Opinions on Eisenhower? I get the feeling that he was the comfiest president America ever had

The main reason he decided to run is because the leading republican at the time was a man named Robert A. Taft. Eisenhower considered Taft to be dangerously isolationist. The other potential candidate for the Republican party was Douglas MacArthur, who was the opposite extreme. The Democrats had already pretty much accepted that they weren't going to win the 1952 election; Truman had been an unpopular president and he declined to run for re-election. Eisenhower entered the race for the Republican nomination basically with the intent of ensuring that the next president wasn't an isolationist like Taft, nor a warmonger like MacArthur. Sheer power of name recognition easily carried him through the nomination and to the White House.

>occupy democrats
OH NO NO NO NO NO NO HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAAH OH NO NO NO NO NO AHAHAHHAHAHA

Here's a more valid source

web.archive.org/web/20051124190902/http://www.eisenhowermemorial.org/presidential-papers/first-term/documents/1147.cfm

A letter written by Ike to his brother

> Now it is true that I believe this country is following a dangerous trend when it permits too great a degree of centralization of governmental functions. I oppose this--in some instances the fight is a rather desperate one. But to attain any success it is quite clear that the Federal government cannot avoid or escape responsibilities which the mass of the people firmly believe should be undertaken by it. The political processes of our country are such that if a rule of reason is not applied in this effort, we will lose everything--even to a possible and drastic change in the Constitution. This is what I mean by my constant insistence upon "moderation" in government. Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things. Among them are H. L. Hunt (you possibly know his background), a few other Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or business man from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid.

>balancing the budget is good

>I'd trust the validity of that quote more if it was screamed at me from a one-legged hobo who uses his own piss for warmth, who reeks of cheap vodka almost as much as he feels of urine.

It's not your fault

You know those times were only comfy for white men who could afford to roll in their booze and tobacco...right?

If you were black, it was hell.

It you were female, it was slavery.

The women had it worst: puking shitting brats, sanity blasting boredom, church, and tons of really awful chore sex with their selfish white husbands.

If you were gay, trans, Muslim, atheist, brown, or *gasp* socialist, then you were anathema.

The 1950s were literally capitalist excess plus racism and domestic bondage. Nothing more.

No wonder every socially crippled Donald Dumbfucker worships this time. The wickedest irony of all is these would-be Don Drapers still would've been the gross, untouchable nerds they are now if they'd existed then.

Oh, and there were several million World War II vets in their prime happy to punch the shit out of Nazi cunts at the first kind words spoken about Adolf.

>balancing your budget in your personal life is literally a sign of responsibility
>it's wrong when governments do it though

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammad_Mosaddegh

good administrator, decent political general, tactically a mediocre at best general and not much better strategically.

as a politician, he was a product of his time and suited to his time, although the prosperity of america in the 1950s owes little to him, and far more to the relative devastation of europe

>Situation in 1958 is the same as in 2018 and requires no changes what so ever

>nations are just like individuals.

No they are not, but certain things that are good for individuals have to be good for nations as well, because nations are simply large collections of individuals.

>good administrator, decent political general, tactically a mediocre at best general and not much better strategically.as a politician, he was a product of his time and suited to his time, although the prosperity of america in the 1950s owes little to him, and far more to the relative devastation of europe
Excellent administrator, very good political general although he needed to dismiss numerous bongs in a more timely fashion, tactically beholden to incompetent bongs in the North and elsewhere, strategically solid given the limitations others placed on him

as a politician he was solid and hewed to the uncontroversial, which the people wanted in the early stages of the atomic age, and while europoors are always eurocentric, the economic performance of the US under competent administration would rise in this era no matter what state europooristan was in, witness today when competent leadership is seeing economic growth well beyond the recent, only mildly influenced by the europoor economy

...

>The women had it worst: puking shitting brats, sanity blasting boredom, church, and tons of really awful chore sex with their selfish white husbands.
Yeah, domesticity and faith. What a living hell.

If Eisenhower is Hank Hill, then Patton is Cotton.

tactically inferior to montgomery - theres a reason monty was ground forces commander for the normandy campaign, tactically he was also inferior to most of the field generals, not really his fault, his career hadnt really been heavy on field command.

strategically he paid more attention to politics, either pattons grand thrust or montys northern hook would have been quicker and viable if he had dared put weight behind them, of the two montys plan was probably the better principally because it would have involved capturing several ports and thus shortening the advancing armies supply lines

He chose the picture on his post quite well.

The fact is: talk shit about New Deal at the time and your party was never winning again.

Not that guy, but somehow I doubt that you have any fucking kids.

How so? What changes do you think need to be made to New Deal policies 60 years later? How many changes should be made? And why exactly should they be made?

In case you haven't noticed, social security is heading off a cliff. Unless there's a complete top down overhaul, the whole thing is going to collapse under its own weight

>Fat lonely basement virgin
>Has /pol/-induced wet dream about a qt """aryan""" 15 year old that'll obey him like he's worth anything, give him kids that irl he would neglect to "spread muh genes" and unconditionally love him for being such a twat
>/pol/ made him believe being reactionary will give him these things magically

/p*l/ is a disease

I don't, but my wife and I want to and we both value family. I'm genuinely sorry that you apparently hate your children.

>le rick and morty!
alos, Eisnehower was the first president to introduce civil rights laws and to desegregate schools

Last great Republican.

fuckin epic bait

Having children is hard, wtf does that have to do with eisenhouer? Kids didn't magically become worse, they were the same as centuries before

Monty was one of those who should have been dismissed for proven incompetence, but politics prevented this obvious move. That really wasn't Ike's fault, and he chose to make do with the situation.

Montgomery's failures in the North were because of his incompetence. He had plenty of resources available to clear The Scheldt and provide marine access, but he was simply an unimaginative bong, a captive and a product of a class system that promoted failure. When the poor lad finally decided to be bold, it was for a strategically valueless airborne operation that itself was poorly planned, led and executed... classic Monty.

Eisenhower's failure in this regard was to eschew resignation, which would have forced Marshal to take command and take the occupied bongs out of any command authority.

Weren't there some other Bongs that wanted Monty sacked too? All he needed to do was replace Monty with a competent Bong and no one would have cried about it.

He seemed fairly intelligent and balanced. He appeared to accept that military might is not everything in government. Tfw no Eisenhower today.

on the other hand monty was a battle proven field commander who repeatedly managed complex and messy situations into successful enegagements, both before and after arnhem, he commanded the entire normandy campaign - he was the group commander for operation cobra, and overlord- he did very well in north africa especially in relation to his less experienced american colleagues, and did equally well in scily, after arnhem he did extremely well in stabilising the northern shoulder of the bulge and in immediately moving XXX corps to block the meuse crossings, and did very well in clearing the approaches to the rhine and in crossing it.

He was an anti-white racist monster who murdered millions of Germans in the Rheinland death camps

"We hold these truths to be self-evident: ur a faget."
- George Washington

Here's your (You)

How was "name recognition" enough to beat out MacArthur, who would presumably have the same level of influence as him?

Thank (((you)))

He gave up and just played golf for his last few years. Not really the greatest idea to make warriors into presidents.

MacArthur never stood a chance sinply because he hated the idea of having to campaign

That was the other side of the problem. There really weren't many if any competent bongs. They'd all come up through the same system, which promoted failure. The only solution was to cut them all out of command authority, and the US body politic failed to follow through on that decision.

Sure, pissing off 40% of your forces over some minor setbacks sounds like a wonderful idea.

I'd say no to almost all of your post. There was nothing complex and messy in North Africa, and Montgomery required a massive infusion of US equipment which he used in a bullheaded and inflexible battle of attrition against an inferior force. Nothing imaginative whatsoever, and very costly in blood and materiel. Same in Sicily and Italy. He failed to mobilize against a vulnerable German army advance in Belgium, while Patton drove a long way to join the action, Monty was stuck like glue where he was at. Same at Falaise, Monty too inflexible to take advantage of enemy vulnerability. Failed to secure a suitable marine port, despite massive casualties and equipment deployed. Went off on some misbegotten airborne operation for seemingly no reason other than personal prestige. Just a substandard military commander, only there because of bong obstinacy and American political fecklessness.

That is completely out of context. He's talking about the third rail of politics, not the merits of the programs. In a roundabout way it's criticizing them and the slippery slope of handouts in general, where once pandora's box is open then the gibbs will never stop flowing, and to try and reverse the welfare trend you would be thrown out of office by the voters who look to government assistance and vote for anyone who promises them more.

Once again, it has jack shit to do with Occupy or the Tea Party.

>pissing off 40% of your forces over some minor setbacks sounds like a wonderful idea.
Well, the Canadians would have welcomed it, because that's exactly how the bongs treated them. I guess they didn't see their dead at The Scheldt as a "minor setback".

If Cotton is any historical figure, it's Ross Perot.