Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Bill Clinton

  1. Jun 20, 2004 #1
    Did any of you see Clinton on 60 Minutes? His book is already ranked as a #1 best seller on the internet.

    The guy is pretty amazing - at age 32 he was already a Governor. He can really talk too.

    He also explained his comments on weed. Pretty interesting.
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Jun 20, 2004 #2
    i still think he was the best president
     
  4. Jun 20, 2004 #3
    Clinton was a pretty good President.

    CBS News Story
     
  5. Jun 21, 2004 #4
    I think Clinton was a second rate President who inacted little effective policy, covered up rights abuse after rights abuse, lied under oath, capitulated to anything that would keep in a 'good light', and rode the wave of internet success to the top, while playing 'vietnam numbers' with deficit to give a 'surplus'.

    But this is just my opinion, and I only offer it because you both left the book topic of this thread :)
     
  6. Jun 21, 2004 #5

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    History will judge him as a lucky President.
     
  7. Jun 27, 2004 #6
    may i ask why you say lucky?
     
  8. Jun 28, 2004 #7
    He was having blowjobs while massive genocide occurred and he got away with it?
     
  9. Jun 28, 2004 #8

    Njorl

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Bill Clinton is the only American president ever to intervene to prevent a genocide. You criticize him for just preventing one instead of two?

    I would be in favor of installing federally funded concubines in the oval office if they would get our presidents to be as good as Clinton was.

    An eight year stretch of growth is not luck. There were no recessions during the Clinton presidency. I believe he is the only president who can make that claim as far back as such records are kept.

    Ironically, Clinton's success was because he was a straight shooter on important matters. He raised taxes when they needed to be raised, knowing it would cost him politically. I'll take a competent president who lies about sex over the alternative any day.

    Njorl
     
  10. Jun 28, 2004 #9

    selfAdjoint

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    Huzzah for that, Njorl! Clinton delivered where Reagan only acted.
     
  11. Jun 28, 2004 #10
    I dont blame the genocide on him, i just answered a question. I like Clinton and what happened in Rwanda isnt just his mistake
     
  12. Jun 28, 2004 #11
    Clinton is a very likable guy. He grew up poor and wasn't in the best environments.

    He still became President. The same can't be said for Bush.
     
  13. Jun 29, 2004 #12
    he was a moderate president, as opposed to a radical president.
     
  14. Jun 29, 2004 #13

    kat

    User Avatar

    79 days of indiscriminate bombing in Yugoslavia= Pretty Radical
    Toasting over 100 people in Waco texas= Pretty Radical
    Bombing Serb T.V. so that Americans couldn't view their news feeds= Pretty Radical
    Passing highly sensitive encryption technology to china= More then just a li'l Radical.
     
  15. Jun 29, 2004 #14

    Kerrie

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member

    i think a lot of people believe Clinton was a good president merely because of the charm he emits.
     
  16. Jun 30, 2004 #15

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    He was lucky to be in the room at the time of the Internet boom, he was lucky that his one war won itself, he was lucky that his attempt at the largest increase in spending and government bureacracy since social security (national healthcare) failed, and he was lucky that people were too blinded by their stock portfolios to notice the dramatic (and deadly) rise of Al Queda during his term or care that he made no effort to stop them.
    Except of course, the one that we were in when he left office. http://money.cnn.com/2004/01/22/news/economy/nber/
    More data.

    Regarding his book, what little I have heard about it confirms my assesment of him from long ago: he's a man of little self control ('I did it because I could') and no real ideals other than what he gets from public opinion polls. In short, he isn't now and never was a leader.
     
    Last edited: Jun 30, 2004
  17. Jun 30, 2004 #16
    Oui! Oui! Oui!

    Plus, he went to visit Jean Chretien.

    Ils jouent au golf!
     
  18. Jun 30, 2004 #17

    Njorl

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    His fiscal responsibility caused a boom in lenders confidence. Remember, the elder Bush had publicly stated that permanent deficit spending was acceptable. Without Clinton's bold increase in taxation, the costs associated with venture capital would have made the risky internet development unacceptable.
    No war wins itself. Certainly, no war wins itself with no combat casualties.
    Do you know how much money Clinton saved Americans just by threatening to nationalize health care? He reduced inflation from 19% to 1% in a sector of the economy that occupied 1/5 of GDP at the time. The savings was about 200 billion dollars in the first year after the attempt. It was well over a trillion dollars over Clinton's presidency. The effects of that savings are still compounding to this day.
    Efforts were made. The millenial bomber was caught at a routine border stop, but over 200 arrests worlwide were made from intelligence extracted from him.

    The African embassy bombings were significantly less damaging (to Americans) because of security improvements done by Clinton's State department. Do you think he should have gone to war over the Cole? Could any leader in the history of the world have prodded the American people to war over the Cole?
    '"This is complete break from the way recessions are dated," Achuthan said. ' (from your own link)
    Change the rules enough and you can declare his presidency "The Great Depression". I'm sure it's just a coincidence that a private company is changing the rules about defining recessions as we go into a razor close election.
    I see. Someone who gets done what the people want is not a leader. A leader is someone who lies to the people to get their opinions to come in line with his.

    Njorl
     
  19. Jun 30, 2004 #18

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    "Risky" is not a word that was in the vocabulary of venture-capitalists in the mid-late 90's. They gave money to virtually anyone who asked for it.

    But if you really want to give credit to Clinton for half of what happened under his term, you have to blame him for the other half too: BOOM->bust. He was still in the room when the bubble burst.
    I was referring, of course, to Kosovo/Yugoslavia. Up until then, no war had ever been won without the use of ground troops. And that one was only won because the citizens overthrew their own government.
    You're saying he failed on purpose as part of a larger plan? I'd like to see some proof of that. In any case, we had a healthcare problem then and it didn't go away. It continued to (and continues to) get worse.
    He could't have been any luckier on that one. That's not effort, thats a bag of money falling into his lap from the sky. Good example.

    What I mean by effort, though, was effort in pursuing the terrorists who attacked us half a dozen times during his presidency. He did just enough that it can't be said he did absolutely nothing (cruise missile attack or two). That isn't making an effort.
    You don't need to go to war to make an effort. A thousand CIA agents (oops: Clinton cut human intel) and two SEAL teams could have halted the rise of Al Queda.
    You didn't stop reading there, did you? The change is being made becuase monthly GDP data didn't used to be available for this purpose. Now that they have data, they can use it. Seeing as how GDP growth alone is the most common definition of a recession, just including it as one of the factors seems pretty reasonable to me.
    Well, ok, if you'd prefer we can just throw out their opinion entirely and just use the historical definition: two consecutive quarters of negative GDP growth, which started with Q1 2001 (after a negative Q3 and stagnant Q4 2000).

    But regardless of how you split that hair on when we went negative, it is quite clear that the downturn started at least 6 months before he left office, when the stock market peaked and GDP growth began to slow.
    Of course not!! Yikes, Njorl, that's very surprising coming from you. If that were the way it worked, we'd be in a direct democracy not a representative one. We elect leaders because they are better equipped to make tough decisions than we are, both because they are smarter and better educated than the average American and have a team of advisors to keep them better informed.

    The common thread in all of the examples I gave is that Clinton was lucky for precisely that reason: he didn't have to make tough/unpopular decisions because lucky things kept happening to him. And even when he did bad things (Somalia, ugh), people were too high on his lucky breaks to care.

    Did your mother always give you a popsicle every time you wanted one?
    Not sure where you would get the idea that I believe that - clearly you are making a Bush reference, but besides being OT, I've said repeatedly that I'm not a Bush fan and not likely to vote for him.

    I think I have a reasonable opinion on why Clinton was a bad leader and lucky President, but my personal dislike for the man comes from his treatment of the military as shown so clearly in Somalia. His incompetence got marines killed and instead of fixing his mistake he dishonored their sacrifice by giving up on the mission they died for. Their lives weren't worth the mission (which, btw, was saving other peoples' lives) or the few point drop in his approval rating their deaths cost him. I cannot respect a man of such weak character.
     
    Last edited: Jun 30, 2004
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?