Presidential Greatness

Giz said:
On the other hand, the Cuban missile crisis only happened because JFK had come across as weak to Khrushchev when they’d had the Vienna summit, leading Khrushchev to think he could push jfk around. The Cuban missile crisis was the result.

From wiki:
“ In retrospect the summit may be seen as a failure. The two leaders became increasingly frustrated at the lack of progress of the negotiations. Kennedy later said of Khrushchev, "He beat the hell out of me" and told New York Times reporter James 'Scotty' Reston it was the "worst thing in my life. He savaged me."[18] On the other hand, Khrushchev viewed the Summit in a much more positive light. In his memoir, Khrushchev showed ambivalence. He proclaimed, "I was generally pleased with our meeting in Vienna. Even though we came to no concrete agreement, I could tell that [Kennedy] was interested in finding a peaceful solution to world problems and avoiding conflict with the Soviet Union."[19] However, historian William Taubman suggests that Khrushchev merely felt he could "[push Kennedy around]."[20]”
Click to expand...
Watcing Ken Burn's excellent documentary on the Viet Nam war, I'm also not too impressed with JFK's attitude towards US involvement there and the US' objectives in 'Nam. He was only the first of the POTUSes to preside over that cluster **** of a war, but as the first, he had the responsibility to get the US off on the right foot. He could have advocated winning hearts and minds and trying to understand the country and its culture, and pushed the strongly anti-Buddhist regime to respect religious and human rights. Instead, the Strategic Hamlet programme and the US Army's approach to fighting the countryside in general was, to put it mildly, counter-productive, not to mention horrific in itself, and the coup against Diem they allowed to happen seemed to just set off a cascade of further coups and coup attempts that would greatly help the north towards victory.
 
wareyin said:
Not when he had the robot arms on!

Plus, Trump says he's 6'3" and 239. Pics disagree.
Click to expand...

In all seriousness, if I've learned one thing from the Apollo Hoax, it's that nobody on the Internet has any standing at all to make arguments from photogrammetry.

Also arms don't contribute to height.
 
Last edited:
theprestige said:
Rent free.
Click to expand...

OK. Rent Free.

Or.
And I’m just spitballing here.
Jared Kushner recently went on TV to describe the administration’s response to COVID as “a great success story.” And it was comments like this that made me think that he would be a bad president.

Nope.
Let’s go with rent free.

Of course his living in my head is nowhere near as pathetic as President Trump’s letting President Obama live in his head.
 
Ladewig said:
OK. Rent Free.

Or.
And I’m just spitballing here.
Jared Kushner recently went on TV to describe the administration’s response to COVID as “a great success story.” And it was comments like this that made me think that he would be a bad president.

Nope.
Let’s go with rent free.

Of course his living in my head is nowhere near as pathetic as President Trump’s letting President Obama live in his head.
Click to expand...

I'm not the one telling you to use Donald Trump as your benchmark.

And it's not like the thread is about speculative future presidents. You're the one who saw Kushner on TV and were inspired to introduce him as a non sequitur. What is Kushner doing for you, that you can't even keep him out of your head long enough to talk about historical presidents?
 
theprestige said:
That can't be right. I'm 6'1" and 220. Trump is definitely taller than I am. 6'3" is actually a conservative estimate, IMO.
Click to expand...

Because Trump, a conservative said it? Just curious, how do you know he is definitely taller than you? Remember, you've already claimed estimates from photos are no good.
 
wareyin said:
Aw crap, ninja'd by Loss Leader. I blame him for spelling it Klein instead of the correct Kline! ;)
Click to expand...


You got me. I actually saw Kline on Broadway in The Pirates of Penzance. He was amazing. And he has an Oscar. That has


Safe-Keeper said:
I'm also not too impressed with JFK's attitude towards US involvement there and the US' objectives in 'Nam. He was only the first of the POTUSes to preside over that cluster **** of a war, but as the first, he had the responsibility to get the US off on the right foot. He could have advocated winning hearts and minds and trying to understand the country and its culture, and pushed the strongly anti-Buddhist regime to respect religious and human rights. Instead, the Strategic Hamlet programme and the US Army's approach to fighting the countryside in general was, to put it mildly, counter-productive, not to mention horrific in itself, and the coup against Diem they allowed to happen seemed to just set off a cascade of further coups and coup attempts that would greatly help the north towards victory.
Click to expand...


Strongly agree with some minor quibbles: JFK was not the first president to be tangled up in the mess of colonialism that was Vietnam. Eisenhower had been trying to help the French as well. In fact, Wilson spurned a Vietnamese delegation asking for independence all the way back after WWI in Paris.

JFK's Vietnam "policy," much like his civil rights policy, was a muddled mess. At one point, we had the CIA supporting Diem and a coup by his brother at the same time.

He was a photogenic leader, but he was so wishy-washy when it came to making firm decisions that he delayed civil rights by five years, Vietnamese independence by thirty-five, and Cuban relations all the way to today.
 
Loss Leader said:
You got me. I actually saw Kline on Broadway in The Pirates of Penzance. He was amazing. And he has an Oscar. That has

Strongly agree with some minor quibbles: JFK was not the first president to be tangled up in the mess of colonialism that was Vietnam. Eisenhower had been trying to help the French as well. In fact, Wilson spurned a Vietnamese delegation asking for independence all the way back after WWI in Paris.

JFK's Vietnam "policy," much like his civil rights policy, was a muddled mess. At one point, we had the CIA supporting Diem and a coup by his brother at the same time.

He was a photogenic leader, but he was so wishy-washy when it came to making firm decisions that he delayed civil rights by five years, Vietnamese independence by thirty-five, and Cuban relations all the way to today.
Click to expand...

I too am not that impressed with JFK's presidency. I think he was a magnetic personality and his delivery of Ted Sorensen's speeches made him one of the finest Presidential orators.

JFK was a bit of a novice as a politician and definitely stumbled through the first half of his presidency. I have to give him credit for the Peace Corp and the space program. Outside of that Kennedy accomplished little. But the reason for this was not entirely his fault. Kennedy was elected by a slim margin and many a Southerner even in his party resented this Yankee.

In contrast LBJ was a political gorilla. He knew the ins and outs of Congress as well as anyone. After Kennedy's assassination he and the Democrats won a landslide victory. Him being a good old boy Southerner along with the Kennedy coalition allowed him to get a lot done. But I think Johnson's internal need to show strength combined with the War Hawks left over from JFK's administration caused him to turn Vietnam into a full scale war.

This is where to at least a certain degree, the times make the President as much or more than the other way around.
 
Last edited:
Norman Alexander said:
True. But we are talking only about his time as president.
Click to expand...

His time as president arose from his substantial political career, not from his earlier acting career.

I don't know where you got the idea that Reagan's presidency was an acting gig, but it's wrong. Did you think he ran for president as soon as The Killers wrapped principal photography?
 
theprestige said:
His time as president arose from his substantial political career, not from his earlier acting career.

I don't know where you got the idea that Reagan's presidency was an acting gig, but it's wrong. Did you think he ran for president as soon as The Killers wrapped principal photography?
Click to expand...

I don't often agree with you, but I do on this point. From 1960 forward Reagan was a politician. But he did capitalize on his acting career to advance his political campaign. He did become a whore to the wealthy though.
 
theprestige said:
He became a politician. Even Bernie Sanders has a half-million dollar lakehouse with 500 feet of beachfront.

Or were you thinking of his acting career?
Click to expand...

And yet Bernie fought for the middle class and the poor his entire career and Reagan just sodomized them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom