Worst American president of the 20th century. 65 replies

Please wait...

Dot Com

I'm too cool to Post

50 XP

26th June 2000

0 Uploads

6,116 Posts

0 Threads

#1 10 years ago

Who do you think was the worst and why? I haven't decided yet because I'm teetering on a few options. =p




Dot Com

I'm too cool to Post

50 XP

26th June 2000

0 Uploads

6,116 Posts

0 Threads

#2 10 years ago

I'm trying to decide between Nixon and Reagan.

Nixon did screw us over by ridding the country of the Bretton Woods system and the watergate scandal was a dark mark in American history. However, when you look at Reagan's shenanigans: War on Drugs, Central America, supply-side economics, Strategic Defense Initiative, Iran-Contra, deliberate crippling of the conservation movement, and wanting to test a nuke in the Tasman?

Tough choice.




Guest

I didn't make it!

0 XP

 
#3 10 years ago

l cant believe clinton is up there with nixon, LOL, wtf ! In the poll results that is. Clinton was ok, nice enough guy, made alot a good relationships with other countries. l was tossing up between nixon and bush jnr, l went with nixon, we have more history on him, lm sure when all of jnr bushes secrets get out he will be worse though !




Guest

I didn't make it!

0 XP

 
#4 10 years ago

Jimmy Carter. Absolutely horrible.

EDIT: Dexter, Bush Junior isn't up there. =p




Guest

I didn't make it!

0 XP

 
#5 10 years ago

they are all bad for different things. Here's my list: Eisenhower- pretty much responsible for the modern day Iran situation. He put the Shah in power, an oppressive dictator, so that iran would not become communist. the shah became so oppressive that he was overthrown in the islamic revolution, and as a result, Iran is a anti-West islamic theocracy. Nixon- Watergate. 'Nuff said. I actually felt Clinton was a very good diplomat, helping to end problems in northern Ireland, and the Balkans, albeit a war, although a necessary war. He also responded very quickly to the 1st WTC bombing.




Commissar MercZ

Notable Loser

300,005 XP

29th January 2005

0 Uploads

27,113 Posts

0 Threads

#6 10 years ago

bigtoenail123;4548394Jimmy Carter. Absolutely horrible.

EDIT: Dexter, Bush Junior isn't up there. =p

20 century, Bush Jr. is 21st century.

Don't know who to say right now. There are certain presidents I dislike, but I can't quite say who is terrible.




Fetter

How much room does this t

27,975 XP

14th October 2006

0 Uploads

2,290 Posts

0 Threads

#7 10 years ago

Reagan, easily. The War On Drugs has killed literally thousands of innocent people and has sapped our finances for years.




Penguin_Unit

Uh-oh.

50 XP

8th May 2007

0 Uploads

6,077 Posts

0 Threads

#8 10 years ago

Jimmy Carter. Failuretastic in a nutshell. Vader, how could anyone have forseen what would result from Eisenhower's actions? It's one thing if it was something that was predictable within a reasonable time frame, but if you think it's his fault because of a revolt? That's ludicrous to think that that is his fault.




Buddy Jesus

Who's your buddy

50 XP

6th September 2004

0 Uploads

757 Posts

0 Threads

#9 10 years ago

If you want an example of how not to be president you have to look at the presidency of Jimmy Carter. I really don't think that man had any clue about economy, or foreign affaris for that matter. When America needed to be strong with the Iran Hostage situation we weren't. we pissed away precious time and look like cowards. Jimmy carter, for sure the worst president of the 20th century and arguably the entire span of the U.S. Now as for Regan, I can't seem to see why people want to bash him as much as they do being that he was able to bring the economy out of the shitter Carter left it in and make it a powerful one once again. Lest we forget his help in speeding the demise of the USSR by pitting our budget defense budget against theirs essentially.




Guest

I didn't make it!

0 XP

 
#10 10 years ago
Penguin_Unit;4548768Jimmy Carter. Failuretastic in a nutshell. Vader, how could anyone have forseen what would result from Eisenhower's actions? It's one thing if it was something that was predictable within a reasonable time frame, but if you think it's his fault because of a revolt? That's ludicrous to think that that is his fault.

fair point. however, there was surely a less oppressive yet still not communist option. and it is kind of a trigger. The treaty of versailles, 20 years before WW2, was a trigger for WW2. same with eisenhower putting in the shah. not much difference in the gap. however, there is one important difference you highlighted. it wasn't exactly predictabe that the shah would be overthrown by islamic radicals. it was predictable that the treaty of versailles would alienate germmans, and create a hatred of the future allies. i exaggerated how i said it. To an extent, eisenhower was wrong to put the shah in place, but also, it was the shah's own fault for alienating his own people in a very unstable region. I think Reagan is a classic example of what i like to cal the churchill effec (or perhaps lincoln effect for you americans). a powerful leader who got their country through a tough time. it is inevitable that on the whole, people will look at him positively. virtually every leader on the victorious side is looked at positively, Lincoln, Lloyd-George, FDR, Kennedy (cuban missile crisis), Reagan. However, wars which aren't a huge threat to the country itself are generally viewed negatively. for example, Iraq and Vietnam.