also we discussed who we thought was the best president

[gopiscrap]

These were the ones discussed and why?

5 votes, 0 passes | Time left: Unlimited
	Washington
	2 (40%)
	Jefferson
	0 (0%)
	Lincoln
	2 (40%)
	Wilson
	0 (0%)
	Nixon
	0 (0%)
	Eisenhower
	0 (0%)
	FDR
	1 (20%)
	Reagan
	0 (0%)
	Truman
	0 (0%)
	other (name)
	0 (0%)
	0 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[gopiscrap]

1. I voted FDR

because of how he handled the social safety net during the depression much of what we take for granted was set in motion during his time in office in the midst of a world war

[Nye Bevan]

5. He saved the world. (nt)

[Benton D Struckcheon]

2. Washington

Things could easily have gone seriously wrong right from the start.
In re the imperial Presidency and constantly intervening overseas, he voluntarily stepped down after two terms, setting a longstanding precedent, and he threw Jefferson out of the Cabinet for advocating too vociferously for the French at the time of their revolution, wanting instead to maintain a strict neutrality.
That latter example lasted all the way to WWI, when Woodrow Wilson violated it. It's been pretty much downhill in re foreign policy since then.

[gopiscrap]

3. Yeah I like what you say

and it was hard for me to pick

[Uncle Joe]

13. McKinley set the stage for Wilson, that's when the U.S.

more or less became an empire following the Spanish American War.

The U.S. wouldn't even let Filipino rebel fighters into Manila when the Spanish American War ended.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_American_War

Commodore Dewey transported Emilio Aguinaldo, a Filipino leader who had led rebellion against Spanish rule in the Philippines in 1896, to the Philippines from exile in Hong Kong to rally more Filipinos against the Spanish colonial government.[55] By June, U.S. and Filipino forces had taken control of most of the islands, except for the walled city of Intramuros. On June 12, Aguinaldo proclaimed the independence of the Philippines.[56][57]

On August 13, with American commanders unaware that a cease-fire had been signed between Spain and the U.S. on the previous day, American forces captured the city of Manila from the Spanish in the Battle of Manila.[55][58] This battle marked the end of Filipino-American collaboration, as the American action of preventing Filipino forces from entering the captured city of Manila was deeply resented by the Filipinos. This later led to the Philippine–American War,[59] which would prove to be more deadly and costly than the Spanish–American War.

The U.S. had sent a force of some 11,000 ground troops to the Philippines. Armed conflict broke out between U.S. forces and the Filipinos when U.S. troops began to take the place of the Spanish in control of the country after the end of the war, resulting in the Philippine–American War. On August 14, 1899, the Schurman Commission recommended that the U.S. retain control of the Philippines, possibly granting independence in the future.[60]

It becomes more difficult for a nation to remain neutral in foreign affairs when said nation morphs to world empire status.

Power; in and of itself has a dynamic to feed.

[David__77]

4. Without a doubt, FDR.

We need another one. And if we found one, for more than two terms.

[undeterred]

6. Obama

This is a spectacularly complex and difficult job in this day and age for one person to handle. Almost impossible. He is an exceptional president. Almost no one else could do as well as he has done, given the same situations.

[Kolesar]

9. :)

[Kolesar]

7. Lincoln adopted the cause of the way-outmatched abolitionists

Abolitionism didn't have the width and breadth of support of the American public, even in the way-Unionist states such as the upper Midwest. The President somehow kept the war going despite the war fatigue by changing the message and getting the North to support "preserving the union" . He was a masterful politician with a sense of image management that sustained his popularity.

[HardTimes99]

15. +1. I had Washington and FDR tied for 2nd - nt

[blkmusclmachine]

8. .

.

[shenmue]

10. Kennedy

[gopiscrap]

11. Why?

I thought about him but thought Lincoln and Roosevelt to be more worthy

[RebelOne]

16. Ditto for Kennedy. n/t

[wandy]

12. I'm going to get flamed for this but here goes. Lyndon Johnson.............

It was a different time. Communism was hell bent on world domination. The Cuban missile crises was proof enough.
Soviet Russia was capable and willing to do considerably more damage than lighting their shoes on fire or neutering themselves with an underwear bomb.

Johnson was faced with some extremely bad choices. He could allow the spread of Communism and risk a nuclear war as a final outcome. Or he could take a course of action he knew was wrong.

Lyndon Johnson was not interested in waging a war in Southeast Asia. In fact, he was desperate to avoid a conflict that might compete with the funding requirements for his expansive domestic agenda. His national security team, primarily composed of Defense Secretary Robert S. McNamara, National Security Advisor McGeorge Bundy, and Secretary of State Dean Rusk strongly urged or at least did not dissuade the President from pursuing an aggressive stand against North Vietnam. These advisors were concerned that if the U.S. did not respond to North Vietnamese aggression, the nation would lose credibility in its dealings with the Soviet Union, China and other communist threats.

Yes, it was the wrong thing to do, but their were far fewer options than their are currently in our optional war in Syria.

Should there be any wonder, I was on the side singing songs and carrying signs.

Johnson likely could have won a second term. He chose not to run. Not only did he loose the nation, I believe he no longer wanted the job.

http://www.informationdissemination.net/2013/09/choosing-war.html

[mick063]

14. I voted the man so popular,

that the only thing that stopped him from serving a fifth term was passing away while in office.