CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
Average GDP growth per quarter for Reagan's administration was less than that of Kennedy (#1), Johnson (#2) and Clinton (#3).
2. We grew Stronger as a military
We have grown stronger as a military under almost every President, and Reagan didn't preside over the largest buildup. Additionally, Reagan continued an arms race that put a very real long term strain on our economy and led to the destabilization of many countries that remain hot-spots to this day.
3. The middle class was allowed to prosper
But it was under Reagan when the middle class prospered the most.
So if Reagan doesn't make the top of your three criteria, why do you pick the 80's as the time when America was greatest?
Excellent post, man. I feel the same about Bonzo: A greatly overrated president, whom history will in time show to be have been mediocre at best. (see my post for more on why I claim this.)
But the middle class began to prosper decades before Bonzo got into the White House.
Middle Class prosperity in the USA began shortly after the end of WWII.
And then pretty much continued unabated for the next 40 years.
And I am not so sure we grew stronger militarily under Bonzo, either.
We DID kick both Japan and Germany's collective asses during WWII. At which time--from between 1941 and 1945--the country basically tuened into one giant machine shop.
Our military was not really that fearsome in the 80s. It is more accurate to say that our primary nemesis then, the USSR, went bankrupt trying to keep up with us in defense spending. Their demise of course began with their ill-fated invasion of Afghanistan in 1979. That 10-year long war was pretty much their own Vietnam.
Reagan and his famous, "Tear down that wall, Mr. Gorbachev" quote has been very overrated as being termed a factor in the dissolution of East Germany and the USSR. And the Communist Bloc.
That is, the Gorbachev didn't all of a sudden hear Reagan and say, "Yeah, OK Ronnie! I am so scared of you guys I will get on that ASAP!"
LOL
NO. The USSR was simply going bankrupt. The Wall and the USSR would have fallen in the same amount of time even if Reagan had not uttered those words. Along with his many other soundbites against Russia.
Lastly, and in regards to us growing stronger economically under Reagan. Well, that depends on who "us" was. Maybe if you were an already wealthy corporation of Large Business Owner. Or--thanks to his deregulation policies, a Wall Street type. But Reaganomics DID have a significant fall-out. Not that much different from the 2008 sub-prime meltdown. Many of Reagan's economic policies have since been discredited as being unsustainable by a good portion of professional economists.
So overall, IMHO Reagan was a greatly overrated POTUS. And history will bear this out. And in fact already he is suffering from falling status in many lists of The Best Presidents Ever. To me he was a middling president, with his strong suit being using his acting and public speaking abilities. He WAS the master of the Soundbite. Ahead of his time. I will give him that. But he was also know to be very lazy and impatient with detail work and the finer points of policy.
To answer the OP, I believe we ARE still the Greatest Country on The Planet. Though I admit the playing field has been somewhat leveled since 9/11. Thanks by and large to another cowboy, Bush the Junior.
We were the Greatest during the entire 20th Century.
I honestly don't know very much about this topic, but I'd have to say America was greatest when JFK was President. Call me naive, but I still believe JFK was the last true President, which is why he was assassinated. After that, I think America really started to get into secret societies and collusion that the people don't know about. I really think the greatest moment that could have been was taken from us when JFK and Martin Luther King Jr. were taken from us. There are very few men I can honestly say I believed in when they spoke, except for them. Of course there are many good people of influence since then, but not sure how much power and influence they were able to have compared to JFK and MLK Jr.
Thanks for asking. When I meant the greatest time, it wasn't about the actual GDP, the actual prosperity and high standard of living, or anything physical. Why I felt like this was the greatest time for America was because of the beliefs, value system we had in place starting from the top (JFK) and spreading down grassroots to the local (Martin Luther King Jr). While on paper, it will not show that America was at it's greatest when JFK and MLK Jr were present, the fact that we had two figures who challenged the establishment and really wanted to give the power to the people and run a TRUE democracy, was at this time. There's no question in my mind that we do not live in a TRUE democracy anymore and haven't for decades. It's been slowly and steadily turning into something else as evident in all the losses in civil liberties, personal freedoms, that we are giving up one by one year by year. We are owned by the system, we are owned by corporations, industries, etc., and it's clear that the people's interest is not and has never been for a long time the top priority of those in power. They give us breadcrumbs to keep us content, but clearly, something else is going on/down....the exact very thing that JFK and MLK Jr pointed out would happen and they were right. That's why they were killed because they were the most dangerous people to the "xxxxx" whatever is going on behind closed doors.
But we were never a democracy. From the beginning we were a Representative Republic where politicians in the North East who were more highly educated and wealthy than the populace made all of the decisions for the country.
In fact, people are more involved and spend more time participating in and learning about politics now than at most points in all of our history.
Sounds like you drank the Kool-Aid that espoused the whole Camelot thing.
The early 60s saw Vietnam escalating; the advent of Birth Control; the beginning of mass civil unrest; the beginning of epidemic drug abuse among the young; the escalation of the Cold War; as well as fear-mongering among the government where they actually mandated that kids in school practice hiding under their desks to practice for a nuclear attack.
In short, America was fast-losing its collective Innocence and the Idyllic post WWII 1950s were over.
Kennedy was drug-addled. He used hallucinogens and pot and was basically a loose cannon. Probably also addicted to narcotic pain relievers. A womanizers of unprecedented levels. Read the book called "The Kennedy Curse." Or Google "Kennedy and frick and frack." (two women he had over to the White House daily for a spell to have sex and do drugs with. The Secret Service detested this shit, as it made him very hard to watch and put them in a bad place with Jackie.
Sorry to burst your bubble. I am an iconoclast and a keen student of political science and history so I have a tendency to rain on people's parade sometimes.
Before the end of WW2, we were still dealing with shit like wide-spread anti-semitism, Japanese internment, horrid treatment of those of African (and in some parts of the country Chinese and Irish) descent, still rather horrible treatment of women, etc.
Ultimately, the point I'm trying to make with this debate is that America has never had a point in our history where we were truly "great" without some horrible, horrible flaws that made the country a bad place to live for larger groups of people.
Ultimately, the idea of making America "Great Again" is truly hearkening back to a period of time where a specific group had more undisputed political and social power, generally at the expense of others. The idea that we should go back to that is, in my opinion, downright scary.
And yeah, Kennedy was an interesting one. On one hand he managed to keep us alive during the Bay of Pigs, on the other hand, he was on so much medication that I don't think anyone today would have been okay with him as president.
It depends on how you look at it. You drink the Kool-aid, too. I might think and believe that JFK and MLK Jr. were true and great leaders. But yo u might think (as most Americans do) that Obama, Bush, Hillary are great leaders fit to be President. How's that not drinking the Kool-aid? You drank the whole "first Black President" Kool-aid. I didn't buy it one bit. I knew from the start it was Kool-aid. You sell the idea to the American people that since he's black and the first one, it must mean he can do no wrong and America is progressing and we are heading in the right direction? The whole "Yes, we can!" Kool-aid? And now you are drinking the Hillary Kool-aid, the "first woman" president, and she must be able to do no wrong since the trend is progressive and women are taking the helm all across the world now in other countries as Presidents/PMs, too. That's Kool-aid my friend.
Picking on someone's flaws as a human being is not the same thing. Was JFK a perfect man? Of course not. He's as fallible as anyone else. It didn't mean he wasn't a true President who represented and believed in the Constitution and stood for what real government and a real country should stand for. I've heard that side many times from people who want to character assassinate someone, just like they are doing with Trump right now. Trump has done a lot of right things, good things, things that made him successful, rich, intelligent, powerful, etc., but to character assassinate him, we only got people coming out of the woodworks mocking him about his comments on women, muslims, the wall, etc. I can see it clearly even without having to know much about it. I don't know why, but it's easy for me to see things clearer than the average person. Maybe it's a gift, I don't know haha.
It depends on how you look at it. You drink the Kool-aid, too. I might think and believe that JFK and MLK Jr. were true and great leaders. But yo u might think (as most Americans do) that Obama, Bush, Hillary are great leaders fit to be President. How's that not drinking the Kool-aid? You drank the whole "first Black President" Kool-aid. I didn't buy it one bit. I knew from the start it was Kool-aid. You sell the idea to the American people that since he's black and the first one, it must mean he can do no wrong and America is progressing and we are heading in the right direction? The whole "Yes, we can!" Kool-aid? And now you are drinking the Hillary Kool-aid, the "first woman" president, and she must be able to do no wrong since the trend is progressive and women are taking the helm all across the world now in other countries as Presidents/PMs, too. That's Kool-aid my friend.
It's also not what people were saying. People noted that the "First Black President" would be a historic, positive step in social progress. They weren't saying that because he was black, he could do no wrong.
Picking on someone's flaws as a human being is not the same thing. Was JFK a perfect man? Of course not. He's as fallible as anyone else. It didn't mean he wasn't a true President who represented and believed in the Constitution and stood for what real government and a real country should stand for. I've heard that side many times from people who want to character assassinate someone, just like they are doing with Trump right now.
Pointing out his drug use isn't character assassination. JFK's mental state due to drug use was generally "addled" to say the least. That's incredibly dangerous for a position where split-second, clear headed decision making is often needed.
Trump has done a lot of right things, good things, things that made him successful, rich, intelligent, powerful, etc., but to character assassinate him, we only got people coming out of the woodworks mocking him about his comments on women, muslims, the wall, etc.
First off, his investments under preformed the market average. Take that in for a second: If he had invested the money from his father in an investment account that matched average market earnings (something that does definitely exist), he would have more money then he does now. Second, his stances on women and muslims are legitimately problematic for a potential leader of this country, and criticizing his idea of the wall is completely legitimate as that is a proposed policy. That isn't character assassination, that is doing due diligence for a proposed policy of a presidential candidate.
I can see it clearly even without having to know much about it.
That's often known as "the clarity of ignorance". If you knew more about it, you probably wouldn't see it as clearly :P
I don't know why, but it's easy for me to see things clearer than the average person. Maybe it's a gift, I don't know haha.
You aren't likely to be taken seriously if you keep making arrogant statements like that. Damn near everyone thinks that they have more "common sense" than the "average person", particularly when it comes to online debate forums.
Have you ever heard any other president or social figure like JFK/MLK Jr give as honest and open a speech like this? You don't have to be a political major to know who is speaking some sense and logic and who is just completely full of lies and deceit.
I've never heard a speech by Bush, Clinton, Obama, or Hillary sound anywhere as genuine, as sincere, and truthful as this speech(es).
Ron Paul was probably the most recent I got that same feeling from. I liked Ben Carson, too. Trump falls in this group. He may be controversial but he's speaking the truth, he's not reading a script, he's not saying what people behind the curtains are telling him to say. You can't detect that?? I'm always amazed how people can't detect the BS in people's speeches and voices. It's so easy for me. Nobody has the perfect policies, but Ron Paul had that authenticity and sincerity in his words, something I find not present in Obama, Hillary and the posse that have you all fooled.
To be fair, it's a lot easier to be emotionally honest and genuine when you are hopped up on a truly massive amount of drugs, as JFK was.
That aside, being "genuine" is not truly enough to govern well. I agree that it should be prized, and that we should demand it more from our politicians (after all, I voted for Sanders), but not to the point where it's prized above sound policy making.
That aside, being "genuine" is not truly enough to govern well. I agree that it should be prized, and that we should demand it more from our politicians (after all, I voted for Sanders), but not to the point where it's prized above sound policy making.
Would you perhaps then rate genuineness as being of equal importance to sound policy making when it comes to the general voting public? Sanders exuded this quality even when he spoke and seemed to distinguish him from the average politician. The same could be said of Trump: a stranger to politics who soared in popularity because of his candid and albeit unrefined character are appreciated as opposed to the polished performances most give. The ruckus occurring in the Democratic party of late and the central reason for the discontent surrounding Clinton is her lack of genuineness; people associate her more with dishonesty (esp. after what happened to Bernie) and though she tries to fight against this it is very contrived. With all her efforts she is still viewed as untrustworthy. However sound your policies may be, if people do not trust you it is almost nullified, surely.