Worst President in the history of the United States: A Poll
1. Bill Clinton 2. Jimmy Carter 3. FDR
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
Reasoning?
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
None, of course.
They are Dems, he doesn't NEED a reason. Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Jimmy carter was the best and nicest president the usa ever had he even admitted to seeing ufo's!
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
1. Bill Clinton - Impeached liar 2. Jimmy Carter – Do nothing feel good President 3. FDR - New Deal start of the lazy American
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
Oh, I see - it's going to be one of those.
<pees all over the place, exits>
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
<rents steam cleaner to wipe up liberal mess>
<hires legal immigrant to do the job>
<gets back to work for another bit>
Posted by unicornwhisperer (Member # 294) on :
Uh...
I guess #1
*leaves quickly before thread gets uglier*
Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
Jay, when are you going to wake up and realize it's not 1998? Taking jabs at Bill Clinton is not even remotely funny, the Drudge Report is irrelevant and driving by yourself in an SUV makes you look like an elitist asshole.
Posted by Krankykat (Member # 2410) on :
PC:
-Taking jabs at Clinton is always funny.
-Drudge Report is basically a list of daily news and columnists (on boths sides of issues). So how is that irrelevent?
-Driving a Volvo (fav lib-mobile), a Mercedes, or a BMW makes one look like an elitist asshole.
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
Oh. I didn't get that we were supposed to pick from those 3. Anyway, nobody can force us.
1. FDR (I also rank him as best) 2. Washington (I also rank him as second best) 3. Wilson
Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
quote:Originally posted by Krankykat: PC:
-Taking jabs at Clinton is always funny.
-Drudge Report is basically a list of daily news and columnists (on boths sides of issues). So how is that irrelevent?
-Driving a Volvo (fav lib-mobile), a Mercedes, or a BMW makes one look like an elitist asshole.
I've italicized the parts that prove you are either out of touch with reality or are severely lacking in the funny.
Posted by Krankykat (Member # 2410) on :
PC:
Drudge does lean right, but on his site there are news sources, links and columnists who lean left. The Village Voice & Molly Ivans are examples.
According your definition of SUV drivers, I would think you would have one and always drive alone.
[ May 01, 2006, 04:30 PM: Message edited by: Krankykat ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
1) Warren G. Harding 2) Andrew Johnson 3) Franklin Pierce 4) Lyndon Johnson 5) James Buchanan
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
Wow... Fight nice now....
Cool Tom, your #4 would be my #4 also.
Posted by Swampjedi (Member # 7374) on :
The white haired guy with crazy moustaches.
Oh you mean American, not Federation.
Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
I wish I could say that its nice to see you posting again Jay...
...instead, I rather wish trolls like you would stay away when you leave.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Heh, impeached liar, oh dear.
Anyway, list of worst presidents in history:
Martin Van Buren - Made a bad situation worse by continuing Jackson's failed domestic economic policies. Other than that a do nothing, though he did avoid war with Mexico by refusing to annex Texas, and was an ardent anti-slavery activist.
Millard Fillmore - Put a bandaid on the problem of slavery and successionist threats rather than actually solving it. He did do some good, by getting California admitted as a free state, but he could have done a lot better.
Franklin Pierce - Let himself get manipulated by his cabinet. A do nothing, useless, bad president.
James Buchanan - Horrible do nothing president. He basically just floundered around waiting for Congress to implode.
More later.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Lyrhawn, I'm going to have to disagree with you on Van Buren and Fillmore. In fact, Van Buren's on my "best" list.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
Abraham Lincoln. And no, I'm not joking.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:1. Bill Clinton - Impeached liar
Why does it bother you that Clinton lied about his sex life, yet it doesn't bother you that Bush lied about WMDs and terrorists in Iraq. Is it because
1. You are still under the dillusion that there were WMDs and Al Qaida traing camps in Iraq even though the Bush administation has now stated there were not.
2. You think that Bush was simply fooled by bad intelligence so he never technically lied about Iraq.
3. You think that lying about sex is wrong but don't think lying about your reasons for starting a war that will kill thousands is wrong.
4. Clinton was impeached for lying and Bush hasn't been, yet.
5. Lying to a grand jury is wrong, but lying to congress and the American people is OK.
6. Its wrong for democrats to lie, but OK when Repubs do it.
7. Other
If your reasons is one, then you are admitting that you are a fool. If it is 2, you are admitting that Bush is a fool. If your reasons are 3 - 6, then you have serious problems with ethical consistency. Which leaves other.
If you have an other explanation, please tell me.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
Nobody's done it yet, so I will:
George W. Bush - Tax cuts for the rich combined with unnecessary and badly implemented war make for explosive national debt. Equivocated on torture issues. No Child Left Behind leaving many children behind. Flip flopper. And he won't stop smirking, the arrogant bastard.
Posted by Irregardless (Member # 8529) on :
I'll go with Lincoln, too.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Juxtapose, You forgot to mention Blue Skies, Healthy Forest, Arsenic, Mercury, the roadless initiative, and the Yellowstone Winter use plan.
You forgot to mention Bush's opposition to the ABM treaty, the Kyoto treaty, the Biological Weapons Convention, the International Criminal Court, the Comprehensive Test Ban treaty, START II, and the Land Mine Ban.
You forgot to mention that he opposed the UN declaration on children's rights, opposed sex education in developing countries, banned the use of USAID in clinics or by doctors that encourage condom use or even mention abortion,
You forgot that Bush has abandoned diplomacy as the keystone of foreign policy. The official position of his administration is that we "don't talk to our enemies'. We refused to talk with the Taliban, refused to talk with Hussein and we are now refusing to talk with Iran.
You forgot that he has authorized the kidnapping and torture of terror suspects, flaunted the Geneva convention, held hundred of people indefinitely without charges, authorized warrantless spying on American citizens, and overseen an unprecidented expansion of executive power.
You forgot that his administration ignored warnings of the 9/11 terror attacks and levi breaches New Orleans.
Oh, and you forgot that he started a war of agression against a country that posed no real threat to the US or her citizens. A war that has cost thousands of US lives and hundreds of billions of US dollars.
Posted by Humean316 (Member # 8175) on :
Well, if Regan was on the list, I would vote for him. Otherwise, none of them are the best, but none are the worse either.
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
1. Nixon, for Watergate and his "plan" in Viet Nam, which esentialy involved bombing the hell out of the North Viet Namese, with a deliberate attempt to kill civilians, involving Cambodia and then leaving, after having declared a victory with no basis in reality.
2. Pierce, a blatant slavery surporter and yet another who did little.
3. Harding, fed jobs to corrupt cronies and seemed totaly removed from "normalacy."
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
I would vastly prefer an ineffective president who accomplished little, over an effective president who accomplished alot of bad things.
Posted by Flaming Toad on a Stick (Member # 9302) on :
1. George W. Bush 2. Bill Clinton (not for the obvious reasons) 3. Ronald Reagan
And, living in Canada, my worst prime minister's list would be:
1. Stephen Harper 2. John A. MacDonald 3. Joe Clark
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
The Rabbit, I didn't forget any of that stuff. I just let you write it for me! Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
1) Richard Nixon 2) George W Bush
*not because they're Republican (I'm not a conservative-basher type)... But probably a good helping of "because they're recent/current enough that I have a fair understanding of their good points and bad points." They're more on my mind than other past terrible Presidents might be.
Posted by Dr. Evil (Member # 8095) on :
1. Carter 2. Lyndon Johnson 3. Clinton
Posted by Kristen (Member # 9200) on :
quote:Horrible do nothing president
In my eyes, that means less likely to increase the size of the federal government or overstep executive power, so that's not necessarily a bad thing.
Posted by Palliard (Member # 8109) on :
Hrm... for actively trying to destroy the United States, subvert the Constitution, and flaunt the rule of law, I'd have to go with Lincoln.
Posted by Tstorm (Member # 1871) on :
I'd probably pick a couple of the presidents that came before Lincoln. Appeasement and complacency in the face of a developing crisis underscore their ineptitude as leaders.
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
I wish we could have a do-nothing President more often.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Palliard: Hrm... for actively trying to destroy the United States, subvert the Constitution, and flaunt the rule of law, I'd have to go with Lincoln.
If he wanted to actively destroy the US, he would have let the south secede without putting up a fuss. That would've done it right there.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
Not at all. What was left would have been the United States. You can argue that the United States would not have been able to continue as it had before, but it would have lived or died according to the principles on which it was founded.
What Lincoln did was create a new thing entirely. He kept the name "United States of America", and many of the trappings of that glorious experiment. But he transformed it into an empire. One which could only be kept alive by conscript troops and massive taxation.
Don't get me wrong. It's still better than anything else out there. In the same way that a glass of half water/half poison is better than a glass full of poison.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
It would have been HALF the United States.
Besides, war was inevitable. Even if they had left the United States and Lincoln had left them alone, there would have been war eventually.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
The choice Lincoln had was between a war of reunification and one of conquest against a hostile foreign country. There was no viable "no war" option.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
I've always heard Harding listed as the worst President ever (which Tom also picked). But I don't remember from my history class why that was so. Maybe I'll go read up on his presidency now...
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:There was no viable "no war" option.
Why do you not believe that a divided country would have been viable?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Two aggressive expansionist countries on the North American continent with a history of antagonism, one of which lacked much manufacturing ability and the other that would need increased argicultural output. The growing division between abolitionists and slavers would be further exacerbated when abolitionist groups were helping slaves escape across country as opposed to state lines. The Union was also not about to give up strategically important sites and forts in the South. Plus, there was the ever-present threat of anti-Union European interference. All of this taking place within the economic climate of the latter half of the 19th century.
The Union would not and could not abide a direct competitor. For that matter, neither would or could the Confederacy. It would have been war no matter what.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
sL: while conscription did occur in the United States (as well as the Confederacy) during the civil war, the vast majorities of both armies (over 80%, I think around 90%) were volunteers.
I'm somewhat amused that Jackson hasn't appeared in this thread. While the results of his record viewed from a distance are somewhat muddled, there are specific actions that certainly make him a candidate, notably explicitly disobeying a Supreme Court ruling in order to steal land from sovereign nations in violation of United States treaties, then evict the inhabitants at the cost of many thousands of lives. While he's popped up in the other thread, this particular offense hasn't.
Posted by seven (Member # 5367) on :
haha. Clinton is probably my FAVORITE president. Does that count for anything?
Posted by Boothby171 (Member # 807) on :
Juxtaposed,
Bush won't stop smirking becasue he can't. He's been pithed. And I think I see Cheney holding an ice pick behind his back...
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
quote:Bush won't stop smirking becasue he can't. He's been pithed.
He's had his spinal cord severed?
Posted by Boothby171 (Member # 807) on :
No, I mean that his frontal lobe's been given a steel swirlie.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Isn't that a frontal labotomy?
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
In that case, it's not an ice pick. It's a lever that got broken and permanently stuck on the "smirk" setting. Maybe Cheney was trying to fix it?
Posted by Boothby171 (Member # 807) on :
Lyrhawn,
As Winston Churchill once said, "I'd rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy!"
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)