Oh oh, looks like Obama's Iran deal is collapsing.

[theDoctorisIn]

Roudy

I'm curious - what is it that you think the US should do at this point, and what do you think the results of whatever that is would be?

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Turner didn't run on Anthony's weiner.

Had Anthony not shown his weiner to the world, he'd still be a Congressman from that district, and Bob Turner would be even more of a nobody than he is now.

Yet the Democrats were unable to hold on to that seat. You would think it would be easy if the district were as Democrat as you say it is.

Strange things happen in special elections, particularly ones with insanely low turnout, as that one had.

Do you have a link for that? Because I think you pulled that one out of your ass.

For what? That special elections often have weird results, or that the turnout was insanely low?

Here are the results. There are (were) 300,000 registered voters in that district.

http://www.elections.ny.gov/NYSBOE/elections/2011/Special/SpecialElectionVoteResults09132011.pdf

Approximately 23% turnout.

That's a normal turnout for a special election and considering that only 26k voters are registered Republican, it's remarkable that he got that many votes.

Sounds like they were pissed off about something.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

No problem. Your link claims that the demographics changed and the district turned republican.

The wikipedia article doesn't say that.

If that district has "gone Republican", how come:

1. They voted for Obama in 2012.
2. They have a Democrat State Senator, and a Democrat State Assemblyman - one of which had a special election on the same day as the Congressional district and won by double digits.
3. They have a Democrat City Councilman.

Here's what wiki said:

Prior to 2013, the district consisted primarily of middle-class whiteneighborhoods, including large Jewish, Italian, Irish, and Russian populations, in southern Brooklyn and south central Queens. Before redistricting, the Queens Tribune found that the district increasingly swung Republican following the September 11 attacks in 2001, when many police and firefighters were lost from the Rockaways. Its rightward shift was also attributed to the increasing tendency of Orthodox Jews to vote for Republicans.

Hope this helps. Point is New Yorkers are politically very active and they don't forget or forgive.

You know that I'm a New Yorker who spent from 2001 to 2011 working professionally in New York state and local politics, right?

I have family in that district, and I've run campaigns in that district.

I can assure you that I know it a lot better than you do from reading a wikipedia article.

You know what, I'm a New Yorker too. I've moved however I still have my family there and visit there often. Like I said the opposition to the Iran deal is crossing all party lines and ethnicities. I'm also an Iranian expat so I know more about the hostage crisis and what actually happened. It was all that asshole Carter's fault. And Obama is Carter on steroids.

The average American has no idea of what the Iran deal is, as posters such as yourself make clear every day on this board. As much as you may want it to, the deal isn't going to turn Brooklyn red.

I'm curious - how was the hostage situation "Carter's fault"?

Try to use reality as your basis, rather than vague rhetorical claims about "leadership" and "strength".

Before Carter screwed the pooch, Iran was a strong US ally. That's how.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Had Anthony not shown his weiner to the world, he'd still be a Congressman from that district, and Bob Turner would be even more of a nobody than he is now.

Yet the Democrats were unable to hold on to that seat. You would think it would be easy if the district were as Democrat as you say it is.

Strange things happen in special elections, particularly ones with insanely low turnout, as that one had.

Do you have a link for that? Because I think you pulled that one out of your ass.

For what? That special elections often have weird results, or that the turnout was insanely low?

Here are the results. There are (were) 300,000 registered voters in that district.

http://www.elections.ny.gov/NYSBOE/elections/2011/Special/SpecialElectionVoteResults09132011.pdf

Approximately 23% turnout.

That's a normal turnout for a special election and considering that only 26k voters are registered Republican, it's remarkable that he got that many votes.

Sounds like they were pissed off about something.

Where did you come up with that number?

I mean, it's true there aren't many Republicans in that district, but that number doesn't sound right at all.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

The wikipedia article doesn't say that.

If that district has "gone Republican", how come:

1. They voted for Obama in 2012.
2. They have a Democrat State Senator, and a Democrat State Assemblyman - one of which had a special election on the same day as the Congressional district and won by double digits.
3. They have a Democrat City Councilman.

Here's what wiki said:

Prior to 2013, the district consisted primarily of middle-class whiteneighborhoods, including large Jewish, Italian, Irish, and Russian populations, in southern Brooklyn and south central Queens. Before redistricting, the Queens Tribune found that the district increasingly swung Republican following the September 11 attacks in 2001, when many police and firefighters were lost from the Rockaways. Its rightward shift was also attributed to the increasing tendency of Orthodox Jews to vote for Republicans.

Hope this helps. Point is New Yorkers are politically very active and they don't forget or forgive.

You know that I'm a New Yorker who spent from 2001 to 2011 working professionally in New York state and local politics, right?

I have family in that district, and I've run campaigns in that district.

I can assure you that I know it a lot better than you do from reading a wikipedia article.

You know what, I'm a New Yorker too. I've moved however I still have my family there and visit there often. Like I said the opposition to the Iran deal is crossing all party lines and ethnicities. I'm also an Iranian expat so I know more about the hostage crisis and what actually happened. It was all that asshole Carter's fault. And Obama is Carter on steroids.

The average American has no idea of what the Iran deal is, as posters such as yourself make clear every day on this board. As much as you may want it to, the deal isn't going to turn Brooklyn red.

I'm curious - how was the hostage situation "Carter's fault"?

Try to use reality as your basis, rather than vague rhetorical claims about "leadership" and "strength".

Before Carter screwed the pooch, Iran was a strong US ally. That's how.

Iran was a strong ally until our ally, the leader of Iran, was overthrown in a revolution, mostly because he was allied with us.

Are you trying to argue that Carter was in league withe Khomeni?

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Here's what wiki said:

Prior to 2013, the district consisted primarily of middle-class whiteneighborhoods, including large Jewish, Italian, Irish, and Russian populations, in southern Brooklyn and south central Queens. Before redistricting, the Queens Tribune found that the district increasingly swung Republican following the September 11 attacks in 2001, when many police and firefighters were lost from the Rockaways. Its rightward shift was also attributed to the increasing tendency of Orthodox Jews to vote for Republicans.

Hope this helps. Point is New Yorkers are politically very active and they don't forget or forgive.

You know that I'm a New Yorker who spent from 2001 to 2011 working professionally in New York state and local politics, right?

I have family in that district, and I've run campaigns in that district.

I can assure you that I know it a lot better than you do from reading a wikipedia article.

You know what, I'm a New Yorker too. I've moved however I still have my family there and visit there often. Like I said the opposition to the Iran deal is crossing all party lines and ethnicities. I'm also an Iranian expat so I know more about the hostage crisis and what actually happened. It was all that asshole Carter's fault. And Obama is Carter on steroids.

The average American has no idea of what the Iran deal is, as posters such as yourself make clear every day on this board. As much as you may want it to, the deal isn't going to turn Brooklyn red.

I'm curious - how was the hostage situation "Carter's fault"?

Try to use reality as your basis, rather than vague rhetorical claims about "leadership" and "strength".

Before Carter screwed the pooch, Iran was a strong US ally. That's how.

Iran was a strong ally until the ally-leader of Iran was overthrown in a revolution.

Are you trying to argue that Carter was in league withe Khomeni?

I'm trying to argue that Carter abandoned Iran in its hour of need and they've been bitter enemies ever since.

Jeez, do you people EVER take responsibility for your screw ups?

 

[theDoctorisIn]

You know that I'm a New Yorker who spent from 2001 to 2011 working professionally in New York state and local politics, right?

I have family in that district, and I've run campaigns in that district.

I can assure you that I know it a lot better than you do from reading a wikipedia article.

You know what, I'm a New Yorker too. I've moved however I still have my family there and visit there often. Like I said the opposition to the Iran deal is crossing all party lines and ethnicities. I'm also an Iranian expat so I know more about the hostage crisis and what actually happened. It was all that asshole Carter's fault. And Obama is Carter on steroids.

The average American has no idea of what the Iran deal is, as posters such as yourself make clear every day on this board. As much as you may want it to, the deal isn't going to turn Brooklyn red.

I'm curious - how was the hostage situation "Carter's fault"?

Try to use reality as your basis, rather than vague rhetorical claims about "leadership" and "strength".

Before Carter screwed the pooch, Iran was a strong US ally. That's how.

Iran was a strong ally until the ally-leader of Iran was overthrown in a revolution.

Are you trying to argue that Carter was in league withe Khomeni?

I'm trying to argue that Carter abandoned Iran in its hour of need and they've been bitter enemies ever since.

Jeez, do you people EVER take responsibility for your screw ups?

How did Carter "abandon them in their hour of need"?

Be specific. Try to use examples from reality, not just your imagination.

 

[Roudy]

No problem. Your link claims that the demographics changed and the district turned republican.

The wikipedia article doesn't say that.

If that district has "gone Republican", how come:

1. They voted for Obama in 2012.
2. They have a Democrat State Senator, and a Democrat State Assemblyman - one of which had a special election on the same day as the Congressional district and won by double digits.
3. They have a Democrat City Councilman.

Here's what wiki said:

Prior to 2013, the district consisted primarily of middle-class whiteneighborhoods, including large Jewish, Italian, Irish, and Russian populations, in southern Brooklyn and south central Queens. Before redistricting, the Queens Tribune found that the district increasingly swung Republican following the September 11 attacks in 2001, when many police and firefighters were lost from the Rockaways. Its rightward shift was also attributed to the increasing tendency of Orthodox Jews to vote for Republicans.

Hope this helps. Point is New Yorkers are politically very active and they don't forget or forgive.

You know that I'm a New Yorker who spent from 2001 to 2011 working professionally in New York state and local politics, right?

I have family in that district, and I've run campaigns in that district.

I can assure you that I know it a lot better than you do from reading a wikipedia article.

You know what, I'm a New Yorker too. I've moved however I still have my family there and visit there often. Like I said the opposition to the Iran deal is crossing all party lines and ethnicities. I'm also an Iranian expat so I know more about the hostage crisis and what actually happened. It was all that asshole Carter's fault. And Obama is Carter on steroids.

The average American has no idea of what the Iran deal is, as posters such as yourself make clear every day on this board. As much as you may want it to, the deal isn't going to turn Brooklyn red.

I'm curious - how was the hostage situation "Carter's fault"?

Try to use reality as your basis, rather than vague rhetorical claims about "leadership" and "strength".

As I said Reagan sent a message that he will consider it an act of war should the hostages not get released. The Iranian revolution and most of the Islamic terrorism we see today, is a direct result of the disaster of the Carter years. It's a lengthy discussion and probably not the topic of this thread. The world was still recovering from the Carter years until Obama came along. It will take at least another 20 years for the world to start recovering from this one.

 

[Roudy]

According to Iran, the cause of the hostage crisis was that we gave the Shah asylum. Is that what you're referring to?

Yes it was the way Carter handled it that made things much worse.

He provided a blueprint for future Islamists and radicals on how to bring America to its knees.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

The wikipedia article doesn't say that.

If that district has "gone Republican", how come:

1. They voted for Obama in 2012.
2. They have a Democrat State Senator, and a Democrat State Assemblyman - one of which had a special election on the same day as the Congressional district and won by double digits.
3. They have a Democrat City Councilman.

Here's what wiki said:

Prior to 2013, the district consisted primarily of middle-class whiteneighborhoods, including large Jewish, Italian, Irish, and Russian populations, in southern Brooklyn and south central Queens. Before redistricting, the Queens Tribune found that the district increasingly swung Republican following the September 11 attacks in 2001, when many police and firefighters were lost from the Rockaways. Its rightward shift was also attributed to the increasing tendency of Orthodox Jews to vote for Republicans.

Hope this helps. Point is New Yorkers are politically very active and they don't forget or forgive.

You know that I'm a New Yorker who spent from 2001 to 2011 working professionally in New York state and local politics, right?

I have family in that district, and I've run campaigns in that district.

I can assure you that I know it a lot better than you do from reading a wikipedia article.

You know what, I'm a New Yorker too. I've moved however I still have my family there and visit there often. Like I said the opposition to the Iran deal is crossing all party lines and ethnicities. I'm also an Iranian expat so I know more about the hostage crisis and what actually happened. It was all that asshole Carter's fault. And Obama is Carter on steroids.

The average American has no idea of what the Iran deal is, as posters such as yourself make clear every day on this board. As much as you may want it to, the deal isn't going to turn Brooklyn red.

I'm curious - how was the hostage situation "Carter's fault"?

Try to use reality as your basis, rather than vague rhetorical claims about "leadership" and "strength".

As I said Reagan sent a message that he will consider it an act of war should the hostages not get released. The Iranian revolution and most of the Islamic terrorism we see today, is a direct result of the disaster of the Carter years. It's a lengthy discussion and probably not the topic of this thread. The world was still recovering from the Carter years until Obama came along. It will take at least another 20 years for the world to start recovering from this one.

You have to understand that when discussing reality, the phrase "_____ sent them a message" doesn't actually mean anything - neither does "leadership", "strength", or any of the other flowery emotional terms you guys use to describe Saint Reagan.

I don't want to derail this thread, and I'm more interested in your response to the post that I tagged you in than in discussing the Iranian Revolution - but let it be known that I believe your answer to be bullshit.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

According to Iran, the cause of the hostage crisis was that we gave the Shah asylum. Is that what you're referring to?

Yes it was the way Carter handled it that made things much worse.

He provided a blueprint for future Islamists and radicals on how to bring America to its knees.

"Bring America to it's knees" doesn't mean actually anything, either.

 

[Roudy]

Here's what wiki said:

Prior to 2013, the district consisted primarily of middle-class whiteneighborhoods, including large Jewish, Italian, Irish, and Russian populations, in southern Brooklyn and south central Queens. Before redistricting, the Queens Tribune found that the district increasingly swung Republican following the September 11 attacks in 2001, when many police and firefighters were lost from the Rockaways. Its rightward shift was also attributed to the increasing tendency of Orthodox Jews to vote for Republicans.

Hope this helps. Point is New Yorkers are politically very active and they don't forget or forgive.

You know that I'm a New Yorker who spent from 2001 to 2011 working professionally in New York state and local politics, right?

I have family in that district, and I've run campaigns in that district.

I can assure you that I know it a lot better than you do from reading a wikipedia article.

You know what, I'm a New Yorker too. I've moved however I still have my family there and visit there often. Like I said the opposition to the Iran deal is crossing all party lines and ethnicities. I'm also an Iranian expat so I know more about the hostage crisis and what actually happened. It was all that asshole Carter's fault. And Obama is Carter on steroids.

The average American has no idea of what the Iran deal is, as posters such as yourself make clear every day on this board. As much as you may want it to, the deal isn't going to turn Brooklyn red.

I'm curious - how was the hostage situation "Carter's fault"?

Try to use reality as your basis, rather than vague rhetorical claims about "leadership" and "strength".

As I said Reagan sent a message that he will consider it an act of war should the hostages not get released. The Iranian revolution and most of the Islamic terrorism we see today, is a direct result of the disaster of the Carter years. It's a lengthy discussion and probably not the topic of this thread. The world was still recovering from the Carter years until Obama came along. It will take at least another 20 years for the world to start recovering from this one.

You have to understand that when discussing reality, the phrase "_____ sent them a message" doesn't actually mean anything - neither does "leadership", "strength", or any of the other flowery emotional terms you guys use to describe Saint Reagan.

I don't want to derail this thread, and I'm more interested in your response to the post that I tagged you in than in discussing the Iranian Revolution - but let it be known that I believe your answer to be bullshit.

Saint Reagan? Talk about a disconnect with reality. Yes, leaders are perceived as strong, effective, and able to lead and accomplish such as Churchill, while there are others that are perceived as weak, feckless, confused and disastrous, such as Carter. Soviets invaded Afghanistan while Iran humiliated America during the Carter years.

 

[Roudy]

According to Iran, the cause of the hostage crisis was that we gave the Shah asylum. Is that what you're referring to?

Yes it was the way Carter handled it that made things much worse.

He provided a blueprint for future Islamists and radicals on how to bring America to its knees.

"Bring America to it's knees" doesn't mean actually anything, either.

No? Attacking an American embassy and holding its diplomats hostage for almost two years while they are paraded daily in the media, and an American president who does nothing about it is bringing America to its knees. You just don't understand the mentality of the people in the Middle East.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

You know that I'm a New Yorker who spent from 2001 to 2011 working professionally in New York state and local politics, right?

I have family in that district, and I've run campaigns in that district.

I can assure you that I know it a lot better than you do from reading a wikipedia article.

You know what, I'm a New Yorker too. I've moved however I still have my family there and visit there often. Like I said the opposition to the Iran deal is crossing all party lines and ethnicities. I'm also an Iranian expat so I know more about the hostage crisis and what actually happened. It was all that asshole Carter's fault. And Obama is Carter on steroids.

The average American has no idea of what the Iran deal is, as posters such as yourself make clear every day on this board. As much as you may want it to, the deal isn't going to turn Brooklyn red.

I'm curious - how was the hostage situation "Carter's fault"?

Try to use reality as your basis, rather than vague rhetorical claims about "leadership" and "strength".

As I said Reagan sent a message that he will consider it an act of war should the hostages not get released. The Iranian revolution and most of the Islamic terrorism we see today, is a direct result of the disaster of the Carter years. It's a lengthy discussion and probably not the topic of this thread. The world was still recovering from the Carter years until Obama came along. It will take at least another 20 years for the world to start recovering from this one.

You have to understand that when discussing reality, the phrase "_____ sent them a message" doesn't actually mean anything - neither does "leadership", "strength", or any of the other flowery emotional terms you guys use to describe Saint Reagan.

I don't want to derail this thread, and I'm more interested in your response to the post that I tagged you in than in discussing the Iranian Revolution - but let it be known that I believe your answer to be bullshit.

Saint Reagan? Talk about a disconnect with reality. Yes, leaders are perceived as strong, effective, and able to lead and accomplish such as Churchill, while there are others that are perceived as weak, feckless, confused and disastrous, such as Carter. Soviets invaded Afghanistan while Iran humiliated America during the Carter years.

The "perception" of strength is entirely subjective. The fact that you perceive Reagan as a super-manly God-amongst-men does not make it an objective reality.

If you want to argue that Carter was a weak leader - which I don't necessarily disagree with - you have to provide something more than your feelings to back it up.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

According to Iran, the cause of the hostage crisis was that we gave the Shah asylum. Is that what you're referring to?

Yes it was the way Carter handled it that made things much worse.

He provided a blueprint for future Islamists and radicals on how to bring America to its knees.

"Bring America to it's knees" doesn't mean actually anything, either.

No? Attacking an American embassy and holding its diplomats hostage for almost two years while they are paraded daily in the media, and an American president who does nothing about it is bringing America to its knees. You just don't understand the mentality of the people in the Middle East.

Hold on - are you saying that "bringing America to it's knees" relies on the "mentality of the people in the Middle East"?

I don't remember falling to my knees during Carter's administration. Do you?

If the whole country "fell to it's knees", I'm pretty sure I would have noticed.

 

[Roudy]

You know what, I'm a New Yorker too. I've moved however I still have my family there and visit there often. Like I said the opposition to the Iran deal is crossing all party lines and ethnicities. I'm also an Iranian expat so I know more about the hostage crisis and what actually happened. It was all that asshole Carter's fault. And Obama is Carter on steroids.

The average American has no idea of what the Iran deal is, as posters such as yourself make clear every day on this board. As much as you may want it to, the deal isn't going to turn Brooklyn red.

I'm curious - how was the hostage situation "Carter's fault"?

Try to use reality as your basis, rather than vague rhetorical claims about "leadership" and "strength".

As I said Reagan sent a message that he will consider it an act of war should the hostages not get released. The Iranian revolution and most of the Islamic terrorism we see today, is a direct result of the disaster of the Carter years. It's a lengthy discussion and probably not the topic of this thread. The world was still recovering from the Carter years until Obama came along. It will take at least another 20 years for the world to start recovering from this one.

You have to understand that when discussing reality, the phrase "_____ sent them a message" doesn't actually mean anything - neither does "leadership", "strength", or any of the other flowery emotional terms you guys use to describe Saint Reagan.

I don't want to derail this thread, and I'm more interested in your response to the post that I tagged you in than in discussing the Iranian Revolution - but let it be known that I believe your answer to be bullshit.

Saint Reagan? Talk about a disconnect with reality. Yes, leaders are perceived as strong, effective, and able to lead and accomplish such as Churchill, while there are others that are perceived as weak, feckless, confused and disastrous, such as Carter. Soviets invaded Afghanistan while Iran humiliated America during the Carter years.

The "perception" of strength is entirely subjective. The fact that you perceive Reagan as a super-manly God-amongst-men does not make it an objective reality.

If you want to argue that Carter was a weak leader - which I don't necessarily disagree with - you have to provide something more than your feelings to back it up.

Carter was a weak leader and so is Obama, who is worse than Carter but in his case he has the media in his back pocket.

 

[Roudy]

According to Iran, the cause of the hostage crisis was that we gave the Shah asylum. Is that what you're referring to?

Yes it was the way Carter handled it that made things much worse.

He provided a blueprint for future Islamists and radicals on how to bring America to its knees.

"Bring America to it's knees" doesn't mean actually anything, either.

No? Attacking an American embassy and holding its diplomats hostage for almost two years while they are paraded daily in the media, and an American president who does nothing about it is bringing America to its knees. You just don't understand the mentality of the people in the Middle East.

Hold on - are you saying that "bringing America to it's knees" relies on the "mentality of the people in the Middle East"?

I don't remember falling to my knees during Carter's administration. Do you?

If the whole country "fell to it's knees", I'm pretty sure I would have noticed.

You asked me and I just showed you one example of what bringing America to its knees is. Yes, it's both action or rather inaction in this case, and perception. It doesn't take long for our enemies to figure it out.

 

[Roudy]

According to Iran, the cause of the hostage crisis was that we gave the Shah asylum. Is that what you're referring to?

Yes it was the way Carter handled it that made things much worse.

He provided a blueprint for future Islamists and radicals on how to bring America to its knees.

"Bring America to it's knees" doesn't mean actually anything, either.

No? Attacking an American embassy and holding its diplomats hostage for almost two years while they are paraded daily in the media, and an American president who does nothing about it is bringing America to its knees. You just don't understand the mentality of the people in the Middle East.

Hold on - are you saying that "bringing America to it's knees" relies on the "mentality of the people in the Middle East"?

I don't remember falling to my knees during Carter's administration. Do you?

If the whole country "fell to it's knees", I'm pretty sure I would have noticed.

Ok now you're being cute and showing that you've run out of options. Good job.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

According to Iran, the cause of the hostage crisis was that we gave the Shah asylum. Is that what you're referring to?

Yes it was the way Carter handled it that made things much worse.

He provided a blueprint for future Islamists and radicals on how to bring America to its knees.

"Bring America to it's knees" doesn't mean actually anything, either.

No? Attacking an American embassy and holding its diplomats hostage for almost two years while they are paraded daily in the media, and an American president who does nothing about it is bringing America to its knees. You just don't understand the mentality of the people in the Middle East.

Hold on - are you saying that "bringing America to it's knees" relies on the "mentality of the people in the Middle East"?

I don't remember falling to my knees during Carter's administration. Do you?

If the whole country "fell to it's knees", I'm pretty sure I would have noticed.

You asked me and I just showed you one example of what bringing America to its knees is. Yes, it's both action or rather inaction in this case, and perception. It doesn't take long for our enemies to figure it out.

No, you didn't "show" me anything. You talked about feelings.

What did Carter do, that you think he shouldn't have? What did he not do that you think he should have?

 

[theDoctorisIn]

The average American has no idea of what the Iran deal is, as posters such as yourself make clear every day on this board. As much as you may want it to, the deal isn't going to turn Brooklyn red.

I'm curious - how was the hostage situation "Carter's fault"?

Try to use reality as your basis, rather than vague rhetorical claims about "leadership" and "strength".

As I said Reagan sent a message that he will consider it an act of war should the hostages not get released. The Iranian revolution and most of the Islamic terrorism we see today, is a direct result of the disaster of the Carter years. It's a lengthy discussion and probably not the topic of this thread. The world was still recovering from the Carter years until Obama came along. It will take at least another 20 years for the world to start recovering from this one.

You have to understand that when discussing reality, the phrase "_____ sent them a message" doesn't actually mean anything - neither does "leadership", "strength", or any of the other flowery emotional terms you guys use to describe Saint Reagan.

I don't want to derail this thread, and I'm more interested in your response to the post that I tagged you in than in discussing the Iranian Revolution - but let it be known that I believe your answer to be bullshit.

Saint Reagan? Talk about a disconnect with reality. Yes, leaders are perceived as strong, effective, and able to lead and accomplish such as Churchill, while there are others that are perceived as weak, feckless, confused and disastrous, such as Carter. Soviets invaded Afghanistan while Iran humiliated America during the Carter years.

The "perception" of strength is entirely subjective. The fact that you perceive Reagan as a super-manly God-amongst-men does not make it an objective reality.

If you want to argue that Carter was a weak leader - which I don't necessarily disagree with - you have to provide something more than your feelings to back it up.

Carter was a weak leader and so is Obama, who is worse than Carter but in his case he has the media in his back pocket.

How? Why?

Give examples. Be specific.

Talk about reality rather than feelings.