Bush most unpopular president in history
- Thread starter Buzzcook
- Start date
You mean after the left calling for Clinton to step down? Wait, that never happened! In fact we have that entire sorid affair(pun intended) to thank for moveon.org!
You could have a 100% approval rating within the margin of error of this poll and have a hundred times more Americans anti-Lincoln than just Booth and his gang.
bigshooter
New member
uh, no. Clinton destroyed the military. bush has spent the last 7 years trying to rebuild it.
Independant sources with numbers, please. Signed on the dotted line, still disagree with Paul. The second part of that sentance is so silly that it does not even merit serious laughter. Would Dr. Paul have opposed the Revolution? How about the War of 1812? Civil War? World War II? Considering that the first gained our independance, the second secured it the third maintained the Union and the fourth pulled us from a terrible depression into THE world power, I would say that war has been fairly good to us.
The one question I wish I could ask the vaunted Dr. Paul is, "would you have sent US troops to fight the Barbary Pirates?".
cool hand luke 22:36
New member
I doubt that G.W. Bush is as unpopular as Nixon was at his nadir.
Bush certainly is nowhere near as detested as was Andrew Johnson, widely suspected of conspiring with Booth et al. to assassinate Lincoln and who came within one vote of conviction in the Senate after being impeached.
Bush certainly is nowhere near as detested as was Andrew Johnson, widely suspected of conspiring with Booth et al. to assassinate Lincoln and who came within one vote of conviction in the Senate after being impeached.
Speak of silly statements,!! The above certainly is, war is never good,
I have served, have you.?
I'm all for protecting our country and going to fight when necessary
however we seem to be in an era of nation building and as Ron Paul
has stated we should be more concerned with our country, how long
can we afford to police the world, build bridges, schools, hospitals in
Iraq. The idea war is good in anyway shows a lack of maturity.
Please, take a second to read and understand all information.
My quote
I actualy signed about two dozen times and initaled about twice that. Darn near gave me carpal tunnel.
Ignore Iraq for just a moment if you are capable(Lord knows the media is, since it is going well). With the examples I gave, are we not better for having waged war? If not for the first, I would be preparing for a spot of afternoon tea, if not for the second, well that one would not have happened but for the first. As for the third, a large number of my African-American co-workers find that the deaths of thousands of my "color"(white) were acceptable compared to the alternative. As for the fourth, only a fool to disagree with. We went from a largly agrarian nation during a massive drought to a world power in a few years. We were attacked. The civilized world was in serious trouble and we did something about it. Thank God Almighty that Dr. Ron FREAKING Paul was not in charge then and will NEVER be in charge.
I would still like an answer to my question about the Barbary Pirates from an expert "Paulite"(as some refer to them), rather than a rank ameture.
P.S.
I would argue that the idea war is bad in EVERY way shows a lack of understanding of the big picture. Fact is that I have been criticized for not throwing away my vote on a write-in for Dr. FREAKING Paul because I would prefere McCain to Obama/Clinton. They said I was compromising on my ideals. If we had not fought in the Revolution, in 1812, on the Barbary issue(still waiting), the Civil War, and WWII(for that matter WWI) we would be compromising our ideals,in that, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
So, am I "immature", or are you a hippocrite?
I am waiting for the source of this little tidbit about Dr. Paul.
The funny thing is about the borders, none of the terrorists of 9/11 came in illegeally, they were here on proper visas.
Not saying the borders are not a problem, but all the walls and fences would not have stopped 9/11 because we let them in through the gate.
The funny thing is about the borders, none of the terrorists of 9/11 came in illegeally, they were here on proper visas.
Not saying the borders are not a problem, but all the walls and fences would not have stopped 9/11 because we let them in through the gate.
Do not hold your breath, I asked for the numbers on the same bit and was confronted by the "I served my country have you", bit. If only the fellow were willing and able to read and understand all information in front of him. Then he would have known from the start that, yes I did. Moreso, he would have known a long time ago that Paul never had a prayer.
mountainclmbr
New member
Fighting terrorists and trying to liberate millions of oppressed people is enough to make the mainstream media loathe you.
To be popular he would need to try to appease our enemies and enslave our own working class under Marxist utopian theory.
To be popular he would need to try to appease our enemies and enslave our own working class under Marxist utopian theory.
Seems to me that at one point, Abraham Lincoln's unpopularity was worse than anything Bush has ever experienced. In 1860, Lincoln won by a mere 39.9% of the total vote. His popularity certainly didn't rise after the South's succession.
A lot of people threatened to leave the US if Bush were elected/re-elected, but I haven't yet seen one US state commit rebellion because of Bush.
This is not to equate Lincoln with Bush. It is to show that the "most unpopular president in history" claim is laughably false.
A lot of people threatened to leave the US if Bush were elected/re-elected, but I haven't yet seen one US state commit rebellion because of Bush.
This is not to equate Lincoln with Bush. It is to show that the "most unpopular president in history" claim is laughably false.
Plus they only poled 1100 people....
give me a pole with 11 million people, with even numbers from every state, every race, every sex, and several different generation age groups and I may put some stock in the outcome.
calling 1100 random liberals over 18 that won't hang up on a telephone survey salesman and asking what they think of the president hardly seems like a serious group to pick from.
Unregistered
Moderator
I am a conservative who voted for Bush twice, but I agree he is the worst president we have had since I started voting in 1980, including Bill Clinton.
The Tourist
Moderator
We have surveys like this because Americans believe a good President should be "liked" or "loved."
For example, JFK didn't do much at all, perhaps the Peace Corps. His legacy is much the work of Jacqueline Kennedy after his death.
However, Richard Nixon opened up China, a feat more important than widely recognized.
No President I can think of got more Americans killed than Abraham Lincoln, probably the most beloved President in history. Go figure.
For example, JFK didn't do much at all, perhaps the Peace Corps. His legacy is much the work of Jacqueline Kennedy after his death.
However, Richard Nixon opened up China, a feat more important than widely recognized.
No President I can think of got more Americans killed than Abraham Lincoln, probably the most beloved President in history. Go figure.
This is a typical response. The title of the survey is "unpopular". DURING his impeachment (and maybe you could remind me of the results of the impeachment?) he sustained well over 50% approval rating, well into the 60s if memory serves.
Why are you guys arguing about methodology when every single poll is in agreement? Why are you guys arguing over best / worst president when this is about popularity?
Is knee-jerk a verb or a noun?
BoringAccountant
New member
Sorry that some of us would like to discuss things that the President did or said that make him the best or worst rather than what the typical American would want...the most popular. I could care less if we had a popular President as long as he was effective. The popular ones are the ones that scare me...they worry about their popularity rating to much to get anything else done in office.
And what would a very popular President give us? Just because one would be popular, aka Obama, does not mean he would be productive.
"uh, no. Clinton destroyed the military. bush has spent the last 7 years trying to rebuild it."
Bush I got the gutting of the US military rolling. The 3rd Armored Division was scheduled to be de-activated before Desert Storm came about. In 1991, then SecDef Cheney came up with a plan to reduce military active duty strength to 1.6 million. Clinton and congress carried out the Bush administration's plans for gutting the US military.
Bush I got the gutting of the US military rolling. The 3rd Armored Division was scheduled to be de-activated before Desert Storm came about. In 1991, then SecDef Cheney came up with a plan to reduce military active duty strength to 1.6 million. Clinton and congress carried out the Bush administration's plans for gutting the US military.
Just a note on war
imho, every war represents a failure. No I can't back that up with examples from every war going back the Peloponnesian.
But if I may bring up one example, the "good" war WWII. People are fond of using Neville Chamberlain when ever lack of military strength is brought up. That's because of course his strategy of appeasement toward Germany.
Chamberlain represents a failure that lead to WWII.
Other people point to the Treaty of Versailles as a failure of Wilson, Lloyd George and Clemenceau. The draconian treaty lead directly to the raise of demagogues in Germany with Hitler being the one that won out.
Hind sight is 20/20 and the trick is finding the failure at the time rather than half a century later. But the fact remains, in case after case we find that wars could have been avoided if there hadn't been a failure in some area.
I am not a supporter of Ron Paul, nor will I ever be. His anti-war stance isn't simply against all wars. He echoes Washington's "no foreign entanglements' and Eisenhower's distrust of the "Military-Industrial Complex".
While it might be in some ways a simplistic policy, it is an arguable position to take.
Regarding the invasion and occupation of Iraq. At the time there were sufficient warnings against acting precipitously. Yet congress, the executive and the media all failed to seriously consider alternatives to or reasons not to invade.
Had Ron Paul's position regarding foreign entanglements and distrust of militarism been the normative position in government, it is much more likely that we would have taken more time to look before we leaped into Iraq.
imho, every war represents a failure. No I can't back that up with examples from every war going back the Peloponnesian.
But if I may bring up one example, the "good" war WWII. People are fond of using Neville Chamberlain when ever lack of military strength is brought up. That's because of course his strategy of appeasement toward Germany.
Chamberlain represents a failure that lead to WWII.
Other people point to the Treaty of Versailles as a failure of Wilson, Lloyd George and Clemenceau. The draconian treaty lead directly to the raise of demagogues in Germany with Hitler being the one that won out.
Hind sight is 20/20 and the trick is finding the failure at the time rather than half a century later. But the fact remains, in case after case we find that wars could have been avoided if there hadn't been a failure in some area.
I am not a supporter of Ron Paul, nor will I ever be. His anti-war stance isn't simply against all wars. He echoes Washington's "no foreign entanglements' and Eisenhower's distrust of the "Military-Industrial Complex".
While it might be in some ways a simplistic policy, it is an arguable position to take.
Regarding the invasion and occupation of Iraq. At the time there were sufficient warnings against acting precipitously. Yet congress, the executive and the media all failed to seriously consider alternatives to or reasons not to invade.
Had Ron Paul's position regarding foreign entanglements and distrust of militarism been the normative position in government, it is much more likely that we would have taken more time to look before we leaped into Iraq.