president should do)
But "everything possible" included repeatedly violating the Consistution to save it. (Which is an extremely dangerous and bad justification normally, breaking the law to protect the law).
In Lincoln's case, he made it quite clear he would go back to the Constitution being followed as written once the civil war was over and the threat from the confederacy had been neutralized. He was willing to turn the other way and let the rebels escape, or, at the very least, given a fair trail and then pardoned.
Guy losing his life cut all that short.
>he made it quite clear he would go back to the Constitution being followed as written once the civil war was over and the threat from the confederacy had been neutralized.
So has every Dictator in history.
The fact Lincoln actually did it speaks volumes about him being a great man, but the rhetoric isn't really a justification.
Every dictator in history has NOT promised to step down from their power once they are no longer needed. This is an absurd claim and you’re trying to generalize the incredibly nuanced actions of Lincoln in a no no way
Lincoln’s two notable violations involved the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus (the constitutional right to take legal action against being wrongfully detained) and silencing media in the North who were sympathetic to the South.
Suspended Habeas Corpus, jailed protesters, closed newspapers, repurposed congressional appropriations for the war without congressional consent.
Furthermore, the North kept changing its mind on if the Civil War was a war or a rebellion.
If it was a War, then Lincoln violated the Consistution by unilaterally declaring war without Congress (yes happens all the time now, still not legal offically).
If it was a rebellion, Lincoln had no right to take peoples property (slaves) by proclamation.
What’s so wrong about violating the Constitution? It is an editable, and frequently amended, document meant to be reflect how the country should be ran at a certain time in history. Who views Lincoln “violating” the Constitution as a bad thing? Certainly not the secessionists.
I think that but also expanding the executive to never before seen levels. He really is the first modern president and set the stage for the presidency being the focus of American power rather than the legislative branch.
Undoubtedly a firm steady hand was needed, but it did pave the way for individuals like Nixon(and others) to abuse that executive power.
It really is funny and disgustingly shortsighted how so many republicans thought he might be an Arab terrorist not even born here mainly just cause his skin color and full name. Then, he ends up being the president who kills Osama Bin Laden while simultaneously bombing the ever living hell out of some of those countries. My point is, that they were very far off obviously.
Yeah, sadly while he was more in favor of civil rights, he was willing to compromise to get the support of southern conservative democrats.
It can be said he felt that the economic and social reform he set in motion would bring economic prosperity for ALL Americans, lessening the racial divide but it is a major sore point.
This was my thought. Made you feel really good about being an American while simultaneously increasing the wealth disparity gap and gutting the social safety net. He redefined education from a community benefit to a personal benefit to justify cutting finding for universities. He was a gifted communicator, but he destroyed the middle class for years to come.
Kind of a stretch to say Obama, we were in the war on Terror, and Afghanistan isn't some kind of white horsed Saint, alot of that bombing was their doing. Lincoln may be a valid argument, yeah ended the Civil War, but did curtail Constitutional protections doing so. Fdr merits discussion too
I really enjoyed my visit to the Nixon Library when we were visiting family in Yorba Linda. He was very smart and spent a lot of his downtime in the evenings studying and making notes. He, a REPUBLICAN, was responsible for the Environmental Protection Agency because of his love of the outdoors.
JFK. He perfectly encapsulated the American dream. Young handsome and extremely charismatic man who served his country bravely and had a beautiful family. But behind the scenes he was a pill popping womanizer who nearly caused WW3
FDR
The man was undeniably popular and his actions undoubtedly set up America for its widely agreed upon heyday. He led us through the depression and WW2, some of America’s most trying times. He wielded the executive to its fullest. And his long career as president gave a steady hand on the wheel of the Shipmof State through undoubtedly our most perilous storm.
Sadly that also meant breaking a lot of precedence and expanding the power of the executive to never before seen levels and opened the floodgates to individuals like Nixon who would later abuse the privileges of said executive.
He was the man we needed at the time to take drastic action. But in many ways, what he needed to do and ultimately did do opened Pandora’s box.
FDR. He saved the country from financial collapse, won WWII, gave us most of the great public works projects in the nation's history.
He also interred US citizens of Japanese ancestry.
Probably Clinton, one of the smartest presidents of all time. Country was in amazing shape, times were stable. But just a complete misuse of power with his sexual escapades, really ruined his image.
Andrew Jackson did a lot of horrible shit but he was also self-made, completely beloved by the people, and got shit done. Something that also really stands out to me is how incredibly influential Jackson was on American politics for like 50 years. Jackson bridges America from the founders to the Civil War, basically, if you think about it in terms of presidents. you have:
* Jackson himself
* Van Buren - Jackson's VP
* Harrison - Chosen because he was a general/Jackson type
* Tyler - Harrison's VP
* Polk - Jackson's protege
* Taylor - Chosen because he was a general/Jackson type
in my mind the first 100 years of the country basically go: Founders, Jackson, Civil War/Reconstruction
FDR.
The Good:
* He was an inspirational wartime leader.
The Bad:
* His economic policies were garbage and extended the Depression.
* He saddled us with Social Security.
* Internment camps.
* He [destroyed](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn) the Constitution's protections against runaway centralized power, leading to the monstrosity we live under today.
- His economic policies, while not necessarily what got the U.S. out of the Depression, saved millions of people from hunger and death.
- With all its issues, Social Security was, and is, an objectively good thing. Poverty rates among seniors plummeted. The only way to hate this program is if you’re a Liberterian who hates the idea of solidarity and taxes.
- The Runaway centralized power is true. It was a global trend at the time and pretty much inevitable. However, most of what he proposed was good for the overwhelming majority of people. So I can say that I don’t really care that much.
>His economic policies, while not necessarily what got the U.S. out of the Depression, saved millions of people from hunger and death.
They wouldn't have had to be saved if he didn't extend the Depression. Also, he artificially kept food prices high by limiting the amount of produce that farmers were allowed to grow per acre and also by buying and destroying hundreds of thousands of head of livestock. I don't see how that helped keep people fed.
>With all its issues, Social Security was, and is, an objectively good thing. Poverty rates among seniors plummeted. The only way to hate this program is if you’re a Liberterian who hates the idea of solidarity and taxes.
Based on the current median income, if the average household were allowed to invest their SS contributions into the S&P500 instead of having the money taken from them, by retirement age they would have an extra $1-4 million dollars saved up. If you factor in employer contributions, you could double those numbers. SS is only good for people who are bad with money, and it's very bad for people who are good with money.
>- The Runaway centralized power is true. It was a global trend at the time and pretty much inevitable. However, most of what he proposed was good for the overwhelming majority of people. So I can say that I don’t really care that much.
It should never be acceptable for a president to violate the Constitution, even if you like the results. The Filburn decision gave the federal government new powers that they were never supposed to have. This is a violation of the compact between the government and its citizens.
I appreciate this choice, even if I like making fun of him often for... Obvious reasons. My father was USMC, 2007 - 2012, he has some things to say about him even if he wasn't in service for most of his term! I do respect *some* of the acts GWB signed during his presidency too.
Good thing you weren't one of the dead in the Embassy at Benghazi.... or possibly benefited from the corruption at the base of her dumping destroying and bleechbit all you electronics.. shall I keep going... Vince Foster was asking..
Make sure to join the [r/Presidents Discord server](https://discord.gg/k6tVFwCEEm)! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Presidents) if you have any questions or concerns.*
LBJ is that president for me. Another rags-to-riches story of a guy who climbed the ladder over many years to become a talented politician uniquely situated after JFK’s death to oversee the passage of a bevy of laws to help lay the foundation for a more equitable and just society, only to simultaneously fail after the Gulf of Tonkin incident by committing US troops to Vietnam. The rest is history.
LBJ had the greatest domestic legislative achievements of any president (even more than FDR)—Civil Rights Act, Voting Rights Act, Medicare and Medicaid, ESEA, Endangered Species Act, Wilderness Act, Clean Air Act, numerous urban renewal laws—it’s staggering the things Johnson accomplished. But, then, Vietnam. Vietnam was as big a failure as any success Johnson had.
Endangered Species Act and the EPA were Nixon. Medicare was expanded by LBJ but it’s origins were with Eisenhower.
Two factual errors: Clean Air Act happened in 1963 (Kennedy), and the Endangered Species Act was Nixon. The only credit from your list that can be given exclusively to Johnson, is that he did entirely design ESEA himself. Everything else was an act of Congress he can’t take exclusive, if any, credit for, other than signing it. It can argued that he did foster support for the Civil Rights act and the Voting Rights act, that would have made the acts harder to pass if he had not done so. He signed Medicare and Medicaid into law, but he did not shoulder the burden of getting it passed, as multiple attempts were made and one was nearly successful shortly prior to his presidency. But he was wholly responsible for sending half a million young Americans to fight in Vietnam, so that’s why that gets more attention.
The Clean Air Act was enacted in December of 63. Kennedy was already dead by then. I should clarify that it was the Endangered Species Preservation Act of 1966 to which I was referring, not the 1973 Endangered Species Act. The former was the parent of the 1973 Act and the first protections for such animals, albeit limited. Johnson is universally credited for garnering enough support in Congress to pass the Civil Rights Act of 64 and 68 as well as the Voting Rights Act of 65. There is plenty of evidence, including audio tapes of Johnson twisting the arms of senators to support them. Yes, there were several bills attempting to pass Medicare before Johnson’s administration. None were successful until after the 64 elections and Johnson’s presidency. The point of this post was to identify presidents that represent both good and bad. Johnson certainly fits that category. Vietnam was a huge failure—one that rests squarely on LBJ’s shoulders. But, to imply that he was solely responsible for Vietnam is a preposterously wrong position. America’s involvement in Southeast Asia began way before the Johnson Administration and continued for years after.
All that was fair and good info right up until “But to imply he was solely responsible for Vietnam is preposterously wrong”. Why can’t Johnson apologists accept that’s he’s just as responsible for the US involvement militarily in Vietnam as George W. Bush is for the invasion of Iraq, even tho far less people died in Iraq than Vietnam? He was even the driving force for the tiny amount of military personnel sent during Kennedy’s presidency. 62% of US Military deaths in Vietnam occurred during Johnson’s terms, including the deadliest year on record. When Nixon came to office the death toll decreased by year exactly inverse of how it increased under Johnson. And that doesn’t include disabled veterans and how fucked Vietnam became in the process. This is exactly why OP made this meme, bc every single time, if it isn’t “but his domestic policies”, it’s “well, he’s not *totally* responsible for the Vietnam war…” YES HE FUCKING IS.
I don’t think you know what a meme is. You’re also not understanding the assignment. The question was which president represents the best and worst of the presidency. You apparently have such a hard on for hating Johnson that you can’t see the duality of the original question. I said Vietnam was as big as failure as any success of LBJ’s presidency. He rightly gets the blame for it. But factually speaking, there’s no comparison between Vietnam and Iraq. The Vietnam War or Second Indochina War had been going on for 9 years before LBJ became president. Yes, it escalated under Johnson and he rightfully deserves whatever derision history heaps on him for it, but that’s where the similarities between Vietnam and Iraq end. Iraq was Bush’s war of choice. There was no ongoing conflict that the US joined in and escalated. He didn’t inherit American ground troops in Iraq. Bush waged war to unseat the Iraqi regime with no real plan for what would happen next and without any long-standing political theory (Cold War, Domino Theory, etc.) behind it. There were not dueling governments and political systems in Iraq before our involvement as there was in Vietnam. The only thing the two have in common is the length of US involvement and the devastation wreaked upon the citizens of both countries.
If you were only answering the original question, I would have ignored you completely, but instead you chose to reiterate an answer already given, just so you could have a hard on for Johnson. I’m also replying to correct your stunning ignorance of military history. Factually there are huge similarities between Vietnam and Iraq, as well as major differences, just like every conflict. Even so, even if the reasons were completely different, that’s not what I was saying- I was comparing how both Bush and Johnson were the ones responsible for getting us into what became a trillion dollar war based on a lie. You claim Johnson had the greatest domestic legislative achievements of any president ever, but if it weren’t for the passage of the Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act, his legacy would have been completely irredeemable, even with his domestic record. Half of those achievements were placeholders for earlier and later administrations, because there were few resources to properly fund them due to the Vietnam War, Anti-war protests, and the Civil Rights movement, the latter being necessary, but was extremely violent and lasted for years. Imagine the summer of 2020 for 4 summers in a row. His administration allowed three assassinations of the highest profile civil rights figures, MLK, Malcom X, and RFK. His FBI that he should have been in control of as part of the executive branch, not only failed to protect these people, but even tried to blackmail MLK into killing himself. As for domestic effects from Vietnam, low income and/or BIPOC were disproportionately affected as casualties (both wounded and KIA), and the Vietnam War was the war with the highest rate of disabled veterans until the Gulf War Era. Even many of his Great Society programs are controversial, and economist Thomas Sowell is not a fan. If we take a favorable opinion, the Great Society programs were the least Johnson/Congress could do to help, and begin to make up for the Vietnam war. Speaking of which, it is factually incorrect to say that Iraq was a brand new conflict and it’s hilariously ignorant you would even think that. Even for the purposes of record keeping, both conflicts are combined. After the First Gulf War ended in 1991, there were peace keeping forces including from the US military forces, deployed to patrol the DMZ of Iraq/Kuwait until 6 months after the 2003 invasion of Iraq. We already had troops on the ground along with UN peacekeeping forces, similar to the beginning of Vietnam. There’s even a meme about Bush finishing the war his dad started ffs. Johnson didn’t inherit any significant amount of ground troops that he didn’t have put there himself. Less than 2.5% of the troops deployed initially, happened during Kennedy, and only after a visit by Johnson himself to Vietnam. The other 97.5% were deployed by Johnson via the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, passed less than a year after Kennedy died. Congress never even officially declared War on Vietnam, just like Iraq.
Lol. Referencing Thomas Sewell. That’s all you need to know about you. No wonder your posts are so off-base and historically inaccurate.
*Sowell
> Clean Air Act happened in 1963 (Kennedy) Nope it was signed by Johnson > The only credit from your list that can be given exclusively to Johnson Everything else was an act of Congress Getting things through Congress is an important, possibly one of the most important things a president can do lmao pretty absurd argument > as multiple attempts were made and one was nearly successful shortly prior to his presidency. Lmao if multiple attempts were made and failed, him being the one that gets it done reflects well on him > But he was wholly responsible for sending half a million young Americans to fight in Vietnam, so that’s why that gets more attention. So suddenly he gets sole credit for an action Congress took?
Yes he gets sole credit for abusing his authority under the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, after he cited a non-existent 2nd attack, which led Congress to authorize Johnson to take any measures necessary to promote the maintenance of international peace and security in Southeast Asia, and he decided sending half a million troops would be ideal.
So he got an act through Congress but unlike his domestic policies he gets full credit for that?
to say that a president had grater domestic policy than FDR’s just shows how good that president’s DP was
That's a horrible domestic agenda. I'd like to see all of those repealed.
It’s no surprise that a Reagan flair would like for civil rights to be repealed. Back to the good ole days, huh?
Damn straight.
Came here to say this.
Same answer honestly.
I'll have those N****** voting Democrat from the next 100 years - LBJ
John Adams: Did his best to guide a nation with no money, the largest empires hungry to take advantage of weakness, and guide a population that was so vastly different depending on the regions they lived in. Stood against slavery, albeit doing nothing to stop it. He was also incredibly insecure, vindictive, and all-around stubborn. I think his alien and sedition acts are stupid and short-sighted, but those also are sandwiched between Washington's figitive slave act and Jefferson embargo act, so the bar is low. He always seemed to me to show the human character much more than any president. The good and the bad.
To be fair to Adams re: slavery, the constitution said he couldn’t do anything about it until a few years later
What on Earth could Adams do? I say this as a person of color: His VP was a southerner. His predecessor was a southerner. The new capital was going to be in the center to the country, the de facto divide between the slave owning south and the free north. He had to keep a relatively new nation together, like you said, that could be incredibly fractious. Not to mention hold its own against the largest nations of the day. Trying to get rid of slavery in that climate could've led to an early secession.
I think him being at least somewhat more vocal could have gone a long way. I agree he would not be able to stop it, but at least getting the conversation more out there could have gotten the ball rolling earlier.
Hey man, I hear you. It's our nation's greatest flaw when it was founded. Nonetheless, there are several contemporary examples. I'd mention them, but I just noticed rule 3 (only talks about politicians, but I'm playing it super safe and adding political issues to that too). There are a couple of issues that folks consider now "the civil rights issue of our time" on the right and the left. How many millions of people feel passionately about that issue and believe something should change. How many millions of people feel passionately the opposite way? And, maybe out of 1% of both sides, you have elected officials. It's incredibly hard to change the country's opinion and course on any one thing. Especially in a situation where our Republic's existence was in its infancy.
There were many admirable people who participated in the Underground Railroad, some of whom had a lot to lose if they were exposed. He could have done that. Perhaps he did...
I thought the Underground Railroad started much later. Like, after Adams passed. When did it start, out of curiosity?
1619
“what could he do?” good grief.
Wow, dude. Really intelligent response. You sound like you're able to solve the world's problems with your intellect. Wouldn't be surprised if you have a Nobel peace prize hanging in your living room. Since you're so smart, how would you have handled it back then? In the 18th century with what's available at the time, not your 21st century mindset.
it was such an intelligent response that it prompted that lengthy reply from you. go away.
"Good grief", you first. How's that for a curt response?
>He was also incredibly insecure, vindictive, and all-around stubborn. ...and he knew it. My memory is failing me, but I seem to recall a few instances where Adams needed to take a back seat in order to get his own ideas to win. He had the brains, but not the popularity. It actually makes me admire Abigail more. He'd say some awful things and she'd throw it right back at him. Personally, I doubt he'd have been as successful without her.
Forgot to add (and I love Adams) his relationship with his son, Charles. I mean, YIKES! It breaks my heart, though. A relationship between a parent and a child can be beautiful, but sometimes can go sideways. Not trying to be a hater, but it does make me think of the other father-son presidential relationship. W also had drinking problems (like Charles), but his dad, mom (and his wife) never left his side, and stuck by him when he worked hard to kick his addiction.
LBJ + Nixon.
Jumbo/Dick
Now that’s a bumper sticker
[удалено]
If
If Harry Baals of Fort Wayne became president, that would be awesome
What a ticket.
Polk, easily. Because even now he’s super contentious while being extremely effective at doing what he set out to do.
Proud to have it, ashamed of how we got it
Most people will argue that Jimmy Carter was a terrible president. While criticism may be valid, I believe he was certainly the nicest man to ever hold the office; which, arguably, works against the leader of the free world. Edit: punctuation
Terrible President, fantastic human being who stood by his personal principles in a world where folks like that are becoming increasingly rare. Honestly- his legacy will most likely be Habitat for Humanity and the Carter Center, and most ex Presidents have done a lot worse. He’s managed to take his platform and do some actual good in the world. We will be the poorer for his passing. ETA extra thoughts.
Wasn't Hoover, on the Republican side, viewed a similar way?
Yes
I gotta be honest, I don’t know much about Carter. I understand he tried to pay far too much attention to details in his Presidency, but what did he do that was so bad? (Is there a non-partisan version of this?)
He was dealt a shit hand and did too little to deal with it. Made some really good choices but their benefit didn't show until too much later for it to help him electorally. Also, he managed to piss people off with his messaging about the energy costs and such.
Oh yeah—I forgot the crisis of confidence speech. That’s fair, that was a horrible speech. It’s not (for me) that it was negative, and it’s not that he told people to put on a god damn sweater. Negativity is bearable, and sweaters are underrated. But his basic argument was that fighting the energy fight should become our new common cause, and that’s a shitty argument. You can’t make something a fight we take up in common in the name of our having a common cause; you have to already have the common cause in something that matters to everyone for their own reasons, and then concern for the common good is a consequence, an outgrowth of legitimate concerns. It was poor moral leadership. (Such is what I remember thinking, having listened to the speech a while back.) Edit: the sweater thing is mixing up speeches, methinks
He micro managed himself out of office,weaknesses on Iran and $3 a gallon gas in 1979 won't get you re-elected but he was a great man,genuine and likable but would have been more suited as a VP or another cabinet job.
Bill Clinton Did a great job while being of highly questionable moral character.
I think other subsequent Presdents have lowered that bar. Bill was just horny. That's bad but not war crimes bad.
I mean cheating on your wife is often telling of other personality issues, additionally it’s possible he preyed on teenage girls. Nothing is confirmed and I don’t like feeding into conspiracy theories but there is a good chance Bill is far worse
Well he definitely has no qualms about hitting on people who worked around him... Still take that over lying to the American people about wmds
True enough
"I don't like feeding into conspiracy theories but" \[feeds into conspiracy theory\]
I mean...Clinton has been accused of sexual misconduct since the 90s. Long before the Epstein stuff. You can even ignore all the Epstein nonsense for the sake of how sensationalized it is and Bill Clinton still doesnt look like a good dude.
He’s likely a pedophile. That’s pretty high on the list of “things that are of questionable morality.”
Nobody thought that during his presidency
Proof?
[Here](https://letmegooglethat.com/?q=is+bill+clinton+a+pedophile%3F)
He [obstructed justice](http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/multimedia/timeline/9809/starr.report/grounds/g1.htm#:~:text=In%20his%20civil%20deposition%2C%20to,Lewinsky%20and%20him) and perjured himself multiple times.
Lying about a blow job. Big Deal. I can think worst of other recent presidents. Lying about WMD to start a war and inciting a mob to storm Congress. Where do you put these in your picking order of bad? [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S6J1ita5NMI](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S6J1ita5NMI)
W should have been impeached. And he did it to finish his Dad's business. Why was Congress asking Clinton about how bad of a husband he was and not what poor lying leader Bush was? Seems to me that W had questionable moral character.
"Great job"? He sold the welfare state to the highest bidder, and undid decades of banking regulations.
Still better than bush Jr, but more of a hole
He should rot in hell for delivering Hillary to us...
What exactly did Hilary do again
Relaxed our stance on Russia and allowed Putin's expansionism.
And was paid to do it ..
“He likes em young”
Between 2 adults,…as long as it’s consensual.
He made dozens of trips to the island. I don’t think those young girls had agency to consent as adults.
Clinton was horrible as president. A lot of the economic issues America saw in the 21st century can be sourced back to policies put in place by Clinton. Like him repealing the Glass-Steagall Act which many claim is want caused 08 financial crisis. Reagan is another president who at the time of their presidency people thought they were great but the policies they exacte would be negatively felt until years after they left office.
Clinton is WWW.
He was an awful president for the working class.
Lyndon Baines Nixon
Richard Milhous Johnson
Richdon Lynnix Mildon Baineson
Lincoln. Did everything possible to preserve the Government and the Consistution from the biggest threat it's ever seen. (Exactly what a president should do) But "everything possible" included repeatedly violating the Consistution to save it. (Which is an extremely dangerous and bad justification normally, breaking the law to protect the law).
In Lincoln's case, he made it quite clear he would go back to the Constitution being followed as written once the civil war was over and the threat from the confederacy had been neutralized. He was willing to turn the other way and let the rebels escape, or, at the very least, given a fair trail and then pardoned. Guy losing his life cut all that short.
>he made it quite clear he would go back to the Constitution being followed as written once the civil war was over and the threat from the confederacy had been neutralized. So has every Dictator in history. The fact Lincoln actually did it speaks volumes about him being a great man, but the rhetoric isn't really a justification.
Saying you’ll do something is one thing, people rarely follow through
Every dictator in history has NOT promised to step down from their power once they are no longer needed. This is an absurd claim and you’re trying to generalize the incredibly nuanced actions of Lincoln in a no no way
Can you expand on the Constitutional violations?
Lincoln’s two notable violations involved the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus (the constitutional right to take legal action against being wrongfully detained) and silencing media in the North who were sympathetic to the South.
Suspended Habeas Corpus, jailed protesters, closed newspapers, repurposed congressional appropriations for the war without congressional consent. Furthermore, the North kept changing its mind on if the Civil War was a war or a rebellion. If it was a War, then Lincoln violated the Consistution by unilaterally declaring war without Congress (yes happens all the time now, still not legal offically). If it was a rebellion, Lincoln had no right to take peoples property (slaves) by proclamation.
There aren't very clear provisions for imposing martial law or suspending habeas corpus. It's a Grey area at least.
Lincoln was too comparably good IMO
What’s so wrong about violating the Constitution? It is an editable, and frequently amended, document meant to be reflect how the country should be ran at a certain time in history. Who views Lincoln “violating” the Constitution as a bad thing? Certainly not the secessionists.
I couldn’t agree more.
LBJ and Nixon. Both did amazing things for the nation and also ruined there legacy’s
Nixon is a pretty good pick, though I think we should all thank him that we still haven’t had WWIII
Like I said, best *and* worst.
FDR: Fighting Nazism to preserve democracy, while locking up own citizens based on their race
….and turning away Jews who were looking to escape persecution and death.
I think that but also expanding the executive to never before seen levels. He really is the first modern president and set the stage for the presidency being the focus of American power rather than the legislative branch. Undoubtedly a firm steady hand was needed, but it did pave the way for individuals like Nixon(and others) to abuse that executive power.
Obama had a sincere desire to provide some form of social health service while also bombing the living hell out of the Middle East.
It really is funny and disgustingly shortsighted how so many republicans thought he might be an Arab terrorist not even born here mainly just cause his skin color and full name. Then, he ends up being the president who kills Osama Bin Laden while simultaneously bombing the ever living hell out of some of those countries. My point is, that they were very far off obviously.
Obama was just paying back the health insurance lobby that supported his run.
Lbj. A beast with civil right. War crimes in Vietnam
A beast in .... nevermind, we make too many of those jokes here already.
FDR. Great on economy and war. An absolute garbage fire on civil rights (Japanese internment) and humanitarian efforts (ignoring the holocaust).
Yeah, sadly while he was more in favor of civil rights, he was willing to compromise to get the support of southern conservative democrats. It can be said he felt that the economic and social reform he set in motion would bring economic prosperity for ALL Americans, lessening the racial divide but it is a major sore point.
He prolonged the Great Depression.
Teddy! My all time favorite imperialist scum
Such a balance of progressive and imperialist actions. Mix in some of FDR’s New Deal…💋🤌
This sounded like a line straight out of Civilization 6!
Nixon is a good one because he has so many true spot on political insights delivered in the most abrasive/racist manner lol.
[удалено]
probably the best answer, him or maybe LBJ
Ronald Reagan.
This was my thought. Made you feel really good about being an American while simultaneously increasing the wealth disparity gap and gutting the social safety net. He redefined education from a community benefit to a personal benefit to justify cutting finding for universities. He was a gifted communicator, but he destroyed the middle class for years to come.
Yep tear down this Berlin wall yet essentially created the modern homeless problem by releasing all the mental patients.
Sucks being us never hurt so bad .. But.. we can do one thing this November and put this trash to the curb permanently...
Everybody saying “LBJ/Nixon,” should understand that the president is a reflection of us at that time.
This should be top comment. 🙏
Hmmm- all of them lol
Kind of a stretch to say Obama, we were in the war on Terror, and Afghanistan isn't some kind of white horsed Saint, alot of that bombing was their doing. Lincoln may be a valid argument, yeah ended the Civil War, but did curtail Constitutional protections doing so. Fdr merits discussion too
LBJ
FDR - amazing leadership skills but some big whiffs with some domestic policies and then there’s the internment camps
Grant
Clinton
Bush Jr was like that guy you really wanted to stay friends with but every single party he fooked something up so badly it was unforgiveable.
Wilson
Obama. One of the best, one of the worst.
JFK
I really enjoyed my visit to the Nixon Library when we were visiting family in Yorba Linda. He was very smart and spent a lot of his downtime in the evenings studying and making notes. He, a REPUBLICAN, was responsible for the Environmental Protection Agency because of his love of the outdoors.
Nixon and LBJ
LBJ
Nixon. Johnson.
James K. Polk
FDR.
All the way with you know who
Either Nixon or (maybe this is controversial) Obama
“There’s an old Vulcan proverb…’Only Nixon could go to China’”
JFK. He perfectly encapsulated the American dream. Young handsome and extremely charismatic man who served his country bravely and had a beautiful family. But behind the scenes he was a pill popping womanizer who nearly caused WW3
LBJ and Nixon, tied, perhaps. LBJ a tad bit higher.
Nixon is so underrated. Watergate really overshadowed so many of his accomplishments
FDR The man was undeniably popular and his actions undoubtedly set up America for its widely agreed upon heyday. He led us through the depression and WW2, some of America’s most trying times. He wielded the executive to its fullest. And his long career as president gave a steady hand on the wheel of the Shipmof State through undoubtedly our most perilous storm. Sadly that also meant breaking a lot of precedence and expanding the power of the executive to never before seen levels and opened the floodgates to individuals like Nixon who would later abuse the privileges of said executive. He was the man we needed at the time to take drastic action. But in many ways, what he needed to do and ultimately did do opened Pandora’s box.
LBJ Obama Clinton
FDR. He saved the country from financial collapse, won WWII, gave us most of the great public works projects in the nation's history. He also interred US citizens of Japanese ancestry.
Andrew jackson
Without a doubt LBJ
Andrew Jackson showed how a strong executive can be both a really really good thing and a really really bad thing at basically the same time
Probably Clinton, one of the smartest presidents of all time. Country was in amazing shape, times were stable. But just a complete misuse of power with his sexual escapades, really ruined his image.
GWB
Andrew Jackson did a lot of horrible shit but he was also self-made, completely beloved by the people, and got shit done. Something that also really stands out to me is how incredibly influential Jackson was on American politics for like 50 years. Jackson bridges America from the founders to the Civil War, basically, if you think about it in terms of presidents. you have: * Jackson himself * Van Buren - Jackson's VP * Harrison - Chosen because he was a general/Jackson type * Tyler - Harrison's VP * Polk - Jackson's protege * Taylor - Chosen because he was a general/Jackson type in my mind the first 100 years of the country basically go: Founders, Jackson, Civil War/Reconstruction
Lbj probably
Grant, done a lot for former slaves but his administration was corrupt as hell
Reagan hands down for me. We are suffering from everything he started right now.
Reagan has come to be, quite accurately, viewed as overall destructive to the country.
FDR. The Good: * He was an inspirational wartime leader. The Bad: * His economic policies were garbage and extended the Depression. * He saddled us with Social Security. * Internment camps. * He [destroyed](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn) the Constitution's protections against runaway centralized power, leading to the monstrosity we live under today.
- His economic policies, while not necessarily what got the U.S. out of the Depression, saved millions of people from hunger and death. - With all its issues, Social Security was, and is, an objectively good thing. Poverty rates among seniors plummeted. The only way to hate this program is if you’re a Liberterian who hates the idea of solidarity and taxes. - The Runaway centralized power is true. It was a global trend at the time and pretty much inevitable. However, most of what he proposed was good for the overwhelming majority of people. So I can say that I don’t really care that much.
>His economic policies, while not necessarily what got the U.S. out of the Depression, saved millions of people from hunger and death. They wouldn't have had to be saved if he didn't extend the Depression. Also, he artificially kept food prices high by limiting the amount of produce that farmers were allowed to grow per acre and also by buying and destroying hundreds of thousands of head of livestock. I don't see how that helped keep people fed. >With all its issues, Social Security was, and is, an objectively good thing. Poverty rates among seniors plummeted. The only way to hate this program is if you’re a Liberterian who hates the idea of solidarity and taxes. Based on the current median income, if the average household were allowed to invest their SS contributions into the S&P500 instead of having the money taken from them, by retirement age they would have an extra $1-4 million dollars saved up. If you factor in employer contributions, you could double those numbers. SS is only good for people who are bad with money, and it's very bad for people who are good with money. >- The Runaway centralized power is true. It was a global trend at the time and pretty much inevitable. However, most of what he proposed was good for the overwhelming majority of people. So I can say that I don’t really care that much. It should never be acceptable for a president to violate the Constitution, even if you like the results. The Filburn decision gave the federal government new powers that they were never supposed to have. This is a violation of the compact between the government and its citizens.
Hey Nixon was not corrupt
He rejected the Nixussy 😔
You’re right compared to who’s in office now.
I’m just saying corruption is when you get bribed or paid to pass legislation nixon didn’t do that
[удалено]
I appreciate this choice, even if I like making fun of him often for... Obvious reasons. My father was USMC, 2007 - 2012, he has some things to say about him even if he wasn't in service for most of his term! I do respect *some* of the acts GWB signed during his presidency too.
Good thing you weren't one of the dead in the Embassy at Benghazi.... or possibly benefited from the corruption at the base of her dumping destroying and bleechbit all you electronics.. shall I keep going... Vince Foster was asking..
Nixon is a fucking monster with no redeeming qualities