Who is the greatest politician never to be President?

[Themius]

Pol Pot was a Marxist-Leninist leading a communist government. Try again

Ooh I know let's ignore him and all his politics, and everything he did and all the things he said and then let's pretend that Lenin was a fucking leftist.

Go on prove it.

[jonnysensible]

Pol Pot was a Marxist-Leninist leading a communist government. Try again

he was an dictator leadng a totalitarian regime. it was Cambodian radicalism, he was a nativist, racist and xenophobe after all..make the Khmer Empire great again.

his marx leninism was only skin deep. he borrowed concepts and wanted Agrarian socialism ---> communism but conveniently 'adapted' his thinking.

[Citizen T]

Ooh I know let's ignore him and all his politics, and everything he did and all the things he said and then let's pretend that Lenin was a fucking leftist.

Go on prove it.

Lenin was a Marxist who used force to create his communist ideals. He and Trotsky were essentially the fathers of the communist party. Being right of Stalin doesn't mean he wasn't left

[JohnBrown1917]

Ooh I know let's ignore him and all his politics, and everything he did and all the things he said and then let's pretend that Lenin was a fucking leftist.

Go on prove it.

Yeah but North Korea is democratic tho

[Machismo]

Pol Pot was a Marxist-Leninist leading a communist government. Try again

And Trump is a fascist, and you support him.

[Themius]

Lenin was a Marxist who used force to create his communist ideals. He and Trotsky were essentially the fathers of the communist party. Being right of Stalin doesn't mean he wasn't left

Continuing what CommunismWillWin brought up.


Democratic People's Republic of Korea.

Which part of this is true?

I mean maybe people and Korea. People are a thing, Korea is a thing, and there are people in Korea... but what about the main words here?

[Citizen T]

Continuing what CommunismWillWin brought up.


Democratic People's Republic of Korea.

Which part of this is true?

I mean maybe people and Korea. People are a thing, Korea is a thing, and there are people in Korea... but what about the main words here?

I'm not going to argue with the equivalent of Nazis are left wing.

[Felya]

Lenin was a Marxist who used force to create his communist ideals.

Yes, because the elites were taking food, land and tossing the country into unwindable wars. Does that sound familiar? George Washington, also gained independence by force. Confederates tried to gain independence by force.

He and Trotsky were essentially the fathers of the communist party. Being right of Stalin doesn't mean he wasn't left

It actually does... Why did Trotsky and Stalin have a falling out? What was it about Stalin, than made Trotsky run across the world?

[Themius]

I'm not going to argue with the equivalent of Nazis are left wing.

You're not going to argue?? Why not?

You surely think North Korea is a republic like America, and a democratic one at that.

They just don't have term limits and keep electing the same people from the same family for years, right?

You've lost, so now you are going bye bye, instead of admitting.

[Felya]

I'm not going to argue with the equivalent of Nazis are left wing.

You should... we have a president that has called left wing, nazis... it is and will always be, in US presidential archives.

- - - Updated - - -

his marx leninism was only skin deep. he borrowed concepts and wanted Agrarian socialism ---> communism but conveniently 'adapted' his thinking.

Was remarkably driven by both, an inferiority complex and paranoia. Which historically, regardless of ideology, has always swung right wing... for what should be obvious reasons. A person who fears that there is always some sort of conspiracy to get him, will not be progressive, because of Trojan horse... will not be liberal, because that creates opportunity for “deep state”... but, most of all... Spend every resource they can, to try to bring them selfs to the pedestal that was divinely assigned to them...

Ideology is largely irrelevant to the individual. When Trump was left, he was rejected and got nowhere. So, he switched to being a conservative, maintaining the same bravado, but with different rhetoric. If liberals embraced him in the 90s, he would be just as incompetent baboon...

[TexasRules]

and you think she'd be where she is now if she had married a factory worker instead of bill clinton?

He also butters her up before stating that politician is as negative as lawyer not seeing any irony with a person who was both. Your use of nepotism is invalid here for most of these people because Hillary is a saint to them and would have eclipsed Bill if it weren't for a rigged election.

The best answer to who might have been a good AMERICAN President as it is assumed by the OP would probably be Benjamin Franklin, but he was so old it would not have been feasible. Particular note: he owned 2 house slaves and became an abolitionist and even included a provision in his will that required his daughter and son-in-law to free their slaves to get their inheritance.

[Moadar]

Jimmy McMillan.

[muto]

Any of the Founding Fathers. Jay, Hamilton, Franklin.

[Antiganon]

Any of the Founding Fathers. Jay, Hamilton, Franklin.

I'd agree with Hamilton and Franklin, but Jay was Chief Justice, and you can't work for two branches of government.

[Thee ANCOM]

Peter Kropotkin.

[SirBeef]

I'm not going to argue with the equivalent of Nazis are left wing.

But you already tried. I get it. You don't understand what you are talking about, have been proven to be wrong(as usual), and now are slinking away because you have no argument. Typical of your type.

[Thekri]

Pick one. I give you 20!

Henry Clay
William Jennings Bryan
George Clinton
James G. Blaine
William Seward
Aaron Burr
Robert Taft
John Sherman
Stephen A. Douglas
John Jay
Arthur Vandenberg
Alexander Hamilton
Charles Evans Hughes
Robert La Follette
Hubert Humphrey
Robert F. Kennedy
Thomas Hart Benton
Daniel Webster
John C. Calhoun
Salmon P. Chase

Since due to "President" I assume this is purely about American figures, so that makes this list the correct answer. Everyone on this list has a solid claim to it. I would put a couple on this list higher then others of course.

William Jennings Bryan is probably the number 1 choice here, dominating American politics for an enormous length of time. Henry Clay is a very close second, for similar reasons, although much earlier. Burr, Calhoun and Hamilton were all giants of their age, and all had unrealized Presidential ambitions as well.

A couple that I would add to the list are John C. Stennis, George Wallace, Nelson Rockefeller and Henry Kissinger; not speaking on morality here, just influence and power. There are a couple modern politicians worth consideration for similar reasons. John McCain probably makes this list with some of these guys, John Lewis and Jim Clyburn might as well, for sheer influence and longevity in politics.

Actually ranking all these would be very subjective, but there are a LOT of major political figures in History that were never head of state.

- - - Updated - - -

But you already tried. I get it. You don't understand what you are talking about, have been proven to be wrong(as usual), and now are slinking away because you have no argument. Typical of your type.

Well to be fair, it wasn't an argument worth wading into in the first place. Authoritarian Extremism doesn't really fall into the "Left-Right" scale in the first place, since it would be so far on the extreme of either side of the spectrum that the difference between a Right wing genocidal monster and a Left wing genocidal monster is so insignificant as being meaningless. Rational politics occurs toward the middle of the spectrum, with the ends of that spectrum being so far away from the base that it isn't representative of actual discourse. A moderate democrat is much closer to a moderate republican then either side is to the respective extremes of "Their side".

It doesn't matter if Pol Pot is "Left wing" or "Right wing", because the whole left and right thing is an arbitrary political spectrum that isn't useful for defining extremes. It is pretty flawed at describing anything honestly, but totally useless in that case.

[SirBeef]

Since due to "President" I assume this is purely about American figures, so that makes this list the correct answer. Everyone on this list has a solid claim to it. I would put a couple on this list higher then others of course.

William Jennings Bryan is probably the number 1 choice here, dominating American politics for an enormous length of time. Henry Clay is a very close second, for similar reasons, although much earlier. Burr, Calhoun and Hamilton were all giants of their age, and all had unrealized Presidential ambitions as well.

A couple that I would add to the list are John C. Stennis, George Wallace, Nelson Rockefeller and Henry Kissinger; not speaking on morality here, just influence and power. There are a couple modern politicians worth consideration for similar reasons. John McCain probably makes this list with some of these guys, John Lewis and Jim Clyburn might as well, for sheer influence and longevity in politics.

Actually ranking all these would be very subjective, but there are a LOT of major political figures in History that were never head of state.

- - - Updated - - -



Well to be fair, it wasn't an argument worth wading into in the first place. Authoritarian Extremism doesn't really fall into the "Left-Right" scale in the first place, since it would be so far on the extreme of either side of the spectrum that the difference between a Right wing genocidal monster and a Left wing genocidal monster is so insignificant as being meaningless. Rational politics occurs toward the middle of the spectrum, with the ends of that spectrum being so far away from the base that it isn't representative of actual discourse. A moderate democrat is much closer to a moderate republican then either side is to the respective extremes of "Their side".

It doesn't matter if Pol Pot is "Left wing" or "Right wing", because the whole left and right thing is an arbitrary political spectrum that isn't useful for defining extremes. It is pretty flawed at describing anything honestly, but totally useless in that case.

True but this is a typical practice of Thwart and pretty much every so called conservative here. They get proven wrong and just back away without even acknowledging they were wrong and accepting they were wrong. Then come back somewhere else with more lies, mistruths, and bad faith arguments all over again.

[Ursus]

how about the last actual KKK member to be in Congress. William Byrd. I'm sure you leftists loved this guy

And yet notice how nobody has suggested him in this thread, which is more than we can say for you.

[Xarkan]

how about the last actual KKK member to be in Congress. William Byrd. I'm sure you leftists loved this guy

Wasnt William Byrd a british composer and Robert Byrd a former kkk member?