Which President Should Obama Replace on Mt. Rushmore?

1. 86

   Sychophantasticposted 7 years ago

   Now that President Obama is wrapping up his second term and is widely regarded as one of the greatest presidents of the United States, a movement is afoot to have him added to Mt. Rushmore. Who's face do you think Obama's should replace? I'm voting for Thomas Jefferson since Jefferson owned slaves.

   replyreport
   1. 93

      wildernessposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Well, widely regarded as the greatest...by perhaps a dozen people in the country.  Maybe widely regarded as a great president...by most democrats.
      
      Either way that's well under half the population and you want to put him in Rushmore?

      replyreport
   2. 0

      promisemposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      He has an average rank of 17th from two polls of presidential historians. But it's still early. His rank could go up or down.
      
      GW Bush is 34th.
      
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historica … ted_States

      replyreport
      1. 60

         Live to Learnposted 7 years agoin reply to this

         I would point out that no one (to my knowledge) has put forth a ridiculous notion of recarving Mt. Rushmore in the image of Bush.
         
         To answer the OP. There have been many great presidents in the eyes of different people. If you want Obama carved into a mountain there are plenty to choose from other than Rushmore.

         replyreport
         1. 0

            promisemposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            I'm not sure if you are criticizing my post or not. I provided the Obama number as a way of putting his presidency in perspective. A ranking of 17th doesn't justify putting him on Rushmore.
            
            I provided the Bush number in case people were curious. I would be glad to post more if you wish.

            replyreport
            1. 60

               Live to Learnposted 7 years agoin reply to this

               Saw your post. Don't even know why I responded to the OP. These threads this Hubber starts are childish and ridiculous.  No one is going to recarve Mount Rushmore. I don't care  how many sycophants call for it.

               replyreport
               1. 77

                  Kathryn L Hillposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                  its just a way to discuss the issues at hand.
                  Gosh!

                  replyreport
                  1. 60

                     Live to Learnposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                     This is not an issue at hand. No one would seriously discuss recarving Mt. Rushmore. It would be a non starter before the conversation began.

                     replyreport
2. 78

   colorfuloneposted 7 years ago

   
   
   We just got another extremely disappointing GDP number.  It was being projected that U.S. GDP would grow by 2.5 percent during the second quarter of 2016, but instead it only grew by just 1.2 percent.  In addition, the Census Bureau announced that GDP growth for the first quarter of 2016 had been revised down from 1.1 percent to 0.8 percent.  What this means is that the U.S. economy is just barely hanging on by its fingernails from falling into a recession.   As Zero Hedge has pointed out, the “average annual growth rate during the current business cycle remains the weakest of any expansion since at least 1949″.  This is not what a recovery looks like.
   
   In addition, Barack Obama remains solidly on track to be the only president in all of U.S. history to never have a single year when the economy grew by at least 3 percent.  Every other president in American history, even the really bad ones, had at least one year when U.S. GDP grew by at least 3 percent.  But this has not happened under Obama even though he has had two terms in the White House.
   *  http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-07-3 … gdp-growth
   
   And, Obama tells the public everything is fine?   Obama has not helped the economy, and because of that he will go down as one the worst presidents in history the of America.
   
   The rate of real economic growth is the single greatest determinate of both America’s strength as a nation and the well-being of the American people. Barack Obama will be lucky to average a 1.55% GDP growth rate.
   *  http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/07 … dp-growth/
   
   

   replyreport
   1. 86

      Sychophantasticposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      As usual, another Republican who can't comprehend data, leading them to provide both un-American and unpatriotic rhetoric. I think it's safe to say that nobody who understands data analysis, math, and statistics, would trust a right-winger to interpret data for them. Climate change alone proves that. Science is data. Most Republicans don't seem to believe in science.
      
      As an example, I recently engaged a right-winger on unemployment. This person asserted a GOP figure that 97 million people were out-of-work. This would be approximately 30% of the population. So we apparently have a 30% unemployment rate. I guess if you include those over 65 and children, this could be correct. Unfortunately, if you have no historical context, it means nothing.
      
      Likewise, your GDP figure. If you just give a figure in a vacuum, it has no meaning. What you need to do is provide the U.S. GDP figure relative to the GDP figure of other nations as the economy is a global one. Would you be surprised to know that disparity between our GDP and other NATO nations is the largest (in a positive way) it has been since World War 2? In other words, the U.S. performance relative to its peers is the best it has been since that time.
      
      So thanks, once again, for your anti-American rhetoric and fun un-American meme. If you hate it here so much and you believe the garbage you spew, perhaps you should move?

      replyreport
      1. 93

         wildernessposted 7 years agoin reply to this

         "...disparity between our GDP and other NATO nations is the largest (in a positive way) it has been since World War 2?"
         
         Not surprising.  The further the left-wingers take them towards the perceived utopia of socialism the worse it will be for them.  Strange, isn't it, that left-wingers can look at the data and then pretend that high taxes and extreme share-the-wealth plans makes for a strong economy?

         replyreport
         1. 86

            Sychophantasticposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            What high taxes? That's another myth.
            
            http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter … e-middle-/

            replyreport
3. 0

   ahorsebackposted 7 years ago

   It wouldn't  surprise me to  see Obama's profile on Rushmore for  political correctness knows no bounds whatsoever !     A better  place though ,  might be on some of the hill tops of Virginia , West Virginia , Pennsylvania ............ to  commemorate all the jobs  lost there  while supporting   incredible subsidies for solar banks ,   wind towers  .  OR  how about his granite profile  on the facades of some of our inner city  sky-scrapers ,maybe in Chicago where gun murders by gangs of thugs have increased what , tenfold !    Or in  Baltimore where  liberal" leadership" is turning  the city into war zones !     How about  even on the face of the Plymouth rock where  we can all celebrate the immigration of unknown amounts of Islamic  terrorists , which are mushrooming in occurrences under his watch ?
   
   Yea .....let's put his face somewhere to commemorate the election of political correctness , racial bias , and pseudo -madness of  intellectuals  elitist  madness to the white house .

   replyreport
4. 78

   colorfuloneposted 7 years ago

   Sychophantastic, I am a Libertarian, a nationalist and a true patriot.  I want freedom, justice, liberty and equality for all. Are you confused like other left-wingers who aren't even true-liberals anymore?  True liberals are actually very nice people, but many are leaving the Democratic party during this great historical election year because of a realignment that is happening.  And, some people are leaving the Republican party.  Its wonderful to be alive and to be a part of history in the making! 
   
   Historically, Obama will go down in history as one of the worst presidents because of the poor GDP rating, its not good for America or for the well-being of Americans...and that truly does concern me because of the future of my children and their children...everyone's children.

   replyreport
   1. 86

      Sychophantasticposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Your information on the GDP is wrong, as I pointed out. You're trying to look at it in a vacuum. I'm sure you probably believe in the 97 million unemployment figure too. I'm also sure the answer is to elect a fascist. There's nothing more anti-American than that.

      replyreport
   2. 86

      Sychophantasticposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Presumably you're voting Gary Johnson then?

      replyreport
   3. 86

      Sychophantasticposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      I'm actually a trained historian. I've never read a presidential biography where GDP was a huge factor in the determination of a president's greatness, though somebody like Herbert Hoover, where the economy went south, it certainly involved GDP. That said, Obama's place in history will take some time to come into focus.

      replyreport
5. 77

   Kathryn L Hillposted 7 years ago

   Obama should replace George Washington of course! Obama would like that. But, I hear the faces have been crying. It might increase the tears.

   replyreport
6. 77

   wba108@yahoo.composted 7 years ago

   Obama should replace Teddy Rooselvelt with Ronald Reagan. TR was an early progressive who thought the Constitution was outdated, he along with others set the stage for the liberal progressive movement that's rotting the country from the inside out.
   
   Reagan took a country that was beaten down and humiliated and set the stage for the greatest period of hope and prosperity in American history. The prosperity even continued a decade after he was out of office. America's status went from the humiliation of Vietnam and the Iranian hostage crisis to actions that led to the collapse of the oppressive Soviet Regime with a bold winning strategy rather than appeasement.

   replyreport
   1. 77

      Kathryn L Hillposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      +1

      replyreport
   2. 77

      Kathryn L Hillposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      +2

      replyreport
   3. 77

      Kathryn L Hillposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      +3

      replyreport
   4. 86

      Sychophantasticposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Reagan was a liberal by today's conservative standards. That said, Reagan increased jobs by driving up the deficit through massive defense spending. Also, Reagan was the one who started the problem we have now, which is the gap between rich and poor. Nobody other than the rich did well under Reagan. Everybody else's wages remained flat.

      replyreport
      1. 77

         Kathryn L Hillposted 7 years agoin reply to this

         Oh brother. The economy was excellent. What do you attribute that to?

         replyreport
         1. 86

            Sychophantasticposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            Deficit spending.

            replyreport
            1. 86

               Sychophantasticposted 7 years agoin reply to this

               You can read The Politics of Rich and Poor by Kevin Phillips. He was a Republican Party strategist, so there is a chance you'll think he is telling the truth.

               replyreport
            2. 93

               wildernessposted 7 years agoin reply to this

               Isn't that a good thing?  Liberal policies require it, and the Great Obama is lauded for running the biggest deficits in history.  Yet Reagan did the wrong thing by doing it - how does that work?

               replyreport
               1. 86

                  Sychophantasticposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                  OMG! Thanks for pointing out my hypocrisy! Might want to look in the mirror. Are you aware of how much of Obama's deficit he inherited and how much he added to it?

                  replyreport
                  1. 86

                     Sychophantasticposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                     Perhaps we could agree on this: the deficit is largely the result of entitlements. Eliminate Medicare, Medicaid, and all forms of government subsidized health care and the would put a big dent in it.

                     replyreport
                     1. 93

                        wildernessposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                        How easily you exaggerate and forget that the people have paid for their own medicare through a lifetime of payroll deductions.  It is NOT an entitlement, but already paid for by the people getting it.

                        replyreport
                        1. 86

                           Sychophantasticposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                           It is still run by govt and heavily subsidized.

                           replyreport
                           1. 93

                              wildernessposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                              If it is subsidized it is because government failed miserably in their fiduciary duty to protect that money and grow it.  Instead, they gave it away, leaving nearly worthless IOU's behind.  Just like they did the SS that the people have also paid for.

                              replyreport
                              1. 86

                                 Sychophantasticposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                                 Ooh, we agree on something. The "borrowing" from the Social Security trust fund is a scam (meaning I don't like it). You should check into who did that and why. On other subject:
                                 
                                 Our potential future Vice President doesn't believe in evolution, he thinks climate change is a hoax, and he thinks gay people can be 'cured' through prayer. There's also a good chance he believes the earth is 10,000 years old.
                                 
                                 And on an older subject: Obama increased the deficit by 57%. Reagan increased it by 142%. Bill Clinton decreased it by 1%. Who is your favorite among those three? Don't tell me.

                                 replyreport
                                 1. 93

                                    wildernessposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                                    Who increased the deficit by the biggest dollar amount?  That would be Obama, who also increased the national debt by the greatest amount.

                                    replyreport
                                    1. 86

                                       Sychophantasticposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                                       Because George Bush increased spending before him. Every President with the exception of Clinton has driven the deficit up from the President before him. Government grows under every President. There's a momentum to it and it's not the President solely. It's Congress, who approves the budget. Also, here's this:
                                       
                                       http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/pre … tionalists

                                       report
                                       1. 93

                                          wildernessposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                                          If it's congress doing it (and it is) why are you blaming Bush and Reagan for it, while giving kudos to Clinton and pretending it didn't go up the largest amount in history under Obama?  Because they are Democrats and therefore expected to spend more than we have while conservatives are expected to hold spending down even in the middle of a war?
                                          
                                          Or is Obama not to blame because someone else did it before him?

                                          report
                                    2. 86

                                       Sychophantasticposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                                       

                                       report
                                    3. 86

                                       Sychophantasticposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                                       Well, I guess it's a question of where the money goes. Why are you blaming Obama for the deficit then? Under Reagan, we were treated to supply side economics and trickle down theory. Both of those have been debunked as false economic theories that don't work.
                                       
                                       As far as Bush goes, if the President takes us into a war under false pretenses, the Congress is likely going to approve a budget to support that war, aren't they? And then if that war goes on and on, somebody has to say stop. Not an easy thing to do.

                                       report
                                       1. 93

                                          wildernessposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                                          "As far as Bush goes, if the President takes us into a war under false pretenses,..."
                                          
                                          What false pretenses?  You mean the WMD's that injured our soldiers but weren't there?

                                          report
                                    4. 86

                                       Sychophantasticposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                                       The Republicans spend just as much money (if not more) as the Democrats, they just spend it on different things.

                                       report
                                    5. 86

                                       Sychophantasticposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                                       Yes, you remember the giant lie about Iraq developing nuclear weapons?

                                       report
                              2. 86

                                 Sychophantasticposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                                 There was that other lie that Iraq had something to do with 9/11 too. Do you not remember this?

                                 replyreport
                                 1. 93

                                    wildernessposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                                    Well, I heard that Bush personally visited the towers and mined over so it would blow up, like a controlled demolition.  Just how he opened up the wall behind the secretary's desk, placed explosives and strung detonator wire all over the building without anyone ever noticing was not discussed, though.

                                    replyreport
                                    1. 86

                                       Sychophantasticposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                                       Bush had nothing to do with 9/11. I, at least, do not believe the same wild conspiracy theories about Bush that most Republicans seem to believe about Obama (he supports ISIS, he's a Muslim...). I can't believe we're rehashing this, particularly on the heels of the British report about Tony Blair's lies to justify the war in Iraq. Why do you think we started a war in Iraq?

                                       report
                                       1. 93

                                          wildernessposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                                          We started the war in Iraq (second time around) because our best intelligence reports indicated stockpiling of WMD's.  Why do you think we went in?
                                          
                                          Of course the rich get richer - they have the politicians in their back pocket.  Except for Trump, of course, which is a major point in his favor (nearly the only one, but a giant one).  As long as we keep electing the same type of politicians, all beholden to their handlers and Big Business, we'll never see a change.

                                          report
                                    2. 86

                                       Sychophantasticposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                                       Here's some data on Obama's job creation record. Notice that Reagan fares VERY well in this chart. So I don't really have a leg to stand on in terms of Reagan's job creation record. It looks excellent. I think I would just point to my previous reference of who gained in his economy. It's actually the same criticism I have of Obama - the rich are gaining in a much more inequitable way, but that's apparently how government works nowadays - the rich get richer and everybody else just kind of treads water.
                                       
                                       https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/pl … -creation/

                                       report
         2. 0

            ahorsebackposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            LIBERAL HATERS SIMPLY HAVE NO IDEA OF EVEN THERE OWN IDEALISMS , THEY SIMPLY INVENT THE CAUSES AND BLAMES AS THEY GO THROUGH LIFE.
            
            HOW SHALLOW. .

            replyreport
      2. 57

         Alternative Primeposted 7 years agoin reply to this

         The REAGAN / Republican CONservative CON-Job Agenda for Quote Un-Quote "JOB Creation" which "Delusional Donald" has Adopted, is "Believe it or NOT", to GIVE Even MORE of OUR Wealth to Corrupt Wall STREET Corporations in the form of Gargantuan TAX Cuts, then we must simply TRUST Greedy CEO's to SHARE that Wealth with "We the PEOPLE" ~
         
         P.S. ~ The BULK of OUR Current Deficit APPEARED during Moron George W Bush's DISASTEROUS Tenure when he GAVE Away OUR 2 Trillion Dollar SURPLUS then Proceeded to Commence with Unecessary TRILLION Dollar WARz Primarily in the Middle EAST ~

         replyreport
7. 61

   bBereanposted 7 years ago

   As luck would have it, they have never completed the Crazy Horse Memorial, so there is still time to appropriately carve the Emperor's image as the horse's backside!

   replyreport
   1. 60

      Live to Learnposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      priceless!

      replyreport
   2. 86

      Sychophantasticposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/08/politics/ … index.html

      replyreport