SO according to critics how/why is president Obama the worst president in US history?
Options
Jamaican Curry Bwoy
Members Posts: 706 ✭✭✭✭
I feel he's done a lot of good in his time in office. Especially with lowering the unemployment rate. But a lot of people keep calling him the worst president. I don't get it.
Comments
-
U dont get it?
U remember that song "one of these things aint like the other....."
Look at a pic of all the prez' in history and youll c y they could even fix their mouth to say that ? especially after 2 terms of bush
One of those things just doesnt belong -
Alot of people don't know simply history so they shouldn't really speak on it.
I mean you ? Andrew Jackson who shut down national bank and caused a huge depression
You have Ronald Reagan and his imperialists conquest of communist country's
Just to name two -
He's not but his foreign policy leaves much to be desired
-
he's the blackest.
-
He's not the worst president, I give that honor to George W Bush, Richard Nixon isn't too far behind.
Obama has disappointed me in many ways, but he's nowhere near the worst. -
I dare say Obama could be a top 16 president. If it wasn't for his warmongering, mishandling of Obamacare, and sucking up to Israel, he would have made my top 10 list.
-
anyone calling a current (or even very recent) president the "worst ever" is either ignorant or saying it for shock value.
not really sure how Obama gets credit for this, thoughJamaican Curry Bwoy wrote: »Especially with lowering the unemployment rate.
underrated because of him being a terrible human beingkingblaze84 wrote: »Richard Nixon -
4-way tie between Regan, Nixon, Bush and Clinton
Nixon. Aside from the Watergate scandal, there was the Vietnam War which he continued after opposing it in his campaigning. Senseless bombing and lives lost. Secret service members being utilized like the KGB.
There is a case for Clinton as well, over 400,000 people imprisoned during his two terms. Incentives to states for locking people up, increase of federal prisons being built and more policeman to service and harass people in their communities. Repeal of Glass-Steagall, 3 strikes, etc.
Bush and Regan are otherwise obvious.
-
Bush isn't even that bad compared to others
-
anyone calling a current (or even very recent) president the "worst ever" is either ignorant or saying it for shock value.
not really sure how Obama gets credit for this, thoughJamaican Curry Bwoy wrote: »Especially with lowering the unemployment rate.
underrated because of him being a terrible human beingkingblaze84 wrote: »Richard Nixon
Why is Nixon underrated? He kept the Vietnam War going on longer than necessary (it actually was never necessary). He continued the draft, which was unpopular.
And GWB may not be THE worst president (still debateable), but for the Iraq War disaster, he's gotta be one of the worst at a minimum -
The_Jackal wrote: »Bush isn't even that bad compared to others
Can you name five presidents worse than him? -
kingblaze84 wrote: »The_Jackal wrote: »Bush isn't even that bad compared to others
Can you name five presidents worse than him?
Easily. Andrew Jackson(disregarding pervious treaties, trail of tears, most importantly destroying that era fed reserve and using gold standard)
John Adams (Alien and sedition Act nuff said)
James Buchanan (Allowing three fifth compromise to continue, Dred Scott case, pushed to allow slavery in newly formed states)
Franklin Pierce (saw aboloionist movement as a threat to the great white nation Kansas-Nebraska act strictly enforcing fugitive slave act and basically setting the stage for southern secession
And Nixon -
The_Jackal wrote: »kingblaze84 wrote: »The_Jackal wrote: »Bush isn't even that bad compared to others
Can you name five presidents worse than him?
Easily. Andrew Jackson(disregarding pervious treaties, trail of tears, most importantly destroying that time fed reserve and using gold standard)
John Adams (Alien and sedition Act nuff said)
James Buchanan (Allowing three fifth compromise to continue, Dred Scott case, pushed to allow slavery in newly formed states)
Franklin Pierce (saw aboloionist movement as a threat to the great white nation Kansas-Nebraska act strictly enforcing fugitive slave act and basically setting the stage for southern secession
And Nixon
You know your history, and I can mostly agree, though I think the Iraq War long term will be seen historically as more damaging to world security then the Vietnam War was. For that reason, I have Bush being worse then Nixon. As horrible as Vietnam was, the negative effects of that war I think won't be as brutal and far reaching as those from the war in Iraq. The demons of the war in Iraq has effected nations way outside the Middle East, while the Vietnam War's effects MOSTLY were contained in Asia.
I gotta look up more on John Adams and the Sedition Act though -
underrated domestic programs aside from drug stuff. but the thing is, Nixon is demonized as the WORST PRESIDENT and he's really not. he's just a really ? person and that drags him down. easy to be underrated.kingblaze84 wrote: »Why is Nixon underrated? He kept the Vietnam War going on longer than necessary (it actually was never necessary). He continued the draft, which was unpopular.
the fact is that Bush II and Obama shouldn't really be rated, for good or bad, because we're still living out the aftereffects of their decisions/policies/whatever. you may notice that people have EXTREME opinions about them for some reason.kingblaze84 wrote: »And GWB may not be THE worst president (still debateable), but for the Iraq War disaster, he's gotta be one of the worst at a minimum
consider that presidents around the Franklin Pierce era may have sucked and no one seems to care or know anything about them... but they're SO SURE Bush/Obama are much worse.
-
this right here makes it a good post.The_Jackal wrote: »James Buchanan (Allowing three fifth compromise to continue, Dred Scott case, pushed to allow slavery in newly formed states)
Franklin Pierce (saw aboloionist movement as a threat to the great white nation Kansas-Nebraska act strictly enforcing fugitive slave act and basically setting the stage for southern secession
-
kingblaze84 wrote: »The_Jackal wrote: »kingblaze84 wrote: »The_Jackal wrote: »Bush isn't even that bad compared to others
Can you name five presidents worse than him?
Easily. Andrew Jackson(disregarding pervious treaties, trail of tears, most importantly destroying that time fed reserve and using gold standard)
John Adams (Alien and sedition Act nuff said)
James Buchanan (Allowing three fifth compromise to continue, Dred Scott case, pushed to allow slavery in newly formed states)
Franklin Pierce (saw aboloionist movement as a threat to the great white nation Kansas-Nebraska act strictly enforcing fugitive slave act and basically setting the stage for southern secession
And Nixon
You know your history, and I can mostly agree, though I think the Iraq War long term will be seen historically as more damaging to world security then the Vietnam War was. For that reason, I have Bush being worse then Nixon. As horrible as Vietnam was, the negative effects of that war I think won't be as brutal and far reaching as those from the war in Iraq. The demons of the war in Iraq has effected nations way outside the Middle East, while the Vietnam War's effects MOSTLY were contained in Asia.
I gotta look up more on John Adams and the Sedition Act though
History major that's why and sedition Act basically forbid the press from speaking "malice" about John Adams and his office. Crazy seeing that he was a founding father and they just got finished with the American revolution not even 20 years ago -
theyre all the same
-
underrated domestic programs aside from drug stuff. but the thing is, Nixon is demonized as the WORST PRESIDENT and he's really not. he's just a really ? person and that drags him down. easy to be underrated.kingblaze84 wrote: »Why is Nixon underrated? He kept the Vietnam War going on longer than necessary (it actually was never necessary). He continued the draft, which was unpopular.
the fact is that Bush II and Obama shouldn't really be rated, for good or bad, because we're still living out the aftereffects of their decisions/policies/whatever. you may notice that people have EXTREME opinions about them for some reason.kingblaze84 wrote: »And GWB may not be THE worst president (still debateable), but for the Iraq War disaster, he's gotta be one of the worst at a minimum
consider that presidents around the Franklin Pierce era may have sucked and no one seems to care or know anything about them... but they're SO SURE Bush/Obama are much worse.
Aight, well with the Vietnam War mess, Nixon was a ? president in general too. He promised to end the war and instead dragged it out for 4 or 5 more years. All this while KNOWING the war was unnecessary, so ? him.
And yeah Franklin Pierce and Andrew Jackson were worse then Bush morally and politically, but I actually heard some historians say a few years ago George Dubya was likely in the bottom 5 or 10 of worst presidents of all time. I have a strong feeling historians in the future will agree with that, his legacy has been pretty horrible. My dream is that Bush and Cheney get arrested one day for war crimes, but I'm satisfied knowing Bush can't even enter several countries now because so many of them have warrants for his arrest. -
In a poll of many historians in 2008, 61% voted George W Bush the worst president in American history.....98% voted it a failure. Not saying these historians are totally right, but I certainly see where they're coming from haha
http://historynewsnetwork.org/article/48916
HNN Poll: 61% of Historians Rate the Bush Presidency Worst
“No individual president can compare to the second Bush,” wrote one. “Glib, contemptuous, ignorant, incurious, a dupe of anyone who humors his deluded belief in his heroic self, he has bankrupted the country with his disastrous war and his tax breaks for the rich, trampled on the Bill of Rights, appointed foxes in every henhouse, compounded the terrorist threat, turned a blind eye to torture and corruption and a looming ecological disaster, and squandered the rest of the world’s goodwill. In short, no other president’s faults have had so deleterious an effect on not only the country but the world at large.”
“With his unprovoked and disastrous war of aggression in Iraq and his monstrous deficits, Bush has set this country on a course that will take decades to correct,” said another historian. “When future historians look back to identify the moment at which the United States began to lose its position of world leadership, they will point—rightly—to the Bush presidency.
- See more at: http://historynewsnetwork.org/article/48916#sthash.N0X2B8Yu.dpuf
-
? only vote bush in because it's recent memory. If you got together a million early American history scholars promise he wouldn't be that high up. Like Janklow said Iraq war was a mess but we really have to see how it continues to play out.
-
Critics of Obama in office are only critical of him in order to further their own political ideologies. In America, with the two-party system, those who excoriate the President are usually from, or sympathetic of, the opposing party. Many politicians govern without a conscience though. Their policies are usually for the benefit of the lobbyists and future of the party of which they belong.
Critiques are just a competition between the public relations teams of the respective party. Therefore, parties use the media to influence public opinion. The problem with that is that it's contrary to the way the Gov't was supposed to operate, where the public was supposed to influence the politician. I'm done. -
first off, he's not really a ? president "in general" when you're citing one complaint. second... why are you so all-fired to prove Nixon was THE WORST because of Vietnam without talking about LBJ or Kennedy. because LBJ did a lot more to make that war happen than Nixon did.kingblaze84 wrote: »Alright, well with the Vietnam War mess, Nixon was a ? president in general too. He promised to end the war and instead dragged it out for 4 or 5 more years. All this while KNOWING the war was unnecessary, so ? him.
they're trying to skip over the concept of getting some perspective to score partisan political points. look, it's not about saying whether or not W will be rated that poorly, it's about saying people rating W (or Obama) that poorly are doing it for reasons other than "serious historical analysis."kingblaze84 wrote: »And yeah Franklin Pierce and Andrew Jackson were worse then Bush morally and politically, but I actually heard some historians say a few years ago George Dubya was likely in the bottom 5 or 10 of worst presidents of all time. -
Nixon was the one of the best presidents for the environment and wildlife. word. TR probz the best for nature tho.
-
first off, he's not really a ? president "in general" when you're citing one complaint. second... why are you so all-fired to prove Nixon was THE WORST because of Vietnam without talking about LBJ or Kennedy. because LBJ did a lot more to make that war happen than Nixon did.kingblaze84 wrote: »Alright, well with the Vietnam War mess, Nixon was a ? president in general too. He promised to end the war and instead dragged it out for 4 or 5 more years. All this while KNOWING the war was unnecessary, so ? him.
they're trying to skip over the concept of getting some perspective to score partisan political points. look, it's not about saying whether or not W will be rated that poorly, it's about saying people rating W (or Obama) that poorly are doing it for reasons other than "serious historical analysis."kingblaze84 wrote: »And yeah Franklin Pierce and Andrew Jackson were worse then Bush morally and politically, but I actually heard some historians say a few years ago George Dubya was likely in the bottom 5 or 10 of worst presidents of all time.
I'm not a big fan of LBJ, Martin Luther King talked a lot of ? about him because of the Vietnam War and he was right. As far as Kennedy, he ? up getting involved in Vietnam and backing up the French, but he did want to leave the conflict alone, as far as I know. He was killed before he could do much more to leave Vietnam alone. Because Nixon failed to learn from LBJ's ? ups, I'm much harder on Nixon then I am LBJ. Nixon should have learned from LBJ's ? ups and end the war as he promised to do.
And as far as Bush being rated by historians these days as already being one of the worst, it's because foreign policy wise, Bush led a war that will without a doubt have horrible repercussions that will take decades, maybe longer, to settle down. I'm certain future historians will agree with the current ones, you will see for yourself one day. If not, oh well lol -
just going to hit you with this: Nixon DID actually end the Vietnam War. LBJ escalated it to what it became. so...kingblaze84 wrote: »I'm not a big fan of LBJ, Martin Luther King talked a lot of ? about him because of the Vietnam War and he was right. As far as Kennedy, he ? up getting involved in Vietnam and backing up the French, but he did want to leave the conflict alone, as far as I know. He was killed before he could do much more to leave Vietnam alone. Because Nixon failed to learn from LBJ's ? ups, I'm much harder on Nixon then I am LBJ. Nixon should have learned from LBJ's ? ups and end the war as he promised to do.
as far as Kennedy, you're basically giving him a pass because he got killed. fine. but if you rate what he did? sent advisors to Vietnam.
but you give it away yourself right here: you're making a prediction. this is why you either admit it's based on the right-now emotions or give it time.kingblaze84 wrote: »And as far as Bush being rated by historians these days as already being one of the worst, it's because foreign policy wise, Bush led a war that will without a doubt-
