Worse President

[Doc]

New poll out has current POTUS as worse since WWII. While I'm not a fan of his I'm not sure I agree. We got some good choices here

http://p.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jul/2/obama-worst-president-wwii-new-poll-shows/

[TNCat]

I voted for O but Carter is a close second. O wins in my mind simply due to his refusal to enforce the laws of the land and his inability to lead or build consensus. Government by Presidential fiat is very un-democratic and frankly un-American.

[Doc]

Note that the poll is public meaning you can see who folks chose. I picked Carter, barely. LBJ was also a consideration. But to me when you look back under Carter we had the Iran hostage debacle, American's held for over a year, the rescue attempt that was a joke, a foreign policy that makes Obama's look like a war monger. an Olympic boycott, interest rates at 20%, a lemonade stand on the white house lawn, Billy Beer, a faux energy crisis, etc.... Only a president as inept as Carter could lose the huge momentum that the democrats had 6 years after a Republican president was impeached and forced out of the white house.

[suncat05]

I voted the "O"meister, but seriously considered both Carter & LBJ. While both of them were terrible presidents in many respects, I am not sure that either would intentionally & knowingly put non-military American citizens at willfulness risk like this current POTUS seems to love to do. Or how he loves to run from real problems and then has the nerve to tell us that's not what's really happening. Among ALL of the other un-American things he loves to do while rubbing our faces in it.
2. LBJ
3. "Jimma" Carter

[MTcatfan]

Not surprised how this is going, on here when in doubt go with the Democrat...:poke:


I picked Bush 2, mainly because I feel that he did even less for the economy than Obama has done, and Bush 2 got us into some wars that killed a whole lot of people and I am not sure they were ever justified and mostly started based on misleading the public or down right lies. Obama's foreign policy decisions have been terrible but to me Bush 2 has him beat...slightly...Also picked Bush 2 because I was to young to know much about Carter except what I have heard second hand, so I don't think I can honestly judge him since I was but a wee lad when he was President(4-8 years old). I guess I also blame Obama's inability to lead or build consensus on Congress and the Republicans who refuse to compromise with Obama. I see that Obama seems to be more willing to compromise, but the Tea Party element of the Republican Party hates Obama so much and they are some much believes of "their way or the highway" they have paralyzed Congress to getting anything done. Also this stupid thing about Obama's executive orders is just plain asinine, so when other Presidents did the exact same thing he is doing, and at high rates than Obama no one bats an eye, as I, an avid political follower, have never heard many, if any complaints about executive orders before Obama, but when Obama does it he is being imperial, he is being a king, he is un-American, it is government by Presidential fiat, it is un-democratice. So if he is un-American, un-democratic, and ruling by Presidential fiat, for his EO stuff, I would hate to see how un-American, and un-democratic, you feel every President for the last 100 years or so is...


http://www.newsweek.com/embarrassingly-hole-boehners-plan-sue-king-obama-256509

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/data/orders.php

http://wallstcheatsheet.com/politics/heres-why-boehner-thinks-obama-has-king-like-authority.html/?a=viewall



Not that any of you probably care, but here is my ranking of Presidents since I became aware of such things:

1. Reagan (to young to vote for)
2. Clinton (voted for once)
3. Bush 1 (voted for once - his reelection try was my first Presidential Vote)
4. Obama (voted for twice)
5. Bush 2 (voted for twice)

[KeithKSR]

I thought no president could be worse than Carter, Obama proved me wrong.

[Doc]

Not surprised how this is going, on here when in doubt go with the Democrat...:poke:

I'd vote for Bush (one of the two) as the worse if it weren't for Carter, Obama and LBJ. Back when Clinton was President, I felt he was a fairly good president despite him being a democrat and a moral pig and liar. I also liked Nixon who is now seen as some type of slug but prior to Watergate most felt he was a good President. Kennedy wasn't as popular pre-assassination as he was post assassination. However since I don't agree with the democratic agenda its no shock that I wouldn't see the agenda the democrats put forth as poor. Still, Obama and Carter have both not only show to put forth those agenda's but also poor leadership qualities. Obama's main strategy has been to blame everybody but himself, claim ignorance, kick the can down the road then claim its an old story. He has yet to take responsibility for anything and quick to blame everybody else for any problem, even ones of his own making. Sorry but that is piss poor leadership regardless of the policies. Carter let American sit in Iran 444 days and "negotiated". Within hours leaving office they were free. Why? Because he was a joke, a joke that other countries laughed at and did not respect. That has nothing to do with partisanship.

The implication that "go with the democrat" sort of short sells the intellect of the participants. Personally I think most of the folks on here support what they believe in a reasonable manner. I've been to sites where the blind allegiance to the party is there and it is sickening. Granted, there is some here but it PALES dramatically to some places. I can actually respect your selection of Bush if that is how you feel. You support the choice. I'm not going to blindly say its wrong and you made it because you're a liberal leftist etc.... but I will add that the senate and president are every bit as unwilling to compromise as the GOP. Harry Reid has yet to offer any compromises and has spent the last 6 years blocking anything and everything that the republicans have tried to do on the senate floor, even when they have given in to compromise, by failing to to put forth any and all of their proposal to the floor. Of course the media and president fail to note this, instead taking the narrative that it is only the obstructive republicans that are the problems rather than acknowledging that they too bear some of the blame. IMO a leader would do that. A leader would get to work with both sides and do what he needed to do to get something done rather than sit there and point fingers and stomp his feet because he didn't get his way. To me, a good leader is more about getting results rather than blaming others for the results you are not getting.

[MTcatfan]

I'd vote for Bush (one of the two) as the worse if it weren't for Carter, Obama and LBJ. Back when Clinton was President, I felt he was a fairly good president despite him being a democrat and a moral pig and liar. I also liked Nixon who is now seen as some type of slug but prior to Watergate most felt he was a good President. Kennedy wasn't as popular pre-assassination as he was post assassination. However since I don't agree with the democratic agenda its no shock that I wouldn't see the agenda the democrats put forth as poor. Still, Obama and Carter have both not only show to put forth those agenda's but also poor leadership qualities. Obama's main strategy has been to blame everybody but himself, claim ignorance, kick the can down the road then claim its an old story. He has yet to take responsibility for anything and quick to blame everybody else for any problem, even ones of his own making. Sorry but that is piss poor leadership regardless of the policies. Carter let American sit in Iran 444 days and "negotiated". Within hours leaving office they were free. Why? Because he was a joke, a joke that other countries laughed at and did not respect. That has nothing to do with partisanship.

The implication that "go with the democrat" sort of short sells the intellect of the participants. Personally I think most of the folks on here support what they believe in a reasonable manner. I've been to sites where the blind allegiance to the party is there and it is sickening. Granted, there is some here but it PALES dramatically to some places. I can actually respect your selection of Bush if that is how you feel. You support the choice. I'm not going to blindly say its wrong and you made it because you're a liberal leftist etc.... but I will add that the senate and president are every bit as unwilling to compromise as the GOP. Harry Reid has yet to offer any compromises and has spent the last 6 years blocking anything and everything that the republicans have tried to do on the senate floor, even when they have given in to compromise, by failing to to put forth any and all of their proposal to the floor. Of course the media and president fail to note this, instead taking the narrative that it is only the obstructive republicans that are the problems rather than acknowledging that they too bear some of the blame. IMO a leader would do that. A leader would get to work with both sides and do what he needed to do to get something done rather than sit there and point fingers and stomp his feet because he didn't get his way. To me, a good leader is more about getting results rather than blaming others for the results you are not getting.



Doc...that is why I put the poke smilie on there, I wasn't really all that serious about the Democrat thing. I mean from the list provided, it is a no brainer that 2 of the 3 best choices are Democrats, regardless of your political affiliation. As far as the dumbassery(I don't think that is a word, but I am making it up because it fits), goes on in Congress I guess I am just more ticked off at the Tea Party than I am with the Democrats or the traditional Republicans, so I put the blame solely on them. I just have no use for the Tea Party, and quite frankly my dealings with the Tea Party(and the Constitution Party, which is the original Tea Party in Montana, that was around way before the Tea Party became a thing), is mostly negative and if the Tea Party from the other parts of the country are like the Tea Party from my part of the country I could never, ever, ever support anything they were for. They claim they are for less government, and giving the government back to the country, but only as long as you agree with them. To me the Tea Party is not about less government, it is just about shuffling the government from controlling our lives in one way to shuffling the government to control our lives in THEIR image, which is not a government I could ever support.

[suncat05]

I could give Bush II a lot more leeway if he had taken a much harder line against the Democrat controlled Congress by using the line item veto. He also should have come down very hard on scumbags like Barney Frank and his complete failure to keep Fannie Mae & Freddy Mac in line instead of just allowing both to lend money to people who had no real ability to pay it back.
Bush II was too soft in dealing with that version of Congress. He let them swing a lot of bad legislation and then signed off on most of it to appease them, not realizing that they(and he) was setting our country up for bad economic times ahead. He was working with a bunch of snakes who weren't going for the snake charmer routine.
BOTH SIDES share the blame for what happened in the recession of 2008-2009. Just piss poor leadership & legislation all the way around.

[Doc]

Doc...that is why I put the poke smilie on there, I wasn't really all that serious about the Democrat thing. I mean from the list provided, it is a no brainer that 2 of the 3 best choices are Democrats, regardless of your political affiliation. As far as the dumbassery(I don't think that is a word, but I am making it up because it fits), goes on in Congress I guess I am just more ticked off at the Tea Party than I am with the Democrats or the traditional Republicans, so I put the blame solely on them. I just have no use for the Tea Party, and quite frankly my dealings with the Tea Party(and the Constitution Party, which is the original Tea Party in Montana, that was around way before the Tea Party became a thing), is mostly negative and if the Tea Party from the other parts of the country are like the Tea Party from my part of the country I could never, ever, ever support anything they were for. They claim they are for less government, and giving the government back to the country, but only as long as you agree with them. To me the Tea Party is not about less government, it is just about shuffling the government from controlling our lives in one way to shuffling the government to control our lives in THEIR image, which is not a government I could ever support.

The sad thing concerning the Tea Party is that the original idea behind it was great but then it got bastardized by morons like Palin and others who looked to capitalize politically off an apolitical movement. I mean the entire idea behind the grass roots tea party movement was anti-establishment, plain ordinary folks thing. Then in steps the establishment which is exactly what it was against! Then they go about supporting a bunch of looney idiots like witches and folks with no common sense (or just sort of the same thing we already have).

For me, I put the blame on them all. I find the lack of any compromise where it should be, on BOTH sides. I do put it more on the left though. I have seen the GOP bend far more than the left. I've seen the right the compromise then the left burn then time and time again, only to have the GOP outraged and fall for it again. Personally I'm tired of the central government that is suppose to represent ALL Americans spend all its time blaming half the nation for all the problems. Both sides need to compromise. I don't expect my side to get everything they want. It shouldn't work that way. Unfortunately the current bunch of clowns we have don't understand that. Instead they are happy getting 99% what they want, not getting 1% then when the 99% fails they claim it didn't work because they only got 99% rather than 100% because the other side didn't give them it all!

[Doc]

I could give Bush II a lot more leeway if he had taken a much harder line against the Democrat controlled Congress by using the line item veto. He also should have come down very hard on scumbags like Barney Frank and his complete failure to keep Fannie Mae & Freddy Mac in line instead of just allowing both to lend money to people who had no real ability to pay it back.
Bush II was too soft in dealing with that version of Congress. He let them swing a lot of bad legislation and then signed off on most of it to appease them, not realizing that they(and he) was setting our country up for bad economic times ahead. He was working with a bunch of snakes who weren't going for the snake charmer routine.
BOTH SIDES share the blame for what happened in the recession of 2008-2009. Just piss poor leadership & legislation all the way around.

You got that right. The left crafted the legislation and the right didn't object, and signed off on it. Both share the blame. Unfortunately its glossed over and only Bush is credited with the "economic meltdown".

[Doc]

If I was to rate worse to best

Carter
Obama
Lbj
Bush 1
Bush 2
Kennedy
Ford
Clinton
Nixon
Reagan



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[jazyd]

I just picked myself off the floor from laughing so hard at the very notion Obama tries to compromise with republicans and the republicans won't budge. Somebody must listen and believe everything Reid, pelosi's and Debbie Schultz says,

Like doc I thought the original thought process of those that started the tea party movement were correct. But now they are no different that the radical left. Watching what they have done in our republican seapnate race has made me turn totally away from them. This my way or the hwy is right out of the democrat play book. They started malicious lies about Cochran with no proof, got a stooge to sneak into Cochrans wife's room at her nursing home to take videos of her to support the lie of Cochran, at 76, having an affair with his executive secretary. The lady has been in the nursing home with Alzheimer's for 14 years and doesn't have a clue. The man behind it was a big tea party supporter. Nasty ads they ran, turned many off and into voting for Cochran such as myself. Their candidate said no room for compromise or reaching across the isle. He is a Trojan horse trial lawyer. The one thing Trent Lott always did was compromise and get things done. Reagan compromised. My side doesn't always have the best ideas.

Everyone hit the head, well almost everyone, on the presidents

LBJ was lining his pockets keeping Nam going. He was dirty and a bad president. Carter was a plain fool. Kennedy was a conservative democrat, would probably be a republican today. Nixon was a good president who ended the war, reached out to China. So he lied about a stupid breakin at democrat headquarters to get campaign info. Big deal, compared to the stuff they do today Nixon was petty and should not have been forced out.clinton lied and he is a hero. At least Clinton was impeached even if the senate failed to convict.
IMO Bush 2 wasn't as bad as some make him out to be. He did try to stop Freddie and Fannie but was blocked by democrats. As far as Iraq, every major intelligence agency including Israel and Russia said Iraq had WMD. IMO they were smuggled out to Syria who has used them. They didn't have to be some enormous thing, Libya hid some of theirs under rose bushes. Bush had balls and took the fight to the terrorists just as Reagan did, Obama has laid down and helped destroy Iraq.

Like doc said, Obama blames everyone but himself. As sun said, Obama refuses to uphold the law and he continues to break the constitution. He should be in jail along with Holder

[blueboss]

I thought no president could be worse than Carter, Obama proved me wrong.

Nuff said...

[CitizenBBN]

LBJ is the worst, and it's not even close.

Obama is 2nd, and that's not close either. The fundamental attack we've seen on the use of executive power and the massive expansion of regulation, mostly in the name of global warming and health care, will be nearly impossible to reverse. The permanence of it is what makes it so bad. I even lay Reid's move in the Senate on confirmation rules at his feet b/c clearly he is in charge of the party and if he says no it doesn't happen, he clearly wanted it and supported it, as part of a broad attempt to do what true socialists want: more concentrated government power without the checks and balances that protect from tyranny of the majority.

Not to mention a foreign policy that is really a non-existent "as long as it doesn't land on me" approach, tens of trillions more in debt, a health care system that is now well and truly broken and a level of acceptance of the use of force by government against political opponents that would make Nixon blush.

it's much worse than Carter. Carter was ineffectual but he didn't implement much of anything long term that couldn't be addressed, and wasn't addressed, by his successor. Getting the EPA back in their box will be very difficult, and unwinding and delivering a REAL health care solution even harder. In foreign policy Carter didn't create a massive immigration disaster that by the time he's gone will turn the US into one of those nations you see on TV with refugee camps and starving kids. the iran situation was bad but he didn't undo our relationship with Israel or Pakistan or the Saudis or the Baathists in Iraq, it was a survivable debacle and largely a result of a revolution that had been brewing for some time.

The worst though is LBJ. It's not close, not within a billion miles of close.

First, no other president has killed 50,000 Americans for no particular reason and still resulted in encouraging our enemies and weakening our nation. It takes a special kind of failure to do that, no other ill-conceived military action in US history has been nearly so bad. The Spanish American war, none of the others are close.

Also LBJ began the War on Poverty, what has become the modern centerpiece of thought for the leftist cause. It began the massive federal spending on direct welfare as opposed to the workfare of the New Deal. It was an utter failure and has doomed generations of Americans to being part of a permanent underclass.

the only offsetting accomplishment was the Civil Rights Act, but that was pushed by Kennedy and in reality the welfare state LBJ kicked off has done far more to damage the black community of America than the Civil Rights Act probably did to help it. He warmly embraced the "victim society" mindset, and no one seemed to notice that his views were not really different than those of slaveholders of the old South when they argued that blacks were best kept as slaves b/c they were children who couldn't care for themselves. The pouring of money into places like East St. Louis was all for naught b/c it changed from the free market approach of trying to provide jobs and industry and economic growth to just spending government money directly. when the money stops you find there is no foundation be it in the family or the city or whatever the target, so the money never stops or it all falls apart. Nothing is ever built.

So he was even more instrumental in the expansion of federal government into our lives and wallets and in the class stratification of American society enforced by the government dole, and he killed 50,000 Americans and forever damaged the lives of so many more.

But Obama is clearly second. He's a REAL LIFE socialist, no jokes or dumb political ads but a real socialist who believes in government centralized everything, and has done as much as he could get done to make America the exact kind of nation our Founders fought to escape.

Obama believes in absolutely NONE of the guiding principles on which this nation was founded. Individual liberty, freedom, opportunity, the right to pursue your own dreams are all inconsequential to him when compared with his view of government enforced social justice. A true leftist and too many Americans simply cannot see it b/c the word "socialist" was thrown towards guys like Carter and such who were liberals but certainly not socialists, and the American notion that nothing is as extreme as people claim.

"You didn't build that" belied his entire mindset. It was not the individual building a business, it was the dirty capitalist exploiting the workers to get ahead. He's far closer to Marx than to Adams.

Sometimes something is as extreme as it seems. Carter wasn't, even LBJ wasn't a socialist, he was just an idiot with no particular philosophy, but Obama is a real life card carrying indoctrinated socialist.

That he's still only #2 is a testament to just how LBJ was.

Oh, after that Nixon is #3, worse than Carter by far. Why? B/c he picked up the LBJ federal football and ran with it, creating the EPA and going off the gold standard among the many highlights. He got us out of Vietnam and had a far more effective foreign policy but the loss of the gold standard helped facilitate this massive government spending spree.

Carter is #4, Then Bush I, then bush II. I need to insert Kennedy and Ford somewhere.

clinton is the 2nd BEST we've had, and Reagan by far is the best president we've had since WWII. clinton was surprisingly limited in his expansion of government,and Reagan of course was the President who finally reframed the debate back to us trying to be America again. Clearly he should have started shooting leftists while we had the chance so they couldn't breed b/c here we are right back dealing with them.

[KeithKSR]

Clinton's administration was marked by a willingness to compromise. One big reason for economic success under Clinton was his being wiling to accept the Gingrich budgets.

Reagan and Tip were able to compromise as well, which was important to dragging the economy out of the dumpster Carter left it in.

If the Congressional leadership or the POTUS refuse to compromise then things do not go well. Neither Obama or Reid are negotiators. The House has passed a crap load of legislation that the Senate won't bring to a vote as long as Reid is in charge.

[Darrell KSR]

Good analysis.

Unfortunately, there are some "good" candidates on that poll. Far too many.


LBJ is the worst, and it's not even close.

Obama is 2nd, and that's not close either. The fundamental attack we've seen on the use of executive power and the massive expansion of regulation, mostly in the name of global warming and health care, will be nearly impossible to reverse. The permanence of it is what makes it so bad. I even lay Reid's move in the Senate on confirmation rules at his feet b/c clearly he is in charge of the party and if he says no it doesn't happen, he clearly wanted it and supported it, as part of a broad attempt to do what true socialists want: more concentrated government power without the checks and balances that protect from tyranny of the majority.

Not to mention a foreign policy that is really a non-existent "as long as it doesn't land on me" approach, tens of trillions more in debt, a health care system that is now well and truly broken and a level of acceptance of the use of force by government against political opponents that would make Nixon blush.

it's much worse than Carter. Carter was ineffectual but he didn't implement much of anything long term that couldn't be addressed, and wasn't addressed, by his successor. Getting the EPA back in their box will be very difficult, and unwinding and delivering a REAL health care solution even harder. In foreign policy Carter didn't create a massive immigration disaster that by the time he's gone will turn the US into one of those nations you see on TV with refugee camps and starving kids. the iran situation was bad but he didn't undo our relationship with Israel or Pakistan or the Saudis or the Baathists in Iraq, it was a survivable debacle and largely a result of a revolution that had been brewing for some time.

The worst though is LBJ. It's not close, not within a billion miles of close.

First, no other president has killed 50,000 Americans for no particular reason and still resulted in encouraging our enemies and weakening our nation. It takes a special kind of failure to do that, no other ill-conceived military action in US history has been nearly so bad. The Spanish American war, none of the others are close.

Also LBJ began the War on Poverty, what has become the modern centerpiece of thought for the leftist cause. It began the massive federal spending on direct welfare as opposed to the workfare of the New Deal. It was an utter failure and has doomed generations of Americans to being part of a permanent underclass.

the only offsetting accomplishment was the Civil Rights Act, but that was pushed by Kennedy and in reality the welfare state LBJ kicked off has done far more to damage the black community of America than the Civil Rights Act probably did to help it. He warmly embraced the "victim society" mindset, and no one seemed to notice that his views were not really different than those of slaveholders of the old South when they argued that blacks were best kept as slaves b/c they were children who couldn't care for themselves. The pouring of money into places like East St. Louis was all for naught b/c it changed from the free market approach of trying to provide jobs and industry and economic growth to just spending government money directly. when the money stops you find there is no foundation be it in the family or the city or whatever the target, so the money never stops or it all falls apart. Nothing is ever built.

So he was even more instrumental in the expansion of federal government into our lives and wallets and in the class stratification of American society enforced by the government dole, and he killed 50,000 Americans and forever damaged the lives of so many more.

But Obama is clearly second. He's a REAL LIFE socialist, no jokes or dumb political ads but a real socialist who believes in government centralized everything, and has done as much as he could get done to make America the exact kind of nation our Founders fought to escape.

Obama believes in absolutely NONE of the guiding principles on which this nation was founded. Individual liberty, freedom, opportunity, the right to pursue your own dreams are all inconsequential to him when compared with his view of government enforced social justice. A true leftist and too many Americans simply cannot see it b/c the word "socialist" was thrown towards guys like Carter and such who were liberals but certainly not socialists, and the American notion that nothing is as extreme as people claim.

"You didn't build that" belied his entire mindset. It was not the individual building a business, it was the dirty capitalist exploiting the workers to get ahead. He's far closer to Marx than to Adams.

Sometimes something is as extreme as it seems. Carter wasn't, even LBJ wasn't a socialist, he was just an idiot with no particular philosophy, but Obama is a real life card carrying indoctrinated socialist.

That he's still only #2 is a testament to just how LBJ was.

Oh, after that Nixon is #3, worse than Carter by far. Why? B/c he picked up the LBJ federal football and ran with it, creating the EPA and going off the gold standard among the many highlights. He got us out of Vietnam and had a far more effective foreign policy but the loss of the gold standard helped facilitate this massive government spending spree.

Carter is #4, Then Bush I, then bush II. I need to insert Kennedy and Ford somewhere.

clinton is the 2nd BEST we've had, and Reagan by far is the best president we've had since WWII. clinton was surprisingly limited in his expansion of government,and Reagan of course was the President who finally reframed the debate back to us trying to be America again. Clearly he should have started shooting leftists while we had the chance so they couldn't breed b/c here we are right back dealing with them.

[Doc]

double post

[Doc]

Fortunately Johnson was a bit before my time. I was just a few months old when Kennedy was assassinated and LBJ assended to the office but I do recall some of the Nixon years forward. Carter is the first president that I recall in much detail, or at least enough to understand first hand. Thus my reluctance to make a call on Johnson based on second hand information so to speak. Clearly some/many of LBJ's decisions and policies are not something I agree with but I based much of my ranking on more than policie and decisions. I put an emphasis on leadership. It is one of the reasons I put Obama so low. In my opinion he is actively blaming 1/2 of this country for its problems and rather than trying to find common ground he is happy to just blame the republicans. While I disagreed with many of Clinton's policies I graded him high because he was able to work with the republicans to get things done. To me that is important, its being a leader. I don't know if LBJ was good at that or not hence I can't grade him high or low in that catagory. However to me that can't trump the ineptness of Carter. I mean he was an unmitigated disaster. This guy took office following what is perhaps the greatest scandle in American politics, where a sitting president resigned office in shame, and in four short years he was unable to get re-elected because of such a poor performance. Heck, even Obama could not duplicate that feat. We had gas rationing, 20% intest rates, inflation went from 5% to 12% (high of nearly 15%), a foreign policy that included Olymipic boycotts and hostages, and his biggest blunder (IMO) would be the Panama Canal treaties

I got looking and found that "American Thinker" agreed with me. This article (http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/02/americas_three_worst_president.html), which predates Obama, has Jimmy as worse followed by James Buchanan and then LBJ. So at least I'm not totally out in left field, at least THIS TIME.

[Doc]

I do admit googling "worse president" will get some pretty funny sites!

[jazyd]

Hard to believe some voted Bush worse than Carter. That is beyond laughable

[Edward100]

It’s a shame that the president can’t run three terms in succession. I would like to see if Obama would carry any state. I have yet to hear anyone say anything good about anything about Obama.

[Darrell KSR]

It’s a shame that the president can’t run three terms in succession. I would like to see if Obama would carry any state. I have yet to hear anyone say anything good about anything about Obama.

You might be surprised.

[suncat05]

Romney was a few points ahead in almost all of the pre-election polls. Not much, as most would consider the difference to be dead even. And on election day "O" wins by 10 points, easy. I knew something was up when he carried Florida. Of course, he carried those liberal bastions of West Palm Beach, Ft. Lauderdale & Miami, and that won the state for him.
I have no proof, but I seriously believe the election was somehow rigged in his favor, probably by all of the dead voters voting numerous times, hundreds of busloads of minority voters being bussed in, and all of his "Obamaphone clientele" somehow managing to show up at the polls.
I watched as he won every 'swing' state, including Florida & Ohio. Again, I can't prove it, but I have my doubts as to how he managed to win with all of the stuff that was going south on him then.
The last election was stolen, IMHO, by a liar & and a pretty damned good thief. I just want to see him get caught up in his own mess and pay the piper for all of the wrong that he's done.
Of course, I also know that is no more than wishful thinking......... :mad0176:

[MTcatfan]

Romney was a few points ahead in almost all of the pre-election polls. Not much, as most would consider the difference to be dead even. And on election day "O" wins by 10 points, easy. I knew something was up when he carried Florida. Of course, he carried those liberal bastions of West Palm Beach, Ft. Lauderdale & Miami, and that won the state for him.
I have no proof, but I seriously believe the election was somehow rigged in his favor, probably by all of the dead voters voting numerous times, hundreds of busloads of minority voters being bussed in, and all of his "Obamaphone clientele" somehow managing to show up at the polls.
I watched as he won every 'swing' state, including Florida & Ohio. Again, I can't prove it, but I have my doubts as to how he managed to win with all of the stuff that was going south on him then.
The last election was stolen, IMHO, by a liar & and a pretty damned good thief. I just want to see him get caught up in his own mess and pay the piper for all of the wrong that he's done.
Of course, I also know that is no more than wishful thinking......... :mad0176:


Wow...amazing this vast conspiracy happened and not ONE person has come out and spoken about it or be caught doing it...I mean if something like this really happened you think that say FoxNews would be all over it trying to prove it, but hummm, nothing...


Now lets take a look at some polls that were taken right before the election:

Gallup Likely Voters: R=49% O=48%
Gallup Registered Voters: : R=46% O=49%


http://www.gallup.com/poll/154559/us-presidential-election-center.aspx
http://www.gallup.com/poll/154559/us-presidential-election-center.aspx


Here is another site that has polling data for almost all states, and here is what the last poll in each state had:

Obama: Ahead in 23 states
Romney: Ahead in 22 states
Tied: 2 states
State with no data: 3

Electoral Count based on polls:

Obama: 217
Romney: 191
Toss UP: 130

http://www.270towin.com/2012-polls/
http://www.270towin.com/2012-election-polling-map/obama-romney/


Another site that tracks 9 different polls, including the Gallup one I already provided:

Obama Ahead: 4
Romney Ahead: 2
Tie: 3

Their Electoral Count was:

Obama: 201
Romney: 191
Toss Up: 146

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/general_election_romney_vs_obama-1171.html
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/2012_elections_electoral_college_map.html




So sorry this conspiracy of yours just doesn't hold water, one because it is asinine, and two because there is no way something so vast could be pulled off without someone talking. You don't think that to pull off such a vast conspiracy there would be at least 1 disgruntled person willing to for free or for some sort of fee, squeal on the conspiracy? I mean really, people are to greedy, and if there was any chance of making money off of squealing, at least 1 person in such a vast conspiracy would say something. This is why conspiracies never work, and why conspiracies are the little boy crying wolf, they are the fodder of movies and books, but real life they just don't happen.

I mean who cares about bussing in minorities, so they don't deserve to vote? Helping them get to the polls is "stealing" an election? You don't think that the Republicans would have bussed tons of underserved Republican voters if there were a chance to do it? The Republicans just either didn't think of it, but should have since Obama did the same things during his first election, or the Republicans didn't have or couldn't find enough voters to bus in to make it worth their efforts.


As far as stolen elections go, that is just stupid. I mean really Obama did not steal his reelection, just as Bush did not steal his election from Gore. Look I did vote for Obama, but I am not above admitting that he has been a disaster in certain areas, but I will not allow people to act this way towards our democratically elected President. Obama won the election and it wasn't really that close, just as Bush won the election against Gore, and I would tell anyone that said he wasn't legit that they were wrong. The amount of insanity from the people against Obama is just amazing to me. I saw a lot of crazy toward Bush, but I am not sure that I have ever seen the amount of vitriol towards Obama than I have ever seen against any other President. I mean it is so prevalent it is amazing, I come to KSR and the vitriol is beyond control, I see facebook posts and emails from people I know and admired and looked up to and the vitriol is beyond control, and being around people in my area the amount of vitriol is beyond control, it is just amazing, and this is what drives me to correct people and to defend people that are being attacked this way. Look I understand your man didn't get elected, but if you are going to give me insane conspiracies, I am going to present some FACTS that show that this just is insane. I just can't help myself, I have done this with UK coaches in the past, and I will do it with everyone whom I feel is being unfairly subjected to vitriol that is out of control. I don't care if I am the only one or one of a handful that does it, but I will do it because that is just who I am.

[MickintheHam]

Note that the poll is public meaning you can see who folks chose. I picked Carter, barely. LBJ was also a consideration. But to me when you look back under Carter we had the Iran hostage debacle, American's held for over a year, the rescue attempt that was a joke, a foreign policy that makes Obama's look like a war monger. an Olympic boycott, interest rates at 20%, a lemonade stand on the white house lawn, Billy Beer, a faux energy crisis, etc.... Only a president as inept as Carter could lose the huge momentum that the democrats had 6 years after a Republican president was impeached and forced out of the white house.

....and he managed to accomplish all of that in less than 4 years.

[UKHistory]

The most popular bad President--Reagan. I love the man's speeches and his commitment to military spending in many ways. But deregulation

The least popular bad President--Obama

But the least from worst to best.

LBJ--Citizen said it well. My favorite LBJ quote began with this opener, "If only only I could be dicator of the world, then I could make something hapen..."

Obama--When inexperience meets incompetence. This is what we get when we as a nation elect a man based on hope and change. Talk about style over stubstance. The worst foreign policy in our lifetime; Obama has the worst group of advisors around. Not sure the Tea Party would have been willing to work with him in good faith, but the man is not a leader.

Ford--He survived assassination attempts and his falls. A member of the Warren Commission he is the only president who was never elected to office. He pardoned Nixon which hurt him politically but spared the country. He lost to Carter. That is like Tubby losing to UAB.

Carter--The most arrogant humble man you will ever meet. Horrific foreign policy that was at odds with itself; the man's gloom and doom speaking did nothing to raise the hope of the country. The Iran hostage crisis, higher costs of fuel, etc was just terrible

Bush 2--for a rich kid born in affluence who had to earn very little in life, a nicer guy that you would think. Most likely the least intelligent President politically or intellectually in the survey. Also the president when my wife and I received the most raises and enjoyed our jobs the most. Horrible decision to go into Iraq. Saw the creation of Homeland Security; passage of the Patriot Act; and was in the White House during the greatest financial crisis since 1929 came about. Love the faith-based initiative and don't want to pay high taxes but you can't wage a war without a draft, without raising taxes or securing the borders and ports. Billions spent and our ports and borders are as unprotected and unsafe as pre 911.

Reagan--great communicator. Helped end the Cold War. Restored the US image abroad. Bombed Libya; Began Glasnos with Gorbachev; Deregulation had long term negative consequences; Iran Contra affair hurt his image. I do fear following his re-election that his dementia began while in office. Al Haig and a few others made him look bad.

Bush 1--War hero, savy foreign policy man that ran the CIA. The handling of Gulf War I is textbook on how to build a global alliance. We also saw how not going to Baghdad and ending the battle at the Kuwait border was either very smart or planted the seeds for Gulf War II.

Kennedy--A great communicator; a trailblazer in terms of being the first Catholic president. A war hero whose leadership kept the world from nuclear destruction (may should be #1 for that reason). Bay of Pigs was a disaster. Chicago and Texas electoral process were shady which helped cost Nixon the election. He hired his brother to be attorney general in an amazing example of arrogance.

Clinton--Clinton's tenure was a peaceful time with econcomic growth due to the dot com boom. He also reminded us all why we have interns. Fathers hide your daughters but that is life.

Nixon--Most brilliant political mind of his generation and a true moderate in many ways. One of the first benefactors of tv (Checkers' speech) and its biggest loser (Kenndy debate that radio listeners thought Nixon won); A paranoid man who hired many a thug and a bully but kept most of them in lower levels. Like Dick Cheney.

Truman--Not the brightest man but reminded all that the military would be kept in check to civilian authority. Pacto mania began and the Marshall Plan came into being on his watch. He had big shoes to fill. Truman also desegreated the Armed forces. The an early but very important step in the Civil Rights movement.

Ike--A warrior president who condemned the military industrial complex; he sent the Army into Littlerock and began America's space program. Didn't stand up to McCarthy or Hoover. But few did. Another potential blemish now is the ousting of the democratic, nationalist prime minister of Iran, Mossadeck.

[Doc]

http://oarsmanbayfiji.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/Alone_on_an_Island.jpg

http://www.pjtf.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/arrow_up_pjtf-150x150.png

DOC

[blueboss]

I asked a coworker this very question today knowing that he is kind of quirky and has a conspiracy theory for about everything under the sun including the sun. Another coworker heard me ask the guy and he said "he's racist you know who he's going to pick" which opened a whole other conversation of why is he considered racist is it just because he doesn't like Obama or is it because he doesn't like Obama because he's half Caucasian?

IMO the coworker who stated "he's racist you know who he is going to pick" is the guy that in all actuality is the racist one..Either way one has nothing to do with the ability of the president whether he's half Caucasian or half oriental.

[jazyd]

Read MTCat on here

PQUOTE=Edward100;197558]It’s a shame that the president can’t run three terms in succession. I would like to see if Obama would carry any state. I have yet to hear anyone say anything good about anything about Obama.[/QUOTE]

[jazyd]

I happen to agree with you, especiallybOhio. Many made fun of Carl rove because of what he predicted night of election., he was totally shocked, why???? But the guy who made me believe it was stole is the guy on a Fox that always does election night and has his finger on precincts like no other. He also predicted Romney to win and take Ohio. He also was in total disbelief of what happened. The guy is just never wrong and he was she'll shocked.
Just as Kennedy "won" Chicago so did Obama win.


QUOTE=suncat05;197581]Romney was a few points ahead in almost all of the pre-election polls. Not much, as most would consider the difference to be dead even. And on election day "O" wins by 10 points, easy. I knew something was up when he carried Florida. Of course, he carried those liberal bastions of West Palm Beach, Ft. Lauderdale & Miami, and that won the state for him.
I have no proof, but I seriously believe the election was somehow rigged in his favor, probably by all of the dead voters voting numerous times, hundreds of busloads of minority voters being bussed in, and all of his "Obamaphone clientele" somehow managing to show up at the polls.
I watched as he won every 'swing' state, including Florida & Ohio. Again, I can't prove it, but I have my doubts as to how he managed to win with all of the stuff that was going south on him then.
The last election was stolen, IMHO, by a liar & and a pretty damned good thief. I just want to see him get caught up in his own mess and pay the piper for all of the wrong that he's done.
Of course, I also know that is no more than wishful thinking......... :mad0176:[/QUOTE]

[KeithKSR]

Wow...amazing this vast conspiracy happened and not ONE person has come out and spoken about it or be caught doing it...I mean if something like this really happened you think that say FoxNews would be all over it trying to prove it, but hummm, nothing...



Just after the 2012 election there was a plethora of news reports claiming reports of fraud were false. However, the wheels of justice turn slowly. Reports of what happened in 2012 did not begin to come out until spring 2013 and continue.

State officials in North Carolina and Ohio found numerous instances of voter fraud. Just a couple of weeks ago a Seattle man was sentenced for ID fraud and voter intimidation tactics for mailing an unknown number of Republicans in Florida letters questioning their voter validity.

Was voter fraud extensive enough to alter the election? I don't know. Did fraud occur? Yes, and it was more prevalent in swing states.

What I find asinine is the thinking that requiring an id is somehow preventing people from voting. You need a photo I'd in order to open a bank account and numerous other activities that are not nearly as important as voting.

My philosophy is that voter fraud is intolerable in the electoral process.

[UKHistory]

As quirky as things can be, I am glad right now he can't run again--just in case.

George Washington was our first president and his leadership sets bar so very high. By choosing to step down after two terms he demonstrated the civility of our Republic and that we would not quickly fall into tryanny. Having two advisors so much in opposition of one another is to his credit as well.

On a personal note, Washington freed his slaves upon his death. While it would have been great had he freed his slaves earlier, at least upon his death those men and women became free. The same could not be said for another great American, Mr. Jefferson.


Read MTCat on here

PQUOTE=Edward100;197558]It’s a shame that the president can’t run three terms in succession. I would like to see if Obama would carry any state. I have yet to hear anyone say anything good about anything about Obama.[/QUOTE]

[Edward100]

MTCat had some great info but that was the last election. I can't believe those figures would be the same today after we saw Obama's true colors. They are not red, white and blue. I have to stand by my statement of not hearing one good thing about Obama.


Read MTCat on here

PQUOTE=Edward100;197558]It’s a shame that the president can’t run three terms in succession. I would like to see if Obama would carry any state. I have yet to hear anyone say anything good about anything about Obama.[/QUOTE]

[Doc]

WOOO HOOO--- at least somebody agrees with me.

[MTcatfan]

MTCat had some great info but that was the last election. I can't believe those figures would be the same today after we saw Obama's true colors. They are not red, white and blue. I have to stand by my statement of not hearing one good thing about Obama.

[/QUOTE]

Yeah, I was not really saying anything nice about Obama, I was just providing some facts to refute the asinine conspiracy theory that Obama stole the election. Was there some voter fraud, absolutely, there always is voter fraud, but was there enough to actually change the election, no, there never is because there is never a fraud that is large enough and coordinated enough to swing an actual Presidential election(again because if there was such a thing it would collapse under its own weight because someone would get paid to talk or someone would get disgruntled and THEN get paid to talk). I was also providing facts to debunk that Romney had some sort of discernible lead in the polls that Obama somehow fraudulently overcame to win the election. The polls show that it was basically a toss up popular vote-wise heading into the election, but based on polling heading into the election Obama had a decent lead in the electoral college, is the polls held true in each state.

Debunking a conspiracy theory is not the same thing as saying nice things about someone. Again Obama no more stole the election with Romney than Bush did when he lost to Gore in the popular vote, but won the electoral college. Obama won, period, Bush won period, and life goes on...


As far as a third term goes, if Christie ran against Obama, Christie would probably whip Obama's butt right now, but if the GOP goes with any of the Tea Party loonies, Obama might be able to squeak out a win. As moderate I would vote for Christie as of now, but I will never in a million years vote for anyone associated with the Tea Party.

[Doc]

In my book one fraudulent vote is one too many. I've never understood the it's not enough to sway an election argument because we tout the importance of your vote. You can't have it both ways. You can't say every vote counts AND fraudulent votes don't matter because there are not enough of them. In that same vein, I never understood the opposition to voter ID. Too hard for some people to get? Really? You are talking about voting here. If it's so damn important then getting an ID really should be worth the trouble to do it


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[KeithKSR]

In my book one fraudulent vote is one too many. I've never understood the it's not enough to sway an election argument because we tout the importance of your vote. You can't have it both ways. You can't say every vote counts AND fraudulent votes don't matter because there are not enough of them. In that same vein, I never understood the opposition to voter ID. Too hard for some people to get? Really? You are talking about voting here. If it's so damn important then getting an ID really should be worth the trouble to do it


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I agree, one fraudulent vote is one too many. I too see a problem with those that want to count every vote, even fraudulent ones. Kentucky voting regulations are way out in front of other states when it comes to preventing fraud.

[jazyd]

To my knowledge we didn't have any problems with voter ID in our recent primaries and it sure didnt keep blacks from voting.

For liberals voting fraud is fine because it usually helps them and they use MT
'S excuse. But if there us one single irregular vote from the GOP side, heaven help all of us from the hissy fit the liberals would throw.

There was fraud in Ohio last election, southern Ohio. Obama is Chicago politics, think Kennedy/Nixon/100,000 votes



In my book one fraudulent vote is one too many. I've never understood the it's not enough to sway an election argument because we tout the importance of your vote. You can't have it both ways. You can't say every vote counts AND fraudulent votes don't matter because there are not enough of them. In that same vein, I never understood the opposition to voter ID. Too hard for some people to get? Really? You are talking about voting here. If it's so damn important then getting an ID really should be worth the trouble to do it


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[MickintheHam]

As moderate I would vote for Christie as of now, but I will never in a million years vote for anyone associated with the Tea Party.[/QUOTE]

Pretty biased in your judgement aren't you?? Can't look past labels. What else? skin color? religion? region of the country?

[Doc]

I see Mick went with Obama. That surprises me. I mean this guy names his Christmas tree after Obama so how could he consider him the worse president?

[KeithKSR]

As far as a third term goes, if Christie ran against Obama, Christie would probably whip Obama's butt right now, but if the GOP goes with any of the Tea Party loonies, Obama might be able to squeak out a win. As moderate I would vote for Christie as of now, but I will never in a million years vote for anyone associated with the Tea Party.

There are a wide range of individuals that have been labeled as being in the TEA Party, the tie that binds is that they are fiscally conservative. In other areas their philosophies run the gamut. I vote for individuals, not the party, because when you get away from the extremes there isn't a lot of difference.

[MTcatfan]

There are a wide range of individuals that have been labeled as being in the TEA Party, the tie that binds is that they are fiscally conservative. In other areas their philosophies run the gamut. I vote for individuals, not the party, because when you get away from the extremes there isn't a lot of difference.

I vote for the individual also, I mean if you look at my first post since I have been able to vote for President, I have voted for Obama twice, Bush II twice, Clinton once, and Bush I once, so I am definitely one that looks at the individual. The thing is so far I have not seen one Tea Party person that I would vote for, so that is why I tend to paint with a broad brush with the Tea Party. Notice I said TEA PARTY, not Republican, because while I have yet to see any Tea Party candidate I would vote for in any type of election, there are Republicans that I do vote for and will vote for in any election.




As moderate I would vote for Christie as of now, but I will never in a million years vote for anyone associated with the Tea Party.

Pretty biased in your judgement aren't you?? Can't look past labels. What else? skin color? religion? region of the country?


I can look past labels easily, hopefully you read my response above to Keith. I will say again for emphasis, I will vote for a Republican, I will vote for a Democrat, and I have yet to find a single Tea Party candidate that I would vote for. I personally don't care what the person's sex, age, religion, skin color or where they are from(except maybe North Dakota...:evilgrin0007: to a Montanan North Dakota=Tennessee to a Kentuckian) if they are a good candidate I will vote for them. I guess when I see the Tea Party I just don't see a candidate I can support, there have been a couple of Tea Partiers in local elections(or Constitution Party candidates as they call themselves in Montana and predate the Tea Party), and in Montana elections and I just can't support them, their world views are off the wall or in my local elections are just the most racist people around. As far as the viable Presidential candidates, I just don't like Cruz, Paul, Rubio, Perry, Huckabee, Cain, Santorum, and probably a couple others I can't remember, that I believe are all Tea Party darlings, I just have issues with every single one of them. Like I said this isn't some sort of broad brush for all Republicans, I mean I would vote for Christie and he is a GOP member.

Now if it want to call it bias, you can call it bias, but how is that any different than how anyone chooses a candidate to vote for? I follow politics enough, and I am open minded enough, and I am a big enough researcher to make up my mind on every viable candidate, to run every single candidate through my personal beliefs in what I want to see in a candidate and then pick the one I will support while eliminating all other candidates. I guess I just don't see what it wrong with doing it that way? I mean how else am I supposed to pick a candidate?

[MTcatfan]

To my knowledge we didn't have any problems with voter ID in our recent primaries and it sure didnt keep blacks from voting.

For liberals voting fraud is fine because it usually helps them and they use MT
'S excuse. But if there us one single irregular vote from the GOP side, heaven help all of us from the hissy fit the liberals would throw.

There was fraud in Ohio last election, southern Ohio. Obama is Chicago politics, think Kennedy/Nixon/100,000 votes

I am just one that doesn't pretend that one side cheats more than the other, both sides cheat to get their way, that is just the American way of politics. Cheating is cheating and it shouldn't be tolerated, I just don't believe in the vast conspiracy theories that cheating on a wide scale could sway an election that was decided by 5 million votes. If it is closer, cheating can and does win elections, but there is no way a conspiracy as vast as what it would take to change enough states to change an Presidential election could exist without someone ratting it out. I mean voter fraud may change 1 or 2 states, but Obama won the electoral college by so much there just isn't any way voter fraud could have swayed the election by that much. If it sound to good to be true, then it is to good to be true...

[KeithKSR]

I vote for the individual also, I mean if you look at my first post since I have been able to vote for President, I have voted for Obama twice, Bush II twice, Clinton once, and Bush I once, so I am definitely one that looks at the individual. The thing is so far I have not seen one Tea Party person that I would vote for, so that is why I tend to paint with a broad brush with the Tea Party. Notice I said TEA PARTY, not Republican, because while I have yet to see any Tea Party candidate I would vote for in any type of election, there are Republicans that I do vote for and will vote for in any election.


There is a lot to like in a lot of the TEA party type candidates if one looks into realities and explores the distortions presented by the far left and the entrenched Republicans that fear losing their seats in Congress.

[Doc]

There is a lot to like in a lot of the TEA party type candidates if one looks into realities and explores the distortions presented by the far left and the entrenched Republicans that fear losing their seats in Congress.

Unfortunately it is not only the far left that has distorted the Tea Party. Some within the Republican party have done so as well. Some have use it to further their own agenda by manipulating it from within while others have done the same thru manipulation from the outside. Its a shame that a movement that was anti-establishment has fallen victim to the establishment.

[MickintheHam]

I vote for the individual also, I mean if you look at my first post since I have been able to vote for President, I have voted for Obama twice, Bush II twice, Clinton once, and Bush I once, so I am definitely one that looks at the individual. The thing is so far I have not seen one Tea Party person that I would vote for, so that is why I tend to paint with a broad brush with the Tea Party. Notice I said TEA PARTY, not Republican, because while I have yet to see any Tea Party candidate I would vote for in any type of election, there are Republicans that I do vote for and will vote for in any election.






I can look past labels easily, hopefully you read my response above to Keith. I will say again for emphasis, I will vote for a Republican, I will vote for a Democrat, and I have yet to find a single Tea Party candidate that I would vote for. I personally don't care what the person's sex, age, religion, skin color or where they are from(except maybe North Dakota...:evilgrin0007: to a Montanan North Dakota=Tennessee to a Kentuckian) if they are a good candidate I will vote for them. I guess when I see the Tea Party I just don't see a candidate I can support, there have been a couple of Tea Partiers in local elections(or Constitution Party candidates as they call themselves in Montana and predate the Tea Party), and in Montana elections and I just can't support them, their world views are off the wall or in my local elections are just the most racist people around. As far as the viable Presidential candidates, I just don't like Cruz, Paul, Rubio, Perry, Huckabee, Cain, Santorum, and probably a couple others I can't remember, that I believe are all Tea Party darlings, I just have issues with every single one of them. Like I said this isn't some sort of broad brush for all Republicans, I mean I would vote for Christie and he is a GOP member.

Now if it want to call it bias, you can call it bias, but how is that any different than how anyone chooses a candidate to vote for? I follow politics enough, and I am open minded enough, and I am a big enough researcher to make up my mind on every viable candidate, to run every single candidate through my personal beliefs in what I want to see in a candidate and then pick the one I will support while eliminating all other candidates. I guess I just don't see what it wrong with doing it that way? I mean how else am I supposed to pick a candidate?

You labeled a fairly large segment of the population as loonies and then state you can't vote for anyone with that label. Now you are backtracking. But your biases and prejudice come through LOUD and CLEAR!

[MickintheHam]

I see Mick went with Obama. That surprises me. I mean this guy names his Christmas tree after Obama so how could he consider him the worse president?

Well it could have easily been Carter. The significant difference is Carter went after the Hostages in Iran, albeit a poorly executed attempt. I think he respected the military. Obama is letting our Marine rot in a Mexican jail and has nothing but contempt for the military.

Neither 20% interest rates or 0% interest rates do the country much good. So economics is pretty much a wash. Both are clueless.

[MTcatfan]

You labeled a fairly large segment of the population as loonies and then state you can't vote for anyone with that label. Now you are backtracking. But your biases and prejudice come through LOUD and CLEAR!

Mick what in the hell are you talking about? I don't like the Tea Party, that is my prerogative...Also if you actually READ what I typed I typed: if the GOP goes with any of the Tea Party loonies, Obama might be able to squeak out a win. and I am talking SPECIFICALLY about a Presidential election, therefore logically I am calling Cruz, Paul, Cain, Huckabee, Rubio, Perry, and Santorum loonies, I am NOT calling a fairly large segment of the population. To suggest otherwise is asinine, as I am CLEARLY talking about the handful of no more than 10 Tea Party potential Presidential candidates. Please try to not to put words in my mouth, I know how I feel about the Tea Party, and something tells me it mirrors how you feel about Democrats. Plus my further explanation of things isn't back tracking, it is clarifying something you OBVIOUSLY misinterpreted.

Plus how did I backtrack, I still stated in my response that I will not vote for any Tea Party candidate, and it is not prejudice and bias, it is just that I have NO political ideology in common with them(actually I will backtrack a minute here, there are SOME philosophies I do agree with them, but when I take their views as a WHOLE, I just could never vote for any of them, look you are either for less government in EVERY aspect, or you are not, and to me most Tea Partiers are not for less government, they just want to shift the government to fit their view of government, which I do not entirely agree). I guess I also don't understand why it is wrong to have bias', I mean we all have them right? How do we come up with our political affiliations and our political ideology? Aren't forming ANY opinions based on a certain amount of bias? I mean what do you base your political views on?


Also stop beating around the bush, come out and tell me what prejudice I am having coming through loud and clear? I do have prejudices, as does everyone, but I am not prejudiced based on race, sex, religion, etc. I love all people, but that doesn't mean that I am going to vote for Rand Paul, and his being a white, Christian has nothing to do with anything(though that dead squirrel on his head I may be against), I just don't agree with his political views, views he has every right to have, and views I have every damn right to disagree with without being called biased or prejudiced...

[KeithKSR]

Unfortunately it is not only the far left that has distorted the Tea Party. Some within the Republican party have done so as well. Some have use it to further their own agenda by manipulating it from within while others have done the same thru manipulation from the outside. Its a shame that a movement that was anti-establishment has fallen victim to the establishment.

That is very true, and why I included entrenched Republicans among those that have distorted TEA Party positions.

[KeithKSR]

Looking at your list of "loonies" I see the bulk of the members of the GOP likely to win a national election. The only negative I have seen on Rubio is that he had to drink water while giving a televised rebuttal. Rand Paul is more of a Libertarian, and focuses on individual rights. Santorum says some goofy things. Cain and the Tea Party?

If the TEA Party types are racists how can the minorities be included?

[Doc]

Looking at your list of "loonies" I see the bulk of the members of the GOP likely to win a national election. The only negative I have seen on Rubio is that he had to drink water while giving a televised rebuttal. Rand Paul is more of a Libertarian, and focuses on individual rights. Santorum says some goofy things. Cain and the Tea Party?

If the TEA Party types are racists how can the minorities be included?


I'm a big Rubio fan and have been for years. He is far from a loon. Only a couple things that have been controversial with him. One being the immigration aspect but then his history certainly makes that understandable. Also there was some "creationism" issue, stuff about the age of the earth. In my book none of that matters. What one believes religiously is their beliefs and has no relevance to how they should govern so long as they keep their beliefs out of how they govern. Its one of the few aspects I don't like about Huckabee. Its one of the big things I don't like about Santorum. But back to Rubio, he is pretty much a no nonsense and logical person. If he runs, I'd vote for him in a heart beat.

[KSRBEvans]

WOOO HOOO--- at least somebody agrees with me.

Doc, that's me. Carter is the guy who made me a Reagan Republican. People forget how bad things were in 1980 after less than 4 years of Jimmy Carter. As bad as the financial crisis of 2008 was, I remember the stagflation of the Carter Era as being worse. The double-digit inflation was a cancer in the paycheck of those Americans who had jobs. Carter's impotent attempt to control that through wage and price controls was laughed at even by members of his own party.

As for defense and foreign policy: other than the Camp David Treaty, I can't think of one Carter initiative that wasn't a disaster.

And don't get me started on the whiny little "malaise" speech.

I put LBJ slightly ahead of Carter. Even though his Great Society and Vietnam War initiatives were huge mistakes, his support for the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act puts him slightly ahead of Carter for me.

One can make a good argument for Obama and I won't fault those who list him there. But the suckitude of the Carter Era needs more prominence than it's given--hence, my vote.

[dan_bgblue]

What tipped the scale for me between Carter and LBJ, was that LBJ knew exactly what he was doing and why, but Carter did not have a clue.

[Doc]

Doc, that's me. Carter is the guy who made me a Reagan Republican. People forget how bad things were in 1980 after less than 4 years of Jimmy Carter. As bad as the financial crisis of 2008 was, I remember the stagflation of the Carter Era as being worse. The double-digit inflation was a cancer in the paycheck of those Americans who had jobs. Carter's impotent attempt to control that through wage and price controls was laughed at even by members of his own party.

As for defense and foreign policy: other than the Camp David Treaty, I can't think of one Carter initiative that wasn't a disaster.

And don't get me started on the whiny little "malaise" speech.

I put LBJ slightly ahead of Carter. Even though his Great Society and Vietnam War initiatives were huge mistakes, his support for the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act puts him slightly ahead of Carter for me.

One can make a good argument for Obama and I won't fault those who list him there. But the suckitude of the Carter Era needs more prominence than it's given--hence, my vote.

Yeah, its a "Public" poll meaning you can see who voted for whom by clicking on the number. I was getting lonely. I was a little tike but still recall how bad he was

[badrose]

What tipped the scale for me between Carter and LBJ, was that LBJ knew exactly what he was doing and why, but Carter did not have a clue.

Which is why I picked Obama. It's hard to watch what he's done and not believe he hates this country.

[CitizenBBN]

mtcatfan -

I'm curious what Paul and Rubio have done to be given the "loonies" label.

FWIW I agree there are some definite loonies in the broad "tea party" umbrella, but as Keith said the "Tea Party" is really a populist political movement and as such beyond a general level of fiscal conservatism their philosophies are all over the map. Some are socially conservative, but most are pretty Libertarian, including Rand Paul.

It's true that as a bit of an isolationist and Libertarian he has some less mainstream views on those issues, but not sure that's nearly enough to raise him to "looney". Rubio I really don't get at all, he's not even out of step on those issues.

I consider myself a libertarian and while no candidate is ideal, I could live with Paul b/c of his basic philosophy and desire to dismantle the post Great Society victim society as much as possible, knowing we'd also scale back on the use of force abroad and that would be a mixed bag for us.

Is it Libertarianism itself that is looney or just something Paul et al specifically embraces within it that is the issue? I agree completely there are elements within the Tea Party and Libertarians who are everywhere from on the fringe to card carrying nut jobs, but I don't see that in some of the major national guys you listed.

[jazyd]

I no longer support the many tea parties in Miss after our senate primary. The tea party and their Trojan horse candidate turned me and many others against them. And forced us to vote for an incumbent

But to call all those people loonies, not going to say what I think.

Like doc I like Rubio., like Paul. They may be supported by tea party but I doubt they are true to that movement.

The tea party was a good movement in the beginning and what they wanted, but now they are no different than the radical left. It's their way or else . Take Hannity who is all in with the tea party. He said on his show that anyone who voted for Cochran is a rino. He also told all in miss who voted for McDaniels to not vote in the general election even if it meant not taking the senate back just to show up the GOP. That's looney.

[KeithKSR]

I no longer support the many tea parties in Miss after our senate primary. The tea party and their Trojan horse candidate turned me and many others against them. And forced us to vote for an incumbent

But to call all those people loonies, not going to say what I think.

Like doc I like Rubio., like Paul. They may be supported by tea party but I doubt they are true to that movement.

The tea party was a good movement in the beginning and what they wanted, but now they are no different than the radical left. It's their way or else . Take Hannity who is all in with the tea party. He said on his show that anyone who voted for Cochran is a rino. He also told all in miss who voted for McDaniels to not vote in the general election even if it meant not taking the senate back just to show up the GOP. That's looney.

That election in Mississippi was a mess. The voters of Mississippi didn't have a good choice no matter what they did. Both campaigns stepped over the line in their tactics.

[Doc]

As for the tea party, I'm so mad I could spit. It started out as a grass roots movement by real people who were sick and tired of the bullshit politics where every problem was simply "solved" by throwing more money at it. Where problems were "solved" by making back room deals to get people re-elected and bring money to their district at the expense of the nation. The original Tea Partier's were just sick and tired of that and wanted something different. Then in stepped the politicians like Sarah Palin. Sean Hannity and others on the right who felt they could infiltrate it to THEIR advantage and politicians like Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid on the left who felt they could discredit it to THEIR advantage. The entire purpose of it was that it wasn't an organization but rather an unorganized movement of people who were just sick of the same ol same ol. It was people who wanted real change and then the folks who the old establishment got the dirty grubby hands on it because it suited their purpose. So while folks like MT and Jazy might by disgusted by the Tea Party it isn't the Tea Party that they should be angry with. Its the posers who ripped it off.

[jazyd]

You said it perfectly and one fo the problems is those grass roots people can't see the forest for the trees the way the its been hijacked from them, its almost like a cult where what the leader says goes. Its really amazing to talk to them, many are friends and they just can't see what they have been lead to. The movement was good, many that were sent to congress were good, but as so often happens, the greed by those at the top takes over. And yes Hannity and Reid both have used it to their advantage, Hannity is raking in huge dollars because of it. I read his contract with Fox is $20 million a year.


As for the tea party, I'm so mad I could spit. It started out as a grass roots movement by real people who were sick and tired of the bullshit politics where every problem was simply "solved" by throwing more money at it. Where problems were "solved" by making back room deals to get people re-elected and bring money to their district at the expense of the nation. The original Tea Partier's were just sick and tired of that and wanted something different. Then in stepped the politicians like Sarah Palin. Sean Hannity and others on the right who felt they could infiltrate it to THEIR advantage and politicians like Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid on the left who felt they could discredit it to THEIR advantage. The entire purpose of it was that it wasn't an organization but rather an unorganized movement of people who were just sick of the same ol same ol. It was people who wanted real change and then the folks who the old establishment got the dirty grubby hands on it because it suited their purpose. So while folks like MT and Jazy might by disgusted by the Tea Party it isn't the Tea Party that they should be angry with. Its the posers who ripped it off.

[MTcatfan]

mtcatfan -

I'm curious what Paul and Rubio have done to be given the "loonies" label.

FWIW I agree there are some definite loonies in the broad "tea party" umbrella, but as Keith said the "Tea Party" is really a populist political movement and as such beyond a general level of fiscal conservatism their philosophies are all over the map. Some are socially conservative, but most are pretty Libertarian, including Rand Paul.

It's true that as a bit of an isolationist and Libertarian he has some less mainstream views on those issues, but not sure that's nearly enough to raise him to "looney". Rubio I really don't get at all, he's not even out of step on those issues.

I consider myself a libertarian and while no candidate is ideal, I could live with Paul b/c of his basic philosophy and desire to dismantle the post Great Society victim society as much as possible, knowing we'd also scale back on the use of force abroad and that would be a mixed bag for us.

Is it Libertarianism itself that is looney or just something Paul et al specifically embraces within it that is the issue? I agree completely there are elements within the Tea Party and Libertarians who are everywhere from on the fringe to card carrying nut jobs, but I don't see that in some of the major national guys you listed.



What you want to discuss without accusations of bias and prejudice...unheard of...though I will say that I don't care if I am told I am being biased, because you are damn right I am being biased, just as EVERY SINGLE PERSON IN THIS BOARD IS BIASED. Bias is exactly how we form our political views, we have biases and we used those biases to form our political views. To me bias is way, way, way, different than prejudice. I am not prejudiced, I like all people, even far right conservatives:evilgrin0007:...


Libertarianism isn't loony at all, I just am not sure that there is a true libertarian out there, it seems to me that a lot of the Tea Party/Libertarians, profess to be for small government, but really just want to "shift" government to fit their needs. They want to remove the government from say the doctors office, but then want to insert it into everyone's bedrooms. So I guess I don't particularly agree with such tactics. Plus Libertarianism isn't any loonier than I am because I am fairly Libertarian myself, but I am also fairly liberal also, but have some conservative views to, so to me the Tea Party just seems to extreme on a national scale, and is way, way scary for me personally on a local scale.

Now that said I will need a little more time to get to know certain candidates, with say Rand Paul I don't like his views on some social issues, and I think he is to much of an isolationist, while I am not a fan of the bury the head in the sand and pretend things don't exist way of foreign policy that Obama has adopted, I also don't agree with ignore the fact that the US exists in a global society and sometimes that means the US, as a superpower is going to have to get their hands dirty. As far as Rubio goes, he is probably the one I am least familiar with, but I will say that on a quick view I am probably against some of his social views, but can't comment much past that.

[KeithKSR]

Rand Paul drives the traditional GOP people nuts with his stance on some issues, like U.S. military involvement in places where we aren't wanted.

[Doc]

Wonder how this guy would vote

http://img.tapatalk.com/d/14/07/16/hugejevy.jpg

Picture taken today


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[suncat05]

Gotta like them 'good 'ol boys' in Martin County, FL. Of course, that could be anywhere in most of Florida's 67 counties. And you'd still see that in parts of those left-wing, limp wristed liberal bastions like Miami-Dade, Broward, & Palm Beach counties too.

[Doc]

Can I change my vote?

[MickintheHam]

Can I change my vote?

Absolutely! Join the tens of millions of Americans who are now recognizing an empty suit.

[jazyd]

But will they remember or forget and vote for the 'pantsuit' which is just as empty


Absolutely! Join the tens of millions of Americans who are now recognizing an empty suit.

[Doc]

But will they remember or forget and vote for the 'pantsuit' which is just as empty

Crankles?