loosecannon
Moderator
Nixon was pretty unpopular. And as has been pointed out so was Lincoln.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Bush most unpopular president in history
- Thread starter Buzzcook
- Start date
Yellowfin: We could go back to the Balfour Declaration and earlier.
What were the failures and how do we learn from them.
We do seem to have learned from Chamberlain and Munich. I think perhaps we would do better to keep the lesson of Versailles in mind, but we aren't there yet.
What were the failures and how do we learn from them.
We do seem to have learned from Chamberlain and Munich. I think perhaps we would do better to keep the lesson of Versailles in mind, but we aren't there yet.
The American Research Group - check em out...Where is this survey getting its info?
Readers Digest version is they are a research group which targets consumer purchasing trends and how best to use that information to establish a predatory merchadising plan.
The devil is in the details - here's the exact wording copied and pasted from their website:
"George W. Bush's overall job approval rating has dropped to a new low in American Research Group polling as 78% of Americans say the national economy is getting worse."
Notice how it's worded "dropped to a new low in American Research Group polling".
This could be the only time the American Research Group ever ran a poll like this, so the statment would be 100% accurate. Meaningless, but 100% accurate.
It sure does bring the cheering lefties & Democrats & Bush bashers out in force though doesn't it?
If all this thread is about is popularity, the thread title is obviously wrong. Lincoln holds that title. A president whose election to office caused the entire southern half of the country to rebel and attempt to form a separate country must have been pretty darned unpopular. Seems self-evident that Lincoln is the most unpopular by simple comparison: No other such monumental event had ever occurred before, nor has it ever occurred since.Why are you guys arguing over best / worst president when this is about popularity?
However, "popularity" is a loose and moving (and ultimately useless) measure for judging a president. History changes every day. At one point in time, Lincoln hit the lowest point in terms of historical presidential popularity. He's now the most popular. So which popularity measure do you use in evaluating his presidency? The lowest or the highest?
armedtotheteeth
New member
Wingman- I did sign on the dotted line. I spent 7 years of my life underwater in a Nuclear sub. I am not however a warmonger, but i do dislike terrorist a$$monkeys killing my innocent countrymen. Remember 9-11? We screamed into war, with whoever we thought we could pin it on. "They said " Death to America" we brought them a huge truckload of whoopASS. Its just difficult to get out of there without looking like a wuss. Bush will leave that job to the spineless Dem replacement, that wants to ban handguns, "assault rifles, and 50 cals, this includes your Mini14 and M14, Possibly even Garands. Once these weapons are gone, or banned, it is only a small step to get rid of them all, for good. Baby steps,, that is what they are doing. If you even dream of voting for Obama, or Hillary.. You are way in the wrong forum.
Oh Yes, Clinton Butchered the military, Again, i was there. Bush has fixxed alot of it, But those days are numbered..
Oh Yes, Clinton Butchered the military, Again, i was there. Bush has fixxed alot of it, But those days are numbered..
SamHouston
New member
The national press who currently supports Clinton or Obama has done an excellet job drilling the public on the bad war we are fighting the last 5-6 years.
The pen is mightier than the sword. Just imagine if we ever get an evil person in power that has the power of the press. History does repeat itself and the next evil dictator may not be in Germany.
The pen is mightier than the sword. Just imagine if we ever get an evil person in power that has the power of the press. History does repeat itself and the next evil dictator may not be in Germany.
An obscure poll taken as gospel again???
Gallup, Rasmussen, these guys have reputations as credible pollsters to maintain and no political loyalty. The are the standard bearers and to skew a poll would cause them to lose that standing and consequently, their livelihoods.
Gallup has Presidential approval at 37%
Rassmussen has it at 35%
I doubt highly that they are 20 points off and 'Bush sucks.com' has it right.
Gallup, Rasmussen, these guys have reputations as credible pollsters to maintain and no political loyalty. The are the standard bearers and to skew a poll would cause them to lose that standing and consequently, their livelihoods.
Gallup has Presidential approval at 37%
Rassmussen has it at 35%
I doubt highly that they are 20 points off and 'Bush sucks.com' has it right.
Unregistered
Moderator
I don't think I have ever seen anyone brag about a 37% approval rating before.
highest between the President, House, and Senate......
The point is that the numbers in the OP's link are invalid and therefore so is the premise built off them. This is called sophistry. The favorite tactic of the left as it works so well on the uninformed and emotionally led manics.
The point is that the numbers in the OP's link are invalid and therefore so is the premise built off them. This is called sophistry. The favorite tactic of the left as it works so well on the uninformed and emotionally led manics.
The US is NOT "fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them over here." Iraq would never have invaded or attacked the US if we hadn't invaded them. Our government is fighting wars halfway around the world for Israel's benefit, since that is the neocon agenda. At least this is true in the case of Iraq -- the hunt for bin Laden can certainly be seen as justified.
What I'd like to know is: What is stopping any terrorist from coming here RIGHT NOW? Do people really think that just because US troops are stationed in Iraq, that's going to stop terrorists from simply traveling here from the Middle East and doing their thing?
If our government cared about OUR national security, it would remove the troops from Iraq and station them on the US borders to prevent any infiltration. It's just that simple.
Besides, the terrorist threat is WAY overblown. It's all fear-mongering. Even if there were a 9/11-style attack every year, your chances of ever dying in one would be vanishingly small.
If all the trillions of dollars being spent on the "War on Terror" were spent on cancer research, we'd probably have a cure by now, and far, FAR more American lives would be saved. But evidently it's more important to invade small, relatively defenseless countries to prove how "tough" we are, and then get bogged down in guerrilla conflicts for the long haul.
What I'd like to know is: What is stopping any terrorist from coming here RIGHT NOW? Do people really think that just because US troops are stationed in Iraq, that's going to stop terrorists from simply traveling here from the Middle East and doing their thing?
If our government cared about OUR national security, it would remove the troops from Iraq and station them on the US borders to prevent any infiltration. It's just that simple.
Besides, the terrorist threat is WAY overblown. It's all fear-mongering. Even if there were a 9/11-style attack every year, your chances of ever dying in one would be vanishingly small.
If all the trillions of dollars being spent on the "War on Terror" were spent on cancer research, we'd probably have a cure by now, and far, FAR more American lives would be saved. But evidently it's more important to invade small, relatively defenseless countries to prove how "tough" we are, and then get bogged down in guerrilla conflicts for the long haul.
Congress does have a terrible approval rating as well, but that's because they were elected to oppose Bush on Iraq and have failed to do so. They deserve their crappy approval rating just as much as Bush does. I consider the Democrats (esp. Hillary) to be false opposition to the neocons.My kid the "Bush basher" loves to point out to me how unpopular "W" is according to these polls and how it reflects on the entire Republican party.
He shuts up pronto when I point out to him that the approval rating of the (Democrat controlled) Congress is right at the same level - or in this case 1 point lower @ 18% - if you believe in these type of things.
Mathematically, this statement is wrong. The numbers of Islamic terrorists are not infinite. They are finite. Their finite numbers must obey the laws of physics; therefore, they cannot be in more than one place at a time.Do people really think that just because US troops are stationed in Iraq, that's going to stop terrorists from simply traveling here from the Middle East and doing their thing?
Any of their numbers that are taken from Iraq to be used elsewhere cannot be used to fight US troops in Iraq and will subsequently weaken their Iraq operations.
Right now, the Islamofacists have decided that a victory for them in Iraq will be more important for their cause than a handful of strikes in the US. They are correct. Also, running operations in Iraq is far easier than running operations in the US. To see why this is so, consider the difficulties of getting to the US mainland, getting your material resources transported and gathered, being on unfamiliar ground, having to learn English, having safe houses and sympathizers in place, getting resupplied, etc. On every one of those factors, Iraq is a far easier battleground for them than operations inside the US. Also, a US failure in Iraq will be more damaging to US morale, leading to greater division than currently exits, whereas a strike inside the US at this time would galavanize our population.
So yes, US troops in Iraq are helping keep terrorists from simply traveling here from the Middle East and doing their thing, because the terrorists' leaders have decided they need them in Iraq more than in the US.
Whether you supported or opposed the original invasion of Iraq, the current situation is what it is.
None of which is germane to the topic, but this error begged for redress. Lincoln still remains both the most unpopular and the most popular American president in history.
Wildalaska
Moderator
Wasn't there a Presidnet named Dick Nixon?
WildirememberhimAlaska ™
WildirememberhimAlaska ™
Polls are not the only way to determine popularity or unpopularity. If you can show another reaction to a president worse than the entire southern half of the country committing rebellion, by all means share it.History has a way of hiding those who were more disliked.
Kreyzhorse
New member
The war debt that Dubya has racked up is something that this country will never dig out of. $275 million a day. Who holds a lot of the debt? China. If I'm not mistaken, isn't China part of the axis of evil yet this President continues to fund the Axis by allowing them to acquire our war debt.
FISA? Please - the man claims FISA is the only way to protect America from "terroists who are right now planning to kill Americans" yet he veto's a bill that would have allowed FISA to continue but didn't give the telecomms immunity from lawsuits from crimes they may have or might commit in the future. FISA has nothing to do with saving American lives, but has every thing to do with protecting Big Business.
Yellow cake?
WMDs?
Katrina?
Alberto Gonzales?
I can go with worse President ever.
FISA? Please - the man claims FISA is the only way to protect America from "terroists who are right now planning to kill Americans" yet he veto's a bill that would have allowed FISA to continue but didn't give the telecomms immunity from lawsuits from crimes they may have or might commit in the future. FISA has nothing to do with saving American lives, but has every thing to do with protecting Big Business.
Yellow cake?
WMDs?
Katrina?
Alberto Gonzales?
I can go with worse President ever.