Jimmy Carter turned 98 on October 1st, for those of you wondering how old he is.

CollegeStationNative said:

---

Pookers said:

---

CollegeStationNative said:

---

doubledog said:

---

Pookers said:

---

doubledog said:

---

waitwhat? said:

---

lethalninja said:

---

Why do you consider Lincoln a top two contender for the worst?

---

Well the civil war and precedents set are pretty bad

---

Refresh my memory, did Lincoln fire on Fort Sumter?

---

No, he just baited the south into it and made the war all but inevitable. People should read in to the civil war more than what you're taught in middle school. Lincoln was a Hamiltonian big government statist who hated the constitution and hated criticism of his actions. He threw many a northern journalist into prison for having the gall to say the south should be able to secede (which was the prevailing thought by just about everybody at the time).

---

Wrong, the pro-slavery "fire-eaters" over reacted and started the civil war. Lincolns order for volunteers to form an army, did prod Virginia to join the CSA, but that was after the war had begun. Lincoln never stated nor did he believe (in 1861) that he or his administration sould abolish slavery. Even as late as Aug 1862 he stated in his letter to Horace Greely (to be published) "If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would also do that." That does not like someone who would abolish slavery in the South. Of course he changed his mind as the war progressed.

The suspension of habeas corpus, in 1861 was extreme, but the whole idea of fighting an internal and external war in the border states was extreme.

---

Such a remarkably inaccurate post. Good to see people who believe the south will rise again are still lurking in the shadows shielded by anonymity.

---

Strong work sock. My point wasn't to state that the south was correct, just that Lincoln was a tyrant. The civil war was a mess with neither side being the good guy.

---

None of what you said above validates your claim that Lincoln was a "tyrant" or that he was a "Hamiltonian big government statist who hated the Constitution '(haha) (Hamilton was very pro constitution). It just proves you might have an alterior motive to your claims such as the belief the South should have been allowed to secede and continue slavery. Lincoln did the right thing for all Americans. He shut down slavery and saved the Union.

---

Hamilton WAS a big government statist and so was Lincoln. The original political divide that still reigns to this day is Hamiltonian vs. Jeffersonian views on the organization of the government. Unfortunately Jefferson was correct about how things would eventually end up with a strong central government.

And the south did have the constitutional right to leave and this was the prevailing thought at the time by just about everybody.

And **** off with whatever you're insinuating about my motives.

CollegeStationNative said:

---

doubledog said:

---

Pookers said:

---

doubledog said:

---

waitwhat? said:

---

lethalninja said:

---

Why do you consider Lincoln a top two contender for the worst?

---

Well the civil war and precedents set are pretty bad

---

Refresh my memory, did Lincoln fire on Fort Sumter?

---

No, he just baited the south into it and made the war all but inevitable. People should read in to the civil war more than what you're taught in middle school. Lincoln was a Hamiltonian big government statist who hated the constitution and hated criticism of his actions. He threw many a northern journalist into prison for having the gall to say the south should be able to secede (which was the prevailing thought by just about everybody at the time).

---

Wrong, the pro-slavery "fire-eaters" over reacted and started the civil war. Lincolns order for volunteers to form an army, did prod Virginia to join the CSA, but that was after the war had begun. Lincoln never stated nor did he believe (in 1861) that he or his administration sould abolish slavery. Even as late as Aug 1862 he stated in his letter to Horace Greely (to be published) "If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would also do that." That does not like someone who would abolish slavery in the South. Of course he changed his mind as the war progressed.

The suspension of habeas corpus, in 1861 was extreme, but the whole idea of fighting an internal and external war in the border states was extreme.

---

Such a remarkably inaccurate post. Good to see people who believe the south will rise again are still lurking in the shadows shielded by anonymity.

---

Ummm....his post says the exact opposite of what your sock just posted...

Used to be Carter until Obama came around.

Most damaging to the country:
1. Woodrow Wilson
2. LBJ
3. Obama
4. FDR (FDR is only this far down the list because he was an excellent war leader in WWII. His New Deal policies, were and continue to be hugely damaging to the Republic.)

Worst
1. James Buchanon
2. Obama
3. Carter

I've said it before, if time travel were possible, I would go back in time and kick him squarely in the nuts. He ruined this country.

PA24 said:

---

LBJ

---

Pookers said:

---

CollegeStationNative said:

---

Pookers said:

---

CollegeStationNative said:

---

doubledog said:

---

Pookers said:

---

doubledog said:

---

waitwhat? said:

---

lethalninja said:

---

Why do you consider Lincoln a top two contender for the worst?

---

Well the civil war and precedents set are pretty bad

---

Refresh my memory, did Lincoln fire on Fort Sumter?

---

No, he just baited the south into it and made the war all but inevitable. People should read in to the civil war more than what you're taught in middle school. Lincoln was a Hamiltonian big government statist who hated the constitution and hated criticism of his actions. He threw many a northern journalist into prison for having the gall to say the south should be able to secede (which was the prevailing thought by just about everybody at the time).

---

Wrong, the pro-slavery "fire-eaters" over reacted and started the civil war. Lincolns order for volunteers to form an army, did prod Virginia to join the CSA, but that was after the war had begun. Lincoln never stated nor did he believe (in 1861) that he or his administration sould abolish slavery. Even as late as Aug 1862 he stated in his letter to Horace Greely (to be published) "If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would also do that." That does not like someone who would abolish slavery in the South. Of course he changed his mind as the war progressed.

The suspension of habeas corpus, in 1861 was extreme, but the whole idea of fighting an internal and external war in the border states was extreme.

---

Such a remarkably inaccurate post. Good to see people who believe the south will rise again are still lurking in the shadows shielded by anonymity.

---

Strong work sock. My point wasn't to state that the south was correct, just that Lincoln was a tyrant. The civil war was a mess with neither side being the good guy.

---

None of what you said above validates your claim that Lincoln was a "tyrant" or that he was a "Hamiltonian big government statist who hated the Constitution '(haha) (Hamilton was very pro constitution). It just proves you might have an alterior motive to your claims such as the belief the South should have been allowed to secede and continue slavery. Lincoln did the right thing for all Americans. He shut down slavery and saved the Union.

---

Hamilton WAS a big government statist and so was Lincoln. The original political divide that still reigns to this day is Hamiltonian vs. Jeffersonian views on the organization of the government. Unfortunately Jefferson was correct about how things would eventually end up with a strong central government.

And the south did have the constitutional right to leave and this was the prevailing thought at the time by just about everybody.

And **** off with whatever you're insinuating about my motives.

---

That is simply historically inaccurate

to claim without evidence "just about everybody" believed there was a Constitutional right for states to secede from the union is historically false.

considering over a million Union soldiers all believed there was no such Constitutional right- much less the Northern politicians.

Is the Constitution a social contract with the People or a treaty among the states?

LBJ's Great Society is the most damaging thing to happen to this country. Combine that with Vietnam and LBJ is the worst and most damaging.

LMCane said:

---

Pookers said:

---

CollegeStationNative said:

---

Pookers said:

---

CollegeStationNative said:

---

doubledog said:

---

Pookers said:

---

doubledog said:

---

waitwhat? said:

---

lethalninja said:

---

Why do you consider Lincoln a top two contender for the worst?

---

Well the civil war and precedents set are pretty bad

---

Refresh my memory, did Lincoln fire on Fort Sumter?

---

No, he just baited the south into it and made the war all but inevitable. People should read in to the civil war more than what you're taught in middle school. Lincoln was a Hamiltonian big government statist who hated the constitution and hated criticism of his actions. He threw many a northern journalist into prison for having the gall to say the south should be able to secede (which was the prevailing thought by just about everybody at the time).

---

Wrong, the pro-slavery "fire-eaters" over reacted and started the civil war. Lincolns order for volunteers to form an army, did prod Virginia to join the CSA, but that was after the war had begun. Lincoln never stated nor did he believe (in 1861) that he or his administration sould abolish slavery. Even as late as Aug 1862 he stated in his letter to Horace Greely (to be published) "If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would also do that." That does not like someone who would abolish slavery in the South. Of course he changed his mind as the war progressed.

The suspension of habeas corpus, in 1861 was extreme, but the whole idea of fighting an internal and external war in the border states was extreme.

---

Such a remarkably inaccurate post. Good to see people who believe the south will rise again are still lurking in the shadows shielded by anonymity.

---

Strong work sock. My point wasn't to state that the south was correct, just that Lincoln was a tyrant. The civil war was a mess with neither side being the good guy.

---

None of what you said above validates your claim that Lincoln was a "tyrant" or that he was a "Hamiltonian big government statist who hated the Constitution '(haha) (Hamilton was very pro constitution). It just proves you might have an alterior motive to your claims such as the belief the South should have been allowed to secede and continue slavery. Lincoln did the right thing for all Americans. He shut down slavery and saved the Union.

---

Hamilton WAS a big government statist and so was Lincoln. The original political divide that still reigns to this day is Hamiltonian vs. Jeffersonian views on the organization of the government. Unfortunately Jefferson was correct about how things would eventually end up with a strong central government.

And the south did have the constitutional right to leave and this was the prevailing thought at the time by just about everybody.

And **** off with whatever you're insinuating about my motives.

---

That is simply historically inaccurate

to claim without evidence "just about everybody" believed there was a Constitutional right for states to secede from the union is historically false.

considering over a million Union soldiers all believed there was no such Constitutional right- much less the Northern politicians.

---

This has always seemed silly. A nation formed by rebellion can't really outlaw it. And the Founders actually expressly all but endorsed it with their `about every 200 years' need reboot attitudes, and in enshringing the 2nd A. Not to mention what the Declaration of Indpendence says.

It just doesn't fly. The moral right to rebel is implicit in the American idea---- by the same token the government attempting to preserve itself --whether the Crown or the Swamp -- has no obligation to say its okay and legal. But legality never plays a role in rebellion. A just government doesn't foment rebellion.

People have a natural right to rebellion; the states did not have the right to secede. The rebellion failed and the Confederates lost.

Also seemingly lost on many who romanticize the Confederate cause is that the entire ordeal was a militarized movement that many in that same group supposedly abhor today. The secessionist movement was purely intended to continue to line the pockets of the elites in the south by preserving the institution of slavery and thus the profitability of southern agriculture. The southern elites massively manipulated their poorer,non-slave-owning southerners to fight and die for the sake of maintaining their economic status quo. Paid labor cut into the margins too much. The election of Lincoln signaled an end to the political power in Washington that favored the slave states and they refused to live with those consequences.

Noblemen06 said:

---

People have a natural right to rebellion; the states did not have the right to secede. The rebellion failed and the Confederates lost.

---

That's a distinction without a difference. Legal structures and lawyers don't determine rebellions, passions and sacrifice do.

Quote:

---

Also seemingly lost on many who romanticize the Confederate cause is that the entire ordeal was a militarized movement that many in that same group supposedly abhor today. The secessionist movement was purely intended to continue to line the pockets of the elites in the south by preserving the institution of slavery and thus the profitability of southern agriculture. The southern elites massively manipulated their poorer,non-slave-owning southerners to fight and die for the sake of maintaining their economic status quo. Free labor cut into the margins too much. The election of Lincoln signaled an end to the political power in Washington that favored the slave states and they refused to live with those consequences.

---

It has nothing to do with romanticizing the Confederate cause. It stands on its own. Its true today as it was in 1776. Its just logic from our origin.

Quote:

---

The secessionist movement was purely intended to continue to line the pockets of the elites in the south by preserving the institution of slavery and thus the profitability of southern agriculture.

---

Perhaps so, and any new one would also be about economics. The shoe is almost on the other foot now -- its the northeast swamp that is lining their pockets and won't tolerate any reform or check on that. To the point of feeling free to displace the whole culture for cheap labor.

People that say that Trump is their least favorite are pretty telling.

LMCane said:

---

Pookers said:

---

CollegeStationNative said:

---

Pookers said:

---

CollegeStationNative said:

---

doubledog said:

---

Pookers said:

---

doubledog said:

---

waitwhat? said:

---

lethalninja said:

---

Why do you consider Lincoln a top two contender for the worst?

---

Well the civil war and precedents set are pretty bad

---

Refresh my memory, did Lincoln fire on Fort Sumter?

---

No, he just baited the south into it and made the war all but inevitable. People should read in to the civil war more than what you're taught in middle school. Lincoln was a Hamiltonian big government statist who hated the constitution and hated criticism of his actions. He threw many a northern journalist into prison for having the gall to say the south should be able to secede (which was the prevailing thought by just about everybody at the time).

---

Wrong, the pro-slavery "fire-eaters" over reacted and started the civil war. Lincolns order for volunteers to form an army, did prod Virginia to join the CSA, but that was after the war had begun. Lincoln never stated nor did he believe (in 1861) that he or his administration sould abolish slavery. Even as late as Aug 1862 he stated in his letter to Horace Greely (to be published) "If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would also do that." That does not like someone who would abolish slavery in the South. Of course he changed his mind as the war progressed.

The suspension of habeas corpus, in 1861 was extreme, but the whole idea of fighting an internal and external war in the border states was extreme.

---

Such a remarkably inaccurate post. Good to see people who believe the south will rise again are still lurking in the shadows shielded by anonymity.

---

Strong work sock. My point wasn't to state that the south was correct, just that Lincoln was a tyrant. The civil war was a mess with neither side being the good guy.

---

None of what you said above validates your claim that Lincoln was a "tyrant" or that he was a "Hamiltonian big government statist who hated the Constitution '(haha) (Hamilton was very pro constitution). It just proves you might have an alterior motive to your claims such as the belief the South should have been allowed to secede and continue slavery. Lincoln did the right thing for all Americans. He shut down slavery and saved the Union.

---

Hamilton WAS a big government statist and so was Lincoln. The original political divide that still reigns to this day is Hamiltonian vs. Jeffersonian views on the organization of the government. Unfortunately Jefferson was correct about how things would eventually end up with a strong central government.

And the south did have the constitutional right to leave and this was the prevailing thought at the time by just about everybody.

And **** off with whatever you're insinuating about my motives.

---

That is simply historically inaccurate

to claim without evidence "just about everybody" believed there was a Constitutional right for states to secede from the union is historically false.

considering over a million Union soldiers all believed there was no such Constitutional right- much less the Northern politicians.

---

That is also objectively false, as I suspect you are aware. For instance, let's just take the men who served under insane Dan Sickles, perhaps the Hunter Biden of his times, before there were cocaine piss tests.

How did he become a general? By raising troops for his pal Hooker. Does any of this give one credence to believe they collectively cared one iota about a state right to secession? No, and in fact very few soldiers on either side really had much of an interest or opinion on that history, imho.

titan said:

---

Noblemen06 said:

---

People have a natural right to rebellion; the states did not have the right to secede. The rebellion failed and the Confederates lost.

---

That's a distinction without a difference. Legal structures and lawyers don't determine rebellions, passions and sacrifice do.

---

Leagues of difference between the two and that distinction does matter. People have the right to rebel against the government when they feel the government no longer is acting in good faith to protect their natural rights. The states are the government. The People are not.

The Articles of Confederation established that the states were unified forever as a United States (full title" The Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union"). The Constitution resolved the issues of the weak federal government formed by the Articles of Confederation "in order to create a more perfect union" ...as "We the People," not "we the states."

If people rebel, then they choose to be in conflict with the government - sometimes it works out for them, as it did in the American Revolution, and sometimes it doesn't, as in the case of the CSA. "It's only treason if you lose"

Still disagree. Under the current corruption, the states are no longer the government. It may even be an international body. Arizona and Texas are being given no say on borders being wide open, and even punished when they show willingness to simply "okay then, we will do it ourselves if you won't. "

They won't even allow that.

In that respect, we are in agreement. The states could stand their ground on Article 10 for a myriad of reasons but they don't do it enough - but that speaks more to corruption throughout the government than nullification of state authority under the Constitution. Regarding modern power structures and corruption, there are parallels between 1860/61 and now. The catalysts are different, but the conditions are similar. Elites are fueling a calamity and foisting it upon an American public that is seemingly incapable of seeing it with their own eyes...like pigs to the slaughter. Who profits?

To the point of this thread, LBJ is the worst for his social programs and their fallout. We're living in the Democrat societal rot he put in motion. I'd say FDR for laying the foundation for all of it but at least he helped win a war, which LBJ failed miserably at.

Noblemen06 said:

---

In that respect, we are in agreement. Regarding modern power structures and corruption, there are parallels between 1860/61 and now. The catalysts are different, but the conditions are similar. Elites are fueling a calamity and foisting it upon an American public that is seemingly incapable of seeing it with their own eyes...like pigs to the slaughter. Who profits?

To the point of this thread, LBJ is the worst for his social programs and their fallout. We're living in the Democrat societal rot he put in motion. I'd say FDR for laying the foundation for all of it but at least he helped win a war, which LBJ failed miserably at.

---

Agreed, that actually is somewhat what driving at. I.E., all the finer points don't matter--- stratospheric corruption and self-serving by the elites has created comparable passions and desire to thrash things out. Let's end the digression and return to the thread with you statement there about LBJ. Would you invoke LBJ's enlarging of the Viet Nam War as another factor, or don't blame him for that?

valvemonkey91 said:

---

Barack Hussein Obama.

---

Obama had the power to end racism and bring our country together.
Instead he promoted division and made racism so much worse.

That's not just a miss... that's evil.

titan said:

---

Would you invoke LBJ's enlarging of the Viet Nam War as another factor, or don't blame him for that?

---

He's certainly to blame, even though I understand why he did it. He knew Vietnam was a losing fight and escalated anyways, mostly out of political fear domestically. Add to that, Domino Theory was ubiquitous in Washington. Hindsight is always 20/20...I get that. However, there is so much on the record that speaks to his clear understanding that Vietnam was a lost cause before we got into the deep end. Despite winning his election and having Democrat control of Congress, he didn't want to be seen as soft on national defense, so he plunged us into that quagmire. He was a bully of a politician but had no spine on that issue. Add to that mix, his micromanagement of the war from the White House was disastrous (Obama would repeat some of these mistakes).

We would (will) be in a similar predicament if (when) the PRC attempts to retake Taiwan by force. The consensus in Washington is that a failure to act, the president will look weak, and America will lose stature on the global stage. Both might be true, but it will cost much American treasure and many lives to get into that mess.

Pookers said:

---

CollegeStationNative said:

---

Pookers said:

---

CollegeStationNative said:

---

doubledog said:

---

Pookers said:

---

doubledog said:

---

waitwhat? said:

---

lethalninja said:

---

Why do you consider Lincoln a top two contender for the worst?

---

Well the civil war and precedents set are pretty bad

---

Refresh my memory, did Lincoln fire on Fort Sumter?

---

No, he just baited the south into it and made the war all but inevitable. People should read in to the civil war more than what you're taught in middle school. Lincoln was a Hamiltonian big government statist who hated the constitution and hated criticism of his actions. He threw many a northern journalist into prison for having the gall to say the south should be able to secede (which was the prevailing thought by just about everybody at the time).

---

Wrong, the pro-slavery "fire-eaters" over reacted and started the civil war. Lincolns order for volunteers to form an army, did prod Virginia to join the CSA, but that was after the war had begun. Lincoln never stated nor did he believe (in 1861) that he or his administration sould abolish slavery. Even as late as Aug 1862 he stated in his letter to Horace Greely (to be published) "If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would also do that." That does not like someone who would abolish slavery in the South. Of course he changed his mind as the war progressed.

The suspension of habeas corpus, in 1861 was extreme, but the whole idea of fighting an internal and external war in the border states was extreme.

---

Such a remarkably inaccurate post. Good to see people who believe the south will rise again are still lurking in the shadows shielded by anonymity.

---

Strong work sock. My point wasn't to state that the south was correct, just that Lincoln was a tyrant. The civil war was a mess with neither side being the good guy.

---

None of what you said above validates your claim that Lincoln was a "tyrant" or that he was a "Hamiltonian big government statist who hated the Constitution '(haha) (Hamilton was very pro constitution). It just proves you might have an alterior motive to your claims such as the belief the South should have been allowed to secede and continue slavery. Lincoln did the right thing for all Americans. He shut down slavery and saved the Union.

---

Hamilton WAS a big government statist and so was Lincoln. The original political divide that still reigns to this day is Hamiltonian vs. Jeffersonian views on the organization of the government. Unfortunately Jefferson was correct about how things would eventually end up with a strong central government.

And the south did have the constitutional right to leave and this was the prevailing thought at the time by just about everybody.

And **** off with whatever you're insinuating about my motives.

---

You seem upset.

Hamilton wasn't anti-constitution. Hamilton was Pro Republic. Referring to him as or Lincoln as tyrants is categorically false and is probably part of some diatribe you read on the Mises Institute website.

David Happymountain said:

---

Why does Biden get so much hate? He isn't even running the country?

---

The following may explain part of the reasons and this doesn't even include the Biden crime family corruption

Biden's daughter's diary

• https://nationalfile.com/full-release-ashley-biden-diary-reveals-child-sex-trauma-drug-abuse-resentment-for-joe-whistleblower/

Biden swimming naked in front of female Secret Service agents:

• https://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2015/07/31/claim-sometmes-joe-biden-goes-skinny-dipping-offending-secret-service-agents-n2032819

Biden sexual harassment allegations:

• https://www.thecut.com/2020/04/joe-biden-accuser-accusations-allegations.html

Biden plagiarism

• https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2020/07/23/joe_bidens_plagiarism_problem_143788.html#!

Biden Quid Pro Quo

• https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/matt-margolis/2020/05/19/leaked-audio-of-joe-bidens-ukraine-quid-pro-quo-call-destroys-msm-narrative-about-shokins-ouster-n407354

Biden lies about education

• https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2019/05/that-time-joe-biden-lied-about-his-academic-credentials/

• https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4821169/user-clip-joe-biden-lies-college-high-school-record

Biden lies a lot

• https://thefederalist.com/2021/06/24/heres-the-full-list-of-every-lie-joe-biden-has-told-as-president-part-sixty/

sleepybeagle said:

---

valvemonkey91 said:

---

Barack Hussein Obama.

---

Obama had the power to end racism and bring our country together.
Instead he promoted division and made racism so much worse.

That's not just a miss... that's evil.

---

That's true. What he did fits the definition of evil. He had the chance to make a real difference. Even now, despite the full combined blustering cheeks full of air posturing of the Media and Academia, as far as concerned, once we proved capable of electing a black king by choice, there is no institutional racism worth a name left.

And what is certain is what remains is generated by Democrats in offices and in the press. (And tenured positions)

Lincoln
Wilson < --- The worst of the lot
FDR
LBJ
Carter
Bush II
Obama
Biden

Each one of the above took us away from our republic roots.

2ndGen87 said:

---

Lincoln
Wilson < --- The worst of the lot
FDR
LBJ
Carter
Bush II
Obama
Biden

Each one of the above took us away from our republic roots.

---

Looking that way, and the attendant corollary. Wrong side won World War One.

lethalninja said:

---

He won the popular vote by over seven million votes, so even if one or two million of those votes were fraudulent, he still would have won.

---

You need to study the Constitution and what defines a Constitutional Republic.

With Democratic Party leadership we may all soon lose our Constitutional Republic and skid down the path of an Oligarchy or worse a totalitarian regime with one party rule.

President CIA has been in power way too long. He/She/Them is my least favorite.

2ndGen87 said:

---

Lincoln
Wilson < --- The worst of the lot
FDR
LBJ
Carter
Bush II
Obama
Biden

Each one of the above took us away from our republic roots.

---

Bush 1 redacted his own name from CIA/FBI records in and around the JFK Assassination.

He has to be on the list. I used to love and respect him. What a shame!

Why? Wasn't he on the Warren Commission. Maybe remembering wrong, been very long time since read on that event.

Ag with kids said:

---

FDR...

The New Deal programs he brought in are the cause of all the big government **** we have today.

---

My grandfather would not take Roosevelt dimes in change nor use them the buy things, he knew what FDR's bull**** would create.

Trump is my answer.

While his policies weren't bad (I actually agree with a lot of them), he did everything he could to divide this country down the middle. No president should actively and intentionally seek to divide the country.

This is slightly interesting, but Joseph Robinette Biden (Jr.) has the same initials as Jolly Roger Bay from Super Mario 64. One could say he's sinking the country like the sunken ship from that level.

2012heisman said:

---

LBJ's Great Society is the most damaging thing to happen to this country. Combine that with Vietnam and LBJ is the worst and most damaging.

---

I agree that the Great Society was and remains horrible. But for me, Wilson tops the list because the XVIth and XVIIth Amendments passed on his watch, with his approval.

Without his WWII leadership, I'd put FDR higher than LBJ, because without the precedents set by the New Deal, the Great Society would have been unthinkable.

How is the seventeenth amendment bad? It lets the people elect senators.