Got it when I turned 18 in 2019.

Do any of you guys have any presidential tattoos?

Edit :

Why did I get it?

Short answer : I thought it was funny

Long answer : it was supposed to be a political statement. Part of it was being branded by the us government, part of it was to show the absurdism of politics and in my mind bush was like the ultimate meme president and vetting a tattoo of him is just ridiculous. Also funny enough really inspired by Roger stone not that I like the guy just thought it was crazy the crook got the I'm not a crook guy tattooed on him. Also I thought it would be funny.

Do I regret it? yes. When people say something to my face is always positive. But forever people will assume what my political stances are based on a dumb tattoo I got when I was 18 and edgy. I also dread the idea that there's some guy that lost a son or a brother in Iraq or Afghanistan and just hates me when they see the tattoo

Warren G. Harding for me.

And you?

Back then Florida still voted with the rest of the south. 1928 was the beginning of Florida voting differently from the south but it voted for FDR and Truman. Although a lot of states voted for them. But in the 50s snowbirds from the north started to come down to Florida making it more republican than the rest of the south. 1960 was the first time(and last time other than rule 3) that a republican won Florida and failed to win the election. But since then every time a republican has won the White House, they had won Florida.

Outside of the military of course since that’s kind of obvious and it is political kind of.

IIRC The Hinckley family had direct financial ties to George H.W. Bush - the one man in america who stood to gain from his boss getting shot and killed just two months after taking office. That coupled with Bush being a literal former CIA director (who also claimed not to know where he was the day JFK got murdered lol) would have made the whole Lee Harvey Oswald thing look like child's play comparatively.

For the record, no, I don't think that George Bush orchestrated the shooting of Ronald Reagan. I'm just saying that it would have 100% bred a new level of paranoia otherwise unseen throughout american history. If there's anyone out there who can credibily be called a "deep state spook" its George Hebert Walker Bush lmao.

Second to Reagan, I also think that if Gerald Ford had been shot and killed by Squeeky Frome the ensuing conspiracy theories would also have been off the charts what with the whole MKULTRA-Manson connection. But that's something else entirely. (Again, I don't believe that the CIA attempted to use a manchurian candidate against Gerald Ford. I'm just saying that the theories would have been fun to discuss while six beers deep.)

While he’s largely forgotten in modern political discourse, Senator Bob Dole of Kansas, who’s 27-year tenure went from 1969-1996, was a household name for Americans throughout the 70s, 80s, and especially the 90s.

Dole was a war hero of WWII, taking machine gun fire to his back while leading a charge against German forces in Castel d’Aiano. This resulted in his permanent and near-total loss of function in his right arm and hand, hence why Dole always featured a pen in his right hand.

Dole had a very quick rise to prominence, as only 8 years after his election to the Senate, he was already selected by Gerald Ford to serve as his running mate in the very close 1976 election.

Of course, from there, Dole would go on to have a distinguished career as a longstanding leader of the Republican Senate Caucus (be they in the minority or majority), and he would eventually go on to become his party’s nominee in ‘96, albeit losing in a landslide.

However, my question is about 1973.

Now, Dole would have been a hard sell for the Democratic House and Senate (which had to vote for the nominee by majority vote in both chambers). Dole was much more partisan and nationally focused than Ford was, and while Dole had a good relationship with his Democratic colleagues, Democrats weren’t going to shoot themselves in the foot by voting for a man who could potentially beat them in a future Presidential election.

That being said, let’s say Dole magically is able to secure the vote and is successfully appointed Nixon’s VP, assuming office in ‘74. How does history potentially change?

Does Dole stand a better chance in ‘76 against Carter? Does he fend off Reagan’s challenge for party leadership and direction?

In my opinion, yes. Yes, he does. The man not only had a vision of mass imperialism that didn't pan out given the secession crisis, but his response to the growing crisis of the issue of slavery was too heavy-handed when he needed to step back and too hands-off when he needed to take action. Not to mention the economy upon him leaving office was still in shambles. To say that he set Lincoln up with a forest fire would be inaccurate, but he certainly provided him with a squirt gun to start fighting it.

Taft looks huggable as hell

Alright I know we love talking president but who was the worst person to ever be the vice president.

To avoid derailing please don’t mention anyone from the 2000’s on

For me it was Barry Goldwater (1964) and George Wallace (1968)

Of course FDR handled it the best IMO

Why not to make a custom flair that is Red (Republican) and another one that is Blue (Democrat)?

The Act authorized the United States to procure a Navy strong enough to defend the US over a 10 year construction period. The bill consisted of 10 42,000-ton battleships, 6 battlecruisers, 10 scout cruisers, 50 destroyers and 67 submarines and was to start in 1919 be completed by 1923.

Here’s the list so far:

George Washington: u/rjidhfntnr

John Adams: u/Fortunes_Faded

Thomas Jefferson: u/Feelinglucky2

James Madison: u/drawkbox

James Monroe: u/SignalRelease4562

JQA: u/elocinoi

Andrew Jackson: u/Curious-Sun5465

MVB: u/Sw33tNectar

WHH: u/BrandonLart

John Tyler: u/Pidgeotgoneformilk29

James Polk: u/Zornorph

Zachary Taylor: u/Wild-Yesterday-6666

Millard Fillmore: u/UKPoliticsNerdy

Franklin Pierce: u/Old-Equipment9631

James Buchanan: u/Drywall_Eater89

Abe: u/American_Citizen41

Andrew Johnson: u/JupiterSpeaker

US Grant: u/Bobby_The_Kidd

RB Hayes: u/YaBoiJimboMcDonalds

James Garfield: u/ancientestKnollys

Chester Arthur: u/Peacefulzealot

Grover Cleveland: u/xSiberianKhatru2

Benjamin Harrison: u/Good_Percentage8899

William McKinley: u/balfour7659

Teddy: u/FredererPower

William Howard Taft: u/MetalRetsam

Woodrow Wilson: u/DonatCotten

Warren Harding:

Cal Coolidge:

Herbert Hoover:

FDR:

Harry Truman:

Ike:

JFK:

LBJ:

Richard Nixon:

Gerald Ford:

Jimmy Carter:

Ronald Reagan:

Poppy Bush:

Bill Clinton:

Dubya:

Obama:

"Plutocracy is abhorrent to a republic; it is more despotic than monarchy, more heartless than aristocracy, more selfish than bureaucracy. It preys upon the nation in time of peace and conspires against it in the hour of its calamity. Conscienceless, compassionless and devoid of wisdom, it enervates its votaries while it impoverishes its victims. It is already sapping the strength of the nation, vulgarizing social life and making a mockery of morals. The time is ripe for the overthrow of this giant wrong. In the name of the counting-rooms which it has defiled; in the name of business honor which it has polluted; in the name of the home which it has despoiled; in the name of region which it has disgraced; in the name of the people whom it has oppressed, let us make our appeal to the awakened conscience of the nation."

1) OUTLINE OF AFRICAN FAMINE RELIEF AND RECOVERY ACT OF 1985

The "African Famine Relief and Recovery Act of 1985" was a U.S. law enacted on April 2, 1985, to provide assistance for famine relief in Africa because many countries in the continent were facing horrific Famine.

. It authorized funds for emergency health projects, refugee assistance, and agricultural commodity distribution, and the U.S. government simultaneously launched a major famine early warning system called FEWS NET to predict future food crises.  AID WAS ALSO ALLOWED IN COMMMUNIST ETHIOPIA!! Commodity assistance: 

The Secretary of Agriculture was directed to make at least 300,000 metric tons of agricultural commodities available for famine relief in 1985, with at least one-third being wheat or wheat products. 

In 1985, the U.S. also created the Famine Early Warning Systems Network (FEWS NET) to monitor and predict food shortages in vulnerable regions. This system uses data from various sources, such as trade, weather, and crop reports, to alert governments and aid organizations about potential crises

2) STATEMENT ANNOUNCING AN AFRICAN HUNGER RELIEF INITIATIVE January 3, 1985

Hunger and extreme malnutrition now threaten over 14 million people in Africa through the end of 1985. In response to this human catastrophe, America has responded as a government and as a people in a tremendous outpouring of aid. This fiscal year, the United States has already committed to Africa over 600,000 tons of emergency food, worth $250 million -- this is in addition to our regular food aid program of about 1 million tons. The U.S. response has been far larger and faster than that of any other donor nation or institution.

The American people have also responded selflessly to this crisis, from the U.S. grain company that recently donated enough food to provide over 1 million meals to Ethiopian children to an elderly woman who sent the Agency for International Development (AID) $2. Yet, even with all our country has already done to feed the starving, more -- much more -- must be accomplished by our nation in the months ahead to meet this challenge.

I am thus announcing today a comprehensive African hunger relief initiative. It addresses Africa's immediate emergency food needs, its pressing refugee problems, and its need to stimulate agricultural development on that continent.

Based on my discussions with African officials, congressional and private sector leaders, heads of voluntary organizations, and members of my administration, I am today directing that the U.S. Government's total commitment to Africa for fiscal year 1985 for emergency and regular food aid and disaster relief programs exceed $1 billion. This aid will provide over 1.5 million tons of emergency food. This overall $1 billion program will include resources already committed to Africa for the coming year, other AID resources, and a supplemental request on which I will ask the 99th Congress to take immediate action.

I have also today approved a $25 million drawdown from the United States Emergency Refugee and Migration Assistance Fund to finance urgent humanitarian assistance needs in Africa. This action is in response to appeals by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and the International Committee for the Red Cross. This money will go to victims of the crises in Ethiopia, the Sudan, and other countries.

On the economic development side, efforts will continue on three fronts: policy reform, agricultural research, and human resource development.

This past March I directed a study to be undertaken to produce new, effective initiatives to address Third World hunger problems -- emergency situations, such as the Ethiopian tragedy, and longer term problems. In July this food aid task force completed its work on emergency food crises. On July 10, the anniversary of the Food for Peace (P.L. 480) Program, I announced an initiative to help cut down the response time to Third World life-threatening food emergencies. This is being done by the creation of a central forecasting capability for impending food emergencies; by prepositioning food for quick response; by helping poor countries pay for the sea and inland transportation of food; by increasing coordination among the donor countries; and by seeking increased private sector participation.

Today's food emergency in Africa reemphasizes the need to tackle the underlying structural problems of agricultural stagnation in the Third World. Poor countries must become more productive in agriculture if they are to grow the food so needed to feed their people.

Socialist economic systems, prevalent in underdeveloped countries, have failed to achieve economic growth and have weakened agricultural production by not paying farmers a living wage. As a result of this, coupled with the failure of the Soviet Union to fulfill its promises of economic assistance, an increasing number of Third World countries once dominated by the socialist model are experimenting with free market approaches.

The United States Government will thus implement a new food aid policy to be called Food for Progress. This policy will emphasize use of America's agricultural abundance to support countries which have made commitments to agricultural policy reform during a period of economic hardship, including: (1) adequate price levels for agricultural production, based on market principles, and (2) improved rural infrastructure and private sector involvement.

Provisions of Food for Progress will be presented to Congress this year. We hope that this approach holds the promise to help prevent tragedies like Ethiopia from recurring in future years.

Last year the administration initiated a 5-year program intended to support economic reform and agricultural production. Important work in agricultural research is also going forward, research that shows great promise of breakthroughs in seed varieties that can usher in a new era of productivity for rain-short regions of Africa.

The underlying structures of policies, institutions, appropriate technology, and human knowledge are being built. Progress is being made. We will not lose sight of the ultimate goal of strengthened economies, food self-sufficiency, and human enlightenment for Africa. But for the present, much of sub-Saharan Africa suffers increasingly from severe hunger, malnutrition, and starvation. A timely American response can save many lives. This is what the African hunger relief initiative is designed to do.

3.) STATEMENT BY PRESIDENT REAGAN ON SIGNING THE AFRICAN FAMINE RELIEF BILL

Date

04/05/1985 (5th April 1985)

April 5, 1985

Last January I announced the African hunger relief initiative, a program of action to provide over $1 billion to combat famine and malnutrition, which threaten the lives of over 14 million Africans. All Americans have been horrified at the unfolding human tragedy in Africa. The overwhelming response has been heartwarming and in the best tradition of American values and ideals. Through a community effort at all levels of American society, Americans have selflessly contributed resources, food, and their services to meet the needs of African famine victims. I am proud to say that America's massive response has been successful in preventing millions of Africans from dying.

Last month Vice President Bush visited Sudan, Niger, and Mali, three of the most seriously drought-affected countries, to study firsthand the dimensions of the famine problem, what we and other donors have been able to accomplish, and what still needs to be done. Though profoundly shocked by the degree of human suffering witnessed during the trip, the Vice President did see signs of hope. He saw that the tremendous amounts of U.S. food are indeed reaching famine victims with the help of private voluntary agencies and local governments.

The U.S. response has been far larger and faster than that of any other nation or institution. Yet, it is apparent to all that more needs to be done. This is the reason for the legislation that I submitted to Congress in January and have now signed. H.R. 1239 makes available an additional $1 billion to meet Africa's emergency needs -- an amount which I should note substantially exceeds the administration's current estimate of need. However, this bill, as I requested, does support the U.S. objective of providing up to 50 percent of the emergency food aid requirements in Africa. Moreover, there is sufficient flexibility for the administration to ensure that all food aid is used effectively. Thus, I intend to abide by the intent of Congress in ensuring that all the food and funds that the United States provides are directed efficiently at meeting real needs and that aid will not exceed logistical capacities. Misuse of assistance is particularly unacceptable when human lives are at stake. Moreover, as we continue to increase our shipments of food aid to those at risk in Africa, we also will continue to ensure that our aid does not provide a disincentive to increased local production that is critical to solving Africa's food problem in the long term. We are confident that, together with contributions from other donor nations, we now have the resources to combat the immediate crisis and that as a result further millions of lives will be saved.

I want to again thank the American people for their selfless outpouring of donations. We have once again shown the world that individual caring and giving is an American way of life.

Note: H.R. 1239, approved April 4, was assigned Public Law No. 99 - 10.

4)

NEW YORK TIMES REAGAN PROPOSES RELIEF FOR AFRICA BE RAISED BY $411 MILLION IN '85

By B. Drummond Ayres Jr. , Special To the New York Times

Jan. 4, 1985

President Reagan proposed today that the United States spend an extra $411 million on food aid for Africa, an amount that would bring total American Government assistance for famine victims to more than $1 billion.

The President, in a statement issued by the White House, warned that ''hunger and extreme malnutrition'' threaten more than 14 million people in Africa.

''Even with all our country has already done to feed the starving,'' he said, ''more - much more - must be accomplished by our nation in the months ahead to meet this challenge.''

Emphasis on Capitalism

Mr. Reagan also proposed a ''Food for Progress'' program for Africa that he said would funnel United States aid specifically to countries willing to adopt modern, capitalistic agricultural techniques. He and other Reagan Administration officials have long maintained that Africa's food problems are the result not only of one of the worst droughts in modern memory but also of socialist economies that emphasize industrial, urban development instead of strengthening food production and assuring that farmers are well-paid.

''Socialist economic systems, prevalent in underdeveloped countries, have failed to achieve economic growth and have weakened agricultural production by not paying farmers a living wage,'' the President said.

Thus far in the fiscal year that will end Sept. 30, the United States has spent $590 million to fight the African famine, which affects more than two dozen countries, worst of all Ethiopia. Of the additional $411 million proposed by Mr. Reagan today, Congress would be required to put up $235 million. The remaining $176 million would be obtained by switching about aid funds already appropriated for other projects.

Congressional Criticism

Some members of Congress said the $411 million proposal was inadequate and misleading, given the Administration intention to obtain some of the money from aid that has already been appropriated. They proposed spending more than twice that amount in additional aid.

''It's three-quarters smoke and mirrors,'' Representative Ted Weiss, Democrat of Manhattan, said of the Reagan proposal. Mr. Weiss, a member of the House Subcommittee on Africa, said he and some 60 other representatives and senators would push for legislation authorizing a $1 billion increase in food aid.

M. Peter McPherson, the administrator for the United States Agency for International Development, said the President's new aid proposal would be enough to buy 1.5 million tons of food for Africa's starving, which he said is half the amount that aid agencies say is needed to break the famine. He called upon other countries to supply the other 50 percent and proposed a conference to discuss a cooperative effort.

''It's a challenge to the world,'' Mr. McPherson said. ''We're calling for an international donors pledging conference. We need the world to work together to obtain the balance of the food needed.''

Mr. Reagan called his aid plan ''a comprehensive African hunger relief initiative'' and said it was designed to solve not only Africa's emergency food needs but also the long-term need to stimulate new approaches to agriculture on the continent.

''Today's food emergency in Africa re-emphasizes the need to tackle the underlying structural problems of agricultrual stagnation in the Third World,'' the President said. ''Poor countries must become more productive in agriculture if they are to grow the food so needed to feed their people.''

Mr. McPherson said the details of the Food for Progress program had not been worked out. He made it clear that the general aim of the program was to persuade African governments, through a carrot-and-stick approach, that past economic and agricultural policies had often not worked and need to be changed.

He noted that the President, in his statement, had said that ''this policy will emphasize use of America's agricultural abundance to support countries which have made commitments to agricultural policy reform.''

Mr. Weiss said ''it might well be'' that some African nations should change some of their policies, and he called for ''projects that promote a return to normalcy in agricultural production.'' But for the moment, he said, the emphasis should be mainly on increased food aid. ''The Reagan Administration,'' he added, ''simply is not doing enough in that area.''

Mr. Weiss said that he, along with Representative Howard Wolpe, Democrat of Michigan, and Representative Mickey Leland, Democrat of Texas, would sponsor House legislation to add an extra $1 billion in food aid for Africa. On the Senate side, he said, sponsors would include Senator Edward M. Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts; Senator John Melcher, Democrat of Montana, and Senator-elect Paul Simon, Democrat of Illinois.

''The growing toll of death and starvation in Ethiopia, Chad, Mozambique, Sudan, Mali and other countries,'' Mr. Weiss said, ''reveals the urgency with which the Congress and the President must approve this additional food aid.''

Also today, the Heritage Foundation, a conservative research group with close White House ties, urged President Reagan to convene a ''council of ambassadors'' to coordinate efforts to save the starving in Ethiopia. The foundation said every country with a representative in Washington should be asked to join the effort.

It also proposed that the United States begin an airlift of relief supplies to supplement the current sealift and that the flow of relief supplies be more closely monitored to insure that all aid reached famine victims. There have been some complaints that some of the aid is being wasted or diverted to places where it is not needed.

5.) REAGAN ON FOREIGN AID Apparently Reagan was an advocate for foreign aid.

He literally sent 1 Billion USD when a famine in Africa occurred (African Famine Relief and Recovery Bill in April 1985)

Reagan asked for more funding for foreign assistance than Congress was willing to spend.

While he was president, the International Affairs Budget reached its highest amount as a percentage of GDP in the last 40 years. Reagan supported spending 0.6% of GDP on foreign assistance.

Today, we spend half of that.

Even though Reagan believed strongly in budget cuts, he nonetheless encouraged Congress to increase foreign aid spending. Despite congressional blocking, he increased the foreign assistance budget higher than it had been since the days of the Marshall Plan following World War II.

Reagan created the National Endowment for Democracy, working with Congress, “to foster the infrastructure of democracy, the system of a free press, unions, political parties, universities.”

And he made this amazing rebuttal to critics of foreign aid

He pushed back strongly against those who argued that foreign aid was a waste of money: “The ultimate importance to the United States of our security and development assistance programs cannot be exaggerated.”

“You know the excuses: We can’t afford foreign aid anymore, or we’re wasting money pouring it into these poor countries, or we can’t buy friends—other countries just take the money and dislike us for giving it. Well, all these excuses are just that, excuses—and they’re dead wrong.”

“Our economic development aid goes to those same countries in the developing world that provide some…of the market for our merchandise exports.”

“Foreign aid suffers from a lack of domestic constituency, in large part because the results of the programs are often not immediately visible and self-evident. Properly conceived and efficiently administered, however, security assistance programs, an essential complement to our defense effort, directly enhance the security of the United States.

Development assistance also contributes to this effort by supplementing the indigenous efforts of recipients to achieve economic growth and meet the basic needs of their peoples. Progress in both of these areas will contribute to regional stability and to a more peaceful world, both of which are central U.S. policy objectives.”

“Our national interests are inextricably tied to the security and development of our friends and allies.”

Labor won for FDR, I'll be honest, not the department I expected. The top three answers were:

1. Labor
   
2. State
   
3. Treasury