Jump to content
270soft Forum
vcczar

Worst Person to be President Poll

Worst Person to be President Poll  

21 members have voted

  1. 1. Which of the following is the worst person to be president? I'll list one terrible thing about them.

    • Washington -- Extracted his own slaves's teeth for his dentures.
    • Jefferson -- Had sexual relations with his own underage slave and kept their children as some of his 200+ slaves
    • Jackson -- Large Slaveholder who initiated the Trail of Tears, resulting in the deaths of hundreds of Native Americans.
    • Madison -- Large Slaveholder who launched an avoidable war with UK, resulting in thousands of deaths.
    • Monroe -- Large Slaveholder
      0
    • Tyler - Large Slaveholder
      0
    • Polk - Large Slaveholder who launched an avoidable war with Mexico, resulting in thousands of deaths in two countries.
    • US Grant -- Inaugurated a War of Attrition, realizing he could sacrifice and replace his troops, while the South couldn't. Choose mathematics and victory over humanism
      0
    • McKinley -- Launched an avoidable war with Mexico, resulting in thousands of deaths in two countries.
    • Lincoln -- Opted for Unionism and abolitionism in exchange for half a million Civil War deaths
      0
    • T Roosevelt -- Sank the election chances of his own party and of his own friend (Taft) by running a 3rd party campaign.
      0
    • Wilson -- Rabid segregationist who segregated the executive branch and chased a black man out of the White House
    • Harding - Gambled and drank during prohibition, and gambled away the White House china.
    • Coolidge -- Refused to respond to the Great Mississippi Flood (the Katrina of its time)
    • FDR - Japanese internment camps
    • JFK - Arguably had the most affairs of any president to hold office
      0
    • LBJ - Philanderer who launched an avoidable war in Vietnam, resulting in thousands of deaths
    • Nixon - Anti-semite who was found culpable for Watergate
    • Reagan - Opted to do nothing during the AIDS epidemic.
    • Bush I - Me Too'd a bunch of women late in life
      0
    • Clinton -- Philanderer who lied to the US people on live TV
      0
    • Bush II -- Launched an avoidable war, which spawned several more military crises, resulting in thousands of deaths.
    • Obama -- Increased drone warfare and allowed the targeting of US citizens; albeit, extremely dangerous ones.
      0
    • Trump - Narcissistic, corrupt, philanderer, birther, and arguable White Nationalist apologist who has a catalogued history of corruption and cruelty.
  2. 2. Do any of the above actions or behaviors warrant a removal of statues or the prevention of creating statues for any of these presidents?

    • Yes, any of these actions are so appauling that a statue to any of them are a slap to the face for those that have suffered and for their descendants.
    • Some do; however, they should be weighed by the entirety of what they've done and not just on their behavior, especially in private life.
    • No, all presidents and great historical figures should have immunity to their failings.
      0
    • Other
      0


Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, vcczar said:

The word exists for a reason. Although, there are times it is used hyperbolically. 

That is accurate; however, it is a word (like many others) that us overused and used in the wrong context (much like accusations of racism, anti-Americanism, etc.). When such accusations have no basis and are just thrown around, it diminishes situations when they can be properly applied and also makes it very difficult to have a simple respectful conversation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, jvikings1 said:

Well, putting an extremely harsh label such as bigot to someone who has a legitimate disagreement on something is definitely more towards intolerance rather than sharp and solid disagreement. Doing so prevents a quality discussion from occurring since it launches directly into name calling an accusations (without any basis for supporting them). Sharp disagreement can occur while still maintaining a respectful conversation in good faith.

It's hard to engage in respectful and quality conversation in good faith on such an issue to begin with who starts out by quoting such conspiracy theories as the "LGBTQ agenda," which have long been used to shut the door on acknowledging that those of alternate sexual identity and orientation should be allowed Constitutional rights and protections and allowed to live a tenable and viable life without fear and persecution, or without artificially warping their lifestyle to the point where mental illness and social distortion arise. Even Christ said, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone," "Judge not lest ye be judged," and "Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us." @admin_270's post I was responding to was, in fact, very intolerant of other opinions - and lifestyles - and, like others of who use that terminology, create the myth that all who advocate for it belong to some evil conspiracy intent on destroying the, and who also supposedly engage in ridiculous things they don't at all, and no evidence exists for - like "gay recruitment" - to add more further ammunition to the fire - like old Anti-Semites creating ridiculous myths like "blood libel," and such to drum up more hatred of Jews in old days.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Patine said:

starts out by quoting such conspiracy theories as the "LGBTQ agenda,"

Not intending a conspiracy. Just trying to separate 'anti-LGBT' from being anti-'a group of people' and anti-'certain policies that pertain to a group of people'. If you have another term you'd prefer, you're welcome to offer it.

28 minutes ago, Patine said:

@admin_270's post I was responding to was, in fact, very intolerant of other opinions

In what way? I was simply outlining potential reasons people could have to be against policies like same-sex marriage.

It seems like even discussing the possibility is 'intolerant' to you. Silly.

The rest of your comment descends into even greater silliness.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

Not intending a conspiracy. Just trying to separate 'anti-LGBT' from being anti-'a group of people' and anti-'certain policies that pertain to a group of people'. If you have another term you'd prefer, you're welcome to offer it.

In what way? I was simply outlining potential reasons people could have to be against policies like same-sex marriage.

It seems like even discussing the possibility is 'intolerant' to you. Silly.

The rest of your comment descends into even greater silliness.

I'm not playing this game of disingenuous distortion of terms of perceived intents. You can declare your point of view is "rational," and "well-supported and -balanced," and mine is "silly," and intolerant," all you want using these juvenile - and highly transparent and feeble - attempts at "turnaround," and declare a "rhetorical victory," by saying every I say just gets, "sillier," and you still by "hold a solid ground," - just by fiat of statement without addressing the real issues in any depth - and re-phrasing, but altering the actual content of - your "conspiracy theory idea," - but you've won nothing, and I see right through this ploy, and I highly, highly you've anyone else, but maybe one or two others - on this forum either. But since YOU - not I - have effectively put up the brick wall on meaningful and rational and open debate on this topic, I will address it no further with no - but this is in NO way, shape, or form a capitulation or admission or defeat or any "point," you may have - just saving myself a big headache.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...