I honestly haven't followed British politics closely enough to comment on their PM's, but I have tried to follow US politics and I have read some books on American presidents. Here are my comments on US presidents since I started watching and reading the news:
Reagan: A great communicator, no doubt,and he did manage to give many Americans a new optimism and pride after Vietnam and Watergate. He was unfortunately an umcomplicated man who relied too much on simple answers to complex issues. Also, he did not defeat the Soviet Union. The Soviet union imploded. Reagan was lucky enough that it happened on his watch because Gorbatsjov tried to fix the union and failed.
George Bush: A competent and experienced conservative politician who handled the job fairly well based on his conservative goals. Also buildt a coalision and handled the war against Saddam well.
Clinton: A political animal who loved playing the game. Handled the economy very well (take a look at the chart of US foreign debt - it actually flattens out during his time in the White House. There is a huge BUT here (and I'm not talking about Monica Lewinski :v ) He repealed the Glass-Steagal law that removed the seperation between investment and commercial banks. This was an important cause of the 2008 econmic crisis. He handled the Balkan wars fairly well, and we can see the region slowly stabilizing. One can argue he reacted too slowly and he did allow the Srebrenica massacre to happen. He also let the genocide in Rwanda happen and the severe boycots of Iraq caused huge civilian deaths with little effect on the Sadam regime. Clinton was subjected to witch hunts (Whitewater and the Lewinski affair) that brought much shame on the neocons and the US.
George W. Bush jr: Possibly the worst president in US history. Won by the smallest margin (or did he?) and saw it as a license to impliment a right wing politics that divided the country even more. Showed very little interest in foreign policy before 9/11 and reacted not by effectivly targeting the extremists and its causes (I quote an Israeli terrorism expert: the fight against terrorism is more akin to fighting organized crime than fighting a conventional war), but sidetracking the whole issue by invading Iraq. That was a disaster that destabilized the whole region more than ever. Undermined the civil rights by the Patriot Act and the use of torture.
The economic crisis happened at the end of his watch, so his financial policy was clearly not sound.
A president with a limited intelect who based his politics on ideology instead of facts.
Obama: Elected on a wave of optimism and expectations he couldn't possibly meet. Tried to work with the Republicans, but the right wing Tea Party movement and his own inexperience in playing the political game made it even worse. Managed to build some kind of health care for everyone, generations after the rest of the developed world. Made laws that regulated the financial market somewhat and the economy has slowly improved during his years as a president. Pulled the US out of Iraq and Afghanistan (more or less), but the damamage was already done. The US deficite has spiraled even more out of control and his drone war is moraly and politically questionable.
All American Presidents were simply Wonderful ! Any derogatory
Remarks about them obviously would only come from some .....
... Pinko, Commie, subversive !! ) ) )
( automatic generated answer #326 )
"I've been informed that there ARE a couple of QAnon supporters who are fairly regular posters in AJB."
Silhouette ManThe last refuge of a scoundrelPosts: 8,865MI6 Agent
I honestly haven't followed British politics closely enough to comment on their PM's, but I have tried to follow US politics and I have read some books on American presidents. Here are my comments on US presidents since I started watching and reading the news:
Reagan: A great communicator, no doubt,and he did manage to give many Americans a new optimism and pride after Vietnam and Watergate. He was unfortunately an umcomplicated man who relied too much on simple answers to complex issues. Also, he did not defeat the Soviet Union. The Soviet union imploded. Reagan was lucky enough that it happened on his watch because Gorbatsjov tried to fix the union and failed.
George Bush: A competent and experienced conservative politician who handled the job fairly well based on his conservative goals. Also buildt a coalision and handled the war against Saddam well.
Clinton: A political animal who loved playing the game. Handled the economy very well (take a look at the chart of US foreign debt - it actually flattens out during his time in the White House. There is a huge BUT here (and I'm not talking about Monica Lewinski :v ) He repealed the Glass-Steagal law that removed the seperation between investment and commercial banks. This was an important cause of the 2008 econmic crisis. He handled the Balkan wars fairly well, and we can see the region slowly stabilizing. One can argue he reacted too slowly and he did allow the Srebrenica massacre to happen. He also let the genocide in Rwanda happen and the severe boycots of Iraq caused huge civilian deaths with little effect on the Sadam regime. Clinton was subjected to witch hunts (Whitewater and the Lewinski affair) that brought much shame on the neocons and the US.
George W. Bush jr: Possibly the worst president in US history. Won by the smallest margin (or did he?) and saw it as a license to impliment a right wing politics that divided the country even more. Showed very little interest in foreign policy before 9/11 and reacted not by effectivly targeting the extremists and its causes (I quote an Israeli terrorism expert: the fight against terrorism is more akin to fighting organized crime than fighting a conventional war), but sidetracking the whole issue by invading Iraq. That was a disaster that destabilized the whole region more than ever. Undermined the civil rights by the Patriot Act and the use of torture.
The economic crisis happened at the end of his watch, so his financial policy was clearly not sound.
A president with a limited intelect who based his politics on ideology instead of facts.
Obama: Elected on a wave of optimism and expectations he couldn't possibly meet. Tried to work with the Republicans, but the right wing Tea Party movement and his own inexperience in playing the political game made it even worse. Managed to build some kind of health care for everyone, generations after the rest of the developed world. Made laws that regulated the financial market somewhat and the economy has slowly improved during his years as a president. Pulled the US out of Iraq and Afghanistan (more or less), but the damamage was already done. The US deficite has spiraled even more out of control and hsi drone war is moraly and politically questionable.
A pretty fair appraisal I'd say, Number 24. Well done, sir. -{
"The tough man of the world. The Secret Agent. The man who was only a silhouette." - Ian Fleming, Moonraker (1955).
I honestly haven't followed British politics closely enough to comment on their PM's, but I have tried to follow US politics and I have read some books on American presidents. Here are my comments on US presidents since I started watching and reading the news:
Reagan: A great communicator, no doubt,and he did manage to give many Americans a new optimism and pride after Vietnam and Watergate. He was unfortunately an umcomplicated man who relied too much on simple answers to complex issues. Also, he did not defeat the Soviet Union. The Soviet union imploded. Reagan was lucky enough that it happened on his watch because Gorbatsjov tried to fix the union and failed.
George Bush: A competent and experienced conservative politician who handled the job fairly well based on his conservative goals. Also buildt a coalision and handled the war against Saddam well.
Clinton: A political animal who loved playing the game. Handled the economy very well (take a look at the chart of US foreign debt - it actually flattens out during his time in the White House. There is a huge BUT here (and I'm not talking about Monica Lewinski :v ) He repealed the Glass-Steagal law that removed the seperation between investment and commercial banks. This was an important cause of the 2008 econmic crisis. He handled the Balkan wars fairly well, and we can see the region slowly stabilizing. One can argue he reacted too slowly and he did allow the Srebrenica massacre to happen. He also let the genocide in Rwanda happen and the severe boycots of Iraq caused huge civilian deaths with little effect on the Sadam regime. Clinton was subjected to witch hunts (Whitewater and the Lewinski affair) that brought much shame on the neocons and the US.
George W. Bush jr: Possibly the worst president in US history. Won by the smallest margin (or did he?) and saw it as a license to impliment a right wing politics that divided the country even more. Showed very little interest in foreign policy before 9/11 and reacted not by effectivly targeting the extremists and its causes (I quote an Israeli terrorism expert: the fight against terrorism is more akin to fighting organized crime than fighting a conventional war), but sidetracking the whole issue by invading Iraq. That was a disaster that destabilized the whole region more than ever. Undermined the civil rights by the Patriot Act and the use of torture.
The economic crisis happened at the end of his watch, so his financial policy was clearly not sound.
A president with a limited intelect who based his politics on ideology instead of facts.
Obama: Elected on a wave of optimism and expectations he couldn't possibly meet. Tried to work with the Republicans, but the right wing Tea Party movement and his own inexperience in playing the political game made it even worse. Managed to build some kind of health care for everyone, generations after the rest of the developed world. Made laws that regulated the financial market somewhat and the economy has slowly improved during his years as a president. Pulled the US out of Iraq and Afghanistan (more or less), but the damamage was already done. The US deficite has spiraled even more out of control and hsi drone war is moraly and politically questionable.
A pretty fair appraisal I'd say, Number 24. Well done, sir. -{
Thank you! In my opinion the US politial system is in trouble and the cause is the staggering cost of running for office. I have read about a solution, or at least a help: All radio and TV companies need a permit or authorization to use the airwaves to send. What if part of this permit would be a requirement to send political ads for free or for reduced fees? They could not send political ads that were not part of this system and the candidates should get airtime if they are registered candidates? Avery large share of the economic burden of running for office is TV rights, so this would makeit cheaper.
Comments
Oh yes ! This 100% -{
Reagan: A great communicator, no doubt,and he did manage to give many Americans a new optimism and pride after Vietnam and Watergate. He was unfortunately an umcomplicated man who relied too much on simple answers to complex issues. Also, he did not defeat the Soviet Union. The Soviet union imploded. Reagan was lucky enough that it happened on his watch because Gorbatsjov tried to fix the union and failed.
George Bush: A competent and experienced conservative politician who handled the job fairly well based on his conservative goals. Also buildt a coalision and handled the war against Saddam well.
Clinton: A political animal who loved playing the game. Handled the economy very well (take a look at the chart of US foreign debt - it actually flattens out during his time in the White House. There is a huge BUT here (and I'm not talking about Monica Lewinski :v ) He repealed the Glass-Steagal law that removed the seperation between investment and commercial banks. This was an important cause of the 2008 econmic crisis. He handled the Balkan wars fairly well, and we can see the region slowly stabilizing. One can argue he reacted too slowly and he did allow the Srebrenica massacre to happen. He also let the genocide in Rwanda happen and the severe boycots of Iraq caused huge civilian deaths with little effect on the Sadam regime. Clinton was subjected to witch hunts (Whitewater and the Lewinski affair) that brought much shame on the neocons and the US.
George W. Bush jr: Possibly the worst president in US history. Won by the smallest margin (or did he?) and saw it as a license to impliment a right wing politics that divided the country even more. Showed very little interest in foreign policy before 9/11 and reacted not by effectivly targeting the extremists and its causes (I quote an Israeli terrorism expert: the fight against terrorism is more akin to fighting organized crime than fighting a conventional war), but sidetracking the whole issue by invading Iraq. That was a disaster that destabilized the whole region more than ever. Undermined the civil rights by the Patriot Act and the use of torture.
The economic crisis happened at the end of his watch, so his financial policy was clearly not sound.
A president with a limited intelect who based his politics on ideology instead of facts.
Obama: Elected on a wave of optimism and expectations he couldn't possibly meet. Tried to work with the Republicans, but the right wing Tea Party movement and his own inexperience in playing the political game made it even worse. Managed to build some kind of health care for everyone, generations after the rest of the developed world. Made laws that regulated the financial market somewhat and the economy has slowly improved during his years as a president. Pulled the US out of Iraq and Afghanistan (more or less), but the damamage was already done. The US deficite has spiraled even more out of control and his drone war is moraly and politically questionable.
Remarks about them obviously would only come from some .....
... Pinko, Commie, subversive !!
( automatic generated answer #326 )
It would seem so, pretty much!
A pretty fair appraisal I'd say, Number 24. Well done, sir.
Fattest US President.
There was a sign on his desk: "The tuck stops here".
Thank you! In my opinion the US politial system is in trouble and the cause is the staggering cost of running for office. I have read about a solution, or at least a help: All radio and TV companies need a permit or authorization to use the airwaves to send. What if part of this permit would be a requirement to send political ads for free or for reduced fees? They could not send political ads that were not part of this system and the candidates should get airtime if they are registered candidates? Avery large share of the economic burden of running for office is TV rights, so this would makeit cheaper.
These two are the same guy.
Bush 2.0: 100 Ways Barack Obama Is Just Like George W. Bush
http://www.humblelibertarian.com/2011/08/bush-20-100-ways-barack-obama-is-just.html