Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 05-12-2015, 05:58 PM
 
Location: Old Bellevue, WA
18,782 posts, read 17,364,082 times
Reputation: 7990

Advertisements

Worst president in history was Woodrow Wilson (D, NJ).

• Started the war on drugs (Harrison act of 1914). Before that any American could walk into any corner pharmacy and legally purchase opium, coca, or marihuana. Wilson laid the foundation of the modern nanny state with such progressive initiatives as the war on prostitution and prohibition, which he nominally opposed, but failed to stop.

•Started the concept of US as world police by getting the US into WWI even though it was not our concern. And WWI of course set the stage for WWII.

•Created the federal income tax and thus vouchsafed the dominance of Washington DC and leviathan centralized government.

•Was an overt racist who re-segregated the federal work force and military after it had been desegregated by the Republicans.

Quite a job by our only PhD president, whose program marches on 100 years later under Pres. Barack Obama.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-12-2015, 06:34 PM
 
231 posts, read 171,808 times
Reputation: 125
Quote:
Originally Posted by wutitiz View Post
Worst president in history was Woodrow Wilson (D, NJ).
That's too funny, that was going to be my answer.

It's hard to have a 'worse' President previous to 1900 given how unimportant (aside from Lincoln) they really were. The flow of resources to DC over the last 100+ years has led to the opportunity for mischief.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-12-2015, 06:39 PM
 
Location: Texas
38,859 posts, read 25,544,683 times
Reputation: 24780
Lightbulb The worst? Maybe not, but pretty bad...

Quote:
Originally Posted by jojajn View Post
Maybe a little harsh, but not all that far off target.

Here's a nonpartisan and valid way to assess any president's performance:

Compare the state of the nation at the end of his term to how it was when he took office.

On that score, Dubya was a disaster. And I say that having voted for him twice as TX gov and once for prez.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-12-2015, 06:42 PM
 
Location: Texas
38,859 posts, read 25,544,683 times
Reputation: 24780
Default Yep...

Quote:
Originally Posted by 1AngryTaxPayer View Post
Check out the source page. May as well be Bobsbigboy.net

HubPages
Definitely not an unbiased source.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-12-2015, 07:09 PM
 
Location: Itinerant
8,278 posts, read 6,276,391 times
Reputation: 6681
Quote:
Originally Posted by desertdetroiter View Post
And believe me...not one single person on CD is smart enough to be the POTUS.
Smart means you don't have your every decision picked over by the press both current and former. Smart means you set yourself up to take credit for your successes and minimize your failures, not the opposite. Smart means you're not on the job 24/7/52 for four entire years (or you being seen not on duty results in that decision being picked over by the press). Smart means you do not need to mingle with a bunch of slimy corrupt politicians on a daily basis to earn your salary. Smart also understands that power and authority are never granted, but are taken.

Anyone who is demonstrably smart enough to be the POTUS almost certainly would never accept the job under the criteria placed on it.
__________________
My mod posts will always be in red.
The Rules • Infractions & Deletions • Who's the moderator? • FAQ • What is a "Personal Attack" • What is "Trolling" • Guidelines for copyrighted material.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-12-2015, 07:17 PM
 
Location: Old Bellevue, WA
18,782 posts, read 17,364,082 times
Reputation: 7990
Quote:
Originally Posted by Old Gringo View Post
Maybe a little harsh, but not all that far off target.

Here's a nonpartisan and valid way to assess any president's performance:

Compare the state of the nation at the end of his term to how it was when he took office.

On that score, Dubya was a disaster. And I say that having voted for him twice as TX gov and once for prez.
But that 'nonpartisan and valid way' assumes that a) the president determines everything, and there is no input from Congress, Courts, etc. b) Presidential policies take effect immediately with no lag.

Obviously neither is true.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-12-2015, 07:58 PM
 
364 posts, read 277,590 times
Reputation: 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by chucksnee View Post
Yet you love clinton and obama....figures.

And you agree with some BLOG..who woulda thunk it....LOL....
Did I say that? Personally both Roosevelts were great presidents. Clinton well he was too busy bombing Serbia and signing free trade agreements and burning men,women and children alive at Waco,murdering a child and woman at Ruby Ridge etc to do much good,Obama has had his ups and downs...wish he would have stayed out of Libya,gotten min wage,one payer system and paid maternity leave done in his first 2 years with democratic majority but overall he has been an iffy president....in middle of the pack.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-12-2015, 08:12 PM
 
48,502 posts, read 96,867,563 times
Reputation: 18304
We don; 't have all the JFK documents yet but what we do showed a much different president than thought then. History will decide possibly from events that have not even occurred yet. At least modern presidents.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-12-2015, 08:41 PM
 
Location: Texas
38,859 posts, read 25,544,683 times
Reputation: 24780
Quote:
Originally Posted by wutitiz View Post
But that 'nonpartisan and valid way' assumes that a) the president determines everything, and there is no input from Congress, Courts, etc. b) Presidential policies take effect immediately with no lag.
No it doesn't.

Quote:
Obviously neither is true.
Agreed
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-12-2015, 09:00 PM
 
Location: Aztlan
2,686 posts, read 1,771,432 times
Reputation: 1282
Obama?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:16 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top