Worst leaders of your country

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT
 

ThePenguinKnight:

Sutter Cane:

ThePenguinKnight:
I think many of us living in the US would have to say George Bush.

People like to pretend Obama's the reason were in such a bad way but they forget Bush put the whole thing into motion.

It's going to take many elections and many years just to get back to where we were and seeing how shallow our politicians are I don't see any hope in sight.

Really? Bush?? Don't get me wrong, Bush was a shitty president, but the worst? Worse than Jackson and his trail of tears? Worse than Johnson who fucked up reconstruction? Worse than Grant who let corruption run wild? Worse than Coolidge who set up the great depression? Worse than Harding who failed to prevent the great depression?

For me, personally, yes I consider Bush to be the worst.

I have friends and family who were sent to Iraq and never made it back. And due to the chain of events Bush started by his stupidity and greed me, my friends, and my family can barely get by because of the economy.

So you're saying that bush is worse than leaders who engaged in deliberate acts of cruelty based on ethnicity, and whose decisions made conditions significant worse for said group of people, simply because its personally affected you? While it certainly justifies your dislike of him, calling him the worst president of all time based on that simply reeks of egoism.

Government from the USSR times. All of them, equally terrible. And some of the electoral kings.

Electors - they only cared about money, while country went to hell from internal issues and external attacks.

Governments in the previous century - very bad ideas, for instance when we had problems with money, they thought it would be a good idea to print some more and try to trick everyone... somehow... nobody understood the thought process. Result was huge inflation and loss of value of the currency.

Heimir:

Axolotl:

Heimir:

Considering that if the nazis had attacked the blood would be on french and british hands. So yes, it is. Because that behaviour is pretty much the same as the nazis. False, vile and dishonest. And not caring about human lives.

Do you even read what youre writing?

Let me say it again. An act of Realpolitik in a war is not on the same moral level as the Holocaust.

Because consigning hundreds of thousands to death out of greed is holding the moral high ground?

Compared to intentional murder of millions? Of course it is. Besides which, hundreds of thousands of people didn't die in Sweden and Norway, and who was it who killed the ones who did die? The French and the British?

Look there is a massive difference between killing as part of military campaign and rounding people up to commit genocide as part of your ideology. Execpt this isn't even that, you're saying that that the allies are as bad as the Nazis becaue while the Nazis killed millions of innocent people for insane reasons the allies, as part of their efforst to stop the Nazi's killing people, allowed the Nazi's to kill people. Do you not see the what's wrong with that arguement?

Neverhoodian:

3rd Worst: Andrew Johnson

*Thoroughly bungled reconstruction efforts after the Civil War.
*Vetoed the Civil Rights Bill of 1866 ("This is a country for white men, and by God, as long as I am President, it shall be a government for white men.").
*Violated the Tenure of Office Act (for which he was later impeached).

The part about him being a "good ol' boy" can be accepted here, but I feel I should bring up an important point concerning the first Johnson.

As one of the only token democrats left in office (everyone else left office to go to the CSA), he was pretty much screwed for reconstruction. The radical republicans wanted to pretty much "salt the earth" when it came to the South, so he was pretty unpopular in a radical republican congress. With Lincoln gone, and the inability to mediate as a moderate Republican.. the whole thing kinda went.. south. This also led to the Tenure of Office Act, attempting to limit Johnson's power and ability to replace important people who would carry out reconstruction as per the orders of said radical republican congress. I think it was Stanton- and his hilarious armed response antics. Given that the act was repealed later, and similar laws have been found unconstitutional, I don't think it's poor leadership that caused him to violate this.

Aka, congress and the president going at it cuz from different places and having different opinions.

Anywhos, he got impeached, but got acquitted by one vote. He was quite unpopular, but he did help to prevent further division in the union.

Racist? Yes. Worst leader? I dunno, there was a lot of racists in power at the time- Woodrow Wilson allowed Klan v2 to premiere their "Birth of a Nation" at the White House.

A much more suitable, yet popular candidate for "the worst leader" position could be "Andrew freaking Jackson". His borderline insane hate for the British, his dealings with foreign nationals, and his spoils system really set bad precedents for future presidents and leaders. I mean, this guy executed British civilians on Spanish soil in summary executions. (They were plotting.) His leadership style was more akin to the persona of Duke Nukem.

Although hilarious and popular, Jackson really lacked the mind for the job.

As a close second, Grant lacked any real presidential leadership, and pretty much just followed whatever Congress told him. Oh and the scandals. THE SCANDALS!

Tony Abbott. He's not PM yet, but he will be.

And I will rue that day.

Neverhoodian:

2nd Worst: Richard Nixon

I don't suppose you've seen the watchmen movie? 'Cause I don't think you'd be very pleased with it.

Revnak:

The revolutionary war was absolutely necessary. Britain was being fuck all stupid at the time, their own government decided that the whole thing was a massive mistake as soon as it ended, many of the members of parliament having been against the war throughout. Nobody beyond the most ignorant of individuals from the UK would make such a crazy claim.

It wasn't absolutely necessary, perfectly understandable yes, necessary not so much.

Sutter Cane:

ThePenguinKnight:

Sutter Cane:

Really? Bush?? Don't get me wrong, Bush was a shitty president, but the worst? Worse than Jackson and his trail of tears? Worse than Johnson who fucked up reconstruction? Worse than Grant who let corruption run wild? Worse than Coolidge who set up the great depression? Worse than Harding who failed to prevent the great depression?

For me, personally, yes I consider Bush to be the worst.

I have friends and family who were sent to Iraq and never made it back. And due to the chain of events Bush started by his stupidity and greed me, my friends, and my family can barely get by because of the economy.

So you're saying that bush is worse than leaders who engaged in deliberate acts of cruelty based on ethnicity, and whose decisions made conditions significant worse for said group of people, simply because its personally affected you? While it certainly justifies your dislike of him, calling him the worst president of all time based on that simply reeks of egoism.

Next time I will make my decision only after I set aside myself, my family, my friends, my race, my religion, my opinions, and my personal experiences and how they've effected me to give a proper robotic answer derived from statistics so that I am selfless and therefore don't reek of egoism.

Every president who's ever lived has fucked over a group of people based on ethnicity/standing and made conditions significantly worse for said group of people. Are you saying the suffering of one group of people should be seen as less disgraceful as the suffering of a different group? Because it certainly seems like that's what your saying, and that's fucked up.

DirtyJunkieScum:

Revnak:

The revolutionary war was absolutely necessary. Britain was being fuck all stupid at the time, their own government decided that the whole thing was a massive mistake as soon as it ended, many of the members of parliament having been against the war throughout. Nobody beyond the most ignorant of individuals from the UK would make such a crazy claim.

It wasn't absolutely necessary, perfectly understandable yes, necessary not so much.

It absolutely was, Britain was not willing to give up its rule over the United States and the United States desired sovereignty. Any nation or people group that desires sovereignty has some degree of entitlement to it and if they can make adequate arguments for why they deserve it, which the founding fathers did, then their going to war to gain said sovereignty is necessary and they are fully entitled to it.

Axolotl:

Heimir:

Axolotl:
Do you even read what youre writing?

Let me say it again. An act of Realpolitik in a war is not on the same moral level as the Holocaust.

Because consigning hundreds of thousands to death out of greed is holding the moral high ground?

Compared to intentional murder of millions? Of course it is. Besides which, hundreds of thousands of people didn't die in Sweden and Norway, and who was it who killed the ones who did die? The French and the British?

Look there is a massive difference between killing as part of military campaign and rounding people up to commit genocide as part of your ideology. Execpt this isn't even that, you're saying that that the allies are as bad as the Nazis becaue while the Nazis killed millions of innocent people for insane reasons the allies, as part of their efforst to stop the Nazi's killing people, allowed the Nazi's to kill people. Do you not see the what's wrong with that arguement?

Read a history book nimrod. The Finnish Winter War wasn't between the nazis and the finns now was it? No it was with Soviet Russia and the brits and french under the pretence of sending reinforcements to them aimed at STEALING RESOURCES WHILE KNOWING IT WOULD PROVOKE A NAZI INVASION THAT WOULD RESULT IN TONS OF PEOPLE DYING. If you don't see any wrong with that you are either daft or british. That's deciding that other nations people are worth less than some iron ore and lumber. Nope, they are no better. Perhaps not as bad, but definatley not better. Scandinavia was lucky that the nazis canceled the invasion a few hours before it began. So no there is nothing wrong with my arguement, the only thing that is wrong is YOUR moral compass since you think it's okay to sacrifice other people for your nations own personal gain.

DJjaffacake:

Heimir:
And the US and the UK are guilty for the problems today with Israel.

Oh, yeah, it's not like all those countries that invaded Israel immediately after it was created, just because the israelis were mainly Jewish, had anything to do with it. Also, fixed it for you.

So what gave the UK and US the rights to throw out the inhabitants of the area just because the jews wanted it? Are you daft? Todays problems are caused by the carelessness of the US and UK creating Israel thinking there'd be absolutley no problems at all. Other than pissing of the entire arab world.

Hmmmm...... Canada's a though one, most of our politicans are only slightly incompetent not outright terrible. Some of the Royal governors were pretty awful but they were either French or British so I'm not sure they really count.

I guess Mackenzie King was a bit of a lunatic, what with the seances and talking to his dead mother all the time. Also the blatant racism but most world leaders were fairly racist prior to maybe the 1960's. Still not a terrible leader compared to some.

Supertegwyn:
Tony Abbott. He's not PM yet, but he will be.

And I will rue that day.

I was actually thinking of saying that but I was not sure of how it would go over.

Well, ought to be Gustav IV Adolf, the king who wouldn't sit back and enjoy what he had, but had to gamble it all away, getting loads of people killed, by bumbling away Finland and Pomerania. It's a wee bit like seeing someone playing Europa Universalis while high.

In fact, he was so unusually awful at the whole dictatorship-gig that the nobles tossed him out and appointed his uncle to warm the throne instead, until they could import someone better.

Gustav himself, meanwhile, died forever alone in the 19'th century equivolent to a flea motel in Switzerland. Lawl.

"Have at thee, flies!"

Going to have to go with Rick Santorum, former senator from my state and guy who compared consensual homosexual relationships to child abuse.

And we considered letting this guy run the fucking country.

Heimir:

DJjaffacake:

Heimir:
And the US and the UK are guilty for the problems today with Israel.

Oh, yeah, it's not like all those countries that invaded Israel immediately after it was created, just because the israelis were mainly Jewish, had anything to do with it. Also, fixed it for you.

So what gave the UK and US the rights to throw out the inhabitants of the area just because the jews wanted it? Are you daft? Todays problems are caused by the carelessness of the US and UK creating Israel thinking there'd be absolutley no problems at all. Other than pissing of the entire arab world.

Yay for insulting people with different opinions to you. What gave the Arabs the right to attack Israel? The US and UK created it in order to provide a safe haven and a homeland for Jews. There would be no issue if the aggressive countries just accepted Israel.

Darth Sea Bass:

ToTaL LoLiGe:
David 'silver spoon up his fucking arse' Cameron. There's probably worst but he's a fucking prick.

Don't forget Nick (I'm the deputy?) Clegg.

Camoron is only allowed to do what he likes because of that cunt enabling him!

The worst part about Nick Clegg is that now the Lib Dems will never actually get in. They could have done some real good if they had a backbone, but instead they have just fucked over all the smaller parties.

Anyone from the U.S. who names any of the following has no credibility:

Obama
Bush Jr.
Clinton

Obama hasn't done anything, and will go down as being noteworthy just for being black, since our government is currently designed to make sure the President gets zero credit and all the blame, leading into:

Bush Jr. who was nothing but a puppet for the Republicans.

And Clinton precided over the largest economic growth in 50 years, and brought an economic surplus for the first time in 80 years. So he got a blowjob under a table, big whoop. People have been praised for far more (Jackson).

OT: Buchanan, Jackson, Coolidge, Nixon, and Tyler. Take your pick.

Woodrow Wilson for starting the income tax, major foreign intervention, and being a closet racist, among other things.

Dishonorable mentions go to Hamilton, Lincoln, FDR, and Rumsfeld.

Spartan1362:
All of them.

P.S. I live in Australia.

I agree with this guy, although if I had to pick a rottenest apple in the lot I'd be John Howard.

ThePenguinKnight:

Sutter Cane:

ThePenguinKnight:

For me, personally, yes I consider Bush to be the worst.

I have friends and family who were sent to Iraq and never made it back. And due to the chain of events Bush started by his stupidity and greed me, my friends, and my family can barely get by because of the economy.

So you're saying that bush is worse than leaders who engaged in deliberate acts of cruelty based on ethnicity, and whose decisions made conditions significant worse for said group of people, simply because its personally affected you? While it certainly justifies your dislike of him, calling him the worst president of all time based on that simply reeks of egoism.

Next time I will make my decision only after I set aside myself, my family, my friends, my race, my religion, my opinions, and my personal experiences and how they've effected me to give a proper robotic answer derived from statistics so that I am selfless and therefore don't reek of egoism.

Well in this case, yes you should, as you have not personally experienced all 200+ years of American history personally.

Every president who's ever lived has fucked over a group of people based on ethnicity/standing and made conditions significantly worse for said group of people. Are you saying the suffering of one group of people should be seen as less disgraceful as the suffering of a different group? Because it certainly seems like that's what your saying, and that's fucked up.

Please name ONE thing that the Bush administration carried out and actively supported that is even in the same ballpark of the trail of tears.

I don't want to say he was a bad leader but Reagan has lead to a lot of right wing bull shit. I mean I thought he was ok I guess but there are tests like are you a Reagan republican? And Reagan would have failed that test. So I guess it is more the idea of the guy is bad he himself wasn't.

For just truly bad Andrew Johnson has to be up there.

Valkaris:
Honestly I would say George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson etc were are pretty crappy leaders, only because they fought a war to create the country in the first place. We might as well have just stayed a colony of Brittan and just joined Canada in one big happy north american family (maybe conquer mexico).

But then we would all be using lightning rods with big round spheres on the top.

OT: I would say George Bush (mainly his administration), Reagan, Nixon I guess, but he did improve foreign relations. Not sure about Obama though, seeing he has to deal with such a big mess made by Bush.

Sixcess:

The first name that springs to mind is Margaret Thatcher. I know she's widely admired overseas so it's hard to convey just how justifiably hated she was by a lot of people in the UK.

So essentially the reverse Ronald Reagan, they had very similar ideologies and actions, except for whatever reason he is absolutely beloved here for... Some reason, while most people overseas seem to think of him as a lot like Margaret Thatcher... Not sure if that's a good thing or not.

Anyways, George W. Bush was the worst president I've seen, the U.S. has had some slimy leaders at times, but they were at least somewhat competent at their job (say what you will of Nixon, but he could at least keep things running) while Bush on the other hand seems to have inherited both sliminess and incompetence.

canadamus_prime:

HIM!! Bastard sold us out the US and brought in the GST.

But we just want our goody-two-shoes brothers in the north to accept us. ='(

Ldude893:
Among the near-equally bad ones? Mao Zedong.
Got to give him credit, though. The goddamn bastard's actions were the reasons why my grandparents fled to Hong Kong in the first place.

Uh, if you're in China, how can you say that without uh... Er... Gaining some "Attention" from the government? No offense to you, I'm not trying to sound like I'm joking, but isn't this the sort of thing that causes people to... "Disappear"?

The stupid man who currently leads our country... right into the ground.

image

I live in Australia, and while we haven't had many "good" Prime Ministers, none have been incredibly bad.

When I say bad, I'm talking about Buchanan bad, I'm talking about Syngman Rhee bad, I'm talking about Idi Amin bad. When you see how bad other leaders can be, it makes you thankful that at the worst, our leaders can be slightly mean and incompetent. We've never had a genuinely evil person in power. Yes, I didn't like Howard, but the man wasn't evil, not by any stretch of the imagination.

The absolute worst leader we've ever had would have to be.... hm. Well, John Howard. No, I don't think he was totally evil, and he did some good things and generally managed the economy pretty well as well as Law and Order issues. However, he got us involved in Iraq due to his brownnosing of the American President. He also delayed action on Climate Change, and he once tried (this was before he was Prime Minister) block refugees fleeing communist prosecution from Vietnam from entering Australia. He was a mean old bastard, and I never liked him because I always suspected he was racist against Asians. Given that I'm half Chinese, I always suspected he was half-racist against me.

I lot of people over here seem to point to Jimmy Carter, from what I hear he royally fucked up the economy. I wouldn't know personally, he was a little before my time and he isn't exactly a hot topic in history class, also I'm too lazy to look him up.

Ldude893:
Uh, if you're in China, how can you say that without uh... Er... Gaining some "Attention" from the government? No offense to you, I'm not trying to sound like I'm joking, but isn't this the sort of thing that causes people to... "Disappear"?

I live in Hong Kong. It's technically part of China but with it's own system; a little corner of freedom in a giant country of authoritarian suck, at least until 2047 when China's allowed to change Hong Kong's system per an agreement with the British.
Over here, we've got mass candle-lighting memorials for the Tiananmen incident every June 4th.

Sutter Cane:

ThePenguinKnight:

Sutter Cane:

So you're saying that bush is worse than leaders who engaged in deliberate acts of cruelty based on ethnicity, and whose decisions made conditions significant worse for said group of people, simply because its personally affected you? While it certainly justifies your dislike of him, calling him the worst president of all time based on that simply reeks of egoism.

Next time I will make my decision only after I set aside myself, my family, my friends, my race, my religion, my opinions, and my personal experiences and how they've effected me to give a proper robotic answer derived from statistics so that I am selfless and therefore don't reek of egoism.

Well in this case, yes you should, as you have not personally experienced all 200+ years of American history personally.

Every president who's ever lived has fucked over a group of people based on ethnicity/standing and made conditions significantly worse for said group of people. Are you saying the suffering of one group of people should be seen as less disgraceful as the suffering of a different group? Because it certainly seems like that's what your saying, and that's fucked up.

Please name ONE thing that the Bush administration carried out and actively supported that is even in the same ballpark of the trail of tears.

So let me get this straight, You actually want me to judge 200+ years of american history atrocities that even you admit I have never experienced? You want me to sit here and say that I believe X atrocity is worse than Y atrocity? Sure, lets see how sensible that would be in a hypothetical situation.

Hey fatherless child of war! You shouldn't feel so bad that your father was tortured until he died laying in his own waste from starvation! Being captured by terrorists isn't as bad as being a slave! Now stop crying because you're egotistical, it could have been worse.

You want to talk egotistical? You're the one trying to control my opinions.

I don't mind the thread subject and everyone is entitled to their own opinion. I just don't like being badgered because I dislike Bush more than previous presidents due to personal experiences rather than historical happenings.

Supertegwyn:
Tony Abbott. He's not PM yet, but he will be.

And I will rue that day.

Yeah, I ditto that.
But it's not like we're not already hating on Julia Gillard or Kevin Rudd.

We really need better leaders here in Australia. :S

solidsnake101023:

Supertegwyn:
Tony Abbott. He's not PM yet, but he will be.

And I will rue that day.

I was actually thinking of saying that but I was not sure of how it would go over.

Goes over well with me.

StormShaun:

Supertegwyn:
Tony Abbott. He's not PM yet, but he will be.

And I will rue that day.

Yeah, I ditto that.
But it's not like we're not already hating on Julia Gillard or Kevin Rudd.

We really need better leaders here in Australia. :S

The difference as I see it is that they're actually trying to spend money and improve this country, they're just screwing it up more often than not.

MasterOfHisOwnDomain:

J Tyran:
Oliver Cromwell, he was a puritanical Christian nutcase. His invasion of mainland Ireland bordered on ethnic cleansing and thousands where butchered during the campaign.

I'm now arguing for Cromwell in two separate threads on these forums. What has my life become ...? Anyway, as much as you're titled to your opinion:

Cromwell attempted to deliver widespread Parliamentary reforms that wouldn't be witnessed again until the Great Reform Act of 1832. His religious tolerance was astounding for the time - the Cavalier Parliament that came subsequently reversed this in the most disastrous ways. His foreign policy established England as one of the foremost military powers in Europe for a brief time - again Charles II would lose this quickly. He was a principled man, and highly religious - but no "nutcase".

The people sheltering in the church after surrendering during the sacking of Drogheda witnessed Cromwells religious tolerance. That atrocity was only one in many. Another atrocity that stands out was the capture and enslavement of Irish children, basically sending vast uncounted numbers of children to the West Indies to be worked to death in sugar plantations. Even back in England he oppressed people and dictated how they should live their lives, he banned things like sport and going to a theatre. Children caught playing sports would be whipped.

He was also a dictator because he dismissed parliament. Anyone that kills or starts wars in the name of religion is definitely a nutcase, Cromwell didn't just kill or start a war either. He started a campaign of ethnic cleansing, his goal was to reduce the Irish Catholic population and to use terror tactics to "tame" (his words) the Irish Catholics that where left.

In some ways it could be argued he was the Hitler of his time. All the elements are there, genocidal religious intolerance, a series of atrocities and mass killings, oppression of his own people by forcing his own biases onto them and starting a war motivated by his hatred and biases.

His actions are really indefensible.

NameIsRobertPaulson:
*snip*Coolidge*ship*

Never heard of anybody calling him out before. Care to explain? I am genuinely curious.

Australia:

Our worst leader hasnt been voted in yet. His name will be Tony Abbott. He's a hard core religious freak who uses fear mongering to gain support. He will be the worst thing that happens to our country since Howards work choices.

Revnak:
Buchanan, LBJ, and Andrew Johnson. All of them crazy, all of them morons, all of them terrible leaders.

LBJ was awesome. If he didn't go to Vietnam, he would have been considered one of the greatest presidents of all time.

He fought for Civil Rights, made education cheaper with financial aid, reduced poverty dramatically, established Medicaid, made immigration easier, consumer protection, gun control, space race..... the list goes on man.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked