What Presidential Election Has Had the Most Negative Impact on America in Modern Times

Bush92

GHBush1992
May 23, 2014
34,808
10,703
1,400
I have three: 1964 when LBJ was elected and began to destroy our nation and the 10th Amendment through abuse of federal power. 2008 when Obama was elected and EVERYTHING was politicized and race baited from a new radical left. 2000 when GW Bush and neo-cons had an obsession with removing Saddam from power and now we have the mess in the Middle East.
 
Has there really been a good president since Coolidge?

Reagan was arguably good, but still compromised too much with democrooks.


 
1980

Our middle class took a shit and the rich got a huge tax cut.

Coolidge and hoover caused the great depresssion.

No it was the tight monetary polices the Federal Reserve instituted and Wilson who created the Federal Reserve and then the ticker tape in the stock market got behind in transactions. The stock market should have closed down until the sales transactions had been caught up.
The banks should never have given out credit to regular people who knew nothing about the stock market either.
 
Reagan was arguably good, but still compromised too much with democrooks.

He really didn't have much choice. Democrats were in very solid control of both houses of Congress, as they had been for decades before Reagan's term, and as they remained until a decade after Reagan left office. There simply was no way that any law was going to legitimately pass without the support of Democrats.

Reagan's great talent, as President, was in his ability to persuade the Democrats in Congress to support many of his policies, that they otherwise would have opposed, and successfully blocked.
 
I would say FDR for the biggest power grab of all time. He set the stage for LBJ.

He set the stage for much, much more, and much, much worse than just LBJ.

Really, the FDR administration is the one point in history that one can point to and identify as the point where we allowed the federal government to go irrecoverably out of control.
 
I was talking to my grandmother about FDR, and mentioned that he was responsible for interning Japanese-Americans during World War II.

My Irish Catholic grandmother was as outraged as if I had taken a consecrated Communion wafer and spit it on the floor:

"Don't you dare say anything bad about President Roosevelt!!!"

FDR bamboozled an entire generation of Americans into thinking he was some sort of god.
 
Actually, I think that 1968 did us more harm than we realize.... Humprey would have been a superior president over Nixon in every possible way.
Nixon was a good President. Did right thing in Cambodia and handled USSR well. 1972 landslide speaks to his popularity. Humphrey would have waffled on tough issues and played politics.
 
Reagan was arguably good, but still compromised too much with democrooks.

He really didn't have much choice. Democrats were in very solid control of both houses of Congress, as they had been for decades before Reagan's term, and as they remained until a decade after Reagan left office. There simply was no way that any law was going to legitimately pass without the support of Democrats.

Reagan's great talent, as President, was in his ability to persuade the Democrats in Congress to support many of his policies, that they otherwise would have opposed, and successfully blocked.
Democrats controlled the Congress almost exclusively from 1932 until 1994.
 
Nixon was a very good President. He dialed down the tension between the Soviet Union with detant, and he helped open China to the world after it's decades-long status as a pariah state.
 
Reagan was arguably good, but still compromised too much with democrooks.

He really didn't have much choice. Democrats were in very solid control of both houses of Congress, as they had been for decades before Reagan's term, and as they remained until a decade after Reagan left office. There simply was no way that any law was going to legitimately pass without the support of Democrats.

Reagan's great talent, as President, was in his ability to persuade the Democrats in Congress to support many of his policies, that they otherwise would have opposed, and successfully blocked.

The Republicans had a majority in the Senate from 1981-1986.

BTW - The answer is clearly 2000 with GW Bush.
 
Reagan was arguably good, but still compromised too much with democrooks.

He really didn't have much choice. Democrats were in very solid control of both houses of Congress, as they had been for decades before Reagan's term, and as they remained until a decade after Reagan left office. There simply was no way that any law was going to legitimately pass without the support of Democrats.

Reagan's great talent, as President, was in his ability to persuade the Democrats in Congress to support many of his policies, that they otherwise would have opposed, and successfully blocked.

The Republicans had a majority in the Senate from 1981-1986.

BTW - The answer is clearly 2000 with GW Bush.


Reagans economy sucked
He granted amnesty to 3 million people
He gave a blow jump to the super rich
He destroyed our middle class...
Reagan ran like a little bitch from Lebanon.
Reagan trained fighters in Afghanistan that would become the taliban
 
Actually, I think that 1968 did us more harm than we realize.... Humprey would have been a superior president over Nixon in every possible way.
Nixon was a good President. Did right thing in Cambodia and handled USSR well. 1972 landslide speaks to his popularity. Humphrey would have waffled on tough issues and played politics.

He created the epa which of course cleaned up our air and water. Nixon did some great things.
 
Actually, I think that 1968 did us more harm than we realize.... Humprey would have been a superior president over Nixon in every possible way.
Nixon was a good President. Did right thing in Cambodia and handled USSR well. 1972 landslide speaks to his popularity. Humphrey would have waffled on tough issues and played politics.

He created the epa which of course cleaned up our air and water. Nixon did some great things.

Yeah, Nixon wasn't as bad as some make him out to be.

Of course by today's Republican standards he'd be considered a looney left libtard by most on the right.
 
William Jefferson Clinton.

1) NAFTA - Giving American Companies tax breaks to ship jobs overseas, ruining millions of jobs - some were great paying jobs.

2) Poor foreign policy decisions, along with getting bad advice from Richard Clarke and supporting Clarkes decisions. he let America get bombed and terrorized and did nothing.

3) His second election, he won the electoral vote but lost the popular vote if I recall correctly.

4) His many blatant lies to Congress, as well as various Senators. Simple perjury. For a lawyer, whom graduated from Law School....... YALE law school at that.......he was terribly stupid and ignorant. Bill Clinton could not lead a kinder guard class to the playground ; and his word is worthless. He is not credible as a person.......OR a public servant. I see Bill Clinton as an oxygen thief.

5) I do not remember exactly right now, but Presidential Directives he signed that were utmost ridiculous ; YES I did actually read some of them one time. Presidential Directives that were politically motivated as I seen ; probably to big industry or a large corporate sponsor of his. How do you thank someone for supporting you by paying to attend a $25,000 dollar election dinner - You sign a Presidential Directive that benefits them.

Jeeze can the world get anymore crooked. You see William Jefferson Clinton, and you see a Dogs hind leg.


Shadow 355
 
Actually, I think that 1968 did us more harm than we realize.... Humprey would have been a superior president over Nixon in every possible way.
Nixon was a good President. Did right thing in Cambodia and handled USSR well. 1972 landslide speaks to his popularity. Humphrey would have waffled on tough issues and played politics.

He was not a bad President. He was just a criminal.

Shadow 355
 
Nixon was an anti-Semite and a despicable racist.

Yeah he probably was a pretty hateful person, and didn't handle Vietnam very well. But really I don't see his presidency as being as negative for the country as some others.
 

Forum List

Back
Top