Author Topic: Worst GOP POTUS of the 21st Century?  (Read 566 times)

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline wilber

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5495
Re: Worst GOP POTUS of the 21st Century?
« Reply #30 on: September 11, 2018, 12:54:25 pm »
Quote
That is... fuzzy to say the least. The constitution specifies that congress has the ability to "declare war", but that the president is head of the military (and the president does need the authority to deploy forces on short notice to handle emergencies, outside of  formal wars.)

The line between a "war" and a simple military deployment is not always clear cut and hasn't really been tested in the courts.

The US hasn't formally declared war on anyone since 1942.
"Never trust a man without a single redeeming vice" WSC

Offline ?Impact

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2936
Re: Worst GOP POTUS of the 21st Century?
« Reply #31 on: September 11, 2018, 03:54:33 pm »
b.t.w. I haven't answered the poll because it is misleading. There were two other Presidents in the 21st century that are not included.

Offline segnosaur

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 567
Re: Worst GOP POTUS of the 21st Century?
« Reply #32 on: September 11, 2018, 04:16:57 pm »
The US hasn't formally declared war on anyone since 1942.
True. And due to the current geopolitical situation and military technology, its possible that no country will ever formerly declare war again. (Not that war won't happen, just that it won't be a formal "Here's a document we are officially signing saying that we're at war". But it will be more a case of "There are innocent people being hurt... lets bomb the people a couple of times and go away." Or "nukes are incoming... need to respond".)

But that doesn't change the issue: without a formal declaration of war via congress, at what point does a president's authority to send troops into dangerous situations cross the line from a valid deployment of the military to an unconstitutional "war". There is no easy answer (and it may even descend into partisanship... "its constitutional if its my guy in the white house".) Obama (at least at the time) felt that the use of military forces in Libya was constitutional. Others didn't.  Until there is some sort of constitutional change and/or court ruling, nobody knows who is right or where the line is drawn.

Offline segnosaur

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 567
Re: Worst GOP POTUS of the 21st Century?
« Reply #33 on: September 11, 2018, 04:24:27 pm »
b.t.w. I haven't answered the poll because it is misleading. There were two other Presidents in the 21st century that are not included.
True, the poll could have included both Obama and Bill Clinton. But, I think that most posters here recognize that even with their faults neither of those presidents would come anywhere near being "worst".

It should also be pointed out that in a recent survey of historians, both Trump and Bush landed in the bottom half of the list of greatest presidents (Trump was dead last), whereas Obama and Clinton were in the top half of the list. (And lest you think their list is biased towards Democrats, Reagan scored better than Clinton and Bush Sr. was in the top half of the rankings.)

http://time.com/5165686/donald-trump-last-place-presidential-greatness/
Agree Agree x 1 View List

Offline Omni

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8036
Re: Worst GOP POTUS of the 21st Century?
« Reply #34 on: September 11, 2018, 04:43:36 pm »
Hard to believe Trump, even today is sitting on his fat ass bragging about his handling of the storm that hit Puerto Rico a year ago, which of course we all know was a **** show, while Florence is bearing down on the east coast. Maybe since it is supposed to hit some time Thursday he'll stop on his way home from Mara Lago after a weekend of gulf and fling out a few rolls of paper towels to the victims. 

Offline Gorgeous Graham

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4820
Re: Worst GOP POTUS of the 21st Century?
« Reply #35 on: September 11, 2018, 04:45:08 pm »
Demonstrations began. Things escalated. A civil war broke out. Gaddafi and the government were being naughty (using aircraft and snipers to target demonstrators.). Rebels didn't like that. The choice that NATO had was either get involved to prevent more bloodshed or allow the fighting to continue.

There is no need to assign responsibility to "oil interests". Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

Yes the kind, humanitarian NATO.  How many times has NATO intervened in such a military capacity in sub saharan african civil wars, of which there's been many? Did they give a crap about Rwanda? Did NATO intervene during the Second Congo War that led to 3 to 5 million civilian deaths in central Africa?

Libya has decent oil reserves, oil makes up 95% of its exports and 60% of its GDP. Gaddafi didn't play ball with the west in terms of access to Libyan oil, plus he fooling around gold and silver resources and french currency, so they helped bring about regime change.  Iraq 2.0.  It was realpolitik and nothing else.  "Responsibility to Protect" was a used as a BS cover for supporting regime change.

https://www.thenation.com/article/obamas-nato-war-oil-libya/

https://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2016/01/06/new-hillary-emails-reveal-true-motive-for-libya-intervention/

https://news.vice.com/article/libyan-oil-gold-and-qaddafi-the-strange-email-sidney-blumenthal-sent-hillary-clinton-in-2011

Quote
The war also had some key differences... most importantly, the Libyan war was initiated largely by internal politics and protests that escalated, whereas the Iraq was largely initiated by external factors (namely the U.S. and certain allies).

Yes agreed, it wasn't exactly the same.

Quote
Maybe, maybe not. (Not sure if you're referring to Russian meddling in the election or just foreign policy in general.)

I mean with Russia in general.  Crimea is one example.  Putin played Obama and Trump for fools.  I can't think of a more cunning leader in international relations than Putin.
"The economy has been relatively strong but Trudeau has chosen to run deficits year after year & has said will continue to do so well into the future.  This means we'll be in a worse & more vulnerable financial position when a recession hits when we HAVE to run deficits again." - Me, Oct. 3, 2019

Offline Gorgeous Graham

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4820
Re: Worst GOP POTUS of the 21st Century?
« Reply #36 on: September 11, 2018, 04:46:07 pm »
b.t.w. I haven't answered the poll because it is misleading. There were two other Presidents in the 21st century that are not included.

That's why the question is:  Worst GOP POTUS of the 21st Century?
"The economy has been relatively strong but Trudeau has chosen to run deficits year after year & has said will continue to do so well into the future.  This means we'll be in a worse & more vulnerable financial position when a recession hits when we HAVE to run deficits again." - Me, Oct. 3, 2019
Winner Winner x 1 View List

Offline wilber

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5495
Re: Worst GOP POTUS of the 21st Century?
« Reply #37 on: September 11, 2018, 05:02:41 pm »
True. And due to the current geopolitical situation and military technology, its possible that no country will ever formerly declare war again. (Not that war won't happen, just that it won't be a formal "Here's a document we are officially signing saying that we're at war". But it will be more a case of "There are innocent people being hurt... lets bomb the people a couple of times and go away." Or "nukes are incoming... need to respond".)

But that doesn't change the issue: without a formal declaration of war via congress, at what point does a president's authority to send troops into dangerous situations cross the line from a valid deployment of the military to an unconstitutional "war". There is no easy answer (and it may even descend into partisanship... "its constitutional if its my guy in the white house".) Obama (at least at the time) felt that the use of military forces in Libya was constitutional. Others didn't.  Until there is some sort of constitutional change and/or court ruling, nobody knows who is right or where the line is drawn.

Who knows, 17 years in Vietnam didn't do it, 17 years and counting in Afghanistan hasn't done it. It will probably take an actual attack on US soil by a foreign military, just like the last time.
"Never trust a man without a single redeeming vice" WSC

Offline segnosaur

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 567
Re: Worst GOP POTUS of the 21st Century?
« Reply #38 on: September 12, 2018, 12:36:28 pm »
Quote
Demonstrations began. Things escalated. A civil war broke out. Gaddafi and the government were being naughty (using aircraft and snipers to target demonstrators.). Rebels didn't like that. The choice that NATO had was either get involved to prevent more bloodshed or allow the fighting to continue.

There is no need to assign responsibility to "oil interests". Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
Yes the kind, humanitarian NATO.  How many times has NATO intervened in such a military capacity in sub saharan african civil wars, of which there's been many? Did they give a crap about Rwanda? Did NATO intervene during the Second Congo War that led to 3 to 5 million civilian deaths in central Africa?
No, but the U.S. did send troops to try to bring stability to Ethiopia (not a big oil supplier there). And they were also involved in military action in Kosovo (again not a big oil producer).

Now, you could say that the U.S. has been inconsistent. But the actions by the U.S. in each case needs to be judged according to the geopolitical situation at the time. A change in the presidency or congress, the willingness of allies to participate, the relationship between the targeted government and the U.S., even media attention are all relevant. It not as simple as "Oil=war, No oil=no war".

Quote
I mean with Russia in general.  Crimea is one example.  Putin played Obama and Trump for fools.  I can't think of a more cunning leader in international relations than Putin.
So, they kicked Russia out of the G8 and imposed sanctions.
Given the fact that Crimea was geographically located near Russia, and the U.S. had no real military presence in the area, I'm not really sure what Obama could have done differently. Send in military forces? That  could end up in a shooting war with Russia.