[amphibian]

WinterPhoenix, on 26 July 2016 - 02:51 AM, said:

amphibian, on 26 July 2016 - 02:44 AM, said:

1) Andrew Jackson, 2) Andrew Johnson, 3) Woodrow Wilson, 4) James Buchanan, 5) Zachary Tyler

That's my list for worst people to be president - not the worst presidents in terms of job performance. I'd put Reagan in the bottom ten because he and his wife genuinely laughed at the AIDS crisis for years even as they covered up his increasingly visible struggle with Alzheimer's in office.

I know nothing at all about Tyler or Buchanan, and can't say as I know all that much about the personal beliefs and opinions of the other 3 either. Wilson is the only one we ever learned much about in school, and that was mostly centred around the proposed creation of the League of Nations.

Personally, even ignoring pretty much anything else he did I'd place Truman near the bottom simply for his use of the atomic bomb and support for the creation of the state of Israel, but I don't want to derail the thread with historical politics.

EDIT: Tyler is just one of those names I know because it is great obscure answer for American presidents, and I like to have armoury of useless facts.

Wilson was virulently racist.

Buchanan was a shithead through and through. His personal backstage actions continually let the slave owning states get more power because his gay lover had a romantic view of the south.

Tyler was such a shithead his own party disavowed him.

Truman was a very solid president in terms of job performance and perhaps the last truly decent person to be President before Obama. I'm purposely skipping Jimmy Carter in that reckoning as I think he's got a mixed legacy and is being unjustly treated as a saint.

[WinterPhoenix]

amphibian, on 26 July 2016 - 03:32 AM, said:

WinterPhoenix, on 26 July 2016 - 02:51 AM, said:

amphibian, on 26 July 2016 - 02:44 AM, said:

1) Andrew Jackson, 2) Andrew Johnson, 3) Woodrow Wilson, 4) James Buchanan, 5) Zachary Tyler

That's my list for worst people to be president - not the worst presidents in terms of job performance. I'd put Reagan in the bottom ten because he and his wife genuinely laughed at the AIDS crisis for years even as they covered up his increasingly visible struggle with Alzheimer's in office.

I know nothing at all about Tyler or Buchanan, and can't say as I know all that much about the personal beliefs and opinions of the other 3 either. Wilson is the only one we ever learned much about in school, and that was mostly centred around the proposed creation of the League of Nations.

Personally, even ignoring pretty much anything else he did I'd place Truman near the bottom simply for his use of the atomic bomb and support for the creation of the state of Israel, but I don't want to derail the thread with historical politics.

EDIT: Tyler is just one of those names I know because it is great obscure answer for American presidents, and I like to have armoury of useless facts.

Wilson was virulently racist.

Buchanan was a shithead through and through. His personal backstage actions continually let the slave owning states get more power because his gay lover had a romantic view of the south.

Tyler was such a shithead his own party disavowed him.

Truman was a very solid president in terms of job performance and perhaps the last truly decent person to be President before Obama. I'm purposely skipping Jimmy Carter in that reckoning as I think he's got a mixed legacy and is being unjustly treated as a saint.

I should probably learn more about the specifics of US presidents, I basically just learned their names (not sure I could name them all now, but I could once lol) and left it at that for most of them. I'm interested to hear that Wilson was such a racist, we learned about him in school (as I say mostly with respects to the LoN and foreign policy) and it might just be because it was like 8-9 years ago and I've forgotten alot, but I had this idea of him as a good guy in my head. Need to learn more for sure. As I know very little outside of actions he took in office I can't say much about how decent Truman, erm truly was, frankly though I falter if I try to apply that term to anyone who dropped an atomic bomb whatever the circumstances, honestly,

[amphibian]

You're confusing what I meant by the rankings of presidents as people - I'm talking their personal attitudes and actions rather than their job performance. It's true that the very worst people almost all are the very worst presidents, but Truman was a decent person who made mostly good decisions (the atomic bomb being his biggest and worst).

Trump would probably be seventh or eighth from bottom. The awful stuff he's done to tenants, to his own family, and the actions he's encouraged from others are lousy.

[amphibian]

Also, it really does seem like the Russian spy agencies were behind the DNC hacks. http://motherboard.v...nd-the-dnc-hack

[WinterPhoenix]

amphibian, on 26 July 2016 - 04:18 AM, said:

You're confusing what I meant by the rankings of presidents as people - I'm talking their personal attitudes and actions rather than their job performance. It's true that the very worst people almost all are the very worst presidents, but Truman was a decent person who made mostly good decisions (the atomic bomb being his biggest and worst).

Trump would probably be seventh or eighth from bottom. The awful stuff he's done to tenants, to his own family, and the actions he's encouraged from others are lousy.

No, not really confusing what you meant, just not explaining myself very well I think. I understand I know comparatively little about Truman in terms of personal attitudes (I said as much, or thought I did, I apologise if it wasn't clear) as opposed to job performance as you say (though I do know something about his personal opinions on Israel). I merely struggle to call someone who could drop an atomic bomb decent, no matter how generally decent they were otherwise, I feel it overcomes everything else basically. While also conceding that you know more about this subject than me, and thus accepting that his other actions are generally decent as you say - this is why I was saying I need to learn more, frankly I need to get back into history in general, I've spent the last couple of years doing very little on the academic front, and while I have never loved exams or deadlines, I do love learning for learning's sake.

If it is true that the Russians were behind the attacks then I think it's an even stronger indication that disaffected Bernie supporters need to vote Hillary. I understand that the source of the leaks doesn't change the circumstances of the original betrayal, but it does mean that any bernie voter that refuses to vote, votes independent or spoils their ballot is not only playing directly into Trump's hands but Putin's as well

EDIT: The article posted by amph, is very, very interesting, I suggest anyone who read this thread should read it also, it is fairly long and technically heavy in a few places, but nothing that makes it unreadable or damages it's use in becoming more intimated with the subject at hand. Very interesting indeed.

This post has been edited by WinterPhoenix: 26 July 2016 - 04:53 AM

[Terez]

Sexy Gumbo, on 26 July 2016 - 03:25 AM, said:

Well hell my wish for Independent run to split the Dems and favor Trump didn't happen.

If you knew anything about electoral law, you wouldn't have hoped for that in the first place.

[Tapper]

Terez, on 26 July 2016 - 10:27 AM, said:

Sexy Gumbo, on 26 July 2016 - 03:25 AM, said:

Well hell my wish for Independent run to split the Dems and favor Trump didn't happen.

If you want to avoid the random nuking of Tallinn (Estonia) because someone from Latvia looked at Trump funnily, you wouldn't hope for that in the first place.

Edited for correctness.

[Cause]

amphibian, on 26 July 2016 - 04:22 AM, said:

Also, it really does seem like the Russian spy agencies were behind the DNC hacks. http://motherboard.v...nd-the-dnc-hack

This is an amazing and frightening story. It does not seem to be getting much attention though? How seriously is america taking this story?

[amphibian]

The military can't really keep the Chinese out of the fighter plane schematics, but the NSA and other groups seem to be staying ahead in the "keep stuff secret" rat race.

As for the political groups, I think they are fairly easy pickings right now, but not high value because most of what they do is fundraising, demographics analysis, and bicker about policy. It'd be good for identity theft, but not so much a government sponsored group's ideal target.

[Cause]

I meant more from the aspect that russia is trying to manipulate the election. Will it lead to an anti trump backlash, be ignored?

[Hairshirt]

If they can prove Trump knew about it they will, otherwise probably not. They've floated that it's to help Trump, but the only link they report on is that Trump has said some complimentary things about Putin. We shall see though.

This post has been edited by Hairshirt: 26 July 2016 - 06:19 PM

[Terez]

Hairshirt, on 26 July 2016 - 06:18 PM, said:

If they can prove Trump knew about it they will, otherwise probably not. They've floated that it's to help Trump, but the only link they report on is that Trump has said some complimentary things about Putin. We shall see though.

I don't usually read TPM; even the name is a turn-off to me. But Robert Reich posted this on Facebook earlier:

Reich said:

Connect the following 7 dots. Do you see a pattern?

1. Trump's debt load has grown dramatically over the last year, from $350 million to $630 million. At the same time, he's been blackballed by all major US banks.

2. Post-bankruptcy, Trump has become highly reliant on money from Russia -- most of which has over the years become increasingly concentrated among oligarchs close to Vladimir Putin.

3. Paul Manafort, Trump's campaign manager and top advisor, spent most of the last decade as top campaign and communications advisor to Viktor Yanukovych, the pro-Russian Ukrainian Prime Minister and then President whose ouster in 2014 led to the on-going crisis and proxy war in Ukraine. Yanukovych was and remains a close ally of Putin.

4. Trump's foreign policy advisor on Russia and Europe is Carter Page, a man whose entire professional career has revolved around investments in Russia and who has deep and continuing financial and employment ties to Gazprom, which, in turn, is part of Putin's financial empire.

5. Over the course of the last year, Putin has aligned all Russian state controlled media behind Trump.

6. The Trump Camp was totally indifferent to the Republican Party platform, with one exception: They changed the party platform to eliminate assistance to Ukraine against Russian military operations in eastern Ukraine. Not incidentally, this is the single most important issue to Putin.

7. Trump is also suggesting the US and thus NATO might not come to the defense of NATO member states in the Baltics in the case of a Russian invasion -- another important issue to Putin.

I'm no conspiracy theorist, but these are the facts. (See sources in Josh Marshall's article below.)

http://talkingpoints...-really-a-thing

[Silencer]

Terez, on 26 July 2016 - 07:08 PM, said:

Hairshirt, on 26 July 2016 - 06:18 PM, said:

If they can prove Trump knew about it they will, otherwise probably not. They've floated that it's to help Trump, but the only link they report on is that Trump has said some complimentary things about Putin. We shall see though.

I don't usually read TPM; even the name is a turn-off to me. But Robert Reich posted this on Facebook earlier:

Reich said:

Connect the following 7 dots. Do you see a pattern?

1. Trump's debt load has grown dramatically over the last year, from $350 million to $630 million. At the same time, he's been blackballed by all major US banks.

2. Post-bankruptcy, Trump has become highly reliant on money from Russia -- most of which has over the years become increasingly concentrated among oligarchs close to Vladimir Putin.

3. Paul Manafort, Trump's campaign manager and top advisor, spent most of the last decade as top campaign and communications advisor to Viktor Yanukovych, the pro-Russian Ukrainian Prime Minister and then President whose ouster in 2014 led to the on-going crisis and proxy war in Ukraine. Yanukovych was and remains a close ally of Putin.

4. Trump's foreign policy advisor on Russia and Europe is Carter Page, a man whose entire professional career has revolved around investments in Russia and who has deep and continuing financial and employment ties to Gazprom, which, in turn, is part of Putin's financial empire.

5. Over the course of the last year, Putin has aligned all Russian state controlled media behind Trump.

6. The Trump Camp was totally indifferent to the Republican Party platform, with one exception: They changed the party platform to eliminate assistance to Ukraine against Russian military operations in eastern Ukraine. Not incidentally, this is the single most important issue to Putin.

7. Trump is also suggesting the US and thus NATO might not come to the defense of NATO member states in the Baltics in the case of a Russian invasion -- another important issue to Putin.

I'm no conspiracy theorist, but these are the facts. (See sources in Josh Marshall's article below.)

http://talkingpoints...-really-a-thing

^was just coming to post this. XD
I'd seen Trumps links to Putin mentioned before, but that's quite a lot of them that were news to me.

[worry]

I suppose this counts as an official denial from Trump: https://twitter.com/...071952498159616

[Mentalist]

it's a pretty well-known fact that most "traditionalist"/right-wing/neo-nazi political orgs in the West have a money trail linking them to Russia.

The real question is, can anyone prove Trump was in on this, as opposed to Russians deciding to "help" on their own volition?

[worry]

Is it possible Hillary Clinton is less a cynically ambitious political opportunist and more a reasonably ambitious Southern white lady who's actually grown better on issues 'organically' through experience, and it just so happened to be in the public eye & through the lens of politics?

[Terez]

Kanyemander West, on 26 July 2016 - 11:53 PM, said:

Is it possible Hillary Clinton is less a cynically ambitious political opportunist and more a reasonably ambitious Southern white lady who's actually grown better on issues 'organically' through experience, and it just so happened to be in the public eye & through the lens of politics?

This seems like a bit of a non sequitur, but for the record, I have always taken this into account when analyzing her flip-flops and evolutions. She's not Southern; she had to adapt to Arkansas when she moved there as an adult; her backstepping on the death penalty is an example of that adaptation.

[worry]

It's a non sequitur in the sense that it's not a followup to whatever conversation has been going on immediately beforehand.

Fair enough on her upbringing but I consider everything east of California "the South".

[worry]

That Mothers of the Movement speech is gonna be the highlight of either convention. Absolutely heartbreaking, moving, and incredibly delivered.

[Tapper]

Mentalist, on 26 July 2016 - 11:24 PM, said:

it's a pretty well-known fact that most "traditionalist"/right-wing/neo-nazi political orgs in the West have a money trail linking them to Russia.

The real question is, can anyone prove Trump was in on this, as opposed to Russians deciding to "help" on their own volition?

If it was Russia's government, they wouldn't be so stupid to let Trump in on this. For one, he'd probably boast on Twitter about it until Ivanka hid his phone. For another, deniability is a big thing.