Worst Presidents of all Time:

[SmokeALib]

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.

What is taking so long?

Actual evidence?

You don't need evidence. You just need to make up a crime.

 

[rightwinger]

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.

What is taking so long?

Actual evidence?

You don't need evidence. You just need to make up a crime.

Conservatives rely on conspiracy theories

 

[Faun]

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.

All your thread did was to show how many more conservatives than Liberals post here.

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.

Even more than 2-1 since even many conservatives now rate Bush at the bottom.

 

[Faun]

Again I am talking total Democrats

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.

The question is......Did most Democrats support the invasion?
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.

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.

I could see that. With most Democrats supporting the war at the time, and an election upcoming, I can see how Democrats would use that to get a feather in their hat that they could campaign on if they believed in it.

Now if you are saying they voted to send American troops into war they felt wasn't right, in order to score political popularity points... Well I would hope that wouldn't be something a senator would do.

Politicians do what they need to do to get elected.

 

[rightwinger]

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.

All your thread did was to show how many more conservatives than Liberals post here.

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.

Even more than 2-1 since even many conservatives now rate Bush at the bottom.

Watch how quickly they throw Trump under the bus

 

[Faun]

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.

All your thread did was to show how many more conservatives than Liberals post here.

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.

Even more than 2-1 since even many conservatives now rate Bush at the bottom.

Watch how quickly they throw Trump under the bus

Of course they will. Just like they’ve done with every Republican president since Nixon except for Reagan.

 

[Fang]

No Jimmy "can't free the hostages" Carter?

 

[rightwinger]

No Jimmy "can't free the hostages" Carter?

He did get them all out alive

 

[Unkotare]

No Jimmy "can't free the hostages" Carter?

He did get them all out alive

No, “he” did not.

 

[rightwinger]

No Jimmy "can't free the hostages" Carter?

He did get them all out alive

No, “he” did not.

Did too

 

[Unkotare]

No Jimmy "can't free the hostages" Carter?

He did get them all out alive

No, “he” did not.

Did too

You’ve already been corrected on this.

 

[rightwinger]

No Jimmy "can't free the hostages" Carter?

He did get them all out alive

No, “he” did not.

Did too

You’ve already been corrected on this.

Nope

 

[Faun]

No Jimmy "can't free the hostages" Carter?

He did get them all out alive

No, “he” did not.

Of course he did. It was announced in the final minutes of his presidency... at the 10 minute mark...

 

[U2Edge]

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.

All your thread did was to show how many more conservatives than Liberals post here.

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.

Sorry to bust your bubble but ISIS was a consequence of Iraq War and Bush agreement of withdrawal. If Obama stayed on then US soldiers would have been subject to Iraqi Law...

Why do you support US soldiers being in Iraqi Jails?

US Soldiers would never of been subject to Iraqi law. They were not subject to Iraqi law when they entered the country from Kuwait on March 19, 2003 and would not be after 2011 with or without an agreement. The Iraqi government, rebuilding military and police force, did not have the means to permanently seize and hold US troops and would not put the effort into doing so either.

U.S. troops were only out of Iraq from January 2012 until August 2014. After August 2014, thousands of U.S. troops went back into Iraq and are still there to this day. No one has been arrested or subjected to Iraqi law. The idea that the United States had to withdraw because of Iraqi law is absolute rubbish.

 

[U2Edge]

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.

WOW.
Hope I never get prescribed whatever you're snorting.

I'm a lazy vegan, no drugs. There are a lot of myths about Vietnam that fall apart once you see the facts. But some people have wrapped themselves up in these myths so tightly that they are unable to handle the truth when confronted with it.

 

[rightwinger]

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.

WOW.
Hope I never get prescribed whatever you're snorting.

I'm a lazy vegan, no drugs. There are a lot of myths about Vietnam that fall apart once you see the facts. But some people have wrapped themselves up in these myths so tightly that they are unable to handle the truth when confronted with it.

What can’t be disputed is that it is a conflict that we never should have gotten involved in

 

[U2Edge]

Maybe I am wrong, but in the Senate I thought it was 39-31 FOR the Iraq resolution.

Again I am talking total Democrats

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.

The question is......Did most Democrats support the invasion?
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.

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.

An unproven theory. But even if true, it shows their views were out of sync with the majority of people.

 

[rightwinger]

Again I am talking total Democrats

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.

The question is......Did most Democrats support the invasion?
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.

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.

An unproven theory. But even if true, it shows their views were out of sync with the majority of people.

He seems to offer proof of his theory

 

[U2Edge]

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.

WOW.
Hope I never get prescribed whatever you're snorting.

I'm a lazy vegan, no drugs. There are a lot of myths about Vietnam that fall apart once you see the facts. But some people have wrapped themselves up in these myths so tightly that they are unable to handle the truth when confronted with it.

What can’t be disputed is that it is a conflict that we never should have gotten involved in

Most Vietnam veterans believe the war was just and necessary including my own father who served there from December 1967 to December 1968 when U.S. casualties were the heaviest. Just over 16,500 US troops died and a little over 80,000 wounded in 1968.

Opinions are still heavily divided over the war 45 years later. Still a strong majority against involvement though, although for different reasons.

01. There is the faction that believe it was not necessary or unjust

02. Then the second faction who look back in hindsite and see it as a waste after the congress gave up and abandoned South Vietnam in 1973.

Those two factions are how a majority of the entire public feel. But when Vietnam Veterans are asked though, a slight majority believe the conflict was just and necessary and the war would have been won had congress not abandoned the effort in 1973.

Generals Norman Schwarzkopf and Colin Powell both feel this way. Both fought in the Vietnam War when they were Junior officers.

General Creighton Abrams who was the last commander of U.S. forces in Vietnam also felt this way.

Dr. Lewis Sorley wrote a great book "A BETTER WAR" in which he showed how much improved U.S. military and South Vietnamese military strategy and policy was in the later years of the war. By 1971, the rebel Vietcong element in South Vietnam had largely been eliminated. The war was no longer really the insurgent war of the past but took on the look of a more general conventional war. The was made abundantly clear in 1972 during North Vietnam's Easter Offensive. Despite there being few U.S. combat troops on the ground at that point, primarily advisors, U.S. Airpower combined with the South Vietnamese ground forces threw the North Vietnamese back and inflicted massive losses on their forces. This showed the way forward for the future. Limited numbers of U.S. advisors on the ground supported the South Vietnamese military combined with U.S. Airpower were now enough to defeat anything that North Vietnam could throw at them. Such a strategy or composition forces would not of worked in 1968 which shows the dramatic improve in the South Vietnamese fighting ability.

Still, the South Vietnamese military was totally dependent on re-supply from the United States U.S. advisors at the battalion level, as well as U.S. airpower. In March 1973, the last U.S. advisors left. In August 1973, all U.S. airpower and other military activities were ended. Then from August 1973 through all of 1974, congress cut back on supplies for the South Vietnamese military.
By early 1975, the South Vietnamese military was running low on ammo and fuel to support their divisions in the field. By contrast, the Soviets and Chinese had poured Billions of dollars into the North Vietnamese military to rebuild and replace its losses from the 1972 Easter Offensive. So in early 1975, North Vietnamese regulars faced a South Vietnamese military with little ammo and fuel to put up a fight, nor the U.S. advisors that were still needed, or U.S. Air Power. Naturally under these conditions, the South Vietnamese military collapsed after a couple of months. But had the United States kept supplying the South Vietnamese military, supporting its Units with U.S. advisors and kept plenty of U.S. combat aircraft in the region to support the South Vietnamese military, the North Vietnam offensive of 1975 would have crushed just as it had been back in 1972.

 

[U2Edge]

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.

The question is......Did most Democrats support the invasion?
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.

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.

An unproven theory. But even if true, it shows their views were out of sync with the majority of people.

He seems to offer proof of his theory

Its an assumption that people vote a certain way because they are facing an election, not proof.