What is a "good" president?

[radcen]

Actually, that's precisely what a study showed: liberals might not like to say good things about the people they don't like...but they'll do it. Conservatives absolutely despise doing so and have no problem refusing to say good things about the people they don't like.

My experiences and observations don't match, both sides seem to be roughly equal. Though I will also say that any loathing of giving the other side any credit seems to increase as the extremity of the individual's extremism increases. (Yes, that is phrased awkwardly, sorry about that.)

 

[Glen Contrarian]

My experiences and observations don't match, both sides seem to be roughly equal. Though I will also say that any loathing of giving the other side any credit seems to increase as the extremity of the individual's extremism increases. (Yes, that is phrased awkwardly, sorry about that.)

And personal experiences and observations are by nature anecdotal and inherently biased...which is why actual scientific study is just about always more reliable.

But you can prove it to yourself. Try opening a thread here challenging conservatives to write what Obama did that was good and right...and at the same time ask liberals to write what Dubya did that was good and right...and see which political lean tends to be more likely to do so.

 

[radcen]

And personal experiences and observations are by nature anecdotal and inherently biased...which is why actual scientific study is just about always more reliable.

But you can prove it to yourself. Try opening a thread here challenging conservatives to write what Obama did that was good and right...and at the same time ask liberals to write what Dubya did that was good and right...and see which political lean tends to be more likely to do so.

I had a feeling you'd come back with that, and should have head it off at the pass. Mother Jones is biased as well, greatly so, and note that the meat of the article is not nearly as definitive and conclusive to this point as the title is. Plus, your point of bias on my part would be more likely if I were contradicting the story in the sense of defending conservatives. I am not doing that.

And I have done my own little experiments regarding bias here at DP from time to time, in both directions, and that is a big part of what I base my conclusions. It's unscientific, yes, but so be it.

I can also point to several friends in so-called real life and say the same thing: The farther away from the center, and the closer they are to being a whack job extremist, the less likely they are give the other side credit for anything. (I think that was phrased better) You will probably still dismiss my conclusion, and that's fine, but I stand by my conclusion.

 

[fmw]

A good president is more interested in improving the country and its people than leaving his/her "mark", making a "legacy", or wielding "power". They realize they are serving the people not that the people are serving them.
A good president does not make you think that "wink wink nudge nudge" should follow each of his or her speeches and inspires the people doesn't bull**** them.

A good president doesn't put pandering to the party line before what logically needs to be done and does not use personal interests as smoke screens to hide issues that touch each and every American citizen.

A good president is one that people are excited to get behind and support not just support to keep another person from becoming president as a "lesser of X number of evils".

Let me know when such a person comes along.

It will be a long wait to be sure. People who would actually do what needs to be done with government don't run for office. All we get is the power hungry. Perhaps Plato had it right.

 

[Glen Contrarian]

I had a feeling you'd come back with that, and should have head it off at the pass. Mother Jones is biased as well, greatly so, and note that the meat of the article is not nearly as definitive and conclusive to this point as the title is. Plus, your point of bias on my part would be more likely if I were contradicting the story in the sense of defending conservatives. I am not doing that.

And I have done my own little experiments regarding bias here at DP from time to time, in both directions, and that is a big part of what I base my conclusions. It's unscientific, yes, but so be it.

I can also point to several friends in so-called real life and say the same thing: The farther away from the center, and the closer they are to being a whack job extremist, the less likely they are give the other side credit for anything. (I think that was phrased better) You will probably still dismiss my conclusion, and that's fine, but I stand by my conclusion.

That's a very common common retort, that if it came from a source of the opposite political lean, then it must be biased and therefore cannot be trusted. You're intelligent enough to know that's a logical fallacy. We're probably all guilty of that particular mistake, and I do honestly strive to get past it, to actually read the reference given (and the references it uses itself) in order to avoid that very mistake. If you show me a link going to The Blaze or Breitbart or the CATO Institue (who are not to be underestimated, btw), I'll read them -and I'll read their references, too.

Which means that in my eyes, it's incumbent upon you to not simply dismiss the information simply because it's from Mother Jones, but to use the link of the study itself, and then determine if and how that study is biased or otherwise flawed.

And again, individual anecdotal observation is inherently flawed. As much as we'd all like to believe that we're very fair and level-headed, we all have our own biases which can rarely if ever be overcome by our own personal efforts.

 

[_Sal]

for 90+% of Americans.. a good president is one they agree with, or share a party with ... a bad president is one they don't

even if a president objectively screws up, he's still "good" is you agree with him or share a party with.

this is exactly what i was going to say which is why I believe things have devolved to the level they have

and

will only get worse

 

[radcen]

That's a very common common retort, that if it came from a source of the opposite political lean, then it must be biased and therefore cannot be trusted. You're intelligent enough to know that's a logical fallacy. We're probably all guilty of that particular mistake, and I do honestly strive to get past it, to actually read the reference given (and the references it uses itself) in order to avoid that very mistake. If you show me a link going to The Blaze or Breitbart or the CATO Institue (who are not to be underestimated, btw), I'll read them -and I'll read their references, too.

Which means that in my eyes, it's incumbent upon you to not simply dismiss the information simply because it's from Mother Jones, but to use the link of the study itself, and then determine if and how that study is biased or otherwise flawed.

And again, individual anecdotal observation is inherently flawed. As much as we'd all like to believe that we're very fair and level-headed, we all have our own biases which can rarely if ever be overcome by our own personal efforts.

I did not mean to imply that Mother Jones can never be trusted, not at all, but it is biased. Yes, MJ is accurate sometimes, just as Fox News is, and they seem to be the favorite whipping boy for bias. Fwiw, I do hold MJ in higher esteem than alternet or truthout.

Please note that I did point out that their headline was definitive, then when you actually read the article you find out that the study was less so. Far less so. Anyone in journalism with more than a week of experience knows that a great many people will only read the headline, and maybe the first paragraph, then take their conclusions from there and move on. It is common for headlines to be crafted in such a way as to not lie, per se, but to suggest a pre-desired conclusion by the reader.

 

[Glen Contrarian]

I did not mean to imply that Mother Jones can never be trusted, not at all, but it is biased. Yes, MJ is accurate sometimes, just as Fox News is, and they seem to be the favorite whipping boy for bias. Fwiw, I do hold MJ in higher esteem than alternet or truthout.

Please note that I did point out that their headline was definitive, then when you actually read the article you find out that the study was less so. Far less so. Anyone in journalism with more than a week of experience knows that a great many people will only read the headline, and maybe the first paragraph, then take their conclusions from there and move on. It is common for headlines to be crafted in such a way as to not lie, per se, but to suggest a pre-desired conclusion by the reader.

But did you read the study the article linked to? If not, then how can you dismiss the validity of what the study found?

 

[JC Callender]

A good president removes as many obstacles as possible for as many people as possible, without prejudice, to enjoy as much success as they can. They don't try and become the source of success, they let the citizens do it themselves and stay out of the way.

 

[radcen]

But did you read the study the article linked to? If not, then how can you dismiss the validity of what the study found?

Is this what they call "moving the goalposts"? We were talking about the article and how it presented the study, and all of a sudden out of thin air you switch from the article to the study itself, and suggest that I dismiss the study itself, when I never actually did so, either directly or implicitly. Actually, if you read what I said, I am more willing to accept what the study says, but my point all along is that the study itself is not as definitive as the article wants people to believe. The writer of the article, or at least the writer of the headline, put their own slant on it that is not necessarily correct.

 

[Glen Contrarian]

Is this what they call "moving the goalposts"? We were talking about the article and how it presented the study, and all of a sudden out of thin air you switch from the article to the study itself, and suggest that I dismiss the study itself, when I never actually did so, either directly or implicitly. Actually, if you read what I said, I am more willing to accept what the study says, but my point all along is that the study itself is not as definitive as the article wants people to believe. The writer of the article, or at least the writer of the headline, put their own slant on it that is not necessarily correct.

I never moved the goalposts. I'm only pointing out how you're making an assumption about the study based on where you read about the study...and I based that statement on the apparent fact that you did not read the study itself, but only tried to claim that "the study is not as definitive as the article wants people to believe."

That said, I do agree that MJ, being biased to the left, is likely to put their own spin on the study just as Breitbart puts its own spin on studies...which is why I pay attention to the study itself before I judge whether the study was indeed definitive.

 

[radcen]

I never moved the goalposts. I'm only pointing out how you're making an assumption about the study based on where you read about the study...and I based that statement on the apparent fact that you did not read the study itself, but only tried to claim that "the study is not as definitive as the article wants people to believe."

That said, I do agree that MJ, being biased to the left, is likely to put their own spin on the study just as Breitbart puts its own spin on studies...which is why I pay attention to the study itself before I judge whether the study was indeed definitive.

How you equate me saying the study is not as definitive as the article title suggests as somehow equating to not reading the study is curious.

 

[Dayton3]

So...yeah, Obama DOES and SHOULD get credit for how the economy improved on his watch.

Why? What if the improvements in the economy were IN SPITE of his policies rather than BECAUSE of them?

 

[Moderate Right]

for 90+% of Americans.. a good president is one they agree with, or share a party with ... a bad president is one they don't

even if a president objectively screws up, he's still "good" is you agree with him or share a party with.

I believe that a president is supposed to do what is best for the country, not one who is just flat out popular with the constituents who voted for him (or her). If a president objectively screws up and makes the country worse, then those who still like him anyway should start questioning whether their own values are right or not. Good or bad presidents should be judged in a non-partisan way by history.

 

[Moderate Right]

You're committing a logical fallacy by assuming that the economy would have recovered anyway, especially given that none of the Republicans would have allowed a Keynesian stimulus to pass. What's more, their position was for more deregulation, not for something like Dodd-Frank. I do not credit Clinton for the economic progress in the mid '90's - I say instead it's more due to Bush 41 when he raised taxes against the wishes of his own party.

There are no presidents who "changed the entire country" in a positive manner, except for Washington, Lincoln, and FDR. And Wilson was IMO the worst president in our history. He was president when the Great Influenza hit. America had about 100M people at the time, and the Flu killed nearly a million...and Wilson never once mentioned it in public, but kept silent in order to preserve the "war morale". Kennedy didn't change the nation, though he did a couple very important things right. Reagan was a great president for two reasons, one, that he won the Cold War, and two, he gave America back its nationalistic pride...but at the same time, he tripled our debt, allowed us to get involved in Iran Contra (which is a bigger scandal than anything the Clintons or Obama did), and helped spread the myth of the "welfare queen". When he announced his run, he did it in Philadelphia, Mississippi, the same town where civil rights activists had been lynched. He didn't do that because he supported civil rights - Google "Lee Atwater quote" sometime - he was one of Reagan's chief advisers. Probably worst of all, he got rid of the Fairness Doctrine that required news outlets to at least attempt to tell both sides of the story. That, more than anything (except for Nixon's "Southern Strategy"), enabled the rise of the Religious Right and the hyperpartisanship we see today.

The economy would have recovered anyway. Just like the stock market, the economy is going to go up and down no matter who is president. In fact, most presidents who have served eight or more years have experienced both sides of the economy. Now, you can influence economies and speed up the process of recovery or recession by inacting either good or bad policies, but recessions and depressions will recover anyway at some point and periods of boom will eventually be followed by slow downs of some sort. Nothing goes down forever and nothing goes up forever.

 

[Glen Contrarian]

The economy would have recovered anyway. Just like the stock market, the economy is going to go up and down no matter who is president. In fact, most presidents who have served eight or more years have experienced both sides of the economy. Now, you can influence economies and speed up the process of recovery or recession by inacting either good or bad policies, but recessions and depressions will recover anyway at some point and periods of boom will eventually be followed by slow downs of some sort. Nothing goes down forever and nothing goes up forever.

Riiiiiiiight. Mm-hmm. You're right and the overwhelming majority of the economists are wrong.

Good thing you're not in charge.

 

[Glen Contrarian]

Why? What if the improvements in the economy were IN SPITE of his policies rather than BECAUSE of them?

Last I recall, y'all were so doggone sure that the stimulus and Dodd-Frank were going to make things worse, instead of better. Who turned out to be right?

 

[Glen Contrarian]

How you equate me saying the study is not as definitive as the article title suggests as somehow equating to not reading the study is curious.

Okay, then did you actually read the study? And on what grounds do you believe that it might be faulty or biased, if that is what you believe?

 

[Sweden]

To me a good world leader is one who fundamentally helps define or change a nation. US presidents that fit this definition are ones like John F. Kennedy, Ronald Reagan, Woodrow Wilson, and in my opinion the best US president, Franklin D. Roosevelt. All of these presidents had a vision for the United States and fundamentally changed the country defining what it means to be American. Obama was not a good president, he did the bare minimum.

In Canada we had prime minsters like Pierre Trudeau, Sir John A. MacDonald, Lester Pearson, William Lyon Mackenzie, and in a way R.B. Bennett. All of them had a vision for the country and they defined what it means to be Canadian.

FDR completely failed to recognise the threat from the USSR. He went behind Churchill's back to talk to Stalin who he foolishly imagined to e his 'friend' and trustworthy. His betrayal of the Poles, the Czechs, the Hungarians and the peoples of the Baltic states should not be forgotten or forgiven. The mess that FDR left behind him had to be cleared up by the most under-rated US President in recent history, Truman.

 

[Abbazorkzog]

Thread: What is a "good" president?

Not necessarily a "good" person.

And it is the latter that actually makes a shred of a damn difference to me.

 

[Dayton3]

Last I recall, y'all were so doggone sure that the stimulus and Dodd-Frank were going to make things worse, instead of better. Who turned out to be right?

You know you're right! I guess we can give President Obama's stimulus plan for the U.S. economy staggering along like a half dead, punch drunk boxer for half a decade.

You know, a healthy economy actually GROWS consistently and steadily. It doesn't barely stagger from one quarter to the next.

 

[Casper]

So let's see, how about:
One that can work with ALL Parties to get the business of the Nation addressed.
One that has true leadership and has the talent to get others to respect and listen to their ideas and how to accomplish them.
One that is a true Statesman that can deal with other Nations around the globe from a position of Respect and Trust.
One that believes in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and understand that they swore an oath to uphold it.
One that Puts the interests of the Nation above the interests of their Party.
One that owes their loyalty to the Nation and the Citizens and not to those with the most influence or money.
One that is willing to stand up for what is best for the Entire Nation and the majority of Citizens even though it may not be what they would prefer.
One that believes in keeping the Nation safe from both internal and external threats.
One that leaves the Nation is a better place than where it was before they took office.

I am sure there are more one could add but those would be a good start.
That was fun, Now back to Reality.

 

[Glen Contrarian]

You know you're right! I guess we can give President Obama's stimulus plan for the U.S. economy staggering along like a half dead, punch drunk boxer for half a decade.

You know, a healthy economy actually GROWS consistently and steadily. It doesn't barely stagger from one quarter to the next.

Yeah, such a terribly-punch-drunk economy certainly wouldn't have gone from losing 800K jobs per month to 66 consecutive months of private-sector job growth - by far the longest such streak in American history.

 

[Dayton3]

Yeah, such a terribly-punch-drunk economy certainly wouldn't have gone from losing 800K jobs per month to 66 consecutive months of private-sector job growth - by far the longest such streak in American history.

Staggering is still staggering.

And job growth is far from the only measure of a nations economy.

 

[Glen Contrarian]

Staggering is still staggering.

And job growth is far from the only measure of a nations economy.

In other words, it doesn't matter that Obama's accomplished something that no Republican president even came close to accomplishing, because in your eyes, Obama could freaking cure cancer and end poverty and make fusion power economical, all overnight, and all free...and you'd still find a way to refuse to give him credit for any of it.

Because that's what the Right has made as part of conservative dogma: no liberal - and ESPECIALLY Obama - ever has or ever will do anything right ever...and even if they do, Thou Shalt Not Give Him Credit For It.