Which of these candidates ...

[Korwinist]

Politically: Palin.

Talks a tough game about the size and influence of government, but ultimately is just a conservative statist and wants to redesign government to their liking.

Reagan is so profoundly overrated, it's ridiculous.  But then, there hasn't been many decent presidents of note in the past 50 years, so he's a big fish in a small pond.

Reagan is probably one of the best presidents in the past 50 years, but that isn't saying much. I think many of his advisers forced him to tone down a lot of his more radical ideas. He still wasn't that great.

The best president the US has had is Grover Cleveland, followed by Calvin Coolidge. Severely underrated by historians making lists of "best president", since going by them the "best president" is the one who acts the most like a king and flaunts his power.

Better than Washington, Jefferson, Polk, Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, FDR, Eisenhower, and Truman?

Washington wasn't too bad, though he pushed his authority at times. Jefferson was pretty good. Teddy Roosevelt, FDR, and Lincoln were war mongering idiots. Eisenhower did a lot of crooked things in his time, but wasn't too bad for the 50s I guess. Truman was responsible first for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Japanese, then for dragging the US into a war with North Korea on unconstitutional pretenses leading to thousands of more deaths. Polk was acceptable.

But what makes Cleveland and Coolidge better than those eight presidents?

Two words: fiscal restraint

And this is better than, for example, instituting the precedent of two terms rather than becoming President-for-Life?  Or holding the nation together during its civil war?  Or doubling the size of the United States while keeping the slavery question from becoming divisive?  I can go on and on and on. 

Heck, Coolidge's "fiscal restraint" is largely responsibility for the Great Depression.  He also let organized crime flourish by doing nothing about Prohibition once it became obvious it wasn't working.  All he was good for was being in the right place at the right time.  Cleveland can at least claim to be a good president, though calling him the "greatest" doesn't make it so.

I didn't say he was perfect, I said he was good. He wasn't responsible for the Great Depression, the Federal Reserve was responsible for setting things in motion while Herbert Hoover was responsible for making the broadest attempts by the American government to "rescue" a falling economy and managed to fail miserably. He cut taxes and cut government size sufficiently to create the Roaring Twenties (though the Fed was part of it, it certainly wasn't the larger factor) and presided through one of the most prosperous times of the US. He didn't end prohibition despite opposing it, but that was on constitutional grounds. He supported the civil rights movement of the time (unlike KKK supporting Woodrow Wilson) and attempted to end lynching.

Really, things went bad once Herbert Hoover, a certified moron, took the helm, hit a small bump in the form of a stock market crash similar to one that had rocked 1920, and proceeded to utterly cock things up through everything a government shouldn't do during a recession. Coolidge did some bad things, but unlike four of those "best presidents" he didn't go in for mass murder.

Oh come on.  Are you seriously calling Lincoln, Truman, and the Roosevelts "mass murders"?  Really?  REALLY?  The man who held the union together, the leader of the progressive movement, the savior of Europe (face it, Germany could have established the Reich if it had been in a straight up fight with the Soviets) or the man who saved millions of Americans lives by dropping the bombs (which I note killed less than the firebombing campaign that had been underway). 

The man who held the union together did so at the cost of hundreds of thousands of lives. The "saviour of Europe" didn't save the Polish, Romanians, Hungarians, Ukrainians, Lithuanians, Latvians, or Estonians who made the mistake of opposing his buddy, Stalin (Who, might I add, was responsible for killing even more people than Hitler), nor is that very helpful for those who were killed in the firebombing of Dresden and other civilian targets. Millions of American lives were NOT saved by nuking Hiroshima/Nagasaki, seeing as how Japan was incapable of fighting back in any serious way at that point and could have easily been starved out by blockade, rather than by completely destroying two cities. The only reason nuclear weapons were used was as a move to frighten the Soviets.

[Yelnoc]

The man who held the union together did so at the cost of hundreds of thousands of lives.

What other option was there?  Allow the south to walk out?

The "saviour of Europe" didn't save the Polish, Romanians, Hungarians, Ukrainians, Lithuanians, Latvians, or Estonians who made the mistake of opposing his buddy, Stalin (Who, might I add, was responsible for killing even more people than Hitler), nor is that very helpful for those who were killed in the firebombing of Dresden and other civilian targets.

You are correct about Stalin, though it is quite unfair to lay the blame for the USSR on a United States President who died before WWII even ended.

Millions of American lives were NOT saved by nuking Hiroshima/Nagasaki, seeing as how Japan was incapable of fighting back in any serious way at that point and could have easily been starved out by blockade, rather than by completely destroying two cities. The only reason nuclear weapons were used was as a move to frighten the Soviets.

It did save millions of American lives when compared to the invasion option.  Japanese fanaticism was a very real thing that cannot be dismissed.  That same fanaticism could have resulted in millions of Japanese dying of famine before the government surrendered.  As to the motivation of the bombings being to scare the Soviets, I find that ridiculous.  Sure, we weren't the closest of allies by any means, but while the war was on there was no "red scare" influencing the decisions of those in power.  You seem to be looking at this through the lenses of the Cold War.

EDIT: And you still have not given a single reason why Cleveland and Coolidge should be regarded head and shoulders above every other US president.

[Proud Lieberal from Northeast]

None.

[Korwinist]

What other option was there?  Allow the south to walk out?

Yes. Without the fugitive slave laws, southern slaves would flee north and have a comparably easy time reaching freedom. Slavery in the south would become far to expensive to maintain and would crumble, which would probably lead to the south rejoining the Union anyway. No destruction of the south, no hundreds of thousands of deaths, no KKK, etc.

You are correct about Stalin, though it is quite unfair to lay the blame for the USSR on a United States President who died before WWII even ended.

He helped Stalin hunt down dissidents, painted him as a friend of the US, and refused to give sanctuary to fleeing anti-communists from Eastern Europe (who were most definitely not necessarily Nazis). The blame either goes straight to him, or to Truman.

It did save millions of American lives when compared to the invasion option.  Japanese fanaticism was a very real thing that cannot be dismissed.  That same fanaticism could have resulted in millions of Japanese dying of famine before the government surrendered.  As to the motivation of the bombings being to scare the Soviets, I find that ridiculous.  Sure, we weren't the closest of allies by any means, but while the war was on there was no "red scare" influencing the decisions of those in power.  You seem to be looking at this through the lenses of the Cold War.

Invasion wasn't necessary. By the time the nuclear bombs were used, Japan was completely incapable of fighting back and was starved for natural resources. A couple of blockades would have been of trivial cost and would have forced Japan to surrender anyway. The Japanese government wasn't especially fanatical, it just didn't want to accept the American offer of unconditional surrender. If Japan had no resources coming in from its empire, it would surrender very quickly.

EDIT: And you still have not given a single reason why Cleveland and Coolidge should be regarded head and shoulders above every other US president.

Yes I did. Coolidge cut down government enough to spark one of the greatest periods of prosperity in American history (whereas FDR presided over one of the lowest periods of American history). Cleveland prevented the US from adopting bimetallism and kept the size of government from growing.

[Senator Snowstalker]

Like a cross between Cain and Huntsman, if that makes sense.

[ChairmanSanchez]

The one candidate Reagan actually endorsed for any political office. Dr. Paul

[Frodo]

In Charles Krauthammer's opinion, that would be Barack Obama.

[Jayhawker]

Mitt Romney

[Senator Snowstalker]

Mitt Romney

No.

[CathKhan]

You Libertarians can make yourselves so utterly intolerable at times...

[Is JCL in mushy sappy love]

You Libertarians can make yourselves so utterly intolerable at times...

So have some of other idealogies. Just look at what Obama calling
Conservatives "bitter clingers".

[MSG]

Invasion wasn't necessary. By the time the nuclear bombs were used, Japan was completely incapable of fighting back and was starved for natural resources. A couple of blockades would have been of trivial cost and would have forced Japan to surrender anyway. The Japanese government wasn't especially fanatical, it just didn't want to accept the American offer of unconditional surrender. If Japan had no resources coming in from its empire, it would surrender very quickly.

In what world is this statement true. The Japanese were prepped for a long scale invasion that would have been similar to the invasions of the outer islands and other pacific islands. In that it would have been a fight for every inch of soil, with massive death tolls, see the tom hanks HBO series for an illustration. Only after the bombing did the hierarchy of the Japanese military see the futility of furthering the war. No one, not a single credible historian I have ever read argue anything close to what your describe.  Hell, i know many pacifist historians who vehemently argue against all military action who readily agree with Truman discsion to bomb japan knowing full well the lives it saved.  If you honestly believe this either you have never studied the history of the Japanese war apparatus during WII or your so desperate to make a point that you fabricate the truth to fit the agenda you purport. I, not knowing you, will choose to believe the former instead of the latter.

[Korwinist]

Invasion wasn't necessary. By the time the nuclear bombs were used, Japan was completely incapable of fighting back and was starved for natural resources. A couple of blockades would have been of trivial cost and would have forced Japan to surrender anyway. The Japanese government wasn't especially fanatical, it just didn't want to accept the American offer of unconditional surrender. If Japan had no resources coming in from its empire, it would surrender very quickly.

In what world is this statement true. The Japanese were prepped for a long scale invasion that would have been similar to the invasions of the outer islands and other pacific islands. In that it would have been a fight for every inch of soil, with massive death tolls, see the tom hanks HBO series for an illustration. Only after the bombing did the hierarchy of the Japanese military see the futility of furthering the war. No one, not a single credible historian I have ever read argue anything close to what your describe.  Hell, i know many pacifist historians who vehemently argue against all military action who readily agree with Truman discsion to bomb japan knowing full well the lives it saved.  If you honestly believe this either you have never studied the history of the Japanese war apparatus during WII or your so desperate to make a point that you fabricate the truth to fit the agenda you purport. I, not knowing you, will choose to believe the former instead of the latter.

What part of "invasion wasn't necessary because a blockade would work fine" did you not understand? You are ignoring what I am saying and assuming that I said "the US should have invaded Japan". There is a large difference.

Look at the island hopping campaign; the US avoided a whole bunch to avoid casualties and because they lacked strategic importance. The Japanese on those islands did not swim across the Pacific to attack Americans once cut off. By the end of the war, Honshu and Kyushu were sufficiently lacking in resources to be just like those worthless islands that the US avoided and blockaded. Yes, they were preparing to fight to the end, but they would lose that spirit when incapable of fighting back.

[Yelnoc]

Invasion wasn't necessary. By the time the nuclear bombs were used, Japan was completely incapable of fighting back and was starved for natural resources. A couple of blockades would have been of trivial cost and would have forced Japan to surrender anyway. The Japanese government wasn't especially fanatical, it just didn't want to accept the American offer of unconditional surrender. If Japan had no resources coming in from its empire, it would surrender very quickly.

In what world is this statement true. The Japanese were prepped for a long scale invasion that would have been similar to the invasions of the outer islands and other pacific islands. In that it would have been a fight for every inch of soil, with massive death tolls, see the tom hanks HBO series for an illustration. Only after the bombing did the hierarchy of the Japanese military see the futility of furthering the war. No one, not a single credible historian I have ever read argue anything close to what your describe.  Hell, i know many pacifist historians who vehemently argue against all military action who readily agree with Truman discsion to bomb japan knowing full well the lives it saved.  If you honestly believe this either you have never studied the history of the Japanese war apparatus during WII or your so desperate to make a point that you fabricate the truth to fit the agenda you purport. I, not knowing you, will choose to believe the former instead of the latter.

What part of "invasion wasn't necessary because a blockade would work fine" did you not understand? You are ignoring what I am saying and assuming that I said "the US should have invaded Japan". There is a large difference.

Look at the island hopping campaign; the US avoided a whole bunch to avoid casualties and because they lacked strategic importance. The Japanese on those islands did not swim across the Pacific to attack Americans once cut off. By the end of the war, Honshu and Kyushu were sufficiently lacking in resources to be just like those worthless islands that the US avoided and blockaded. Yes, they were preparing to fight to the end, but they would lose that spirit when incapable of fighting back.

I'm pretty sure that was directed at me.  I'm obviously not going to change your mind so let's just lay this to rest.

[JewCon]

Why are you guys voting for Obama? You do realize he is black, right? Ronald Reagan was white. Anyways, I voted for Herman Cain

...Herman Cain isn't black?

[JewCon]

You Libertarians can make yourselves so utterly intolerable at times...

at times? More like 100% of the time.

[TheGlobalizer]

You Libertarians can make yourselves so utterly intolerable at times...

at times? More like 100% of the time.

lol, good luck winning any election with that attitude.

FWIW, I'm a libertarian (but also an internationalist) and have no issue with our nuking Japan; Japanese war conduct was appalling to say the least, and nukes were about the only "proportional" response possible.  Blockading and other similar tactics would have given the emperor an opportunity to shore up domestic support and allowed domestic resistance to feed into Japanese cultural mores (at that time, a variant on the current Afghanistan/Waziristan motif); that probably would have inhibited Japan's move into a post-feudal nation and the modern democratic-ish state it became.

The Japanese emperor was quasi-godlike in the Japanese imperial system.  We basically dropped two bombs that had "your god sucks" written on the side.