ptown_trojans_1;716469 wrote:Ok, few quick points.
1. Anyone that ever says, "...in history" or "...of all time." when talking about Presidents in the last 40 years has no idea what they are talking about. The Presidents of the 19th century outside of Lincoln, Jackson, Jefferson, and Madison were garbage and often considered the worst/ weakest. Also, there were President was John Quincy Adams who got jack done at all due to a Congress that did nothing. There was also Polk and Pierce and others who were really ineffective that pales in comparison to today. Oh, yeah then there is Grant who has one of the most corrupt Presidencies and Johnson, who got impeached.
2. Saying Obama is the weakest makes no sense in comparison to Carter.
3. Finally, doesn't this whole notion of Obama is weak contradict the way right conservative view that Obama is destroying America or plotting to destroy the country? Which is it? The radical liberal who has a plot to undermine the conservative values in this country through some masterfully plan, or the weakest President in history which can't do anything?
Being a weak and ineffectual leader can destroy a country very quickly -- and I would consider Obama both weak and ineffectual, for the most part. Aside from bullying through ObamaCare and the Porkulous packages (which were really more about Congress and its abilities than Obama's), he hasn't done much.
His US apology tour was weak, to say the least.
He's not addressing perhaps the most dangerous threat to our way of life -- the growing deficit. In fact, he's mostly ignoring it (or lying about it) while focusing on things much less critical.
He has shown zero leadership skills on the economy so far, and the economy has been mostly in the tank.
So yes, a leader can be weak and destroy a country quite easily. He can even be weak and do what the right wing nutjobs think he's doing, by simply providing no MORAL leadership...although that's not something I'm concerned about.
