The Worst President, your thoughts?
- Thread starter Nowhere Man
- Start date
I used to think Harding, but Bush II could pass him on my list. Have to wait and see how much long-term damage he's actually done.
Nowhere Man
Commodore
So far these lists are good I don't see much I can argue with. The two things I will argue is the assessment that any President that supported slavery would make the list. If that is the case then the first 17/18 Presidents would make that list. I also don't see Abdrew Johnson on the list, he was carrying out Lincoln's post war plans. I guess we would have to make the list a top 10 because there are only 44 Presidents, we can't have half of them on the list. I would definitely put Nixon and Reagan on the list. Obama is not looking too good either.I think the criteria should be defined because all Presidents have done good and bad things, the question is does the bad outwiegh the good and what are the long term effects? Mcklinley definately fits the bill.
Off the top of my head:
Grant
G.W. Bush
Hoover
McKinley
Jackson
Harding
Reagan
Grant
G.W. Bush
Hoover
McKinley
Jackson
Harding
Reagan
Harding. The guy had more scandals than all of the others combined.
This.
Note to all presidents past, present, and future: We didn't elect you because we liked you and your ideas, we just could not stand the thought of your opponent holding the office.
That makes no logical sense given meanings of English words. 
Last edited:
Lex Luthor 
What about Zebediah Killgrave?
Wilson, Grant, and Harrison
Worst presidents is an easier list than the best.
Andrew Jackson-Good military leader by president at the time. Indian killer and hater, Slave owner.
Truman. Sorry but when you un-necessarily bomb a country twice. Yeah not a good decision.
George W. Bush . Dug his own grave. While some things he did weren't so bad(just those Ideas were for nations other than his own). His reactions toward disasters, sending troops to a foreign country that didn't attack us, without asking congress first.
Second Obama isn't muslim.
Being a socialist isn't such a bad thing, that socialist avoided what would have been the worse depression yet.
Andrew Jackson-Good military leader by president at the time. Indian killer and hater, Slave owner.
Truman. Sorry but when you un-necessarily bomb a country twice. Yeah not a good decision.
George W. Bush . Dug his own grave. While some things he did weren't so bad(just those Ideas were for nations other than his own). His reactions toward disasters, sending troops to a foreign country that didn't attack us, without asking congress first.
Second Obama isn't muslim.
Being a socialist isn't such a bad thing, that socialist avoided what would have been the worse depression yet.
Do you really want to start this debate? Here's something to think about
- In a letter sent to Gen. Curtis LeMay from Gen. Lauris Norstad, when LeMay assumed command of the B-29 force on Guam, Norstad told LeMay that if an invasion took place, it would cost the U.S. "half a million" dead.[42]
- In a study done by the Joint Chiefs of Staff in April, the figures of 7.45 casualties/1,000 man-days and 1.78 fatalities/1,000 man-days were developed. This implied that a 90-day Olympic campaign would cost 456,000 casualties, including 109,000 dead or missing. If Coronet took another 90 days, the combined cost would be 1,200,000 casualties, with 267,000 fatalities.[43]
- A study done by Adm. Nimitz's staff in May estimated 49,000 U.S casualties in the first 30 days, including 5,000 at sea.[44] A study done by General MacArthur's staff in June estimated 23,000 U.S. casualties in the first 30 days and 125,000 after 120 days.[45] When these figures were questioned by General Marshall, MacArthur submitted a revised estimate of 105,000, in part by deducting wounded men able to return to duty.[46]
- In a conference with President Truman on June 18, Marshall, taking the Battle of Luzon as the best model for Olympic, thought the Americans would suffer 31,000 casualties in the first 30 days (and ultimately 20% of Japanese casualties, which implied a total of 70,000 casualties).[47] Adm. Leahy, more impressed by the Battle of Okinawa, thought the American forces would suffer a 35% casualty rate (implying an ultimate toll of 268,000).[48] Admiral King thought that casualties in the first 30 days would fall between Luzon and Okinawa, i.e., between 31,000 and 41,000.[48]
Yeah i was about to go there too, but let's not.
Hey atleast I didn't just say Truman but not include Bush.
But on a side note, while I dislike some Japanese because they willing fish whales to Extinction.
It wasn't necessary to hit Japan with those Two bombs. They only hit civilian targets, and Japan was already on its way to surrender.
But on a side note, while I dislike some Japanese because they willing fish whales to Extinction.
It wasn't necessary to hit Japan with those Two bombs. They only hit civilian targets, and Japan was already on its way to surrender.
So you'd rather switch out a few hundred thousand lives that the bombs claimed for a few million lives that an invasion would have caused?
That invasion was never likely. All the generals were against it. And it was more than a few hundred thousand lived as there is still people affected from it living today.
Plus the Japanese army was completely under supplied, under manned. The number was only put out there to scare the president away from a foolish attack. Because the generals knew that the surrender of Japan was near. Plus there was no reason to invade Japan, they were no longer a threat to anybody. try not to read to much into history books, they are often written by those who have won and want to make it seem justifiable.
Plus the Japanese army was completely under supplied, under manned. The number was only put out there to scare the president away from a foolish attack. Because the generals knew that the surrender of Japan was near. Plus there was no reason to invade Japan, they were no longer a threat to anybody. try not to read to much into history books, they are often written by those who have won and want to make it seem justifiable.
By the summer, students were even preparing for the eventual Allied invasion of Japan by training to fight with bamboo spears and throwing rocks at targets. The students spent part of each day cultivating gardens and some days they were sent out to forage for things such as wisteria bark and bamboo shoots or bark; on other days they made charcoal and carried it from a distant mountain; classroom assignments included writing letters to soldiers at the front.[12]
Doesn't sound like they were.
