Forum Thread

out best and worst presidents


Reply to ThreadDisplaying 15 Posts
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    Business Insider recently published its list of our best and worst presidents.

    Trump came in dead last, and Obama was rated #8.

    Even people who identified as Republicans rated him close to the bottom

    https://www.businessinsider.com/greatest-us-presidents-ranked-by-political-scientists-2018-2

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    Should read: not "dead last" but "mistake" of the century; also who will be able to reverse this downhill trend?

    Yes it is the downfall of Rome all over again; Ceasar's are gone, so will Trump.

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    Dutch:

    George W. made a lot of blunders, and it took Obama a few years to correct most of the damage. Ironically, W's rank has improved to #30, but he has been as low as #39.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_rankings_of_presidents_of_the_United_States

    I'm afraid that it is going to take more than 8 years to correct the damage that Trump has done, and it won't happen until we get another Democratic president.

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    that guy in AZ Wrote:

    Dutch:

    George W. made a lot of blunders, and it took Obama a few years to correct most of the damage. Ironically, W's rank has improved to #30, but he has been as low as #39.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_rankings_of_presidents_of_the_United_States

    I'm afraid that it is going to take more than 8 years to correct the damage that Trump has done, and it won't happen until we get another Democratic president.

    Yes, the "creeps" who are in love with Trump and his cronies, likely will make life of an by Democrats chosen President impossible. Also since Trump has broken all the "rules" how can you fix the "broken" system, if you don't change the laws here as I mentioned so many times. How about an "mandatory" law which states to provide "tax returns" well before you even "run"; if not, forget it to become President, even if you get more votes. It is time to make "black and "white" laws, of which not one lawyer can screw with. Also it is time to learn how to "vet" people; what they are doing now is pathetic; just look at the Kavanaugh thing; everything was already "cooked" beforehand.

    This country has a lot to learn; in 300 years they still don't have an proper system of governing, except zillions of "corrupt" lawyers who like to keep this"system" broken.

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Dutch Wrote:
    that guy in AZ Wrote:

    Dutch:

    George W. made a lot of blunders, and it took Obama a few years to correct most of the damage. Ironically, W's rank has improved to #30, but he has been as low as #39.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_rankings_of_presidents_of_the_United_States

    I'm afraid that it is going to take more than 8 years to correct the damage that Trump has done, and it won't happen until we get another Democratic president.

    Yes, the "creeps" who are in love with Trump and his cronies, likely will make life of an by Democrats chosen President impossible. Also since Trump has broken all the "rules" how can you fix the "broken" system, if you don't change the laws here as I mentioned so many times. How about an "mandatory" law which states to provide "tax returns" well before you even "run"; if not, forget it to become President, even if you get more votes. It is time to make "black and "white" laws, of which not one lawyer can screw with. Also it is time to learn how to "vet" people; what they are doing now is pathetic; just look at the Kavanaugh thing; everything was already "cooked" beforehand.

    This country has a lot to learn; in 300 years they still don't have an proper system of governing, except zillions of "corrupt" lawyers who like to keep this"system" broken.

    Problem is that many amerikans have lost their moral compass, they really don't give a shit about gropers, grabbers and insulters anymore, they all think it's funny, a joke. Millennials sit on their asses paging through their smartphones in wonder of what their friends are doing, instead of getting out there and voting for good candidates. As long as they're entertained by a buffoon who mocks everyone, they're happy. This country has gone to shit in the past few years.

    In Chicago's mayoral race, voter turnout was only 32%, and Chicago news agencies blamed that on millennials and quality of candidates.

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    Even before the 2016 election, a columnist for the Arizona Republic ranked Trump as #42 out of 44 presidents.

    https://www.azcentral.com/story/opinion/op-ed/joannaallhands/2016/10/26/best-and-worst-united-states-presidents/87577416/

    After yesterday's events in our nation's capitol, it's clear that he is now THE worst president in our nation's history.

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    Yes he's indeed the worst; ask yourself "why". The answer is that this country refuses to learn from past mistakes; the word "proper vetting" anyone for any job in the government was thrown in the garbage; the qualifications were only "who do you know" and what are your "connections" and are you smart in "stealing" or "bribing". As well do you go bravely to "church"

    So as long as such "stays", forget this country. Adapt the laws to fit 2021 and forget 1800's crap.


  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    Over time, the public's opinion of a president can change. Frequently, the opinion becomes more favorable, and Harry Truman is a prime example of that phenomenon.

    According to the most recent surveys, Trump is still among the very worst on the list- and that's likely not to change over time. Even years from now, he is still going to be THE WORST president that we have ever had.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2021/01/25/who-is-worst-american-president-all-time/

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    Does all of this help this country? I guess not. In no time we will make sure that we get an even worse President, if we don't change our "system", such as "electing" people without lots of "money" involved and other stupidity as well create solid laws about on how to govern.

    Sorry but I've not got the impression that an Biden will fix these lousy rules and laws here; just go on with the "old corrupted laws" and "broken" rules. Trump is laughing all the way to the bank, because of it.

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Dutch Wrote:

    Does all of this help this country? I guess not. In no time we will make sure that we get an even worse President, if we don't change our "system", such as "electing" people without lots of "money" involved and other stupidity as well create solid laws about on how to govern.

    Sorry but I've not got the impression that an Biden will fix these lousy rules and laws here; just go on with the "old corrupted laws" and "broken" rules. Trump is laughing all the way to the bank, because of it.

    I'm not sure what would fix this country.
    The fact remains it takes a lot of money to run a campaign, successfully. And the larger the scale, the more expensive it becomes. Now, for President, who needs to run in all 50 states...that can add up to a heckuva lot of money.

    Even talk about public financing of candidates has problems...who decides who qualifies for public funding, and how much is divvied up among how many candidates?

    Frankly, my own opinion is that far too much attention and emphasis is placed on a Presidential election...because it is the "sexy" job, as it were...but the truth is Congress has far more effect on the lives of everyday Americans than most Presidents (with the exception of Trump noted here...because his bad effects were felt and continue to be felt...in anti-Asian hate crimes, in anti-LGBTQ legislation, in vote suppression laws, etc, etc.)

    HR 1 is a good place to start, because, for one thing, it does away with gerrymandering and creates independent commissions to do the map redraws. As it stands now, out of 435 Districts, only 72 are "competitive" meaning that they have a PVI of less than D+5 or R+5.

    Meanwhile, 127 districts are higher than R+10, and 116 districts are higher than D+10. These are basically the "totally safe" seats where a complete lunatic fringe candidate can win if they are on the ticket of the favored Party. So, 243 seats of 435 are filled with people with absolutely no incentive to negotiate or compromise. A further 120 seats have very little reason to, either (these are the ones that are higher than D+5 or R+5)

    So...363 of 435 seats are filled with people who have little or no incentive to do anything but hold their Party line on everything. So there's 72 seats in the range considered "competitive" but, really, competitive seats would be D+2 or R+2 or less. 36 seats fit that description. So, you have a situation where between 8 to 17 percent of seats are even competitive.

    This is what leads to the hyperpartisanship we see now. What we need are more competitive Districts. Now, obviously, because of self-sorting and other factors, it is not always possible to make Districts very competitive...for example...try to draw a competitive district in Philadelphia, Cook County, IL, LA County, or Oklahoma. Not likely.

    BUT...if we can get enough competitive seats drawn elsewhere...it prevents the fringes from having a lot of influence, and forces a more balanced approach...because you still need to make enough people come along with you to get anything done.

    Instead of 8-17 percent, we should have 50-60 percent of these seats be competitive. And independent redistricting is the only way to get there.

    This, of course, does not address the Senate, which, by its very structure is inherently unfair...in that 700,000 South Dakotans have the same two Senators that 41 million Californians have! How does one address this? It would absolutely require a Constitutional Amendment...one which never would be ratified by the requisite number of states...who would be giving up the unequal share of power they currently enjoy.

    So maybe the starcture of our government needs radical change...for example, House passes bills...President can veto...senate can override a veto. Something like that. But it again would require a Constitutional Amendment that never would get ratified. So we are stuck in a box of our own making...and we will not be easily extracted from it.

    HR1 is only a start.

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    TG:

    Excellent analysis.

    Redistricting by independent panels is a good place to start, but it's not a guarantee that crazy people won't get into office.

    Arizona passed a law in 2000 that gave the power for redistricting to an independent panel. Predictably, the then-Governor of Arizona, Jan Brewer, tried to fire the chair of the panel, but she was not successful.

    There are still LOTS of crazy politicians in Arizona, and Paul Gosar may well be the nuttiest. Arizona is home as well, to Jake Agnelli, who was a prominent fact at the capitol on January 6.

    https://tohell-andback.blogspot.com/2011/11/impeach-cox-sacker.html

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    Yes TG right on; anyway all of this shows that the "system" here isway to complicated and gets more complicated by the day.

    Thank the outdate British system for that as well the lack of education in this country and that any "idiot" can be elected into this government. An two party system as it is now is asking for trouble; especially if one party elected greedy nutty one's.

    So we muddle on and just "patch" all our mistakes. The main issue is if you don't have an solid base, for which you don't need a zillion lawyers to "explain" (read lie) as well make sure there are plenty of loopholes in the law. Then success is assured.

    Also always make sure that the "middle man" ( lobbyists) are plenty , then "you" can't be blamed. etc etc.

    All of this makes this country ungovernable, especially if the "one" party is "corrupting the whole "outdated" system.

    Biden is doing his best to improve things, but the opposition tries with every means to undercut him, so the "chaos" will remain for a while. It seems that the "game" of winning "seats" is the only goal by the GOP, not the mental "health" and "normal health" of this country . Only "winning" counts, in order to fill their pockets and "ego's"

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Dutch Wrote:

    Yes TG right on; anyway all of this shows that the "system" here isway to complicated and gets more complicated by the day.

    (/snip)
    All of this makes this country ungovernable, especially if the "one" party is "corrupting the whole "outdated" system.

    Biden is doing his best to improve things, but the opposition tries with every means to undercut him, so the "chaos" will remain for a while. It seems that the "game" of winning "seats" is the only goal by the GOP, not the mental "health" and "normal health" of this country . Only "winning" counts, in order to fill their pockets and "ego's"

    Well, it is not completely ungovernable, but it is pretty close to impossible to get major things done. For example, 80 percent of Americans want better gun control laws...but we cannot get there.

    There are those who call for a new Constitutional Convention (Article 5) - but this is very dangerous, because many would seek to use this to strip away the rights of some minorities...and frankly, if you could get enough states to declare a Constitutional Convention at the same time...good luck getting them to agree to much of anything involving real, substantive change.

    The outdated system is also one we are stuck with, because we basically painted ourselves into a corner. Of course, our Founding Parents could not possibly have foreseen the future where we now live...they did the best they could at the time...to account for changes in society and our nation...but they made too many assumptions that turned out not to be true...including that Office would be held only by people of good character. Public-minded servants, who sought to serve the best interests of We The People. But it has not turned out that way.

    Politics has become, as you note, just one more "team sport" where undercutting the other side has become the only function...getting the People's business done takes a back seat. Biden has done some good things within this system, but he has had to have all the cards fall just right, and pull every parliamentary trick in the book to do it. Meanwhile, we plod along, and essentially have become governed more by Executive Orders than passed and considered legislation. And the lack of competitiveness in most Congressional Districts is one of the main reasons why. When you basically are immune to being held accountable at the ballot box...you no longer have any incentive to compromise or negotiate...you can just dig in your heels, refuse to budge, and act like an ass...like Lauren Boebert or Marjorie Taylor Greene or Mitch McConnell.

    The normal health of this country has gotten worse, due to the increased stress we all live under...which has also affected mental health - and the systems we set up to provide mental health help - have been deliberately designed to fail the people who need it most. This goes back to Reagan, and his famous "The scariest words in the English language are 'hi, I am from the government and I'm here to help.'" Reagan started the idea that the government could not help people...and then did everything possible to begin the sabotage of government in order to "prove" his own words. And the decline began to where we are now.

    Speaking now as a former candidate for office myself...I can tell you that you really DO need to have a certain level of "ego" in order to be willing to put yourself out there for the sort of examination you get when you toss your hat into the ring. I did fairly well here, because there isn't a lot in my past that isn't known...or that I'd care if it became known...and I do not take myself too seriously. I am very passionate about what I believe...and I fight for those things I believe in...but it isn't personal for me. For too many politicians, it is...because, for them, getting re-elected is Job Number One. The logic behind that thinking is "Well, I can't do anything for the people if I do not get re-elected" - well and good, but then, on getting re-elected they still do nothing for We The People....and this ia an excellent argument in favor of term limits.

    But, again, we trip over our own selves...in that the Constitution would need to be amended to institute term limits...and it is very unlikely that those who currently hold power will vote to curtail their own. The only way to accomplish it...would be to "grandfather in" the current crop...which says as long as they remain elected officials, they are not subject to the term limits, but as soon as their seat becomes vacant, it is now a term-limited seat. Then you might get enough politicians to go along.

    There is certainly a lot of discussion over HR 1 - The For The People Act...over whether or not it would pass Constitutional "muster" - once again, we are hamstrung by a document which was ratified with the best of intentions, and with ideals and assumptions that today no longer hold true. The specific argument is that States are granted the power to determine how they will hold elections...and that HR 1 would violate this....however, there is this:

    Article I, Section 4, Clause 1: The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of choosing Senators.

    And so it would seem that HR1 should pass Constitutional "muster" but that will undoubtedly be tested...and left to the interpretation of nine SCOTUS Justices...most of whom no longer are purists, and allow partisan considerations to creep into their decisions, and inform their thought processes...which can result in a different outcome than would seem straightforward. Frankly, Roberts has done a fairly decent job of walking that fine line...often ruling for our side, in spite of his conservative leanings, for example, the Bostock case - it is pretty clear that you cannot separate "sex" from sexual orientation or gender stereotypes...if you would not fire a woman for getting married to a man, but you would fire a man for doing same...it is sex discrimination - and similarly....if you would not fire a woman for wearing a dress, but you would fire a man for doing it...same deal. On the other hand, that comes down to how one interprets another's sex. For example, as a trans woman who is fully post-op...most reasonable people would consider me a woman...as well they should...there's nothing under my skirt that any other woman would not have...I dress and present as female. Yet, there are those who would argue that I am a man, because they refuse to countenance the notion one could be born into one body, yet with the heart, mind and soul of the other. It is just for issues like this...that the SCOTUS was intended to be the final word on...however, they were envisioned to be textualists who would apply the law as best as they could interpret the original intention. This no longer happens, in most cases.

    Anyway, getting back to HR1 - it does nothing to insure any real change...just because one is registered to vote does not mean that they will vote...and, as we saw...increased turnout does not always favor our side. Of course, reasonable people like me would say that we should not be passing this with an eye towards it helping our side...but rather with an eye towards returning franchise to the People...to allow them to decide. Then the argument becomes one side wants to expand the voting franchise, whereas the other side wants to restrict it.

    The great argument used by those who wish to restrict it is so-called voter fraud. So you can address this. Simply, everyone is registered, if not already registered...when they have contact with any government agency - and part of that process involves a photo ID with a QR code that is scannable...and serves as a Voter ID. Thus everyone could only vote once, and only in the place where they are registered.

    The problem here remains that both sides...have a vested interest not in solving problems...but in using those problems as wedge issues to drive voters. This, for example, explains the recent spate of anti-transgender legislation happening in many states...intended to enrage and boil the blood of those more likely to vote GOP. of course these laws are solutions in search of a problem. Too many of the "problems" we have today are manufactured in just this way...and with the intent of driving one set of voters or the other.

    There's no doubt life has become more complicated since the original Constitution was passed. Our Founding Parents saw that societal change was inevitable, and tried to give us a governing document designed to change with the times, unfortunately, they did so with the best of intentions...and made assumptions that no longer hold true...leaving us with an outdated and almost un-amendable document that more often serves to hamstring progress than to accommodate it.

    The question then becomes...how do you resolve the issues causing the Constitution to hamstring progress, while at the same time guaranteeing the rights enshrined therein...and how do you get enough people to agree to change it? And that, my friend, is where I run out of answers.
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    Well said. However the point remains on how all of this ends if ever. The Brits and their ex - colonies are also stuck in their system as are we. (it shows this all the time)

    But yeah, it is like the Titanic; the ship may float a while but it will sink. Don't ask me when or how. It is very clear that the present structure and corruption does not benefit the people of this country or its future. The only way forward is to dump the unworkable British crap and create an "living" base law, which is continuous updated to the times all the time. Case laws as practiced here do become convoluted or twisted and turned to suit the lawyers.

    Forget a zillion lawyers who never even read the Second Amendment, about that you can own AR 15's and huge clips of ammunition. Let alone that "civilians" can own these things. The rest of our laws are as bad because the base law still represents 1800. You can just about sent all the zillion lawyers home if the base laws are sound and have no loopholes built in and represent the present times.

    But yeah, my guess is that only an huge event or revolution can change this country; thus I believe that this country will just muddle on, or may follow the Russian example and make this an dictatorship; the Trump Party would love this for sure.

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    Students in schools are advised not to use Wikipedia as a source, since there are other more accurate sources available.

    However, when you stumble on a Wikipedia article that uses data from a minimum of 20 sources , it's probably going to be accurate.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_rankings_of_presidents_of_the_United_States

    Although only a few rate Donald Trump, it's clear that he is certainly among the worst.

    Ronald Reagan consistently ranks higher than Jimmy Carter, even though Reagan tripled the national debt, ushered in an era where the two political parties can barely talk to each other, and "trickle down economics" first came into use.

    Jimmy Carter had the misfortune to be in office during the Iranian hostage situation, the second oil embargo, and rampant inflation, but he is still a better president than Reagan because he is a genuinely good man.

    This is what Occupy Democrat had to say about him:

    May be an image of 2 people and text