• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Worst American Presidents

Worst American President


  • Total voters
    83
Oh, why am I not surprised. Using your own method of testing, Bush would come out a genius, right?;)

Now you're just acting like a partisan hack. I am a progressive who had no love for Bush. However, if you are going to go after someone, it would be a good idea if you actually had facts, You had none, and in fact, you had a fabrication. I called you on it. Don't like it? Here's a suggestion. Don't do it.
 
I voted Obama... mine wasn't SPAM... although I do enjoy spam, spam, spam, eggs, sausage and spam now and then.

And how is a vote determined to be spam, anyway?
 
Visitors can vote in the poll. Meaning some ass just would come vote clear his cookies and vote again.
 
I voted Obama... mine wasn't SPAM... although I do enjoy spam, spam, spam, eggs, sausage and spam now and then.

And how is a vote determined to be spam, anyway?

As an Admin, I can see whether the votes were made by members or "guests". Well over 100 of those who voted for Obama were guests. We've seen this before. Conservative posters, wanting to "stack the deck" log off and vote... thinking they're cute. Unfortunately for them, I can see the REAL vote of the membership at DP.

The REAL vote is 12 for Obama, 21 for Bush.
 
Visitors can vote in the poll. Meaning some ass just would come vote clear his cookies and vote again.

Can't they make the polls members only?

Or, since the subject has been broached by a moderator or administrator that 'the majority' of votes were bogus, can't they simply delete the bogus votes or further expand on their statement by stating that X number of votes in each category are legitimate... listing each category and the number of real votes? That's about the only way to make the poll legitimate again.

NOTE: I was typing this while CC was typing his post.... he just hit REPLY first;)
 
Last edited:
Visitors can vote in the poll. Meaning some ass just would come vote clear his cookies and vote again.

Yup. Happens in every "Who is the worst President" poll and every Gay Marriage poll. Some anti-Obama folks and anti-GM folks are so insecure about their positions that they need to try to cheat the poll. That's why I always expose the fabrication. Demonstrates their weakness in their own convictions.
 
Can't they make the polls members only?

Or, since the subject has been broached by a moderator or administrator that 'the majority' of votes were bogus, can't they simply delete the bogus votes or further expand on their statement by stating that X number of votes in each category are legitimate... listing each category and the number of real votes? That's about the only way to make the poll legitimate again.

I usually post that if requested. This only occurs in the "Polls" sub-forum. We DO want guests to vote... legitimate guests. It may encourage them to sign up.
 
And if you do what I do, and ignore anyone who answered the last two presidents (or call them an idiot, whichever), then the poll looks really different.
 
again you have been seduced by the socialist side of the force, you have bought into the lie that dem welfare programs were designed to actually help people rather than to empower the politicians who created the programs. Uber rich want the tax cuts to expire in order to gain votes from people who feel as you do because being in office makes more money for them than not being in office or not having their politicians in office
The ultra rich don't want the tax cuts to expire. Where do you get that notion?
Do you know how long Welfare has been in effect? There have been Republicans in office as well as Democrats - if what you are suggesting is true, the Democrats would always be in office.
The Republicans in Congress are also ones that don't want the tax cuts to expire - so your suggestion is that they are willing to give up votes in order to help the rich, which in turn helps the poor?

And so the myth of republicans as the party of the budget-conscious suffers yet another crushing blow. Their true platform is clearly to extend tax cuts to the wealthy people who have given them money, as the economic “theory” behind tax cuts for the rich as a stimulus for the economy has been destroyed by facts so many times it’s not even funny. Tax cuts for the rich are effectively non-stimulatory, as they have repeatedly been shown to produce no changes in spending. The republicans are selling us deeper into debt with this one, and decades of economic data say that their only argument for doing so is a complete and utter falsehood.

Senate Republicans firm on tax cuts for rich | Reuters
you ever hear of Carnegie? he allowed the unions into his steel company and with that power unions spread to his competition who could not afford union wages-they went bankrupt, carnegie bought them up and then crushed the unions. simple people playing chess only see one move ahead. simple people though Fisher lost "the game of the century" when he sacrificed his queen. in reality, he sucked Byrne into a trap that the other master could not recover from. There is an old Asian adage of taking one step back to take two steps forward and that is what the uber wealthy dems do by conceding higher tax rates in order to buy the allegiance of people such as you.
I don't know where you get your information, but it appears to be coming from some right-wing source that wants you to believe it is in your best interest, if you are middle class and below, when the facts show the opposite to be true.

There is one way to get business and financial elites to reinvest in the economy - take the money from them. This policy option is, after all, the law, considering that the Bush administration explicitly set up their tax cuts to expire by the end of the 2000s. The Bush tax cuts will only be allowed to continue if the Democratic Party (or a split government following the midterm elections) agrees to extend them. We have a real chance over the next year to take a stand against corporate corruption and greed. Americans can demand that the Bush era tax cuts for the rich come to an end, or they can sit by and watch while Republicans (and conservative Democrats) push for their extension. The latter path will spell disaster for America's working class, while the rich will be left laughing all the way to the bank.
t r u t h o u t | The Coming Tax War: How Letting the Bush Tax Cuts Expire Could End the Economic Crisis



jacking taxes up on the rich allows dems to claim they want to stop the reckless increase in deficits when in reality it allows them to spend more and more and more to buy your votes. the deficit will not decrease becasue the dems have to keep spending in order to maintain power and the rich don't have unlimited funds-and many of them will go into serious tax avoidance ploys or leave the country.
Do you have sources at all to back your statements, or you just repeating what you hear Limbaugh or Beck or some other wealthy Republican spew out? The deficit will decrease, because those tax cuts will not have to be paid for, if they expire. Your fabrication sounds like the "fear machine" of the Republican party has been doing a number on you.
 
I usually post that if requested. This only occurs in the "Polls" sub-forum. We DO want guests to vote... legitimate guests. It may encourage them to sign up.

It is a known fact that there are trolls that sign up at the different forums, and they usually have several sock puppets also. You can tell because if you check the number of posts they make, they are usually very low or none. In the case of this poll, not everyone that votes is posting comments, so you don't know if they are legit or trolls.

Another factor, some forums tend to lean right or left, and that is going to affect the outcome of any poll.

What you are getting is the opinion of this forum, which may be heavily tilted to one side - Obama is not the worst president, and everyone knows it, but it makes those that oppose him to feel good to see a fictitious poll show that.
 
Just from my memory...
LBJ lied to us about Gulf of Tonkin incident...got lots of people killed.
Nixon lied about bombing Cambodia...got lots of people killed.
Reagan lied about Latin America, got lots of people killed.
Both Bush's lied about their respective wars, got lots of people killed.
Even Clinton lied about the reasons for his wars.

See a pattern here?
a better poll would be about GOOD presidents, it would certainly be a smaller list to choose from..
 
Just from my memory...
LBJ lied to us about Gulf of Tonkin incident...got lots of people killed.
Nixon lied about bombing Cambodia...got lots of people killed.
Reagan lied about Latin America, got lots of people killed.
Both Bush's lied about their respective wars, got lots of people killed.
Even Clinton lied about the reasons for his wars.

See a pattern here?
a better poll would be about GOOD presidents, it would certainly be a smaller list to choose from..

William Henry Harrison. He had no time to lie. Just to sneeze.
 
Clearly the answer for best is U.S. President Dwayne Elizondo Mountain Dew Herbert Camacho. Either that or President Bartlet. *wank
 
FDR's evil permeates American society-and more importantly-American Jurisprudence-to this day. No new deal and no lapdog judges, and we wouldn't have a huge bureaucracy and a massive debt

FDR, the liberal's liberal, was a socialist.
 
The ultra rich don't want the tax cuts to expire. Where do you get that notion?
Do you know how long Welfare has been in effect? There have been Republicans in office as well as Democrats - if what you are suggesting is true, the Democrats would always be in office.
The Republicans in Congress are also ones that don't want the tax cuts to expire - so your suggestion is that they are willing to give up votes in order to help the rich, which in turn helps the poor?

And so the myth of republicans as the party of the budget-conscious suffers yet another crushing blow. Their true platform is clearly to extend tax cuts to the wealthy people who have given them money, as the economic “theory” behind tax cuts for the rich as a stimulus for the economy has been destroyed by facts so many times it’s not even funny. Tax cuts for the rich are effectively non-stimulatory, as they have repeatedly been shown to produce no changes in spending. The republicans are selling us deeper into debt with this one, and decades of economic data say that their only argument for doing so is a complete and utter falsehood.

Senate Republicans firm on tax cuts for rich | Reuters

I don't know where you get your information, but it appears to be coming from some right-wing source that wants you to believe it is in your best interest, if you are middle class and below, when the facts show the opposite to be true.

There is one way to get business and financial elites to reinvest in the economy - take the money from them. This policy option is, after all, the law, considering that the Bush administration explicitly set up their tax cuts to expire by the end of the 2000s. The Bush tax cuts will only be allowed to continue if the Democratic Party (or a split government following the midterm elections) agrees to extend them. We have a real chance over the next year to take a stand against corporate corruption and greed. Americans can demand that the Bush era tax cuts for the rich come to an end, or they can sit by and watch while Republicans (and conservative Democrats) push for their extension. The latter path will spell disaster for America's working class, while the rich will be left laughing all the way to the bank.
t r u t h o u t | The Coming Tax War: How Letting the Bush Tax Cuts Expire Could End the Economic Crisis




Do you have sources at all to back your statements, or you just repeating what you hear Limbaugh or Beck or some other wealthy Republican spew out? The deficit will decrease, because those tax cuts will not have to be paid for, if they expire. Your fabrication sounds like the "fear machine" of the Republican party has been doing a number on you.

do the left wingers assume that any time anyone disagrees with their welfare-socialist psychobabble that the person must have gone to Rush for talking points?? I was conservative long before anyone heard of the fat man from Cape Giradieu. Just because you might get your parrot speak from the Daily Kos or MOve On doesn't mean I need someone to tell me how to think.
 
I've read SC's "Declaration". Didn't sway me in the least. And though Texas v. White was after the Civil War, it did not set law. All it did was CONFIRM law. When it was decided is irrelevant to what the decision was.

What law did it confirm? An actual citation of the law prohibiting secession is all that I need.
 
Fictional or not, Jed Bartlett is a Democrat even I would vote for.

I wouldn't--Martin Sheen flunked the entrance exam into the University of Dayton
 
What law did it confirm? An actual citation of the law prohibiting secession is all that I need.

We've been through this several times, and each time I've proven you wrong. I'm not going to derail this thread just to do so again.
 
Back
Top Bottom