This thread will evolve in stages. Please do abide by the timeline for the time being.
From now until April 8 or 9, U.S. citizens or those living in the U.S. are asked to simply state the three past U.S. presidents they believe have been the strongest leaders.
Please do not provide explanations until the 8th or 9th, or discuss the answers of others until such time as explanation period is deemed to be over by me, thread originator.
When the explanation phase is over, I shall explain my reasons for the "experiment." (More of an observational study, actually.)

Note: past means past, so Obama is not to be included in any response. This is not due to the author's political beliefs.

P.S.-if I do not post again by the 9th, someone please send me a private message.

Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt and Franklin Roosevelt

---

In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

Truman, Reagan, Eisenhower

Good start!
More responses, please?

William Henry Harrison for testing the line of succession.

Warren G. Harding for showing Chicago how to do politics.

Richard Nixon for opening trade with China and starting the path to globalization.

If I could get 4, Jimmy Carter, Panama Canal.

Have fun.

William Henry Harrison for testing the line of succession.

Warren G. Harding for showing Chicago how to do politics.

Richard Nixon for opening trade with China and starting the path to globalization.

If I could get 4, Jimmy Carter, Panama Canal.

Have fun.

Thanks, Gary. Interesting.
(But, you provided some explanations, which was to be saved for later. So, all others, wait until discussing your reasons or Gary's reasons.)

This is a tough one for me, I didn't grow up learning about ex-Presidents, so my answer is likely to be fairly uninformed :(. Washington, Lincoln, FDR. Also rans: Eisenhower, Wilson, LBJ.

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

The original post is not clear.

Strong as in strong because you favor their views OR strong as in strong because they weren't bullied and prosecuted wars?

Millard G Filmore

One need only look at the increase in US territory and which territories on his watch.

The strength of a leader is determined by the weakness of the followers.

---

Unvarnished
Haaretz
Jerusalem Post
The origin of the Yahweh Cult

He asked for names, ONLY. Hold explanations for later

---

In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

Phase 1 is nearly complete.
Anyone else wish to post their answers to the 3 strongest U.S. presidents?
Matt, skil is correct that explanations were not to be included yet. Also, if you have 2 others to name, please do so.

Phase two begins. Please provide explanations. All others may also discuss now.
If deemed absolutely necessary to keep the conversation moving, I'll state my purposes for the "observational study." I'd rather wait until Tuesday (April 12), though, to do so. This is to allow time for explanation and discussion.

Phase two begins. Please provide explanations. All others may also discuss now.
If deemed absolutely necessary to keep the conversation moving, I'll state my purposes for the "observational study." I'd rather wait until Tuesday (April 12), though, to do so. This is to allow time for explanation and discussion.

Millard Filmore got us California and thus the only serious impetus, post gold rush, for manifest destiny and sea to shining sea. He did it by riding the crest of the events of the time and not getting in the way. (I really hope I am remembering correctly that it was Filmore. If not I really mean the one that gained us California on his watch.)

As I said the strength of leader is a measure of the weakness of his followers. People can only do the best with the cards they are dealt. What are usually considered "strong" leaders are those who screw things up by forcing things to happen their way regardless of the benefit to those whom they supposedly lead.

BTW: I think anyone showing himself to be a strong leader should be taken out back and shot at the earliest possible convenience.

---

Unvarnished
Haaretz
Jerusalem Post
The origin of the Yahweh Cult

Phase two begins. Please provide explanations. All others may also discuss now.
If deemed absolutely necessary to keep the conversation moving, I'll state my purposes for the "observational study." I'd rather wait until Tuesday (April 12), though, to do so. This is to allow time for explanation and discussion.

Millard Filmore got us California and thus the only serious impetus, post gold rush, for manifest destiny and sea to shining sea. He did it by riding the crest of the events of the time and not getting in the way. (I really hope I am remembering correctly that it was Filmore. If not I really mean the one that gained us California on his watch.)

As I said the strength of leader is a measure of the weakness of his followers. People can only do the best with the cards they are dealt. What are usually considered "strong" leaders are those who screw things up by forcing things to happen their way regardless of the benefit to those whom they supposedly lead.

BTW: I think anyone showing himself to be a strong leader should be taken out back and shot at the earliest possible convenience.

We already had Oregon and Washington state on the west cost. Both were considered more valuable than California due to their rich farmland.

My choices

Lincoln - His unwavering honesty. His belief that a nation divided can no longer exist. I like the precedence he set that National sovereignty is held higher than states. We seem to have quite a few people in this country now that have forgotten the lesson

Teddy Roosevelt- A conservative progressive. Trust buster (we could use a man like him now)Just read a bio of him. Adventurer. naturalist. hunter. He's the guy in those silly beer commercials. He really is the most interesting man in the world. and a posthumously awarded the Congression medal of Honor for his activity in the Spanish-American war. Then the Nobel peace prize .. I could go on and on and on
hehehe he was the first president to force congress to fund a military exercise when he sent the navy to the Philippines. Congress was forced to procure funds to get them home
FDR - Elected president in the worst of times he brought the country out of fiscal turmoil. His actions gave poor and average Americans alike a chance to survive. His fatherly fireside chats brought Americans into his room. Many of our Great Public works occurred during his time. Like Wilson before him, He did not want to be actively involved in European war. But was drawn into into it by aggressive forces. Perhaps one of the greatest orators of the 20th century.
The only thing we have to fear is fear itself.
December Seventh 1941 a day that will live on in infamy. Such strong and meaningful words in such simple terms.

---

In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

Washington - for leading the colonies into nationhood and the strength to step down when he could easily have been President until his death.

Lincoln - for ensuring the rule of law was applied when some wanted to find a new way to avoid it.

FDR - for leading the nation out of its worst depression, assisting the Brits in their hour of need when there was little support for doing so, for picking one of the Army's greatest generals to lead the war in Europe.

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

Just want to remind everyone that all are now welcome.
There was a reason for asking that initial responses about US presidents only come from that are US citizens or currently living here. Hopefully those reasons will be clearer in 2 days.
But, now that we're in Phase II, everyone, from all around the world, are invited to read/post/comment.

I would assume the Invite has the stipulation of staying with American Presidents and not other Foreign leaders

---

In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

I would assume the Invite has the stipulation of staying with American Presidents and not other Foreign leaders

Yes, at least for the time being.
Otherwise, it'd make "analysis" a bit tougher.
Also, to give a hint as to the reason for this, I'm working on examining (with others in our community) definitions within U.S. politics.

The reason for this thread was a comment from someone:

With varying levels of power in federal government, you have (on the left) total government power (dictatorship). On the right, you have absolutely no power in federal government (anarchy). Our nation started out a little to the left of total anarchy (limited government) and has been moving to the left (more centralized power in federal government) since the beginning of the 20th century.

I know this is what some would have us believe. But is doesn't jibe with what I learned, and I found evidence that, with consideration to the history of the terms "left" and "right" in politics, from before our becoming a country, that the understandings I have held are more in line with that.

The evidence is at: http://www.ask.com/wiki/Left%E2%80%93right_politics. Specifically, one part inspired this thread: "Left-wing values include the belief in the power of human reason to achieve progress for the benefit of the human race, secularism, sovereignty exercised through the legislature, social justice, and mistrust of strong personal political leadership. To the Right, this is seen as anti-clericalism, unrealistic social reform, doctrinaire socialism and class hatred. The Right are skeptical about the capacity of radical reforms to achieve human well-being, which they see as harmful to personal liberties. They believe in the established church both in itself and as an instrument of social cohesion, and believe in the need for strong political leadership to minimize social and political divisions." (Emphasis added.)

So, while I think about the responses, what do you think of the overall article and in particular the part I have quoted?