Does anyone know if historians have formed a consensus opinion for the title “Worst Choice for President in the History of the United States”?
- Buchanan won because Fillmore and Fremont were even worse. Pretty soon we had the Civil War.
I know historians are all-but-unanimous in naming Buchanan as the worst President ever but don’t I remember reading that he also had what was probably the best resume of any Presidential nominee?
If you are averaging them together maybe since Trump as president would be unthinkable, but there is nothing wrong with Hillary.
Trump vs. Sanders would be worse. Carter vs. Ford couldn’t have excited a lot of people.
[li]A proven failure at foreign policy[/li]
[li]No grasp of real-world economics[/li]
[li]And even her supporters describe her as dishonest and untrustworthy[/li][/ul]
Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how did you like the play?
Let me guess … Benghazi!
I have no guess at this one. In what way?
Well, shit, with supporters like that, who needs Trump?
This entire OP is just sour grapes that the GOP guy is a fucking buffoon.
I’m enthusiastic to vote for Hillary Clinton for President (have been since 2008 and her stint as Secretary of State just makes me more excited in my choice)… so I disagree with the OP’s premise.
Give me a break. People may hold their nose and vote for Clinton, but there is a hell of a lot wrong with her.
This is the worst election in modern times. A final four of Trump, Cruz, Sanders, and Clinton is just absurdly bad. The only decent person in the mix (obviously Sanders) has a wildly unrealistic platform. It’s essentially a situation where four unelectable people are up against each other.
Are Clinton supporters not even going to criticize her for Libya? Even Obama is calling our intervention there a shit show. Libya is Hillary’s war, and it is a total mess.
Ditto that. I think she’ll be damn good at it.
In fairness, the War actually started on the next guy’s watch.
You came up with that? Because its seems an awful lot like something lifted right off the copy of some attack ad.
*Simple wording that seems like its been approved by a team of DC lawyers? Check.
*No more than three talking points? Check.
*Cutesy ending line? Check.
Its seems like such a shame that you’d post that here when campaigns are throwing away money hand-over-fist for statements like that right about now… :dubious:
Mrs. Clinton will be a fine President. She’ll be at least as good as President Obama, and perhaps even better.
To describe the worst choice for president, one only needs to look at any of the Republican candidates.
Breaking news: Conservate Republicans un-enthused about having to vote for Hillary! It’s a shocker!
You don’t wanna have to vote for Hillary? How about you nominate someone other than Trump or Cruz? Fucking hell.
How do you figure? Did anyone blame Reagan for 300 dead Marines in Beirut? What weird stretch of the imagination leads you to blame Clinton for Libya? She tried to keep things together there, and things went bad. This happens now and then.
(The failure is of the Arabic-speaking people, as a whole, that the promise of the Arab Spring collapsed into war, tyranny, and murder. They had greater liberty within their reach, and dropped it.)
Better yet, Republicans should just stay home and not vote at all.
[quote=“A_Dodgy_Dude, post:6, topic:748692”]
[ul][li]No grasp of real-world economics[/ul][/li][/QUOTE]
She has a better grasp than any high-profile Pub has had since Nixon. Even Ford – while his intellect has been somewhat unfairly underestimated by the public, due to his klutz-image – was an idiot about economics, with an 18th-Century view.
I’d still prefer Sanders, but, Clinton will indeed be all of that.
Actually Orangutan. Note the orange hair.