• 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
… people are so blinded by their partisan hackery …

No need for name calling.

The plurality of voting members chose George W. Bush as the worst president in American history and why not? His administration was a catastrophe for this country. 9-11. Iraq. Katrina. The 2008 recession. To name just a few.

Imposing arbitrary standards on when someone can legitimately vote for Bush as the worst president is bogus. Doctor cure thyself.
 
No need for name calling.

The plurality of voting members chose George W. Bush as the worst president in American history and why not? His administration was a catastrophe for this country. 9-11. Iraq. Katrina. The 2008 recession. To name just a few.

Imposing arbitrary standards on when someone can legitimately vote for Bush as the worst president is bogus. Doctor cure thyself.

the ignorance of many people is a given. Calling Bush the worst president ever is the sign of profound ignorance
 
Define "finish"...we still have troops in Germany, Japan, Korea, Bosnia...

Kennedy...but then that wasnt REALLY his choice...Johnson...thats two...

The 'war' against Afghanistan and Iraq were over in 2003. I know you are too busy dabbing at the drool to recognize that...but...true story. See...we are actually allied with the Iraqi and Afgahni government now. I now thats hard for you to accept, but its true. The 'war' wasnt the problem. Where Bush did a lousy job was after the war ended.

And throughout the history of the world, Europe has never been so stable as since there was permanent American presence.
 
lol, Bush single handily was the worst president.. led America into war in Iraq over bull**** Intel... while squandering away any chance of having success in Afghanistan. Literally throwing trillions of dollars away chasing after bin laden. Led the US in the worst recession since the great depression. Increased national debt by double and turned the surplus he gained from Clinton into massive deficits. He single headedly destroyed america's reputation globally and should be regarded as a national embarrassment. You conservatives stroking yourselves over bush are really living in another world.

You are obviously not familiar with Wilson and FDR. More importantly, Wilson, who got us into two of the deadliest wars ever.
 
No need for name calling.

The plurality of voting members chose George W. Bush as the worst president in American history and why not? His administration was a catastrophe for this country. 9-11. Iraq. Katrina. The 2008 recession. To name just a few.

Imposing arbitrary standards on when someone can legitimately vote for Bush as the worst president is bogus. Doctor cure thyself.
Perhaps, then, a better poll question would have been something along these lines:

Who, out of the first 35-40 presidents, was the worst, as defined by a (as much as possible) academic examination of the facts involved?

This would exclude the past...20ish years, and demand knowledge (which, I admit, I have little of in this area) of the parties involved.

Because yes, if you simply ask "worst president?", some persons are going to vote for the more recent one, as his/her actions are fresh to mind, and they can't be bothered to take the time to consider all the 42 other presidents.
 
Did someone mess with the vote?
One or more people spammed the "Obama" option, if my understanding of the situation is accurate.

I briefly considered spamming the "Other" option, after it was blatantly obvious the poll had been spammed already, just to mess with people.

But I'm too lazy. :mrgreen:
 
One or more people spammed the "Obama" option, if my understanding of the situation is accurate.

I briefly considered spamming the "Other" option, after it was blatantly obvious the poll had been spammed already, just to mess with people.

But I'm too lazy. :mrgreen:

I guess I'm naive, since I believe Obama is a piece of **** and probably got all those votes.
 
You are obviously not familiar with Wilson and FDR. More importantly, Wilson, who got us into two of the deadliest wars ever.

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
 
We'd still have a massive debt and bureaucracy, because Republicans encourage that, too, including Saint Ronald McReagan.

FDR was one of the better presidents. Flawed, indecisive, yes. Evil? No. A lot of good came out of the New Deal, and it's been the agenda of the Extreme Right to destroy all progress and regress the United States to the free for all of the 19th centuy. If anything, FDR was too conservative in some ways.
 
Last edited:
We'd still have a massive debt and bureaucracy, because Republicans encourage that, too, including Saint Ronald McReagan.

FDR was one of the better presidents. Flawed, indecisive, yes. Evil? No. A lot of good came out of the New Deal, and it's been the agenda of the Extreme Right to destroy all progress and regress the United States to the free for all of the 19th centuy. If anything, FDR was too conservative in some ways.

what good?
destruction of the tenth amendment

milions of entitlement addicts who have become a self generating and expanding cost

prolonged the depression

ignored warnings about an imminent Japanese attack
 
what good?
destruction of the tenth amendment

milions of entitlement addicts who have become a self generating and expanding cost

prolonged the depression

ignored warnings about an imminent Japanese attack

Don't forget confiscation of gold with a penalty of up to 10 years in prison for those who did not obey, attempting to stack the Supreme Court, burning of agriculture/farm animals, Japanese internment camps, and falling in love with Stalin. What a guy...
 
what good?
destruction of the tenth amendment

milions of entitlement addicts who have become a self generating and expanding cost

prolonged the depression

ignored warnings about an imminent Japanese attack

Many of the New Deal programmes alleviated significant suffering that would have existed had the progarmmes not existed. This is worth it, even if one believes in an extension of the Depression by several years, which is still hotly debaetd in academic history (both why and if)

Moreover, the New Deal provided for social stability when there were far more radical programmes gaining significant ground, which the New Deal plowed under, and thus saved the United States from. You should thank FDR. He saved American capitalism, ultimately, and provided considerable hope and unity for many Americans who otherwise would have turned against the "values" of the nation out of desperation.

Then we still benefit from the legacy of the New Deal. Social Security is a fantasic success, and can still be maintained, despite the Doomsayers of the Far Right. Without it, there would be far more poverty among the elderly. The SEC was also a valuable regulatory tool, untill the era of deregulation gutted it. Glas-Steagal was good, again until it was destroyed.

Another benefit is the culture of social safety nets born of the New Deal. No civilized nation ought to be without a robust social safety net.

The charge of "he promoted Socialism" is of dubious legitimacy, given the concept assumes your ideological view in the assessment of whether he was evil and whether the New Deal was bad. That charge only has value to members of your particular faith. The fact that something is Socialism, or borrows elements of Socialism, does not make it bad. It only is bad...to you.
 
Last edited:
Don't forget confiscation of gold with a penalty of up to 10 years in prison for those who did not obey, attempting to stack the Supreme Court, burning of agriculture/farm animals, Japanese internment camps, and falling in love with Stalin. What a guy...

True, he did some bad things, and no one's disagreeing with what you specifically said (mostly). Then again, so much is true also of the American Right's darlings, such as Saint Ronald von Reagan: a massive chickenhawk, deficit spender, friend of friendly dictators, and terrorist financier. Yet, for some bizarre reason, none on the Right ever condemn Reagan, nor do they use his bad points to ignore any of the supposedly good things they believe he did. He's seen as a Saint in the Right's political religion.
 
Last edited:
True, he did some bad things, and no one's disagreeing with what you specifically said (mostly). Then again, so much is true also of the American Right's darlings, such as Saint Ronald von Reagan: a massive chickenhawk, deficit spender, friend of friendly dictators, and terrorist financier. Yet, for some bizarre reason, none on the Right ever condemn Reagan, nor do they use his bad points to ignore any of the supposedly good things they believe he did. He's seen as a Saint in the Right's political religion.

Reagan certainly had his flaws, but I do not consider him to be nearly as bad as FDR (though I still thought Reagan was bad). Also, terrorist financer is a bit misleading since we gave organizations weapons to fight the USSR. Just happened to have significant blowback for the United States which our foreign policy often does.

FDR did not save capitalism in America. Capitalism had been dead long before FDR became President.

Is Social Security a success? I think that can be debated. And I don't think the New Deal was a success at all. It did nothing to help the economy. But don't take my word for it, listen to Henry Morganthau...

"We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work. And I have just one interest, and if I am wrong ... somebody else can have my job. I want to see this country prosperous. I want to see people get a job. I want to see people get enough to eat. We have never made good on our promises ... I say after eight years of this Administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started ... And an enormous debt to boot!"
-Henry Morganthau, May 1939
 
The only ,IMO, "intelligent" votes are the 15 for "other".
Obviously, this poll has been polluted by tea-bagging conservatives, so it is worthless.
But, the liberals do not have an equivalent.
Why?
 
I guess I'm naive, since I believe Obama is a piece of **** and probably got all those votes.

You might take an historical look at some of our past presidents before making such a blanket comment.
 
Also, terrorist financer is a bit misleading since we gave organizations weapons to fight the USSR.

We helped fund and supply the same people who later attacked us. Reagan did that. You see, Americans had no problem funding terrorists, so long as the terrorists were attacking someone else far, far away.

But I am not talking about the Soviet thing anyway. Reagan sold weapons to terrorists, so he could clandestinely fund terrorists in S. America to overthrow governments.

FDR did not save capitalism in America. Capitalism had been dead long before FDR became President.

That's a huge exaggeration. We still are largely capitalist today according to any credible economic organization. We have a mixed economy. We never had a 'pure' system. Our system is one of, but not the most, "capitalitst" in the world.

FDR was important because the New Deal prevented something much, much worse and radical from taking over.

Is Social Security a success? I think that can be debated. And I don't think the New Deal was a success at all. It did nothing to help the economy. But don't take my word for it, listen to Henry Morganthau...

SS was definitly a huge success. One of the most successful anti poverty mechanisms in American History, and its function can be saved with intelligent resource use, redirection, plannng, etc.

The New Deal actually was improving the economy, so it's incorrect to say it did nothing. It was just doing it slowly. What actually set back the New Deal was FDR's reluctance to carry things through to the extent that they needed to, hence the slow progress an te 1937 setback. Conservatives actually convinced him to abandon projects early and then try to balance the budget, which cauesd the Depression's 37 recession. You can thank the Republicans for making things worse again. FDR did not spend enough, long enough. A legit criticism is that too much was going on, and FDR didn't actually trust any of it, so right when progress was made, a programme was cut, declared unconstitutional, or funding was cut (already when it wasn't nearly enough).

The New Deal had a tremendous success, despite not ending the Depression. In its historical form, it failed to do that, partly because of obstructionists and FDR's conservative feelings about applying Kenysianism, but it did plenty else.

"We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work. And I have just one interest, and if I am wrong ... somebody else can have my job. I want to see this country prosperous. I want to see people get a job. I want to see people get enough to eat. We have never made good on our promises ... I say after eight years of this Administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started ... And an enormous debt to boot!"
-Henry Morganthau, May 1939


That is deceptive for many reasons. One problem with the New Deal is that progress was slow an hampered by FDR's, and his oppositions, behaviour. There was an improvement from beginninig until 1937, when opposition became almost impossible to overcome, leading to a cut in efforts, funding, and a balancing of the budget too early, which undid a lot of progress.

The New Deal also did not spend enough, fast enough. FDR had a big problem: hew as inherently conservative and did not try things long enough. That was a legitimate problem of the New Deal. It was often too little, not long enough.

We can see what happened in WW2. The spending dwarfed the New Deal, then America got a competition free market after spending primed the pump, solving the problem.


But the best legacy of the New Deal is the prevention of more radical systems from taking over as well as regulatory mechanisms and the social safety net. I really couldn't care less if it "solved" the Depression. The amount of suffering it alleviated and the institutions it put into place are worth it.
 
Last edited:
We helped fund and supply the same people who later attacked us. Reagan did that. You see, Americans had no problem funding terrorists, so long as the terrorists were attacking someone else far, far away.

But I am not talking about the Soviet thing anyway. Reagan sold weapons to terrorists, so he could clandestinely fund terrorists in S. America to overthrow governments.



That's a huge exaggeration. We still are largely capitalist today according to any credible economic organization. We have a mixed economy. We never had a 'pure' system. Our system is one of, but not the most, "capitalitst" in the world.

FDR was important because the New Deal prevented something much, much worse and radical from taking over.



SS was definitly a huge success. One of the most successful anti poverty mechanisms in American History, and its function can be saved with intelligent resource use, redirection, plannng, etc.

The New Deal actually was improving the economy, so it's incorrect to say it did nothing. It was just doing it slowly. What actually set back the New Deal was FDR's reluctance to carry things through to the extent that they needed to, hence the slow progress an te 1937 setback. Conservatives actually convinced him to abandon projects early and then try to balance the budget, which cauesd the Depression's 37 recession. You can thank the Republicans for making things worse again. FDR did not spend enough, long enough. A legit criticism is that too much was going on, and FDR didn't actually trust any of it, so right when progress was made, a programme was cut, declared unconstitutional, or funding was cut (already when it wasn't nearly enough).

The New Deal had a tremendous success, despite not ending the Depression. In its historical form, it failed to do that, partly because of obstructionists and FDR's conservative feelings about applying Kenysianism, but it did plenty else.




That is deceptive for many reasons. One problem with the New Deal is that progress was slow an hampered by FDR's, and his oppositions, behaviour. There was an improvement from beginninig until 1937, when opposition became almost impossible to overcome, leading to a cut in efforts, funding, and a balancing of the budget too early, which undid a lot of progress.

The New Deal also did not spend enough, fast enough. FDR had a big problem: hew as inherently conservative and did not try things long enough. That was a legitimate problem of the New Deal. It was often too little, not long enough.

We can see what happened in WW2. The spending dwarfed the New Deal, then America got a competition free market after spending primed the pump, solving the problem.


But the best legacy of the New Deal is the prevention of more radical systems from taking over as well as regulatory mechanisms and the social safety net. I really couldn't care less if it "solved" the Depression. The amount of suffering it alleviated and the institutions it put into place are worth it.

Ah, I thought you meant the Middle East, but fair enough. You hit the nail on the head. We have a mixed economy. To suggest it is capitalism because it contains capitalist elements is misleading.

I'm going to trust FDR's Secretary of the Treasury when he says they have spent too much and it hasn't done anything to help the economy. FDR's policies did not help people. In fact, the New Deal hurt the poor and middle classes the most.
 
I guess "hurt them" is a matter of ideological interpretation. I see many of the progammes as stavng off worse systems and the addition of a safety net, regulatory mechanisms, assistrance programmes that gave people moeny, and worker protections as positive attributes. Not saying the New Deal solved the depression or was universally good.
 
Other - Reagan. Directly responsible for most of our current problems.
 
We helped fund and supply the same people who later attacked us. Reagan did that. You see, Americans had no problem funding terrorists, so long as the terrorists were attacking someone else far, far away.

But I am not talking about the Soviet thing anyway. Reagan sold weapons to terrorists, so he could clandestinely fund terrorists in S. America to overthrow governments.



That's a huge exaggeration. We still are largely capitalist today according to any credible economic organization. We have a mixed economy. We never had a 'pure' system. Our system is one of, but not the most, "capitalitst" in the world.

FDR was important because the New Deal prevented something much, much worse and radical from taking over.



SS was definitly a huge success. One of the most successful anti poverty mechanisms in American History, and its function can be saved with intelligent resource use, redirection, plannng, etc.

The New Deal actually was improving the economy, so it's incorrect to say it did nothing. It was just doing it slowly. What actually set back the New Deal was FDR's reluctance to carry things through to the extent that they needed to, hence the slow progress an te 1937 setback. Conservatives actually convinced him to abandon projects early and then try to balance the budget, which cauesd the Depression's 37 recession. You can thank the Republicans for making things worse again. FDR did not spend enough, long enough. A legit criticism is that too much was going on, and FDR didn't actually trust any of it, so right when progress was made, a programme was cut, declared unconstitutional, or funding was cut (already when it wasn't nearly enough).

The New Deal had a tremendous success, despite not ending the Depression. In its historical form, it failed to do that, partly because of obstructionists and FDR's conservative feelings about applying Kenysianism, but it did plenty else.




That is deceptive for many reasons. One problem with the New Deal is that progress was slow an hampered by FDR's, and his oppositions, behaviour. There was an improvement from beginninig until 1937, when opposition became almost impossible to overcome, leading to a cut in efforts, funding, and a balancing of the budget too early, which undid a lot of progress.

The New Deal also did not spend enough, fast enough. FDR had a big problem: hew as inherently conservative and did not try things long enough. That was a legitimate problem of the New Deal. It was often too little, not long enough.

We can see what happened in WW2. The spending dwarfed the New Deal, then America got a competition free market after spending primed the pump, solving the problem.


But the best legacy of the New Deal is the prevention of more radical systems from taking over as well as regulatory mechanisms and the social safety net. I really couldn't care less if it "solved" the Depression. The amount of suffering it alleviated and the institutions it put into place are worth it.

I guess "hurt them" is a matter of ideological interpretation. I see many of the progammes as stavng off worse systems and the addition of a safety net, regulatory mechanisms, assistrance programmes that gave people moeny, and worker protections as positive attributes. Not saying the New Deal solved the depression or was universally good.

Gotcha. The New Deal has certainly been debated from many sides since it came about. Thanks for the lively debate!
 
He could make the argument. I would almost entirely disagree, but it's not among the strangest suggestions I have seen.
 
Back
Top Bottom