Originally posted by Piddzilla
Welcome back! How did it all go with the girl????
Thanks for the welcome. Things went well. Just don't buy into the seamstress-esque insinuations of Slaytan and Silver.
Originally posted by Piddzilla
But didn't you have the same rules in the days of FDR but an exception was being made?
Sort of. Washington imposed the two-term limit on himself, I believe, and it was never fully made law until during Truman's Presidency (I think)...though Truman himself was exempted from it. Regardless, it is now law, and therefore it's a little difficult to gauge just how FDR stacks up against more modern Presidents in terms of popularity. And, of course, he DID come into power during a rather unique and crucial time in our history.
Originally posted by Piddzilla
Reagan is the Margret Thatcher of America. That says it all. A good thing for some, and a bad thing for others. And the certainity of Reagan being elected to a third or fourth term is highly speculative. I could say the same thing about Clinton or ask what would have happened if JFK hadn't been killed.
Who was Reagan bad for, in your mind?
Concerning speculation: technically, yes, it is speculative...but reasonably I think it's quite certain given the fact that Bush Sr. clearly succeeded him on the merits of the Reagan administration. So I think a third term was a given...a fourth, I'll grant you, would be too speculative. And yes, I think Clinton would've likely won a third term as well.
Originally posted by Piddzilla
I don't really remember everything about this discussion, it was so long since we last were at it. But I don't recall ever saying that popularity is a indicator of effectiveness. If popularity is an indicator of anything, it's an indicator of - popularity, and nothing else! All I said was that there was obviously something pretty remarkable about him since he is the only president that has been elected four times. But you had to admit that he was pretty effective.
There was indeed something remarkable about him. He was, at the very least, an incredibly eloquent and clever man. Many view Roosevelt as the first "modern" President...the first to play the publicity game as heavily as is now expected of all Presidential candidates. I think he owes a great deal of his popularity to his media savvy.
That said, I'm not trying to make the case that Roosevelt was an evil man or even a particularly bad Head of State.
Originally posted by Piddzilla
Well, if he in fact was a tyrant I think people of the time would have noticed...
I don't know about that...we have people now who think Bush is cleansing the world of evil, and others who seem convinced he is Satan incarnate. Such polarized views, if nothing else, show us that it's all too easy to have entirely the wrong opinion of your country's leader without a bit of hindsight.
Originally posted by Piddzilla
Well, being an american you probably know better than me... Maybe it's just the way he's being portrayed in films and stuff or that he's considered a great leader in Europe.
Depends on what you mean by "great leader." He was certainly adept at swaying public opinion and getting people behind him. His popularity attests to that.
Originally posted by Piddzilla
I saw a discussion on a forum on the Net somewhere. I don't remember if it was here or where it was but the question about who the best president of USA ever was came up, and I seem to remember Washington and FDR were being mentioned the most.
That surprises me. I suppose an odd Democrat or Socialist here or there might prop FDR up rather highly, hailing the New Deal as a revolution which will inevitably expand for the forseeable future. I find that Lincoln takes the cake, generally, though.