Controversial World Leaders

[BAMAToNE]

This past Sunday marked the 30th anniversary of Richard Nixon's resignation as President of the Unites States. My history teacher called him a psychopath in class yesterday, and read off a laundry list of bad things he did. I think what's overlooked a lot of time are some of the good things he did (ending the Vietnam War, opening China to name a couple). There's no doubt he did some shady, shady things, though.

I have much more to say on Nixon but I have to go to class. Thoughts on him?

(I didn't want this thread to be only about Nixon (too little response), so it's open for any controversial president - prime ministers are fine, too. Basically leaders of countries.)

[Thwyter]

Celebrating the 30th anniversary of Nixon's resignation? The media must be bored. What about the terrorist or who is next president is gonna be? I my mind that is old news. Yeah, he did some questionable things and some honorable things, but that is really old. Besides, he isn't president anymore.v And that's my 2 cents.

[silverDistortioN]

spoken like a true wise man, Thwyter.

...i agree with you 100% Bam, just keep in mind how liberal the general college populace is... that is, i'd imagine the people who truly believe him to be a psychopath in the minority. but that was cool on futurama how he got reelected via the oft-neglected robot vote. (and thus marks the end of my serious post.)

[Zedie9]

Psychopath is too strong a word to describe him, so I'd immediately mistrust the objectivity of any list of misdeeds prefaced with the term.

Which is not to say I am touting his virtues either. I sort of feel like Nixon got caught doing what a lot of politicians do, so I'm a little more forgiving of some of his misdeeds... As for the good things he did, I'm not all that familiar with his record. I'll await more information from you, Bama, before saying more.

[Mithrandir]

Well, I believe Maurice Duplessis was of the most controversial Quebec prime ministers. Although he never went to federal parties he still was something.

Let's have a look at what he did:

The Good

He gave the Quebec province a flag, which in my opinion, is really beautiful.

He invested a lot of money in rural parts helping agricultors everywhere in Quebec.
He helped in develop northern regions of the Quebec province

The Bad

He was a corrupted politician who always framed elections. We now know that there was something big going on in cities. His party was buying votes. How? Well he was mainly popular amongst rural habitants, so knowing they went to church a lot (at that time) he made an alliance with the Quebec Catholic clergy. An everywhere in the churches, the priests were ending the mass with a slogan: "Remember, heaven is blue (which was the party's color) and hell is red (which was for the liberals)". Also, he paided the rich people so he got the votes. And to add to that some vote bulletins were fake! Still he was still prime minister and it was hard to reveal the truth. Also, like Nixon, he was spying on other political parties!

At that time, his alliance with the clergy kept Quebec province from advancing. He was investing all the money in votes, clergy and rural parts but the economy had to survive by itself. He also made of Quebec a "third-world" country by selling our natural ressources at awfully low prices. Our iron was sold a cent a ton.

So that's it, he ruled Quebec from 1944 to 1959. He died from a heart attack during some visit. And that was the end of his party. If he would never have died, Quebec would have stayed in that "great darkness" (that's how we call that period) for much more time.

So, in my opinion you can be a good politician by even being somewhat evil. The case of Duplessis is something else because his ideology was bad for Quebec.

If we talk about Pierre-Elliot Trudeau (greatest canadian prime minister IMO) though, it's another debate. That guy had MAchiavel's book by his bed! It was his refernce book. He was the only one in history of Canada to ever send the army to sttle the FLQ (which was an armed independentist movement) and he declared war state in Quebec province. Hated by many in Quebec, he still did what the others could not. He took drastical measures, but they had to be taken. The case of Nixon is similar to the one of Duplessis even though many things are different.

History never tells us all so we can never know exactly how bad they were as leaders or how good. Maybe those we think good were all evil!!

[Thwyter]

N.J. Gov. McGreevey, saying he’s gay, to resign.
Decision comes ahead of expected sexual harassment accusation

It just happened at 5:00pm est (gmt -5:00) on 8/12/04

I can't belive it, we are once again governerless. My co-workers are saying why should he resign? I frankly don't care either way. What are your thoughts on it?

[Mithrandir]

Well he has his reasons but I don't really think that people like that should resign. I mean they were elected before the people even knew they were gay, so why should he do a worst job than before.

Unless its position changes radically...then maybe he wouldn't represent anymore what he was elected for.

[Thwyter]

He said that the office and NJ was in harms way. His 'boyfriend' was selected to combat terroristism.

[pikatsu]

Little more than a year from now, we shall be celebrating the ousting of office of one George Walker Bush. Yay!

[TheDragonKnight]

i still dont understand why they made such a big deal about the whole clinton thing, i mean he got some from his secertary, how does that make him any different from the majority of the company ceo's?

and i know the offical thing was he lied under oath but, why was he even asked such a thing while under oath anyway? unless its impeading his ability to do his job its shouldnt matter, hell it should make him preform better at work by releiving stress

[pikatsu]

He might accidentally push the button in... heat?

[Zedie9]

Originally Posted by pikatsu

Little more than a year from now, we shall be celebrating the ousting of office of one George Walker Bush. Yay!

Never underestimate the sinister power of the electoral college.

[TheDragonKnight]

well based on the fourm section, i have to say i was expecting a more serious answer, im kinda dissapointed.

[Lord Draud]

well the whole thing started because starr was spoused to do some report on something totaly diffrent ( i think it was money related like how much he had or somthing), but when he handed in the report all it said about money was how much he spent on gifts for his lovers! as a ass he rates 5 stars but he did the report on the wrong topic! i think he should have been fired and the whole debacle would have been over but NO not when the republicens could use it to bring the best US leader down!

[Zedie9]

Originally Posted by TheDragonKnight

well based on the fourm section, i have to say i was expecting a more serious answer, im kinda dissapointed.

Is that comment directed at me or Pikatsu or both of us? I personally don't consider my comment a breach of the rules - using cynical humor to respond to a question seems entirely appropriate in good debate, in my opinion, and I do happen to fear that the electoral college will rear its ugly head next election.

[TheDragonKnight]

well prehaps but i waas really expecting a more serious answer, and forgive me for asking but since im not american, what does the electorial college do? i was under the impression all they did was vote in the new pres.

[Zedie9]

Ask BigJim to explain it - I'm sure he could do a better and more thorough job than I.

[Mithrandir]

That is something indeed I don't know bout the US voting system. If BigJim or anyone else could explain it would be great. I would go to bed , a little less ignorant.

[TheDragonKnight]

then it is settled, bigjim, you must tell us!

[Jim]

Originally Posted by TheDragonKnight

well prehaps but i waas really expecting a more serious answer, and forgive me for asking but since im not american, what does the electorial college do? i was under the impression all they did was vote in the new pres.

The short answer is that basically the electoral college votes for, and elects the President of the United States. He's a brief rundown of my understanding of it.

The number of electoral votes each state has is based upon the total number of Senators (always 2) plus the number of Representatives (varies based on each state's population). Essentially, since we don't have a form of direct democracy, we're actually voting for the electors, who in turn vote for the actual candidate.

Look at it like this; if candidate A gets 1 million votes in a particular state, and candidate B gets 1.1 million, B is going to get all of the electoral votes in that state (although I believe there are 2 or 3 states that don't completely follow that). B will only have recieved only 100,000 more votes than A, but he will still recieve all of the electoral college's votes. So essentially, a candidate doesn't need to garner the most votes possible, just a simple majority in a number of key states, to win an election.

Zedie's comment probably referred to the 2000 election (aka Three Ring Circus), where despite the fact that Al Gore had won the popular vote (ie, the actual number of votes cast across the US), he still lost due to the electoral college, where Bush had a slight edge (pending Florida). It's not the first time that has happened in US history, and probably won't be the last.