Which POTUS is the Worst Since 1945?

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

Some posters here can't find much to say other than criticize others who post negative stuff about Obama. Seems like a lot of Americans disagree According to a new Quinnipiac Poll, many Americans think Obama is the worst POTUS since 1945. Not even close.

https://www.google.c...c polls&tbm=nws

And if this poll isn't convincing enough, look at all the other polls listed below this latest Quinnipiac poll. 100% consistent results.

[TitanTiger 20,708]

Short memories. Carter is the worst. Good man, bad president. The job was simply way too big for him.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

Obama has made Carter the happiest POTUS still living.

[Strychnine 1,804]

Personally, I would say the one that resigned.

[TheBlueVue 177]

Short memories. Carter is the worst. Good man, bad president. The job was simply way too big for him.

At the end of Carter's term he actually made some tough foreign policy decisions that laid the groundwork for Reagan to carry on and ultimately win the cold war with Russia. Carter's "misery index" of double digit unemployment, double digit inflation and double digit prime lending rates was awful, indeed, but, if they were still accounting the way they did then I honestly believe Obama would be right there with him. The prime lending rate reached 20% under Carter

In the 70s the idea of controlling interest rates and the economy by having the Treasury pump $billions of dollars of liquidity into it every month had not been thought of. Maybe thought of but they simply did not do it. The Treasury in those years was a completely independent and autonomous agency and acted on its own. Carter increased the national debt from $600 billion to around $900 billion but because of economic growth the national debt as a percentage of GDP actually went down.

Carter had a few good points. Six years in, Im honestly hoping for something good out of this president but haven't seen it yet. I'd have to say Obama worse in a race thats not even close.

[TheBlueVue 177]

Personally, I would say the one that resigned.

Personally, I would say the one that resigned.

Obama is the President, the one who resigned, aspired to be.

[Strychnine 1,804]

Personally, I would say the one that resigned.

Obama is the President, the one who resigned, aspired to be.

Perhaps, but that is currently a matter of opinion. I would also say I have doubts that any of his successors have been cleaner, or that he was the first. However, the picture painted of this nation's highest office being that corrupt is why I have little use for most members of either established party that have followed.

[TheBlueVue 177]

Personally, I would say the one that resigned.

Obama is the President, the one who resigned, aspired to be.

Perhaps, but that is currently a matter of opinion. I would also say I have doubts that any of his successors have been cleaner, or that he was the first. However, the picture painted of this nation's highest office being that corrupt is why I have little use for most members of either established party that have followed.

Its really not a matter of opinion. Republican operatives broke into a democrat campaign office and stole their files. Nixon didn't even know about it but when he found out about he did try to cover it up. He resigned uinder intense pressure over an 18 minute gap in audio recordings of conversations of those operatives.

Fast forward 40 years and we have 28 months of email missing from not 1 but 7 IRS agents in an agency of 90,000 employees and as luck would have it...those 7 experienced computer crashes. The allegations are entirely different. Nixon went after the top of his adversary's political machine. The IRS went after ordinary citizens to silence their political free speech. If anyone thinks Obama isn't running interference for the IRS with his, "there isn't even a smidgeon of corruption" response and constantly calling it a phony partisan scandal, they're a lot more trusting than the majority of the american people who now polls say 76% believe he covering it up intentionally.

Obama is w/o a doubt the President Nixon aspired to be.

[Strychnine 1,804]

Personally, I would say the one that resigned.

Obama is the President, the one who resigned, aspired to be.

Perhaps, but that is currently a matter of opinion. I would also say I have doubts that any of his successors have been cleaner, or that he was the first. However, the picture painted of this nation's highest office being that corrupt is why I have little use for most members of either established party that have followed.

Its really not a matter of opinion. Republican operatives broke into a democrat campaign office and stole their files. Nixon didn't even know about it but when he found out about he did try to cover it up. He resigned uinder intense pressure over an 18 minute gap in audio recordings of conversations of those operatives.

Fast forward 40 years and we have 28 months of email missing from not 1 but 7 IRS agents in an agency of 90,000 employees and as luck would have it...those 7 experienced computer crashes. The allegations are entirely different. Nixon went after the top of his adversary's political machine. The IRS went after ordinary citizens to silence their political free speech. If anyone thinks Obama isn't running interference for the IRS with his, "there isn't even a smidgeon of corruption" response and constantly calling it a phony partisan scandal, they're a lot more trusting than the majority of the american people who now polls say 76% believe he covering it up intentionally.

Obama is w/o a doubt the President Nixon aspired to be.

Your agenda is showing, and you are vilifying Obama to the wrong person. I am not a Democrat or Obama supporter, nor am I a Republican. What I am is tired of people that cannot see the forest for the trees. In other words, your perception seems to be that Obama is quite simply the worst thing this country has ever seen, and he's so bad that there is not even a comparison. My point is that he is no worse than his predecessors from both parties. The sooner we all come to terms with the fact that both parties do not have effective government and leadership as their primary goals at present, the better off we will be.

There were other issues surrounding Nixon beside the attempted cover-up of Watergate. Oddly enough, one of the subjects of inquiry was using the IRS to harass political enemies. The really interesting thing in your perspective is that you accept Nixon did not even know about the burglary, thus implying that there were people in his administration acting without his consent and knowledge, but that same possibility can apparently not exist with Obama.

For the record, I am not saying that I think Obama's administration is not corrupt. I am saying that I think it is no more corrupt than its predecessors. I am not interested in replacing corrupt Democrats with corrupt Republicans, or vice versa.

[TheBlueVue 177]

Personally, I would say the one that resigned.

Obama is the President, the one who resigned, aspired to be.

Perhaps, but that is currently a matter of opinion. I would also say I have doubts that any of his successors have been cleaner, or that he was the first. However, the picture painted of this nation's highest office being that corrupt is why I have little use for most members of either established party that have followed.

Its really not a matter of opinion. Republican operatives broke into a democrat campaign office and stole their files. Nixon didn't even know about it but when he found out about he did try to cover it up. He resigned uinder intense pressure over an 18 minute gap in audio recordings of conversations of those operatives.

Fast forward 40 years and we have 28 months of email missing from not 1 but 7 IRS agents in an agency of 90,000 employees and as luck would have it...those 7 experienced computer crashes. The allegations are entirely different. Nixon went after the top of his adversary's political machine. The IRS went after ordinary citizens to silence their political free speech. If anyone thinks Obama isn't running interference for the IRS with his, "there isn't even a smidgeon of corruption" response and constantly calling it a phony partisan scandal, they're a lot more trusting than the majority of the american people who now polls say 76% believe he covering it up intentionally.

Obama is w/o a doubt the President Nixon aspired to be.

Your agenda is showing, and you are vilifying Obama to the wrong person. I am not a Democrat or Obama supporter, nor am I a Republican. What I am is tired of people that cannot see the forest for the trees. In other words, your perception seems to be that Obama is quite simply the worst thing this country has ever seen, and he's so bad that there is not even a comparison. My point is that he is no worse than his predecessors from both parties. The sooner we all come to terms with the fact that both parties do not have effective government and leadership as their primary goals at present, the better off we will be.

There were other issues surrounding Nixon beside the attempted cover-up of Watergate. Oddly enough, one of the subjects of inquiry was using the IRS to harass political enemies. The really interesting thing in your perspective is that you accept Nixon did not even know about the burglary, thus implying that there were people in his administration acting without his consent and knowledge, but that same possibility can apparently not exist with Obama.

For the record, I am not saying that I think Obama's administration is not corrupt. I am saying that I think it is no more corrupt than its predecessors. I am not interested in replacing corrupt Democrats with corrupt Republicans, or vice versa.

I have no agenda. The point I made was proven that Nixon had no knowledge of the Water Gate break in before it happened...proven. If Obama can stand the same scrutiny and come out of it proven he didn't know about any of the current scandals...and there are many..if you're paying attention, I'll be the first to acknowledge that but, as it is, he is running interference for the IRS similarly to the way the Nixon tried to cover up the break in. We'll see what his culpability is going forward. We can disagree about the extent of corruption, past and present. I happen to believe this admin is the most corrupt of my lifetime going all the way back to DDE.

Interest is a funny thing and sometimes it serves us well and other times it may not. If you're going to crusade for a 3rd party President good luck with that. In the end, all you'll do, is play into the democrat's hand...see Ross Perot and even lesser 3rd party candidates in the past.

[icanthearyou 4,468]

Some posters here can't find much to say other than criticize others who post negative stuff about Obama. Seems like a lot of Americans disagree According to a new Quinnipiac Poll, many Americans think Obama is the worst POTUS since 1945. Not even close.

https://www.google.c...c polls&tbm=nws

And if this poll isn't convincing enough, look at all the other polls listed below this latest Quinnipiac poll. 100% consistent results.

I think what that there poll says.

[Strychnine 1,804]

Personally, I would say the one that resigned.

Obama is the President, the one who resigned, aspired to be.

Perhaps, but that is currently a matter of opinion. I would also say I have doubts that any of his successors have been cleaner, or that he was the first. However, the picture painted of this nation's highest office being that corrupt is why I have little use for most members of either established party that have followed.

Its really not a matter of opinion. Republican operatives broke into a democrat campaign office and stole their files. Nixon didn't even know about it but when he found out about he did try to cover it up. He resigned uinder intense pressure over an 18 minute gap in audio recordings of conversations of those operatives.

Fast forward 40 years and we have 28 months of email missing from not 1 but 7 IRS agents in an agency of 90,000 employees and as luck would have it...those 7 experienced computer crashes. The allegations are entirely different. Nixon went after the top of his adversary's political machine. The IRS went after ordinary citizens to silence their political free speech. If anyone thinks Obama isn't running interference for the IRS with his, "there isn't even a smidgeon of corruption" response and constantly calling it a phony partisan scandal, they're a lot more trusting than the majority of the american people who now polls say 76% believe he covering it up intentionally.

Obama is w/o a doubt the President Nixon aspired to be.

Your agenda is showing, and you are vilifying Obama to the wrong person. I am not a Democrat or Obama supporter, nor am I a Republican. What I am is tired of people that cannot see the forest for the trees. In other words, your perception seems to be that Obama is quite simply the worst thing this country has ever seen, and he's so bad that there is not even a comparison. My point is that he is no worse than his predecessors from both parties. The sooner we all come to terms with the fact that both parties do not have effective government and leadership as their primary goals at present, the better off we will be.

There were other issues surrounding Nixon beside the attempted cover-up of Watergate. Oddly enough, one of the subjects of inquiry was using the IRS to harass political enemies. The really interesting thing in your perspective is that you accept Nixon did not even know about the burglary, thus implying that there were people in his administration acting without his consent and knowledge, but that same possibility can apparently not exist with Obama.

For the record, I am not saying that I think Obama's administration is not corrupt. I am saying that I think it is no more corrupt than its predecessors. I am not interested in replacing corrupt Democrats with corrupt Republicans, or vice versa.

I have no agenda. The point I made was proven that Nixon had no knowledge of the Water Gate break in before it happened...proven. If Obama can stand the same scrutiny and come out of it proven he didn't know about any of the current scandals...and there are many..if you're paying attention, I'll be the first to acknowledge that but, as it is, he is running interference for the IRS similarly to the way the Nixon tried to cover up the break in. We'll see what his culpability is going forward. We can disagree about the extent of corruption, past and present. I happen to believe this admin is the most corrupt of my lifetime going all the way back to DDE.

Interest is a funny thing and sometimes it serves us well and other times it may not. If you're going to crusade for a 3rd party President good luck with that. In the end, all you'll do, is play into the democrat's hand...see Ross Perot and even lesser 3rd party candidates in the past.

Give this a gander: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_political_scandals_in_the_United_States

Your first paragraph proved this sentence for me: "Perhaps, but that is currently a matter of opinion."

I have no choice but to crusade for a third party President or Congress. The failing is not, and never has been, the nature of the political parties themselves. It has been that exposed corruption is treated as little more than a political weapon. When someone can get caught as Nixon did, and then be pardoned by his successor, it establishes a precedent that they all see. As I said before: "I am not interested in replacing corrupt Democrats with corrupt Republicans, or vice versa." I am not concerned with "playing into the democrat's hand", as I do not subscribe to that "lesser of two evils" rubbish. The batch of Republicans before us is not going to take us where we need to go, and neither will the batch of Democrats before us. It is possible that either could, but they have little reason to.

[TexasTiger 13,559]

Wow. So one third of the electorate that makes up the hardcore right wing has spoken. Doesn't mean much to critical thinkers, but makes for an interesting headline.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

Stry....you "fuss" at Blue as if he is he is alone in his opinion. You ignore the poll inked in the OP which strongly refutes your claim.

TT....can you back up your claim as to who constitutes the1/3 of poll respondents?

[TexasTiger 13,559]

Stry....you "fuss" at Blue as if he is he is alone in his opinion. You ignore the poll inked in the OP which strongly refutes your claim.

TT....can you back up your claim as to who constitutes the1/3 of poll respondents?

It's pretty obvious.

[TheBlueVue 177]

Wow. So one third of the electorate that makes up the hardcore right wing has spoken. Doesn't mean much to critical thinkers, but makes for an interesting headline.

So your support of a presidency that is going down in flames is unwavering? Lots of talk about Obama not doing his job in Washington. Lots of dinner parties and other diversions but exerting very little effort to solving real problems.

Oh and BTW, I am impressed you posted without calling me pathological or swine or any other of your favorite ad hominems you love to throw at me.

[AURaptor 1,137]

Worse than W.

Worst since 1945.

So much for Hope and Change, huh proggies ?

[TexasTiger 13,559]

Wow. So one third of the electorate that makes up the hardcore right wing has spoken. Doesn't mean much to critical thinkers, but makes for an interesting headline.

So your support of a presidency that is going down in flames is unwavering? Lots of talk about Obama not doing his job in Washington. Lots of dinner parties and other diversions but exerting very little effort to solving real problems.

Oh and BTW, I am impressed you posted without calling me pathological or swine or any other of your favorite ad hominems you love to throw at me.

There are clearly things he could do better, but W set his table with two dumb wars and a wrecked economy-- clearly the worst to any thinking person. And the opposition party is hell-bent on making his downfall their first priority no matter how much it negatively impacts the country. Plus, the alternative was McCain/Palin -- most incompetent ticket of all time. Politics is about choices.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

TT,,,"it's pretty obvious?'" That's weak even for you. I'll have to remember that one next time you challenge me for proof of something I post..

[icanthearyou 4,468]

Yay TT may be if you was two check your facts you wouldnt have two delete you own threads. Oh wait, that was someone else. Nevermind. Sorry TT.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

TT....I would add if you just said if it is your opinion I could respect that.

[TheBlueVue 177]

Wow. So one third of the electorate that makes up the hardcore right wing has spoken. Doesn't mean much to critical thinkers, but makes for an interesting headline.

So your support of a presidency that is going down in flames is unwavering? Lots of talk about Obama not doing his job in Washington. Lots of dinner parties and other diversions but exerting very little effort to solving real problems.

Oh and BTW, I am impressed you posted without calling me pathological or swine or any other of your favorite ad hominems you love to throw at me.

There are clearly things he could do better, but W set his table with two dumb wars and a wrecked economy-- clearly the worst to any thinking person. And the opposition party is hell-bent on making his downfall their first priority no matter how much it negatively impacts the country. Plus, the alternative was McCain/Palin -- most incompetent ticket of all time. Politics is about choices.

So it is Obama's opposition's responsibility to stand aside and not only, let him but, cosign his agenda no matter how much they believe it is driving the country into an abyss? I get so tired of people like you saying its all the republicans fault. If this guy had one single clue about successful governance iinstead of throwing a tantrum everytime Congress fails to do what he says, maybe he wouldn't be viewed as such a bumbling incompetent.

"Woe is me" says barack obama. "Dont cry for Argentina...cry for me"! Its those mean ole republican's fault

[homersapien 11,812]

Worse than W.

Worst since 1945.

So much for Hope and Change, huh proggies ?

"proggies" ?

[homersapien 11,812]

Wow. So one third of the electorate that makes up the hardcore right wing has spoken. Doesn't mean much to critical thinkers, but makes for an interesting headline.

So your support of a presidency that is going down in flames is unwavering? Lots of talk about Obama not doing his job in Washington. Lots of dinner parties and other diversions but exerting very little effort to solving real problems.

Oh and BTW, I am impressed you posted without calling me pathological or swine or any other of your favorite ad hominems you love to throw at me.

There are clearly things he could do better, but W set his table with two dumb wars and a wrecked economy-- clearly the worst to any thinking person. And the opposition party is hell-bent on making his downfall their first priority no matter how much it negatively impacts the country. Plus, the alternative was McCain/Palin -- most incompetent ticket of all time. Politics is about choices.

So it is Obama's opposition's responsibility to stand aside and not only, let him but, cosign his agenda no matter how much they believe it is driving the country into an abyss? I get so tired of people like you saying its all the republicans fault. If this guy had one single clue about successful governance iinstead of throwing a tantrum everytime Congress fails to do what he says, maybe he wouldn't be viewed as such a bumbling incompetent.

"Woe is me" says barack obama. "Dont cry for Argentina...cry for me"! Its those mean ole republican's fault

Let me see if I understand your reasoning here.

If one believes that Bush is our worst president since 1945, then they must necessarily support Obama - "cosign" as you so colorfully put it - in everything he does?

[TexasTiger 13,559]

TT....I would add if you just said if it is your opinion I could respect that.

So you dispute that roughly a third of Americans are hardcore conservatives who see Obama as an unrivaled failure?