Who are your top 5 best Presidents? (party, economic, elect, state)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Decrease of government size, cost and/or power; increase in individual liberty and sovereignty.
According to the letter and spirit of the Federalist Papers, the AntiFederalist Papers (replies), the Declaration of Independence, the writings/speeches of the Virginia Anti-constitutionalists, and all the writings of the Scottish Enlightenment that Jefferson, Madison et al lifted most of the framework from, there is no other way to rate any elected official in the US, imho.
The Whiskey Rebellion is the only argument needed. How the fed.gov began creating new taxation without representation schemes, and as a bonus, started collecting taxes literally at gunpoint. And all that less than 6 years from ratifying the Constitution.
Also, Washington's performance in the American Revolution was prior to being president. The United States didn't officially exist under the current framework until 9 years after Cornwallis had his aide surrender his sword. What one does prior to becoming the Sociopath In Chief is irrelevant to what they do once they are handed the whip with which they oppress the populace.
Right up to 1791, sure, maybe. After that, they started the grift that we see today. And I only recognize those who chose to reduce the size/cost/power of government and/or increase individual liberty. Everyone else is just somewhere between below average and awful.
And make no mistake, I do not consider my top three to be specifically benevolent or great, as I think all elected politicians to be sociopaths who seek to oppress. I just find those three the least sociopathic and tyrannical of the others because they actually reduced size/cost/power of government and/or increased individual liberty while holding their monopoly on force & violence.
I appreciate the arguments and generally don't like big government. I told my wife I don't even like smoke detector mandates. That being said the development of modern technology almost forces some expansion to occur. In Lisbon, Portugal the lack of land use regulation literally leads to cars being parked on sidewalks. Do you want that?
I think some regulation is needed so that people can physically coexist.
Decrease of government size, cost and/or power; increase in individual liberty and sovereignty.
According to the letter and spirit of the Federalist Papers, the AntiFederalist Papers (replies), the Declaration of Independence, the writings/speeches of the Virginia Anti-constitutionalists, and all the writings of the Scottish Enlightenment that Jefferson, Madison et al lifted most of the framework from, there is no other way to rate any elected official in the US, imho.
The Whiskey Rebellion is the only argument needed. How the fed.gov began creating new taxation without representation schemes, and as a bonus, started collecting taxes literally at gunpoint. And all that less than 6 years from ratifying the Constitution.
Also, Washington's performance in the American Revolution was prior to being president. The United States didn't officially exist under the current framework until 9 years after Cornwallis had his aide surrender his sword. What one does prior to becoming the Sociopath In Chief is irrelevant to what they do once they are handed the whip with which they oppress the populace.
Right up to 1791, sure, maybe. After that, they started the grift that we see today. And I only recognize those who chose to reduce the size/cost/power of government and/or increase individual liberty. Everyone else is just somewhere between below average and awful.
And make no mistake, I do not consider my top three to be specifically benevolent or great, as I think all elected politicians to be sociopaths who seek to oppress. I just find those three the least sociopathic and tyrannical of the others because they actually reduced size/cost/power of government and/or increased individual liberty while holding their monopoly on force & violence.
I appreciate the response, but I would say that George Washington being commander of the Revolutionary War is a huge part in his deserved recognition because that led to the U.S. being an independent nation.
I appreciate the response, but I would say that George Washington being commander of the Revolutionary War is a huge part in his deserved recognition because that led to the U.S. being an independent nation.
Again, that has nothing to do with his presidency. Being in the military does not give you a lifetime free pass on later tyranny as an elected executive. Not even for him.
But if we are going to use Washington's life prior to his presidency to add/subtract from his later on career in the White House, let us recall that George got his start in politics in the VA House of Burgesses, where he got very involved in the fight against what? Oh that's right, a bunch of new taxes that Britain had levied on the colonies to pay for what? Oh that's right, the big time costs of the French and Indian War.
Hmmm...that feels relevant somehow to later hypocrisy as Tyrant in Chief....
Oh wait, it's because that was EXACTLY what the Whiskey Tax was. It was a heavy handed new tax to pay for the costs of an earlier war, and it angered the population, same as Britain's various taxes from 1754-1775 angered the Colonies overall. And like King George III before, the newly minted US King George IV had his troops enforce tax policy at gunpoint. Except in George IV's case, the king won, not the revolutionaries, so we consider it no blood, no foul.
Hamilton's whiskey tax was the exact same thing and for the exact same reason as Britain's stamp/tea/etc taxes that led to the 1776-1779 kerfluffle. And the revolutionaries of the Whiskey Rebellion responded exactly like the patriots of the Boston tea Party and their ilk, just with different outcomes and different versions of their "patriotism" written about later.
Last but not least, while I understand that it was perfectly legal and widely accepted in his time, we are also talking about a man who owned slaves. So before you canonize the man, recall that he held other humans in chattel bondage.
How can anyone rate presidents before their lifetime
By reading history. And, yes, I know history is not always correct or unbiased, but if one reads a LOT of history, one can form at least some kind of opinion, even though those opinions are very likely biased due to the individual's personal beliefs and ideology.
How can anyone rate presidents before their lifetime
One looks at what they accomplished. Rhetoric is one thing, getting it done is another. Thus, normally Lincoln is rated first or second for preserving the Union - though down here in the south that is iffy.
Washington was very unpopular during his second term which led to the first political parties. His feud with Jefferson became very public.
"It would give you a fever were I to name to you the apostates who have gone over to these heresies, men who were Samsons in the field and Solomons in the council, but who have had their heads shorn by the harlot England." Thomas Jefferson to Phillip Mazzei April 24. 1796.
We take history's longer view rather than Jefferson's.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
