Survey Of Presidential Experts Rates Trump Dead Last In Foreign Policy Accomplishmemnts
A new survey of presidential experts ranks Donald Trump as the third worst president out of 45.
He is rated last in foreign policy, 45th out of 45.
He is also rated dead last in Background, Integrity and Intellligence.
related
https://scri.siena.edu/2022/06/22/american-presidents-greatest-and-worst/
Tags
Who is online
412 visitors
Millard Fillmore is happy Trump knocked him out of the bottom five!
Paid for by Barack Obama…
these rankings are actually very funny if you know much at all about American history. It’s just partisan democrat wishcasting for the most part. Biden 10th in judicial appointments despite not actually appointing a Supreme Court justice who’s heard a case. How he’s not dead last in communication is just more fodder.
They aren’t even attempting to base these rankings on reality.
You have never posted anything based on reality!
That is hilarious.
MAGA does not care, they want to rule this country for "100 years" through the republican party and a heartless SOSHOE like Donald Trump is how they plan to achieve it. Trump doesn't cares about power. . . and so does MAGA.
How many years do the democrats plan on ruling? They going to give up if they win?
Not If, When Democrats Win!
Go and explain (to yourself) the differences between RULE OF LAW and BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY. That's all I have for you, Sean.
Oh, I should have read your mind and not relied on your words.
Nope. Don't try to be combative. Keep the peace: Just decide (for yourself) the differences between rule of law and by any means necessary.
For as many years as the American voters vote them in for.
So starting in November and continuing on in 2024 we will be safe then because the D's will lose both time and for then on out
Your history needs a little refreshing. When was the last time a republican won the popular vote?
Popular vote does not matter. Perhaps it is actually you that needs a refresher in history with an emphasis on the Constitution
S/he is talking about the "Takeover" crap that Bannon and Richard Viguerie 'grand' plan,"Takeover! The 100 Year War for the Soul of the GOP and HOW Conservatives Can Win It. - Richard Viguerie - 2014.
MAGA conservatives are "jettisoning" what they see and view as "progressive conservatives" and once that "baggage" is found, "bagged," and shipped out of the GOP then their way is clear to AUTHORITARIAN control over the GOP and by extension lying, cheating, and stealing (rigging) their way to fortune and fame (for a 100 years). They will not pity anyone! Other than their wretched selves, of course!
That is the intent and the plan. Check out Richard Viguerie's book online free (don't buy it!).
And if I am telling you that MAGA conservatives are with purpose ridding the GOP of "progressive conservatives" or "compassionate conservatives" it can only mean they are condensing and "MAGA-downing" the GOP.
MAGA will not compromise with any liberal about anything. All bets are off with MAGA. All compassion 'snuffed out.'
Women, Minorities, LGBTQ, Others issues not considered MAGA-related will be terminated, cast down, abolished, and banned.
Finally, these MAGA conservatives on NT are not any friend of a liberal. They are par and parcel of a "brain-drain" by MAGA.
See? Case in point right there. No respect for the rule of law or election integrity. This kind of 'talk' is a warning to those who have ears to hear!
Then you need to reread my comment.
I specifically stated, "For as many years as the American voters vote them in for." I was NOT addressing the current voting procedure, I was answering a question.
Hey, there you are again, butting in without reading what you are trying to comment on. I never mentioned election policy, which you would realize if you'd bother reading before butting in....DUH!
So you are admitting you read it, yet your reply ignores the context? That is called TROLLING. Again............
Then you admit that you knew that the comment had nothing to do with the electoral policy, yet you chose to respond with that. Again, trolling.....
My original comment was a direct answer to a question. You should try it sometime.
You mean you didn't say
in comment 5.1.7? ( Before you sent it I copied the quote from that post.)
I then responded with
in 5.1.8.
You mean the rule of law that says the winner in the electoral college is the president? That rule? Or maybe it's the rule of law that says no one is allowed to bribe the Electoral college electors to be faithless in their vote? Even your queen and her supporters are guilty of that. Maybe you think that it is disrespectful of the rule of law that says that rioting for weeks after the e
action as Clinton supporters did in various cities throughout the country in an attempt to get her declared the winner in 2016-17. Or is it only disrespect for the rule of law or election integrity when your side wins and the other side protests?
The what was the point. The comment is and was meaningless.
First of all, I have no queen. So miss me with that pretense at outrage. Second, the electoral college traditionally is supposed to go with the competent candidate selected by the people and not pick the loser instead using other (by any) means necessary. After all is freedom real with MAGA or just something you utter while waving a big ass red, white, and blue flag?
And MAGA needs to grow the "F-up." Waging political warfare just because it can is costing this country (and you and me) years of setbacks and other superfluous bull patty as consequences. Do something positive and constructive with your misplaced anger and aggression. What you say? Support the damn freedoms you say you want the country to demonstrate to the world as an example. Do not join a mob that wants to do bad things to people, with bad guns, and hatred for those you have known in one way or another all your life!
Okay, so you do not believe in a Democratic election. How are the leaders selected in your part of the woods if there is no election? Since you feel "popular vote does not matter" I assume you live somewhere with no elections, a monarchy, communistic, Oligarchy, Aristocracy, Theocratic, Plutocracy? Or just plain authoritarian? Which is it?
THAT RIGHT THERE!!
The comment was directly to the point.
Sean Tracey asked , "How many years do the democrats plan on ruling?"
My response was , "For as many years as the American voters vote them in for."
NOTE: I did not stipulate Executive or Legislative branch. I also did not give a history lesson about how American elections work. It was a simple DIRECT 1 sentence response.
Suddenly a bunch of right wingers decided that they would take my simple response and try to twist differently, because they seem to hate and despise simple direct answers. AND because they know that republicans are having worse and worse times with popular votes. So their only defense is to distract and spin.
"F-up." Waging political warfare just because it can is costing this country (and you and me) years of setbacks
What setbacks would that be. Certainly you can't feel that restoring the right to life of a human being by restricting abortion a setback! I think that is bring us back to sanity.
I live in the United States of America, the best and greatest nation on the planet Earth. It is not 100%perfect but the closest thing to it. it is and has been since it's founding a Republic. Do do some remedial education in history and civics.
It is a private decision. After all, you choose to have a second amendment right to take a life in defense of your own or another. Let a girl or woman decide the manner of her living up to a point determined by those trained in the field of endeavor. It is wrong to ruin a life that you take no responsibility to render aid in order to create a new life that you take no responsibility for it being in this world. And moral outrage can't pay a single bill in this capitalistic system you wish to see continue. You can argue academics and theory for a thousand years and it still won't make a difference in practice. A girl and a woman needs options, not arbitary, and I do mean arbitary limitations thrust upon her.
They do have an option. They have the option not to have unprotected sex. The same option a man has to become a father or not.
I do not choose to have a second amendment right to defend my ir another's life. That is a right given to me by God my creater jus like the unborn human baby has the right to life given to him or her by God.
Net federal subsidies (the cost of all the subsidies minus the relevant taxes and penalties) in 2022 for people under age 65 is $997 billion. In 2032, that annual amount is projected to reach $1.6 trillion,
The right to carry a gun was given to you by Antonin Scalia.
What?! Explain that more (if you can). I am interested if you learn if you can do so without the 'sound-bite' quality attached. Go on, please. . . .
And other humans without a doubt. God is not "in this." I wish to hear arkpdx out on it, nevertheless.
It is about you, MAGA, minding our own business. When do you take responsibility for doing that? Are there not any problems in MAGA that you can dwell on and let others enjoy the peace and quiet of your doing so?
And let me get right in your face. Stop with the MAGA don't have feelings. Donald Trump and you his enablers were emoting all over the capitol in D.C. in which one of your own, Ashli Babbitt was sacrificed to an utter lie.
We all have feeling. MAGA pines away about its 'long, gone, past.'
Antonin Scalia was alive in 1789s when the Constitution was written? Boy he has aged well.
My rights as delineated in the Bill of Right come from from God.
My Right to life as Stated in the Declaration of Independence come from God my Creator as does my right right to liberty and my right to pursue happiness
Do you arrive here just for the jokes? Should we just chuckle when you are present? Do you wish to be taken serious or as a running joke (personality)?
It is very clear to me. What part did you not understand?
Apparently, not all here hold those truths to be self-evident.
Yes, evidently.
Now is the time for you to grow a pair and show where I said anything that applies to your reply.
I seem to have struck a cord, and you have nothing but unrelated insults.
You did ask me where I lived and I answered
So you are declaring God is an open bigot? Because Blacks, Indians, and other minorities got screwed royally. So God did that to minorities and not men? Be clear when you answer, please. Proceed . . . .
So you chose the delightful Doris Day to get you out of your mess? Doris Day, a treat, nevertheless.
Okay, so you pass on being clear. Got it.
No, men that didn't live up to their convictions did that. We need a 1776 Project to educate Americans.
Doris Day is a delicious distraction! Equally so would have been Andy Williams' Moon River. Gotta love, em. And yes, the black community adored both singers and a bevy of other crooners when I was growing up!
Where did I say that? If you would actually read what I said is the US is not and was not 100% perfect. We are a nation of men and we do make mistakes and we tend to treat our fellow men badly at times. That is on man not God.
It is perfectly clear as is. If you cannot understand it that is on you. I will ask you again what part did you not understand.
I am sorry did you get that question from the "race police" on NT? Excuse me, but I don't have to vet my commentary by your feelings about race or ethnicity. Activate this!
The black community loves the songs performed by Doris Day and Andy Williams and their televisions shows too! Deal with that or don't do so. It's all the same to me.
You wrote that! Your rights like every other right are granted by men who do not take them away from you! Don't let the rhetorical flourishes confuse or delude you. Don't get it twisted. Society can take those rights granted by men away from you, even as this country did not give them freely of its own volition at first to minorities.
Furthermore, were rights granted you by God then God would be accountable to seeing that they are not taken away. But, you don't see God doing any of that laborious activity do you?
I'm good. I accept your failure to be plain and clear:
God has not given you any right to own a weapon. God is not that intricate in human affairs. That is the man in you making an assertion you can not possibly prove.
Then it is good to know that you have no issue with the abortion ruling. It was men that gave that supposed right and it was men and one woman that took it away. You yourself endorsed that.
I have not endorsed men taking away a girl and a woman's right to privacy. But, waste additional time on NT deluding yourself into thinking such nonsense. Clarify something for me here which you recently clarified elsewhere: Do you think girls and women who have abortions are mentally ill?
First there is no enumerated right to privacy so there was nothing to take away
When did I ever say that.
Look time is out for playing around. Do you have a right to privacy in your life or not?! And don't give me that nothing is taken away bull shit anymore. You know damn well much is taken away. Being coy is bull shit. Talk or step off!
You have said a great many 'things' about people you self-classify as mentally ill: In your worldview are girls and women who get abortions mentally ill also?
No they are not mentally ill and I never said they were . They maybe child abusers and child murderers however
I was clear you just don't like what you read.
Here's one of countless examples that make no sense and reveal this to be nothing other than liberal fantasy.
The fist column is Presidential Background.
Barack Obama, who never held a full time job for four years before running for President is somehow ranked #18. The man with one of, if not the, thinnest resume of any elected President: community organizer, part time law professor, state legislator who voted present and Senator for a term is somehow 18.
He ranks well ahead of James Garfield, ranked 25. Garfield, was a lawyer, a Professor who published a proof of the Pythagorean theorem, A Major General in the Union Army, an Ohio State Senator and served nine terms in Congress before being elected President.
No honest person would possibly count Obama as more qualified than Garfield.
And a further proof of how ridiculous the rankings are lies with James Buchanan. The survey overall pegs him correctly at the bottom of the barrel, but because he was a "bad President" he's ranked at the bottom of categories regardless of reality. When he ran for President, he was widely considered one of the most qualified people ever to run for the office.
He was a lawyer, fought in the War of 1812, served a decade in the House, served a decade in the Senate, served as Ambassador to Russia and England and was a former Secretary of State. He checked pretty much every box you could wish for as far as experience goes and somehow is ranked #37 in background. It's preposterous.
As with every poll or survey it's just a popularity contest. 30% of the population doesn't even know who James Buchanan or James Garfield were and of those who do 85% only know they were Presidents.
Obama lectured on constitutional law at one of the nation's leading universities for 12 years. I have a feeling that the experts in the survey took that into as much as more consideration as the fact that Garfield was a general in the Civil War. In and out knowledge of the constitution would be a great asset to a president.
Obama was the editor of the Harvard Law Review, a significant position in the legal community, served on multiple charitable boards, spent 8 years in the Illinois state senate, four years in the US Senate, wrote two books, and famously was a community organizer for a few years when he was in his mid - 20's. The right has attempted to claim all he every did was community organize but that is not the case. By the time he was 27 he was done with community organizing as a profession.
Obama also had visited Asia , Africa, and Europe as a young man.
Exactly. Being a part time lecturer leads his resume. You've done a good job detailing how thin it is. The idea that's better than half the Presidents is simply preposterous. No executive leadership. No military experience (he was commander in chief), barely any legislative experience. Iy didn't get any better as his ranking mysteriously shot up the rankings over the last few years.
It simply isn't the same ballpark as someone like Garfield's or Buchanan's or just about anyone else.
have a feeling that the experts in the survey took that into as much as more consideration as the fact that Garfield was a general in the Civil War.
Lol. No it's obvious that liberals like Obama want him to rank highly so they rank him high regardless of any objective standard. It's blatantly obvious. His ranking is indefensible on any standard other than "whatever Barack Obama did counts as good and whatever Presidents I don't care about did doesn't matter"
I dont think "background" in this survey means what you think it means. And to say Obama had no significant accomplishments prior to running for president is ridiculous.
I suppose next you'll argue that Trump shouldnt be rated last in Integrity, and Intelligence.
No other president had a running daily tally kep of his public lies , eventually reaching into the tens of thousands.
As for intelligence, Trump has said more indefensibly stupid things in the past 7 years than all of the other 44 presidents put together.
Compared to just about anyone on this list yes. Compared to the average American no.
You yourself led with he was a part time lecturer on Constitutional law. That speaks for itself.
er president had a running daily tally kep of his public lies , eventually reaching into the tens of thousands.
And somehow this becomes about Trump......
A presidents overall views of society before he became president would likely play a role in his "background".
all views of society before he became president would likely play a role in his "background".
Now you are getting closer to the answer, which is that what matters is how the President opinions measure up with modern liberals views. His objective resume (which again, most educated historians consider one of the better ones ever for a President) doesn't matter, his politics are what matter. Same reason Presidents who appoint far left justices rank highly in legal appointments, but those who appointed "conservative" justices rank at the bottom.
It's a contest of which Presidents give progressives a thrill up their leg.
George Washington and Thomas Jefferson and James Madison also had backwards views about slavery, but they also lived in a period prior to the rise of abolitionism , and they were also people who had literally participated personally in the formation of the country and the government.
Buchanan had none of that and I suspect the survey did take that into consideration in relation to "background".
Yes, I was surprised founding the country, drafting the Constitution etc were still considered better qualifications than part time law professor too.
I've always found it somewhat amusing how leftist liberals of today seem to insist on judging people like the founding fathers by today's standards instead of in the context of the times in which they lived.
Obama's real father was a commie, his mentors were radical socialists, and his allegiance was pledged to Allah.
Any political poll/survey results are entirely dependent on who commissioned said poll and the demographics of where said survey was taken. That's why I stopped believing in political polls/surveys many years ago.