Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Some of them only voted in favor of it because they were up for re-election in just a few weeks, not because they really supported the war. Of the 13 Democrat Senators up for re-election, 9 of them voted yea.The question is......Did most Democrats support the invasion?Again I am talking total DemocratsNow you are cherry picking
In both houses, a majority of Democrats opposed invading Iraq
An undeniable fact
Republican support of the war was nearly unanimous
Bush’s decision....Bush’s war
It is his legacy
Maybe I am wrong, but in the Senate I thought it was 39-31 FOR the Iraq resolution.
Let’s do the math together
Democrats in the House PLUS Democrats in the Senate EQUALS Total Democrats
I don't equate members of the House with members of the Senate. It was significant that a majority of Democratic Senators voted for the war and this was emphasized in the media at the time.
Most did not
I was one of those who did not
Do you have a poll of registered democrats at that time on whether they supported the invasion or not? Otherwise your claim that most democrats were against the invasion is questionable.
The majority in the Senate of Democrats supporting the invasion was significant and a big contrast to the level of support for the 1991 Gulf War. By and large, Democrats were more supportive of Operation Iraqi Freedom that they were of Desert Storm.
All your thread did was to show how many more conservatives than Liberals post here.I'm glad to see Wilson got the votes he deserved, coming in at #2.
In his defense he knew how bad he fucked up and became very depressed about it, even though revisionists blame this on personal problems. His own writings reveal he knew how hard he fucked our nation with the Federal Reserve and everything that came with it.
That being said, I'm shocked John Adams remains at 2 votes. If only people knew about the Sedition Act and how it was used to prosecute anti-federalists (Thomas Jefferson types).
I also don't think Obama should have so many votes, unless it's proven he was knowingly complicit in Spy-gate vs Trump.
Lincoln? HAHAHAHAHAHAThis poll leaves much to be desired.
No FDR, Lincoln, wtf, are you even American, motherfucker? WTF?!
And GFY for including Truman, because he was straight up.
You need to include Bush Sr. and Lincoln.
Yea, he fought the Nazis so hes no good. Got it.That list is worthless. fdr is by far the worst and the scumbag's name doesn't even appear as an option.
Tard, your boy Trump just bragged up R.E. Lee so Lincoln is now a bum, right? How's your snot locker feel after being led by it by Trump?Lincoln? HAHAHAHAHAHAThis poll leaves much to be desired.
No FDR, Lincoln, wtf, are you even American, motherfucker? WTF?!
And GFY for including Truman, because he was straight up.
You need to include Bush Sr. and Lincoln.
Lincoln was great, because he helped kill 600,000 Americans, right?
Tard, your boy Trump just bragged up R.E. Lee so Lincoln is now a bum, right? How's your snot locker feel after being led by it by Trump?Lincoln? HAHAHAHAHAHAThis poll leaves much to be desired.
No FDR, Lincoln, wtf, are you even American, motherfucker? WTF?!
And GFY for including Truman, because he was straight up.
You need to include Bush Sr. and Lincoln.
Lincoln was great, because he helped kill 600,000 Americans, right?
Do you know your views are in the minority...
Historical rankings of presidents of the United States - Wikipedia
These are Notable scholar surveys not Fox news lemmings...
Interesting to note that these notable scholars rank Reagan and Eisenhower as top ten. Shows they are not partisan
I think you really need to know whether the Presidential Historians/Political Scientist are registered Republicans, Democrats, or Independent/Other. Political bias and partisanship will have the greatest impact on the most recent Presidents. So siting a President ranking high from decades ago is not really a way to determine if the list was skewed because of partisanship.
You should probably have 3 different list:
A. One done by 100 registered Republican Presidential Historians/Political Scientist
B. One done by 100 registered Democratic Presidential Historians/Political Scientist
C. One done by 100 registered Independents/other smaller political parties Presidential Historians/Political Scientist
You then average the results of each of the three list into one list. While not perfect, you get a list that is far more free of political bias and partisanship than the ones shown on Wikipedia.
I think if you could see the party registration status of those contributing to the list on Wikipedia, you find that most would have strong majorities of registered Democrats.
That was done. Granted it doesn't include newer presidents since it was done in the 80s.
But what it shows is over time as the initial political division fades we see the stances become very similar.
In the end harding Grant Johnson and Pierce and Buchanan are the 5 which both sides had agreed. And the top 8 were a consensus of both sides, with Lincoln a consensus number one and Washington/FDR number two and three
View attachment 258597
I think while that shows that statements and beliefs of a president soon after office remain strongly divisive, over time you can judge the impact of those. So while Lincoln was arguably the least liked president at the time, his positive impact is what he is measured on. Whereas soon after Jimmy Carter's presidency, his dislike was high, but decades later his impact for good/bad of the US was minimal in comparison to others. LBJ/Eisenhower were the only top 10 and difference between groups, which were also the only two presidents to make up the most recent ones in that top 10.
LBJ is a good case
I hated him when he was President. He was hounded out of office
But he did remarkable work on Civil Rights and anti poverty programs.
But then there was Vietnam, how stupid was that?
I look at LBJ filling JFKs second term. Given the political climate of the time, I think JFK would have made the exact same decisions. So would Nixon and Goldwater. I doubt there were any politicians of that era who would have turned their back on a Communist takeover of Vietnam
Not stupid at all. Harry Truman and Dwight D. Eisenhower both supported LBJ sending large ground combat units to South Vietnam in 1965. They may have had differences with how the war was fought or US forces used, but there was no difference when it came to the necessity of the United States helping South Vietnam defend itself from Communist aggression from North Vietnam, which was supported by the Soviet Union and China. Had the new 1973 congress not cut off future US military involvement in South Vietnam after August 15, 1973(Case Church Amendment passed with veto proof majority passed in June 1973) as well as cut funding for South Vietnam, South Vietnam today would be an independent democratic state as rich and prosperous as South Korea. Instead, the 1973 congress turned its back on South Vietnam, a country the United States had sworn to defend and was obligated to defend through signed treaty commitments. Total abandonment, the most shameful act in the history of the United States government.
Yea, he fought the Nazis so hes no good. Got it.That list is worthless. fdr is by far the worst and the scumbag's name doesn't even appear as an option.
All your thread did was to show how many more conservatives than Liberals post here.I'm glad to see Wilson got the votes he deserved, coming in at #2.
In his defense he knew how bad he fucked up and became very depressed about it, even though revisionists blame this on personal problems. His own writings reveal he knew how hard he fucked our nation with the Federal Reserve and everything that came with it.
That being said, I'm shocked John Adams remains at 2 votes. If only people knew about the Sedition Act and how it was used to prosecute anti-federalists (Thomas Jefferson types).
I also don't think Obama should have so many votes, unless it's proven he was knowingly complicit in Spy-gate vs Trump.
Obama is hands down the worst President; Obamagate will seal the deal.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
All your thread did was to show how many more conservatives than Liberals post here.I'm glad to see Wilson got the votes he deserved, coming in at #2.
In his defense he knew how bad he fucked up and became very depressed about it, even though revisionists blame this on personal problems. His own writings reveal he knew how hard he fucked our nation with the Federal Reserve and everything that came with it.
That being said, I'm shocked John Adams remains at 2 votes. If only people knew about the Sedition Act and how it was used to prosecute anti-federalists (Thomas Jefferson types).
I also don't think Obama should have so many votes, unless it's proven he was knowingly complicit in Spy-gate vs Trump.
Looks like 2-1 conservative. Bush Jr. and Obama are recent enough for partisans to blindly vote them. WMD's for Bush, ISIS for Obama are the two glaring failures that come to mind when I think of either of them.
Some of them only voted in favor of it because they were up for re-election in just a few weeks, not because they really supported the war. Of the 13 Democrat Senators up for re-election, 9 of them voted yea.The question is......Did most Democrats support the invasion?Again I am talking total DemocratsMaybe I am wrong, but in the Senate I thought it was 39-31 FOR the Iraq resolution.
Let’s do the math together
Democrats in the House PLUS Democrats in the Senate EQUALS Total Democrats
I don't equate members of the House with members of the Senate. It was significant that a majority of Democratic Senators voted for the war and this was emphasized in the media at the time.
Most did not
I was one of those who did not
Do you have a poll of registered democrats at that time on whether they supported the invasion or not? Otherwise your claim that most democrats were against the invasion is questionable.
The majority in the Senate of Democrats supporting the invasion was significant and a big contrast to the level of support for the 1991 Gulf War. By and large, Democrats were more supportive of Operation Iraqi Freedom that they were of Desert Storm.
WilsonI'm glad to see Wilson got the votes he deserved, coming in at #2.
In his defense he knew how bad he fucked up and became very depressed about it, even though revisionists blame this on personal problems. His own writings reveal he knew how hard he fucked our nation with the Federal Reserve and everything that came with it.
That being said, I'm shocked John Adams remains at 2 votes. If only people knew about the Sedition Act and how it was used to prosecute anti-federalists (Thomas Jefferson types).
I also don't think Obama should have so many votes, unless it's proven he was knowingly complicit in Spy-gate vs Trump.
In post 9-11 America, they were afraid to be labeled soft on terrorismSome of them only voted in favor of it because they were up for re-election in just a few weeks, not because they really supported the war. Of the 13 Democrat Senators up for re-election, 9 of them voted yea.The question is......Did most Democrats support the invasion?Again I am talking total DemocratsMaybe I am wrong, but in the Senate I thought it was 39-31 FOR the Iraq resolution.
Let’s do the math together
Democrats in the House PLUS Democrats in the Senate EQUALS Total Democrats
I don't equate members of the House with members of the Senate. It was significant that a majority of Democratic Senators voted for the war and this was emphasized in the media at the time.
Most did not
I was one of those who did not
Do you have a poll of registered democrats at that time on whether they supported the invasion or not? Otherwise your claim that most democrats were against the invasion is questionable.
The majority in the Senate of Democrats supporting the invasion was significant and a big contrast to the level of support for the 1991 Gulf War. By and large, Democrats were more supportive of Operation Iraqi Freedom that they were of Desert Storm.
Obama is hands down the worst President; Obamagate will seal the deal.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Actually the statement you made there will just make Obama reputation even higher... The behaviour of the Right and GOP with endless unsupported conspiracy theories will just show how tolerant he was in hyper-partisan times.
What is taking so long?Obama is hands down the worst President; Obamagate will seal the deal.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Actually the statement you made there will just make Obama reputation even higher... The behaviour of the Right and GOP with endless unsupported conspiracy theories will just show how tolerant he was in hyper-partisan times.
Obamagate is worse than Watergate. You loons' heads will explode once the indicts start rolling.
