Most overrated president (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 27, 2024, 03:19:59 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  U.S. Presidential Election Results (Moderator: Dereich)
  Most overrated president (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Most overrated president  (Read 27490 times)
The Duke
JohnD.Ford
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,270


Political Matrix
E: 0.13, S: -1.23

« on: August 18, 2004, 01:18:19 AM »

Correct answer: Andrew Jackson.  Our worst President is often regarded as top 10 because he hated the rich.  Never mind that his policies hurt the poor more than the rich, his hatred endears him to leftist historians.  JFK is second most overrated.  He is often rated too high by the public, but he actually was a decent PResident, as opposed to Jackson who was not.

Reagan was definately the most overrated. This is the same man who told schools to give kids ketchup, because he said it would provide the veggie part of the "Balanced" school lunch. That sounds really redundant.

In 500 years, what will matter more: Ketchup as a vegetable or the collapse of the USSR and the Warsaw Pact?
Logged
The Duke
JohnD.Ford
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,270


Political Matrix
E: 0.13, S: -1.23

« Reply #1 on: August 18, 2004, 10:18:45 PM »

In 500 years, I'll be dead. I guess it really wouldn't matter. I just find Reagan's ignorance about things like that overwhelming. The same as I found Jimmy Carter to be utterly unfit to be President. I think though, by the time Reagn was President, the people were kidding themselves if they thought the Soviets wouldn't collapse soon.

On January 20th, 1981, the USSR was more powerful than the US.
Logged
The Duke
JohnD.Ford
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,270


Political Matrix
E: 0.13, S: -1.23

« Reply #2 on: August 20, 2004, 03:54:02 AM »

john ford you know that is just as incorrect as the 'missle gap' was.
In 500 years, I'll be dead. I guess it really wouldn't matter. I just find Reagan's ignorance about things like that overwhelming. The same as I found Jimmy Carter to be utterly unfit to be President. I think though, by the time Reagn was President, the people were kidding themselves if they thought the Soviets wouldn't collapse soon.

On January 20th, 1981, the USSR was more powerful than the US.

Hah!

john ford you know that is just as incorrect as the 'missle gap' was.

Actually, I think you'd be hard pressed to find a serious military analysis that shows that had the US and USSR come to blows in W. Europe that we'd have won.  The Soviets had vastly superior armor and in far greater numbers to their NATO counterparts.  The Soviets were closer to the field of battle that their US counterparts.  NATO did not have nearly as compatible of weapon systems as the USSR.

I also think you'd be hard pressed to demonstrate that the US had superior nuclear capabilities in 1981.  The Soviets had more warheads and, unlike the US, their missiles were usually mobile negating any possible counterforce capability the US might have otherwise had.

America had an advantage in the air, but wars aren't won by airpower.  There is an old joke that one Soviet general met another Soviet general in Paris and asked him, "By the way, who won the air war?"  Ultimately, US air superiority against Soviet fighters would not have been sufficient to stem the superior Soviet armored and artillery forces, and since stealth technology was not in service yet, US aircraft would have their operations hindered by Soviet SAMs and AAA even if they did achieve victory against the Soviet air force.

At sea, we'd have a draw.  Soviet aircraft and tactics for attacking American carriers were sufficiently advanced that the US would not have been able to effectively deploy or re-supply forces.  Soviet submarines would not make this effort any easier.

The Soviet military was already proving its superiority in subduing Afghan militias.  This contrasted greatly with America's disaster in Vietnam.  It was not until later when the USSR was strained by the US arms buildup and CIA activity that they faltered in central Asia.

Economically, the USSR was behind the US, but there is no doubt that our lead wasn't growing, but was staying constant.  During the decade of the 1970s, the USSR managed to keep pace with the USA.
Logged
The Duke
JohnD.Ford
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,270


Political Matrix
E: 0.13, S: -1.23

« Reply #3 on: November 30, 2004, 01:34:26 AM »

Got your Personal Message, Huck.  I honestly thought the US-USSR debate had been dropped in this thread.

Anyway, the only thing I could argue with either you or Tredrick is that I think Tredrick overestimates the ability of the US Navy to withstand the attacks of Russian bombers like the Tu-22 "Backfire".  They were a very deadly weapon, and the backbone of our Navy is its carriers.  Lose those, and we might have, and you probably lose the war.

Also, as to the Gulf War comparison, most of the weapons we had in 1991, especially on the Army side, were not in service in 1981.  Most notable on that list is the M-1 Abrams Tank.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.033 seconds with 12 queries.