Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm in my 20's, and have only followed politics closely for the past few years. This really seems like a no-win situation no matter if you got Obama or Romney. I don't have the historical prospective of what the choices were like years ago or more even more recently with a race like Gore vs Bush, was that race as ridiculously stupid as this one? So, i'm just looking for some input, have all campaigns been this frustrating, or does this one go above and beyond?
I would say that Ronald Reagan did the most damage to the America than any president in my lifetime so that was a terrible choice by the country. He reversed Jimmy Carter's conservative fiscal policies and put the national government on a limitless credit card.
He also hurt worker's rights and the security of anyone with less than a million dollars in the bank.
GW Bush would have been harmless I think if not for 911 but he was a close 2nd as a choice for POTUS.
Jimmy Carter takes second place and Obama gets top honors for me. Carter was at least a Naval Academy graduate, a WWII veteran and a former governor. Obama with his silver tongue and skilled oratory sailed into the office with little substantive experience for the job.
The problem with your analysis is Obama had four years and you are right, we have yet to see what Romney can do and he may turn this ship around. So what you think is not at all accurate.
What I think is irrelevant. All that matters is reality, and the reality is that Romney cannot turn a sinking ship around any faster than Obama can.
The difference between Obama and Romney is your National Debt. How big do you want it to be?
Realistically...
Mircea
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deezus
Dukakis on a tank,...
I remember that. He looked like one of the 3 Stooges. Any one of them. Pick one.
Still laughing...
Mircea
Quote:
Originally Posted by RedRage
IMO, we had no business invading Iraq (I and II).
Well, Geo-political global strategy isn't exactly your forte.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RedRage
Did Kuwait deserve what happened to them? No (according to who you ask). However, why did we need to take the initiative when very few countries gave a rat's a$$ about what took place?
Because it's part and parcel of your country's Geo-political global strategy......which is 100% controlled by the Bureaucrats, and not by the temporary employee you call "President" and not by the temporary employees you call "Congress."
Geo-political global strategy is Chess.
Q-R7 Check-mate is US control of the eastern Russian republics rich in oil, natural gas, strategic metal ores, strategic minerals, non-strategic metal ores, non-metallic minerals and timber.
R-B8 Check is US control of Central Asia -- at least 4 of the 5 Central Asia States (Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan and Tajikistan).
Q-R6 is US control of Iran.
P-K3 is US control of Iraq.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RedRage
Imagine if the 2008 economic meltdown could have been avoided?
Then imagine Bob Dole as president instead of Clinton.
Dole wouldn't have stuck a gun to the head of every bank and said, "You will loan money to people that Jesus Christ wouldn't even give money to for free, and if you don't, then we'll be up your ass 24/7 with IRS audits, SEC audits, other regulatory audits, EEOC lawsuits, DOJ lawsuits and a smear campaign in the media."
And then you wouldn't have Fwank-Dodd.
And then clever accountants wouldn't have created Collateralized Debt Obligations and Structured Investment Vehicles to keep banks from getting slammed with risks that no sane person would take.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RedRage
Imagine how much $$$ and how many friends, family members you may know of, Americans in general could have been with their families today had we not gone into Iraq? Had we planned better for Afghanistan?
Uh, that would be Science-Fiction/Fantasy.
I can't ever imagine an American violating the Laws of Economics getting paid $22.50/hour to run a MAZAK machine that presses bearings on 8 parts each hour being more competitive than a Filipino who is 100% compliant with the Laws of Economics getting paid $1.60/hour to run his MAZAK machine that presses bearings on 8 parts each hour.
I would say that Ronald Reagan did the most damage to the America than any president in my lifetime so that was a terrible choice by the country. He reversed Jimmy Carter's conservative fiscal policies and put the national government on a limitless credit card.
He also hurt worker's rights and the security of anyone with less than a million dollars in the bank.
Agree. And, a bad actor at that.
George W.--don't need to elaborate much on that.
Jimmy Carter--weak and ineffectual, his brother seemed to get more PR than him, strange times.
I'm in my 20's, and have only followed politics closely for the past few years. This really seems like a no-win situation no matter if you got Obama or Romney. I don't have the historical prospective of what the choices were like years ago or more even more recently with a race like Gore vs Bush, was that race as ridiculously stupid as this one? So, i'm just looking for some input, have all campaigns been this frustrating, or does this one go above and beyond?
I think you'd have much shorter answers if you asked for good choices for president.
We're looking at the worst OVERALL MENU for an election, not just the worst end result. I'm also purposely leaving out the last few elections - not enough time has gone by for me to be objective.
In my lifetime:
#1: 1972: Nixon/McGovern. McGovern was just about completely unqualified for this position. Combine that with how Nixon turned out, and this should rank right at the bottom.
#2: 1988: Bush Sr./Dukakis. Look no further than the VP choices - Quayle and Bentsen. Bush would have been far better off selecting the other half of the Quayle family. As for Bentsen - nothing says true commitment like also running for your Senate seat in TX at the same time.
#3: 1996: Clinton/Dole/Perot. Don't like the incumbent? Too bad. Perot was a whackjob, and Dole seemed to know the whole time he was going to lose. IMO, he was running only as a favor to his party, to get out the vote for candidates down the ticket.
Comments rebutting other popular choices:
1968: Nixon/Humphrey/Wallace. In retrospect, 2/3rds of these were terrible choices. However, Humphrey would probably have been a very effective president. So, the American public had a good option in 1968 - they just didn't select it.
1976: Ford/Carter. Two weak leaders, and Carter was a disaster as president. However, we will probably never again see a pair of candidates with such high overall integrity and moral character. (Disclaimer: Ford's actually one of my favorite presidents. He did as well as anyone could with the crummy hand he was dealt.)
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
