Who was the worst President since the Depression

[Capt Worley PE]

^Which eventually led to Oregon Trail...

 

[Supe]

Which eventually led to the sole reason I attended elementary school - to play Oregon Trail.

 

[DVINNY]

I wish we had another Ronald Reagan running this year.

It is no secret that I am one of the board's resident Republican/Conservatives, but we DO NOT HAVE A CANDIDATE worth his weight in shit this time around. And it scares me that BHO may get another 4 years by default, because he is horrible.

The far right is actually ruining the Republican party right now. I will agree to that. I think we need to find a candidate who doesn't march to the current beat. I think that we may possibly need to raise the capital gains tax from 15% to 20%. (Guess what is was under Reagan?, yup 20%)

As a small government conservative, I agree with the party that this spending spree on social programs needs to stop now. But to dig ourselves out of the hole, the top 1% will have to bite the bullet some, and that last statement is not popular amoung my party members.

I think Romney may be the candidate who currently comes closest, IMO, but has a long way to go to be desired.

 

[Capt Worley PE]

Romney sucks...he IS Obama. But pretty much, they all suck.

The Reps need a fiscal conservative and social liberal.

 

[engineergurl]

I wish we had another Ronald Reagan running this year.

It is no secret that I am one of the board's resident Republican/Conservatives, but we DO NOT HAVE A CANDIDATE worth his weight in shit this time around. And it scares me that BHO may get another 4 years by default, because he is horrible.

The far right is actually ruining the Republican party right now. I will agree to that. I think we need to find a candidate who doesn't march to the current beat. I think that we may possibly need to raise the capital gains tax from 15% to 20%. (Guess what is was under Reagan?, yup 20%)

As a small government conservative, I agree with the party that this spending spree on social programs needs to stop now. But to dig ourselves out of the hole, the top 1% will have to bite the bullet some, and that last statement is not popular amoung my party members.

I think Romney may be the candidate who currently comes closest, IMO, but has a long way to go to be desired.

I really wish Giuliani and Palin would run together....

 

[Exengineer]

It's a curious thing that some people think Kennedy was or would have been the worst President, and others have said he would have been the greatest of the past 50 years. I think it has much to do with his refusal to invade Cuba in 1961 after the Bay of Pigs disaster and his refusal to escalate in Vietnam. I suspect the people who worship militarism and intervention are the ones who hated him, and some of those are responsible for his death.

 

[benbo]

The Reps need a fiscal conservative and social liberal.

This is what most people think when they say libertarian..

This type of person might win but they wouldn't get my vote. I might vote for a social moderate - for example I could see voting for Mitch Daniels., but I would never have voted for Giuliani. A lot of Christians, a huge part of the Republican base, wouldn't vote for a social liberal. So it's tough to say how they would fare. Plus it depends on their specific positions on various issues, and what you consider a "social" issue. Social liberal can mean many things, and often they come in a package along with the candidate. For example, many so-called social liberals would favor gun control, amnesty for illegal aliens, expansive hate crime legislation, restrictions on religious symbolism in public, environmental regulation or nanny state laws as long as they don't affect taxation or cost a lot.. Those are the kiss of death for many Republicans.

What people generally mean when they say they like a "social liberal" relates primarily to their positon on one issue - abortion.. THat makes very little diffence to the vast majority of people because for thirty years nothing has happened in that area but you have to be willing to lose that voting lock, which is large and involved, and hope you pick it up elsewhere. Or it could mean gay marriage, which is also a forgone conclusion IMO so anybody would be ridiculous to vote on that issue.

Frankly, I'm more in DVinny's camp. I thnk this dogmatic adherence to no increased taxation for anyone or eliminati0on of any deductions under any circumstances is silly. I primarily think it is for show anyway. It may or may not be a good idea during the current economic situation, but having this as an invilolable rule makes no sense to me. A tiny marginal increase in myu taxes, while I wouldn't like it, won't drive me to the poor house or affect my purchasing habits. I think people richer than I wold care even less.

in fact, because of the failure to reach an agreement, I may be seeing an increase when the payroll tax cuts expire.

 

[Badger]

Great topic and discussion.

Here my 2 cents, if it is worth that:

I didn't like Kennedy, I didn't like his accent when I was little. Incidently I believe he basically got us into Viet Nam, the general's consensus wass to stay out of there, no win situation. We were involved enough unheard about conflicts at the time.

LBJ and Nixon had an unpopular war, and both made mistakes. Ford hit people with golf balls alot. The rich peanut farmer said it was okay to lust as long as we didn't act on it or something like that. He knuckled under to the unions.

I liked Reagan, even watch some of his old movies, but he approved taxing savings accounts.

George Busch years were okay, he should not have pissed Ross Perot off and he probably would have been elected.

Clinton, he was a cad. Whether he was worse than Kennedy or FDR in that respect, who knows, he got caught fooling around.He may end up looking pretty good in the future as he wasn't able to do much with the republican dominated congress.

George W was good for comedians and talk show monologs. Should not have been so quick to jump into the Iraq war, hould have listened to his dad.

Obamas bailouts will keep his place forever in our hearts, or is that heartburn?

 

[Capt Worley PE]

What people generally mean when they say they like a "social liberal" relates primarily to their positon on one issue - abortion.

Well, when I say social liberal, I mean if it isn't my business, it definitely isn't the government's business. So, yeah, I'm pro choice on abortion. But, that's also a wedge issue and really not an appropriate debate at the presidential level, IMO.

For example, many so-called social liberals would favor gun control, amnesty for illegal aliens, expansive hate crime legislation, restrictions on religious symbolism in public, environmental regulation or nanny state laws as long as they don't affect taxation or cost a lot...

Not true. All those fall under the fiscal conservative part. Less government intervention at the federal level is one of my main concerns (although I'm realist enough to know that won't happen).

 

[benbo]

Well, when I say social liberal, I mean if it isn't my business, it definitely isn't the government's business. So, yeah, I'm pro choice on abortion. But, that's also a wedge issue and really not an appropriate debate at the presidential level, IMO.

You mean libertarian, which is different from liberal.

So you would be against government funding for abortion, and against any government funding of a place like Planned Parenthood or stem cell research? Since those involve spending taxpayer money those are appropriate issues, albeit not really critical ones. All of that is private sector? Or do youu believe funding those things is the government's business, which is a pretty expansive view, IMO. Frankkly, that's about all that is realistically going to happen vis a vis this issue. Or possibly the overturn of Roe v. Wade which many people consider a Federal government intrusion into state's rights, but is also unlikely to happen. So it's not all that clear cut.

I think many or most social issues are wedge issues. For example, should gun control be part of the debate? I think that's a wedge issue.

I was mainly interested to see if what you meant was you would prefer a social liberal, or if you thought that was the best way to win. I don't think that's particularly clear. It doesn't seem like the Republican part has had too much trouble winning elections since Reagan consolidtated the fiscal and social conservatives and the military hawks.

 

[benbo]

It is often difficult to tell what is they "libertarian" social position. Take gay marriage, which I'm fine with BTW. Obviously, telling gay people they cannot civilly marry is government intrusion. But so is government sanctioning of gay marriage or any other marriage for that matter. Marriage could be handled with contract law and religious recognition but historically the civil authorites have some reason for believing they have a stake in the institution. In reality, both federal and state governments already have their noses so far up the marriage issue it's virtually impossible to adopt a libertarian position on this that could realistically be implemented. You'd have to change property, parental, probate, and and tax law for starters, along with probably many other parts of the law to one extent or other..

 

[Capt Worley PE]

Lots of questions...I'll try to break it up.

So you would be against government funding for abortion, and against any government funding of a place like Planned Parenthood or stem cell research?

I'm against government funding for abortion or planned parenthood. I support government funding for stem cell research provided the results of said research become public domain.

I think many or most social issues are wedge issues. For example, should gun control be part of the debate? I think that's a wedge issue.

It is a wedge issue and shouldn't be part of the debate.

I was mainly interested to see if what you meant was you would prefer a social liberal, or if you thought that was the best way to win.

I'm not positive its a better way to win, but I do think the Republicans would have a better chance at attracting more moderates if they'd drop opposition to certain issues like abortion based solely on a religious basis.

It doesn't seem like the Republican part has had too much trouble winning elections since Reagan consolidtated the fiscal and social conservatives and the military hawks.

They've been hit and miss in the house, senate, and presidential elections since GHWB, and I'd say, with regards to the presidential candidates this year, they are a gigantic miss.

It is often difficult to tell what is they "libertarian" social position. Take gay marriage, which I'm fine with BTW.

I'm fine with gay marriage if the call it a civil union or something. My sole objection to it is the use of the word 'marriage.' The concept I'm cool with.

 

[Exception Collection]

Also breaking it up.

I'm against government funding for abortion or planned parenthood. I support government funding for stem cell research provided the results of said research become public domain.

How do you justify the support of stem cell research (I assume you mean fetal stem cell research, since adult stem cell research has continued unabated), while removing government funding for abortion? More importantly, how do you justify taking funding away from Planned Parenthood, and organization that provides prenatal and preventative services to millions of Americans that are not seeking abortions? Sometimes they are the only way to get supplies (medicines etc) for those in need. (I should note - I'm pro-life, vehemently so)

I'm not positive its a better way to win, but I do think the Republicans would have a better chance at attracting more moderates if they'd drop opposition to certain issues like abortion based solely on a religious basis.

That'd be nice. I don't want to be dragged kicking & screaming into a theocracy; I want good society-based reasons for laws, not religious.

I'm fine with gay marriage if the call it a civil union or something. My sole objection to it is the use of the word 'marriage.' The concept I'm cool with.

So, separate and unequal? Civil Uniions, as currently used, are missing a huge number of rights and benefits. More importantly from my perspective, it places gay & lesbian couples into a separate class, regardless of the religious beliefs they follow. The Catholic Church is forced to recognize third and fourth marriages of divorcees against their canon law; why couldn't other churches?

Of course, my church (A Congregationalist/UCC church) *does* accept marriage equality - so defining it (legally) as something other than marriage strips my church from being able to have religious freedom.

UNLESS - and this is an argument I would be willing to accept - *ALL* relationships are called Civil Unions in the eyes of the law, and only Churches are granted the ability to marry. That I would support as equal (though not ideal).

 

[DVINNY]

UNLESS - and this is an argument I would be willing to accept - *ALL* relationships are called Civil Unions in the eyes of the law, and only Churches are granted the ability to marry. That I would support as equal (though not ideal).

If anything ever does change about the topic, this ^^ will be the result.

It will be a shame IMO, but that's how it is.

Kind of like the "UNFAIRNESS" of insurance for a male and females going on in the UK this year. People bitched about how auto insurance was more expensive for a male than it was for a female... so what happened? The AUTO EQUALITY ACT,

They raised the ladies rates too.

A group will say that its unfair another group gets this and that, and soon enough, both groups are sitting in the shitter together.

 

[wilheldp_PE]

A group will say that its unfair another group gets this and that, and soon enough, both groups are sitting in the shitter together.

It's not feasible to bring everybody up to the higher standard, so everybody gets brought down to the lower standard. Lowest common denominator. Everybody is equally shitty.

It's the reason that the quality of public school keeps dropping. Nobody is allowed to fail, so they keep lowering the passing standard to the point where nothing is really learned.

 

[Exception Collection]

UNLESS - and this is an argument I would be willing to accept - *ALL* relationships are called Civil Unions in the eyes of the law, and only Churches are granted the ability to marry. That I would support as equal (though not ideal).

If anything ever does change about the topic, this ^^ will be the result.

It will be a shame IMO, but that's how it is.

Kind of like the "UNFAIRNESS" of insurance for a male and females going on in the UK this year. People bitched about how auto insurance was more expensive for a male than it was for a female... so what happened? The AUTO EQUALITY ACT,

They raised the ladies rates too.

A group will say that its unfair another group gets this and that, and soon enough, both groups are sitting in the shitter together.

Except that there's no reason except bigotry to deny LGBT couples the right to marry - we can have kids (via surrogates, donors, in vitro or adoption), we can raise kids (in some cases better than straight couples, according to a somewhat flawed 2010 study), and ... what other than that is suggested as a reason to not allow gay marriage? Oh yeah, religion and/or "We think they're disgusting" attitudes.

It *is* feasible to bring us all up to the higher standard when it comes to the legal rights associated with marriages - by either giving civil unions the same legal weight (and converting all legal marriages to civil unions), or by giving LGBT couples the right to marry. Personally, I prefer the first option; as someone that believes marriages are lifelong commitments I don't like people like my father and Newt Gingrich referring to themselves as married to their current legal partner. However, that isn't a socially acceptable option.

 

[Exengineer]

It now appears whoever gets "selected" President will be the worst President ever, and then the next one will be the worst and so on until some type of Great Upheaval takes place in the U.S. and the current form of government gets swept away such as occurred in the Iron Curtain countries after the fall of the Soviet Union. It is a form of government that is unsustainable and unsupported by the vast majority of its citizens.

 

[MGX]

It now appears whoever gets "selected" President will be the worst President ever, and then the next one will be the worst and so on until some type of Great Upheaval takes place in the U.S. and the current form of government gets swept away such as occurred in the Iron Curtain countries after the fall of the Soviet Union. It is a form of government that is unsustainable and unsupported by the vast majority of its citizens.

Your first point is spot on. Whoever is in the white house is always the worst president ever. Your second point seems a bit bonkers.

 

[Exception Collection]

It now appears whoever gets "selected" President will be the worst President ever, and then the next one will be the worst and so on until some type of Great Upheaval takes place in the U.S. and the current form of government gets swept away such as occurred in the Iron Curtain countries after the fall of the Soviet Union. It is a form of government that is unsustainable and unsupported by the vast majority of its citizens.

Your first point is spot on. Whoever is in the white house is always the worst president ever. Your second point seems a bit bonkers.

Indeed. The current form of government is probably ideal or near-ideal. Oh, it's by no means perfect, but it's a lot better than anything else that's been tried.

Speaking personally, I think it could be made much better by making the following (some very significant) changes:

-Redistribute Statehood to smaller areas (Example: split OR & WA into a three or four "State" region), or abolish it entirely. A nation comprised of dozens of States made a lot of sense in the 1800's and 1900's - A single large government could not efficiently distribute resources to every region of the country; as we've developed technology to the point of instant communication and very fast travel - as well as larger cities - we've developed the need for better (more local) control over smaller areas or better (more centralized) control over all of them. Right now, the Fed is duplicating effort that a lot of States should be doing, and vice versa.

-End Corporate Personhood. Period. Corporations are imaginary constructs that can and should be allowed to own property and be treated as businesses for the sake of simplicity, but when it comes down to it there is no compelling reason a corporation needs the same rights as people do. Oh, and make corporate charters easier to revoke when malfeasance on the part of executives screws something up.

-Instant Runoff Voting. Let people vote for their true choice, then their second choice, then their third choice. It'll result in a much stronger multi-party system.

 

[engineergurl]

^^^ that wouldn't fly, a lot of states wouldn't agree with you...