ADVERTISEMENT

Name That President!

astonmartin708

I.T.S. Hall of Famer
Apr 17, 2012
17,772
6,175
113
Moving to the left of his party base, called for a series of reforms that were mostly not passed. He sought a national incorporation law (at a time when all corporations had state charters, which varied greatly state by state). He called for the imposition of a new tax structure. (income tax) He sought an inheritance tax so the great fortunes could not pay out in perpetuity. In the area of labor legislation, he called for limits on the use of court injunctions against labor unions during strikes; injunctions were a powerful weapon that mostly helped business. He wanted an employee liability law for industrial injuries (pre-empting state laws). He called for an eight-hour law for federal employees. In other areas he also sought a postal savings system (to provide competition for local banks), and he asked for campaign reform laws. He secured legislation which increased the regulating power of the Interstate Commerce Commission. Eventually some of his proposals were enacted under his successors.

Today, his domestic policy would probably be labeled as socialist.
 
Moving to the left of his party base, called for a series of reforms that were mostly not passed. He sought a national incorporation law (at a time when all corporations had state charters, which varied greatly state by state). He called for the imposition of a new tax structure. (income tax) He sought an inheritance tax so the great fortunes could not pay out in perpetuity. In the area of labor legislation, he called for limits on the use of court injunctions against labor unions during strikes; injunctions were a powerful weapon that mostly helped business. He wanted an employee liability law for industrial injuries (pre-empting state laws). He called for an eight-hour law for federal employees. In other areas he also sought a postal savings system (to provide competition for local banks), and he asked for campaign reform laws. He secured legislation which increased the regulating power of the Interstate Commerce Commission. Eventually some of his proposals were enacted under his successors.

Today, his domestic policy would probably be labeled as socialist.
Nixon?
 
I assume most past Presidents would look at what we now spend on entitlements, our deficit spending, the percent of people on welfare, as well as almost half of Americans who pay no federal income tax and consider the current state of our union socialist.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TUBballJunkie
Time's up!

I thought this would be easier, considering the fact that I mentioned we didn't yet have income tax.

Teddy Roosevelt!
 
Dang I thought the answer was going to be counterintuitive, like when FDR said,

“The lessons of history, confirmed by evidence immediately before me, show conclusively that continued dependence on relief induces a spiritual and moral disintegration fundamentally destructive to the national fiber. To dole out relief in this way is to administer a narcotic, a subtle destroyer of the human spirit. It is inimical to the dictates of sound policy. It is a violation of the traditions of America.”

TR was an ultra-patriotic progressive(wish those still existed) in the same mold as Wilson and FDR, so all those actions are right in line with what I would expect.
 
Wilson, FDR, and TR were disasters for the country.

Those three presidents did more for the country in the first half of the 20th century than all the rest of the presidents who followed them combined.

They're the reason the US is a world super power. They're the reason we have one of the 2-3 most influential economies in the world.
 
  • Like
Reactions: WATU2
Those three presidents did more for the country in the first half of the 20th century than all the rest of the presidents who followed them combined.

They're the reason the US is a world super power. They're the reason we have one of the 2-3 most influential economies in the world.

Interesting.. They created the country for which Obama continually apologizes. Got it.
 
The Roosevelt's mentioned are good choices in my mind, but not WW.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/11/wilson-legacy-racism/417549/
Wilson's racial legacy is certainly not good, but he was absolutely the singular person that put the US in the best position coming out of WW1. The US stayed out of the war for quite a while, when we entered, we entered on the winning side... and our place on the world stage (economically and politically) was much more prominent after Wilson than it was before him. During the war, the center of the world economy shifted from London to New York, and that's in no small part do to Wilson's international policies.

It's kind of like saying Thomas Jefferson or George Washington weren't good presidents because they had slaves.
 
Do you not think that the vast natural resources located in the U.S. Along with the industrial complex created during the war would have resulted in similar results with or without Wilson?

Same argument applies to the economic boom coming out of WW2.

Note: I'm not making any comment or opinion on your assertion regarding these presidents by these questions.
 
Do you not think that the vast natural resources located in the U.S. Along with the industrial complex created during the war would have resulted in similar results with or without Wilson?

Same argument applies to the economic boom coming out of WW2.

Note: I'm not making any comment or opinion on your assertion regarding these presidents by these questions.
Oh I certainly do. For sure. But, that's not to say that us staying out until we saw which side was going "winning" wasn't a good strategy. We were the only western country to come out of the first world war smelling (more or less) rosy. Wilson had a big hand in our status before and during the war.

I highly suggest Dan Carlin's Hard Core History Podcast saga on WW1. I think it's called Blueprint to Armageddon. He does 6 episodes that cover the war start to finish and each episode is between 2-4 hours in length. It's absolutely the most informative series of programs I've ever heard.
 
From the US Department of labor. US unemployment by years.

Year Rate
1920 5.2 %
1928 4.2
1930 8.7
1932 23.6
1934 21.7
1936 16.9
1938 19.0
1940 14.6
1942 4.7%
1944 1.2
1946 3.9
1948 3.8

FDR gets credit for ending the Great Depression. It certainly improved from 1932 when in went in. But look at 1938. It was on the rise again. What happened in 1940 and slightly before? The build of up of the military. 19.0% in 1938. Starting down in 1940 when everyone could see WWII coming and was building. 1942. 4.7% 1944 1.2%. Did FDR get some credit in 1936, yes. But by the '40's, WWII ended the Great Depression.

Note: FDR was a great wartime leader. FDR and George Marshall were huge. After FDR's death Marshall saved the future of Europe with the Marshall Plan. FDR was behind the Manhattan Project, with a little encouragement from some Physicists. All in all he did great. But the war, not economic programs ended the Depression.
 
Speaking of war....after watching several docs on WWI, I can't imagine a worse existence than being in the infantry manning a trench waiting for the mustard gas or the order for a suicide charge against the oppositions trench.
 
  • Like
Reactions: WATU2
Speaking of war....after watching several docs on WWI, I can't imagine a worse existence than being in the infantry manning a trench waiting for the mustard gas or the order for a suicide charge against the oppositions trench.
I agree. To be honest, I would have much rather been an infantryman in the second world war than the first.
 
So... You are suggesting that Wilson was going to side with the Kaiser over our traditional allies of Britain n France?.. Interesting.

And here I thought his reelection slogan of "he kept us out of war" was bad enough...

Wait until there's a winner.. Not a principle.. Sounds like a progressive idea.
 
So... You are suggesting that Wilson was going to side with the Kaiser over our traditional allies of Britain n France?.. Interesting.

And here I thought his reelection slogan of "he kept us out of war" was bad enough...

Wait until there's a winner.. Not a principle.. Sounds like a progressive idea.
Initially we were giving money and materials to both countries. The Germans just lost the PR war with the Rape of Belgium.
 
I agree. To be honest, I would have much rather been an infantryman in the second world war than the first.

Or having your head cut off with a battle ax, or an arrow through your chest from an English long bow. How about being several decks down when a battleship sinks? Care for a few years in the Hanoi Hilton? Or Vietnam where the quiet village of today fired mortars at you tonight.

Memorial Day Is coming up remember them all.
 
  • Like
Reactions: WATU2
Or having your head cut off with a battle ax, or an arrow through your chest from an English long bow. How about being several decks down when a battleship sinks? Care for a few years in the Hanoi Hilton? Or Vietnam where the quiet village of today fired mortars at you tonight.

Memorial Day Is coming up remember them all.
I didn't mean to imply the second world war wasn't a bad experience. I was just saying that the first was psychologically the worst war I can think of. The rate of the artillery being fired on small areas, the poison gas, the barbed wire, etc... It all combined with the fact that the generals weren't used to that kind of war and they sent wave after wave after wave of people to their death with little in the way of 'results' combine that with the state of the trenches and you have a hell on earth that ran from the English Channel to the Mediterranean.

Places like Verdun were battles where the only strategic goal was to kill the most amount of your enemy that you can. It wasn't about taking a position like it was in WWII.
 
So by his failure to support the Kaiser... Woodrow Wilson created Hitler.... Nice...
I think there's a lot of blame to go around for that one. Some of it was simply Hitler's experiences in the war, some of it was the German's own injection of Lenin and his Bolsheviks into Russia, which drove them out of the war, but it also ended up infecting the German populous as well. After all, it was the socialist party which Hitler eventually corrupted for his own gain. Also, the allies (America included) should have completely decimated the German Empire, but there was so little will to fight left in any of the allies' armies by the end of the war that I'm not sure they could have sustained the casualties that were being seen as the Germans were finally driven back. I'm also pretty sure the French Army was on the brink of revolt by the end of the war.

There's a lot that went into making Germany a perfect incubator for a demagogue like Hitler. Blaming that all on Wilson would kind of be like blaming the cold war on Truman.
 
I think there's a lot of blame to go around for that one. Some of it was simply Hitler's experiences in the war, some of it was the German's own injection of Lenin and his Bolsheviks into Russia, which drove them out of the war, but it also ended up infecting the German populous as well. After all, it was the socialist party which Hitler eventually corrupted for his own gain. Also, the allies (America included) should have completely decimated the German Empire, but there was so little will to fight left in any of the allies' armies by the end of the war that I'm not sure they could have sustained the casualties that were being seen as the Germans were finally driven back. I'm also pretty sure the French Army was on the brink of revolt by the end of the war.

There's a lot that went into making Germany a perfect incubator for a demagogue like Hitler. Blaming that all on Wilson would kind of be like blaming the cold war on Truman.

But.. By your own admission WW waffled and thought about supporting the Kaiser. So if American muscle had won the war for the Kaiser, the incubator for the worlds greatest madman would have never been built. No defeated and punished Germany. No treaty of Versailles. No Weimar Republic.
 
What a great time to be arguing World War 1. In two days we will be at the 100th anniversary of the battle of Jutland. The British had ruled the seas since Trafalgar. But they had became hidebound. Germany embarrassed them with better ships. They just didn't have enough of them. The Germans sank more but the Brits had more to give.

The Germans were forced into using U-Boats on neutral shipping. That brought the US in.

After being the sole superpower for a couple of decades we are seeing Russia and China flexing their muscles. Success and over-confidence can lead to problems.
 
After being the sole superpower for a couple of decades we are seeing Russia and China flexing their muscles. Success and over-confidence can lead to problems.

You can add weak leadership to that equation.
 
And
What a great time to be arguing World War 1. In two days we will be at the 100th anniversary of the battle of Jutland. The British had ruled the seas since Trafalgar. But they had became hidebound. Germany embarrassed them with better ships. They just didn't have enough of them. The Germans sank more but the Brits had more to give.

The Germans were forced into using U-Boats on neutral shipping. That brought the US in.

After being the sole superpower for a couple of decades we are seeing Russia and China flexing their muscles. Success and over-confidence can lead to problems.
The Germabs had better ships in that battle but they also had a pretty inept admiral. He "got his T crossed" twice in one battle meaning his line of ships sailed into an arc of British ships across the horizon which proceeded to unleash hell on the Germans who were coming out of a literal fog. The British battleships were too lightly armored and several were sunk, but overall the Brits retained complete command of the seas.

That's a weird battle lol.
 
And

The Germabs had better ships in that battle but they also had a pretty inept admiral. He "got his T crossed" twice in one battle meaning his line of ships sailed into an arc of British ships across the horizon which proceeded to unleash hell on the Germans who were coming out of a literal fog. The British battleships were too lightly armored and several were sunk, but overall the Brits retained complete command of the seas.

That's a weird battle lol.


You are correct. In the years leading up to WW1 both countries and introduced Battle-Cruisers to gain speed. The German ships were more heavily armored but also the armor was of tougher metallurgy. Germany tried to trap the Royal Navy but took losses they couldn't stand to lose. Western Denmark ports were still bottled up.

Crossing the T more or less went away after that. Nelson had shown, a century before, that it wasn't the only strategy that worked. It was also more important back during the age of sail when you were before the wind. Squadron follow up after the column was broken was what was also lacking and during the night the Germans got away.
 
  • Like
Reactions: WATU2
What does "weak" mean in this context? An unwillingness to commit US troops on the ground or to engage in military conflict or an over-willingness to commit US troops that creates miltary tar babies that last for decades?
 
What does "weak" mean in this context? An unwillingness to commit US troops on the ground or to engage in military conflict or an over-willingness to commit US troops that creates miltary tar babies that last for decades?

Probably means leadership that goes overseas and apologizes for Everything the United States has done...

Leadership that seems content to lead from the sidelines on any issue other than those that further diminish the prestige of its own nation...
 
Probably means leadership that goes overseas and apologizes for Everything the United States has done...

Leadership that seems content to lead from the sidelines on any issue other than those that further diminish the prestige of its own nation...
How is Hiroshima a place of 'prestige'? It ended the war, but it also cost many innocent lives. Bunker Hill is a place of prestige. Lexington. Gettysburg. Normandy. Those are places of prestige. Places where armies fought, and our soldiers died for a cause. There is no prestige in killing innocents. It was a necessary evil, but I wouldn't call dropping a bomb out of a plane and killing thousands one of American's finest hours.
 
How is Hiroshima a place of 'prestige'? It ended the war, but it also cost many innocent lives. Bunker Hill is a place of prestige. Lexington. Gettysburg. Normandy. Those are places of prestige. Places where armies fought, and our soldiers died for a cause. There is no prestige in killing innocents. It was a necessary evil, but I wouldn't call dropping a bomb out of a plane and killing thousands one of American's finest hours.

The losses to both sides for the taking of Okinawa were extreme. Noble did not say that it was a prestige thing to use the atomic bomb. In fact, Obama didn't apologize for Hiroshima. A case can be made that Hiroshima saved a holocaust on both American and Japanese people.

We are also talking about a war that saw an attack on Pearl Harbor, the extermination of 6 million Jews, the Bataan Death March, the fire bombing of Dresden and of civilians try to escape by road, the German Bombing of London. By the way, HST was a Democrat. He made a tough decision but in hindsight a correct one. Conventional bombing made little effort to limit civilian casualties. An invasion of Japan would have made other wars look like a Sunday picnic.
 
Last edited:
TUMe, I'm well aware of all of that. Hence, why I said necessary evil. But, I still don't think the President making his condolences to the people of any country where the US has been forced to conduct large scale operations on the public is a symbol of weakness. It's a symbol of compassion. Especially since a lot of those nations are now our allies. Basically saying, "I'm sorry for your loss."

Honestly, as far as foreign policy goes, what else could Obama do short of putting boots on the ground throughout the Middle East? That's an option that a great deal of Americans don't want.
 
You made a post about Hiroshima and I responded to it.
 
It's funny... Aston thinks I was talking about Hiroshima... Although I would ask when PM Abe of Japan will lay a wreath at the Arizona?

I was actually talking about his associations with Chavez, Castro, Iran. His naive efforts to destabilize Libya and the Middle East. His "red line in the sand" with Assad. His acquiescence to Putin. His bowing to Foreign kings. His turning his back to Israel. His agreement to sell arms to Vietnam. His hubris in thinking that the world will change just because he makes a speech.

His foreign policy has left a vacuum in the world filled with a lot of bad guys. But he thinks America is the worst of all of them and he resents our position as a super power.
 
Well, now that I have specifics with your qualms with his foreign policy....

It seems Obama can't win with you. You are arguing that he's left a power vacuum in places like Syria, Libya, Iraq but then you also say he shouldn't be in diplomatic negotiations with countries that the U.S. has had hostile relations with. (Iran, Cuba) So which one do you want? Diplomacy or war?

I will agree that the power vacuum left in Libya was a mistake, but that wasn't the US's fault alone. The Arab Spring started the revolution in that country. We just aided it as we saw the opportunity to do so. So far, it hasn't been a 'bad' deal for the U.S. as ISIS hasn't really effected us much on our home soil and we deposed of Khadafi who we didn't like; although, it has obviously been detrimental to our European allies. Unlike Bush's foray into Iraq, deposing of Khadafi cost us very little in terms of lives and money compared to Sadaam who cost a lot more of both.

I refuse to blame Obama for the shadow wars with Russia and Iran going on in Iraq / Syria. That's Bush's baby. We left the region unstable but we should have never been there in the first place to make it unstable.

As for Cuba and Venezuela... Meh... Venezuela supplies us with tons of oil. We need to keep relations with them open even if we don't like it. (Much like the kingdom of Saud) The pejorative measures on Cuba had run their corse. Its a bit ridiculous to have an island so close to our mainland not be at least neutral towards us.
 
  • Like
Reactions: WATU2
To add to my statement:

If you look at the international situation as a board game... I would say Obama played his turn pretty well. He turned some situations from negative to more or less neutral. And the main war, if you want to call it that, that he is in is being fought largely by Syrians and Iraqi's instead of Americans. I can't say I support the humanitarian costs as refugees pour into Europe, but I suppose it's better than Americans dying.
 
  • Like
Reactions: WATU2
Well, I stand corrected. His Imperial Majesty can do no wrong. After all in the words of the intelligentsia.. "It was Bush's Fault."
 
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT