Is Obama the 18th best president and Bush the 35th?

1. 0

   promisemposted 9 years ago

   Polls of presidential historians and other experts say so. And Clinton is ranked 8th.
   
   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historica … ted_States

   replyreport
   1. 80

      Credence2posted 9 years agoin reply to this

      I have seen this and when you understand the Presidents, what they accomplished during their terms and relative challenges they faced, the assessment is reasonable.
      
      Good enough for me. Watch out  for the rightwingers that will scream "liberal bias" everytime an educated and qualified person opens his or her mouth about topics that are contrary to their belief system.

      replyreport
   2. 69

      Quilligrapherposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      These polls serve no purpose. The rankings are meaningless:
      
      James Madison  6th in 2010 - 20th in 2009
      James Monroe  7th in 2010 - 21st in 2008
      John Quincy Adams 11th in 1948 - 25th in 2005
      Martin Van Buren 15th in 1948 - 40th in 2008
      etc., etc., etc..
      

      replyreport
      1. 80

         Credence2posted 9 years agoin reply to this

         They serve as a point of reference for an American history student. You don't have to be partisan to recognize there was a difference in the effectiveness of say Warren Harding, Franklin Pierce and James Buchanan relative to a Abe Lincoln, FDR or Teddy Roosevelt as president. This when you study all of the points and attributes of what is a successful leader and what his  accomplishment during his respective term reveals.
         
         The rankings for more recent American presidents say within the last 50 years could be considered more speculative and only time will sort them out.
         
         The people are scholarly historians that are the most qualified to make the evaluations and between different polls, certain office holders always come up as consistently receiving an ineffective rating
         
         While not absolute, it is a point of reference. So in my opinion, it is not all smoke and mirrors....

         replyreport
         1. 69

            Quilligrapherposted 9 years agoin reply to this

            A tip o’me hat, to ya, Credence, and the very same to Promisem, too. You share similar thoughts about these exercises, so permit me to address you both.
            
            I said these polls serve no purpose and the rankings are meaningless. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion and I respect your feelings about this topic. Perhaps, I should expand on how I reached my conclusion.
            
            Are the results trustworthy?
            
            "This when you study all of the points and attributes of what is a successful leader and what his accomplishment during his respective term reveals."
            
            Polls, pollsters, and contributors are totally disconnected. I see no consistent methodology regarding either points or attributes that identify a successful leader and even less reliability when judging accomplishments.
            
            The subjects remain pretty constant, but the participants vary, criteria vary, and the metrics keep changing. Therefore, all the conclusions, without exception, are unrelated, incompatible, and incapable of comparison between one poll and another. How, in the name of all that is intellectually rational, can any of these polls serve as a reference point for American history students when the results from poll to poll are so unpredictable?
            
            Credence, you believe the rankings, "serve as a point of reference for an American history student. You don't have to be partisan to recognize there was a difference in the effectiveness of say Warren Harding, Franklin Pierce and James Buchanan relative to a Abe Lincoln, FDR or Teddy Roosevelt as president." Reference points, however, must have clear and consistent relationships with all the other reference points in order for any to be useful!
            
            Clearly, you have a perception about the effectiveness of Harding, Pierce and Buchanan compared to Lincoln, FDR, and his fifth cousin, TR. I trust you reached this conclusion by reading about history and not from reading some polls. If this be true, the polls are unnecessary if they only confirm what you already know from your own reading. This country is in deep doo-doo if our history students rely on polls to acquire this knowledge rather than actually learning from independent reading.   
            
            Is there any consistency?
            
            "The people are scholarly historians that are the most qualified to make the evaluations and between different polls, certain office holders always come up as consistently receiving an ineffective rating."
            
            My post to Mr. Promisem pointed to an example:
            
            James Madison  6th in 2010 - 20th in 2009
            James Monroe   7th in 2010 - 21st in 2008
            
            Please point out the historic revelations between 2008 and 2010 that jettisoned these two presidents from mediocre to the top seven. Also, explain, if you can, how the chaotic and erratic ranking patterns in the second and third quartile leads you to believe either high reliability or rational consistency exists at the high or low ends.
            
            Any proof of unbiased objectivity?
            
            Finally, a few words about objectivity. It does not seem possible to intellectually defend an arbitrary process of evaluating more than 40 presidents over two hundred years just to declare which one was the best and which one the worst. Even under the most controlled conditions this becomes a totally subjective call each and every time.
            
            Let’s look at two Presidents that have scored in the top ten quite often, Harry Truman in 16 out of 17 polls and Andrew Jackson in 11 out of 18. How do historians score body counts when determining which of the two men was the better President? Do body counts improve or depress one’s standing in the ranks?
            
            President Truman ordered the deaths and mutilation of 225,000 civilians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. {1}
            
            President Jackson, during his presidency, defied the U.S. Supreme Court decision that recognized the sovereignty of the original nations. He forced the migration of the Cherokee, Muscogee, Seminole, Chickasaw, and Choctaw nations to Oklahoma leaving thousands dead along the way. {2}
            
            It remains a mystery how any historian can determine without bias that one should be ranked higher or lower than the other as a President, as a leader, or as a human.
            
            Thanks for commenting. I hope you don’t mind these echos from my inkwell.
            
            {1} http://www.aasc.ucla.edu/cab/200708230009.html
            {2} http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part4/4p2959.html

            replyreport
            1. 80

               Credence2posted 9 years agoin reply to this

               Greetings to you Quill, let me respond to your comments point by point
               
               "I said these polls serve no purpose and the rankings are meaningless. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion and I respect your feelings about this topic. Perhaps, I should expand on how I reached my conclusion."
               
               "Are the results trustworthy?"
               
               Yes, I say that they are, as having a History Degree along with a passion for the subject of American History long before and after I received my 'sheepskin', I would not be arrogant to presume that I have some expertise and understanding of the topic at hand.
               
               These participants are history scholars, people who have studied in depth and are in the best position to  know.  This is not a popularity contest. If the preponderance of the world's climatologists say that the planet is experiencing global warming, I am not going to consign their findings into the realm of some  random event akin to a Las Vegas roulette wheel.
               
               
               A 2000 survey by The Wall Street Journal consisted of an "ideologically balanced group of 132 prominent professors of history, law, and political science". This poll sought to include an equal number of liberals and conservatives in the survey, as the editors argued that previous polls were dominated by either one group or the other, but never balanced. According to the editors, this poll included responses from more women, minorities, and young professors than the 1996 Schlesinger poll. The editors noted that the results of their poll were "remarkably similar" to the 1996 Schlesinger poll, with the main difference in the 2000 poll being the lower rankings for the 1960s presidents Lyndon B. Johnson and John F. Kennedy, and higher ranking of President Ronald Reagan."
               
               The laymen merely looks backward, with hindsight always being 20/20. The professional historical scholar, carefully studies his subject and the period in which he or she lived, giving attention to the tapestry of events of the way things tie together in a fashion that no layman can.
               
               For example in a typical poll respondents rated the Presidents in five categories (leadership qualities, accomplishments & crisis management, political skill, appointments, character & integrity), and the results were tabulated to create the overall ranking.
               
               While working as a Government Contracting professional, I received annual performance appraisals. I did not receive appraisals from the cooks in the cafeteria nor the hydrologists. I receive them from people who worked in my career field, and as supervisors, knew what my job was and how it was supposed to be accomplished. And while I made have taken issue at times, that was the most  accurate assessment with the strongest correlation between the job description and my performance. Presidential historians do the same thing. You can use the categories in the paragraph above as reference points, the historical scholar adds objectivity to what appears to the layman as a random popularity poll.
               
               
               
               "Polls, pollsters, and contributors are totally disconnected. I see no consistent methodology regarding either points or attributes that identify a successful leader and even less reliability when judging accomplishments."
               
               Yes, they can be subjective, but not totally so. For example, the overriding issue of the 1850's was national sectionalism and slavery, Historical scholars will overwhelming agree based on intense study of the subjects and the period itself that the 12th President, Zachary Taylor, through James Buchanan, the 15th, were weak and ineffective as leaders such that the Civil War would be inevitable.
               
               I do not believe that these polls do not have a pattern and are therefore without merit. I cannot explain the difference between the evaluation of Monroe and Madison, but I can explain the difference, between a Buchanan and a Lincoln or an FDR compared to Herbert Hoover. Most high school students and college freshman do not know a great deal about the subject, that is why there are teachers and historical scholars who are in position through their scholarship to provide verifiable insight into this topic for the edification of those that choose to listen.
               
               
               
               "Reference points, however, must have clear and consistent relationships with all the other reference points in order for any to be useful!"
               
               History is a social science and by its very definition cannot be exact, but there is more to it than just the toss of the dice, otherwise we just as well consign the discipline to a Las Vegas casino and the scholars are no more credible than astrologers and fortune tellers.
               
               "Clearly, you have a perception about the effectiveness of Harding, Pierce and Buchanan compared to Lincoln, FDR, and his fifth cousin, TR. I trust you reached this conclusion by reading about history and not from reading some polls."
               
               It is not a perception but the conclusion resulting from years of scholarly study on these men and their times.
               
               Who writes the material that students are suppose to independently read? Historians. I reiterate, I refer to surveys of scholars of American history, not pop culture popularity contests. In my opinion, their findings are conclusive.
               
               
               "Please point out the historic revelations between 2008 and 2010 that jettisoned these two presidents from mediocre to the top seven"
               
               There may well be some revelation between those years that could explain it. It would be a good point of study.
               
               
               " Also, explain, if you can, how the chaotic and erratic ranking patterns in the second and third quartile leads you to believe either high reliability or rational consistency exists at the high or low ends."
               
               There of course if going to be contention in the performance of those presidents in the mediocre range, more disagreement even among the most renown historians. But from my studies and those of prominent historians the high and low end ratings are pretty consistent. But I do qualify evaluation of those more recent presidents to greater degrees of speculation and may agree with your point, that far anyway.
               
               "Any proof of unbiased objectivity?"
               
               "Finally, a few words about objectivity. It does not seem possible to intellectually defend an arbitrary process of evaluating more than 40 presidents over two hundred years just to declare which one was the best and which one the worst. Even under the most controlled conditions this becomes a totally subjective call each and every time."
               
               Again, I do not believe that the process is arbitrary.
               
               "Let’s look at two Presidents that have scored in the top ten quite often, Harry Truman in 16 out of 17 polls and Andrew Jackson in 11 out of 18. How do historians score body counts when determining which of the two men was the better President? Do body counts improve or depress one’s standing in the ranks?"
               
               There is plenty of controversy over which of these two men were the more effective, but there is no question among the scholars that both of them rank among the more successful of those that held the job.
               
               
               "President Truman ordered the deaths and mutilation of 225,000 civilians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. {1}"
               
               As I said the layman looks backward and hindsight is always 20/20, and is influenced by 2015 mores and pop culture instead of scholarship
               
               
               Here is what I and the historical scholars say:
               
               Just taking the one point you made about Truman there are other factors to consider
               
               Scientific: I don't think that anybody in 1945 really knew anything about mass radiation poisoning, otherwise why all the nuclear tests in the Pacific in the 1950's with American servicemen dangerously near ground zero, just to gather information regarding the blast?
               
               2.  Political: In 1945, How could Truman justify to a war weary America not to use a weapon that could end the war quickly?
               
               3. Military: In 1945, we still had in Japan a desperate and ferocious foe. The necessary assault of the Japanese home islands would have easily cost over 500, 000 lives. So, from a military standpoint, what was the wisest course for the Commander and Chief?
               
               I had to make the decision Truman made, I would have done just as he did!
               
               I could provide similar information about Andrew Jackson, from a scholars perspective looking at the totality of America as it was in 1835, not 2015.
               
               
               I looked forward to this discourse and hope to engage you again. I anxiously await your reply, if any.

               replyreport
               1. 69

                  Quilligrapherposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                  Howdy Credence. Thank you for the time and effort invested in your lengthy post. This alone has won my admiration.
                  
                  My response to the OP statement said these polls serve no purpose and the rankings are meaningless. Some readers did not comprehend which polls serve no purpose and which rankings are meaningless, so please permit me to clarify that I never said “almost all polls...mean absolutely nothing.”
                  
                  To demonstrate how untrustworthy these polls are, I turned to the chaotic conclusions found in the various data sets to emphasize their shortcomings. The most obvious are inconsistent methodology to identify leadership points or attributes plus a wide range of different techniques for judging accomplishments.
                  
                  I found it interesting that you could not find evidence within any of those polls to support your contention that the results are trustworthy! Instead, in lieu of poll data or examples, you pointed to a slice of your own résumé. Following your statement, "having a History Degree along with a passion for the subject of American History long before and after I received my 'sheepskin'," you continued with praise and accolades for poll contributors. Your credentials are nice but no substitute for fact-based evidence. I did not read any references from you to the actual polls or conclusions that demonstrated any degree of accuracy, reliability, or consistency. Nor did you quantify, qualify, or identify any uniform criteria, metrics, or methodology across multiple surveys.
                  
                  I did read a lot about your emotional and educational attachments to this topic. It occurred to me that it might be easier to see the flaws others see if you were a truck driver or a poet.   
                  
                  "If the preponderance of the world's climatologists say that the planet is experiencing global warming, I am not going to consign their findings into the realm of some random event akin to a Las Vegas roulette wheel."
                  
                  Again, you turn away from the poll data to support your assertions. You compare the published conclusions of these absolutely subjective polls with the detailed analysis of totally objective scientific climate data, which can be independently verified and replicated by others. I suggest you try to verify and replicate the results of this array of presidential polls.
                  
                  Your description of the Wall Street Journal survey of 2000 scored big points for supporting my position, not yours. "This poll sought to include an equal number of liberals and conservatives in the survey, as the editors argued that previous polls were dominated by either one group or the other, but never balanced." So, here we have a public admission by one of the pollsters that previous polls may have lacked some elements of reliability and trust. You also said, "the historical scholar adds objectivity to what appears to the layman as a random popularity poll." Really? If that were even remotely true, there would be no need to “balance” contributors.
                  
                  You also expressed the opinion that Harding, Pierce, and Buchanan were not as effective as Lincoln, FDR, and TR. In your reply to my characterizing your opinion as a perception, you were right to point out, "It is not a perception but the conclusion resulting from years of scholarly study on these men and their times." Exactly my point! Exactly! You gained this knowledge through study, not from one of these polls. As a student of history, you did not need, you did not use, you did not rely on these polls to discover these relationships. In fact, these polls are useless for this purpose and that, sir, in a nutshell, is the cornerstone of my position. 
                  
                  I was happy to read about your job performance appraisals as a Government Contracting professional. Rather than cooks and hydrologists, you were in favor of reviews from “people who worked in my field”, who were also supervisors that knew your job and knew how it was supposed to be accomplished. Please tell me how many Presidential Historians have supervised a President of the United States; how many have served as President; how many have first hand experience performing the duties of state and have sat as Commander and Chief in national security sessions. Or, you might consider how accurate, reliable, consistent, and trustworthy your performance evaluations as a government employee would have been if they were compiled from distilled opinions gathered from a legion of professional historians, let’s say a hundred years after your death.   
                  
                  When I urged you to point out the historic revelations between 2008 and 2010 that jettisoned two presidents from mediocre to the top seven, you replied, "There may well be some revelation between those years that could explain it. It would be a good point of study." It seems to me, if the results from the polls were indeed consistent and reliable, if they were even close to being historic and scholarly reference points, as you claim, then there would be no need to look elsewhere for the answer. It should be obvious by comparing the conflicting data. But, I do not think you are inclined to look there first because I think you already know that the different studies are not consistent enough to be compared.   
                  
                  While I have shown examples and references to actual poll conclusions to reveal how inconsistent and unreliable these studies are, you have responded with an eloquent defense of historians. Your lectures favor rhetoric and ignore the irregularities found in the actual poll conclusions. Specifically, except for the recurring consensus near the top and bottom slots, there is very little predictable agreement across the 18 studies tabulated in the OP’s Wikipedia article. None. Nada.
                  
                  Regrettably, there is a victim of all these studies. Imagine the history student who turns to one of the these useless exercises to answer the question found in the title of this thread: Is Obama the 18th best president and Bush the 35th?" The probability is huge that the student will come away with an unreliable answer, which should not make a history scholar proud.
                  
                  This thread, just like the exercises that rank presidents, is highly subjective; every conclusion is arbitrary. An “expert” that claims President A was better in the job than B, C, and D naturally expects to have another “expert” disagree because the criteria call for opinionated conjecture and the data is not tested to insure unbiased objectivity. Therefore, the ultimate conclusions are based on a tally of “expert” ballots and the results are declared as if they are unanimous. The process is as close to a popularity contest as I have ever seen and not much different than choosing the homecoming queen or Miss Congeniality.
                  
                  Again, Credence, I truly respect your opinion, but, in the absence of fact based evidence, I still contend that this specific set of polls serve no useful academic purpose and the rankings, beyond a mere 6 or 8 cases, are relatively meaningless.
                  

                  replyreport
                  1. 80

                     Credence2posted 9 years agoin reply to this

                     I am gather some info and will be back with my last volley, Thanks Quill...

                     replyreport
      2. 0

         promisemposted 9 years agoin reply to this

         I understand your point because they fluctuate. I do think they have some meaning. One reason why they will change over time is that they add more presidents, which push others higher or lower.
         
         Everything else in life changes over time, so I suppose polls should as well.

         replyreport
2. 0

   ahorsebackposted 9 years ago

   Of course there are perceptions  and there is reality  that drive these  high school like -popularity polls ! Obama has an accomplishment of pure image .   Where GW Bush was far more effective in the reality of a more trying time .

   replyreport
   1. 80

      Credence2posted 9 years agoin reply to this

      And what is the basis of that observation, how are you qualified to make it?

      replyreport
3. 0

   ahorsebackposted 9 years ago

   Almost all polls , as Quilligrapher says , mean absolutely  nothing .   Look at todays media and polling situation ,    how little they actually mean is what we need to consider ,  what a weird political cycle the polls seem to present to us . America has simply got to find a better way to do it's homework . It really is amazing how few  people  on the street seem politically engaged  or informed .

   replyreport
   1. 69

      Quilligrapherposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Not being able to comprehend English must be an awesome burden.
      
      Quilligrapher DID NOT say "almost all polls...mean absolutely nothing." That is just your opinion taken from one of many posts in which theories are confused with real facts.
      
      When properly designed and executed, polls are an indispensable tool for acquiring knowledge about conditions, attitudes, or perspectives that span great distances and very large populations. If done correctly, they are published with a stated degree of accuracy that is both demographically and mathematically reliable. They provide valuable insight for discerning minds and are only spurned by those who prefer to restrict their worldview to their own parochial horizons.
      
      Your post does not demonstrate a working knowledge of how polls are constructed or conducted nor does it reveal any insight into how academic research can, or can not, be interpreted.
      
      Your statement, "Almost all polls, as Quilligrapher says, mean absolutely nothing," is a false statement on more than one level. Unfortunately, distorting the words of another is a habit that no one admires.
      
      

      replyreport
      1. 0

         ahorsebackposted 9 years agoin reply to this

         Quilligrapher , I guess I para-phrased your entry   above, excuse me sir ,  I 'm  merely agreeing that most polls have  little use  until one studies the origins  and  political intent , agenda of the poll-takers themselves   , if I misunderstood the post then my  apologies !  With all do respect ,   I understand English  fairly well though  , I also understand nasty attitudes .!

         replyreport
4. 58

   Alternative Primeposted 9 years ago

   Bill Clinton is appropriately ranked at 8th ~
   
   Barrack Obama is absolutely in the TOP 5 Greatest Presidents in History, possibly even in the Top 3 ~

   replyreport
   1. 80

      Credence2posted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Hey, AP, I don't know if President Obama can touch into the top 5/ Washington, Lincoln, FDR, are going to be tough to beat. I think deserved more credit than he has received, I would probably reserve judgment on President Obama until his term concludes

      replyreport
5. 0

   Kevin Goodwinposted 9 years ago

   I believe that before we rank Presient Obama that we allow his final term to end before giving him a grade especially a top five ranking. I think Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, F.D.R. anf James Madison would right now be in my top 5. But that does not mean Obama could not still get there.

   replyreport
   1. 58

      Alternative Primeposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      I can understand your delay in presidential evaluation Kevin, but even if President Obama's second term ended today, he's still Top 3 by all accounts and measures ~
      
      George Washington is the only other U.S. president that can possibly be ranked higher than Barrack ~ If you reflect on President Obama's monumental achievemnts in just seven short years, it's near miraculous ~

      replyreport
      1. 80

         Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years agoin reply to this

         That would be a great book for you to write, A. Prime: The Miraculous Monumental Achievements of Barack Hussein Obama.
         "A Democrat, he was the first African American to be elected to the presidency. Nobel Peace Prize (2009)." Dictionary
         There is a good start.
         Here is my start:
         Barack accepted the responsibility of being President of the United States. He woke up everyday, drank his coffee and went into the oval office to do his job. He was willing to try. And try he did.
         Your start, however, is the best:
         "George Washington is the only other U.S. president that can possibly be ranked higher than Barrack ~ If you reflect on President Obama's monumental achievemnts in just seven short years, it's near miraculous ~"
         Good start.

         replyreport
         1. 58

            Alternative Primeposted 9 years agoin reply to this

            Kathryn ~ WoW
            
            We agree on SOMETHING, and I think you're sexy again ~ ---> <---
            
            P.S. ~ If they can do a job half as good as Barrack Obama did in the past seven years, we absolutely need more humans with the middle or even first name of Hussein occupying the White House ~ It would sure beat a Mutt Romney, or a backward hillbilly like  "Jeb" "Jed" Bush ~
            
            So much for conservatives READING something evil into a mere name ~

            replyreport
            1. 80

               Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years agoin reply to this

               We also agree that Huckabee is (so far) a good presidential candidate.

               replyreport
               1. 58

                  Alternative Primeposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                  Kathryn ~ I never said Mike Huckleberrybee was good presidential candidate ~
                  
                  I simply commended his comment regarding the strengthening of social security by initiating a new tax verses the termination of said program which is what all backward conservatives will do if given the opportunity ~
                  
                  Huckabee has a history of disingenuous statements as all republicans do and I question his sincerity on this issue ~  It seems peculiar to me but for now, I'll accept but need further verification ~

                  replyreport
                  1. 80

                     Credence2posted 9 years agoin reply to this

                     If he was going to call out the military or national guard against abortion clinics, as he claimed that he was willing to do then he is Huckleberry Hound, a dirty dog....

                     replyreport
                     1. 77

                        colorfuloneposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                        (He speaks out of both sides of his mouth.) Forked tongue. 
                        I am dismissed from the backlash from my comment. . 

                        replyreport
                     2. 0

                        promisemposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                        Credence, you and AP are forcing me to do something I haven't done in years since Bush came into office, triggered two trillion dollar wars and set off a worldwide financial crisis: defend Republicans.
                        
                        I might even start voting for them again. 

                        replyreport
                  2. 0

                     ahorsebackposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                     Alternative  Prime , I have read many of your biased opinions  and fully realize your prejudices , You simply hate republicans , conservatives  and state so vehemently ,    my suggestion to you ......grow up and at LEAST become more  neutrally  slanted !    There is a grey area between those who are liberal and those conservative to blend in at least an attempt at understanding each other ,  you bias is simply  boring !

                     replyreport
                     1. 58

                        Alternative Primeposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                        ahorseshack ~
                        
                        Make no mistake, I am a progressive liberal democrat to the core, and how anyone with the slightest bit of common sense and or brains and or lucid thought could possibly vote republican is an utter mystery, unless of course said individual is filthy rich ~ Swimming & Frolicking in big piles of jewels, stock certificates, and cash is the only excuse that makes sense to vote GOP ~
                        
                        I’m a taxpayer, and as one of millions I pay for an Operational Federal Government, one which remains open 24/7 and not subject to interruption by sabotage by an insane group of backward conservative numbskulls ~ A government shutdown is treason and severely dangerous to the health of our country and any individual who directly participates in attempting a forced shutdown of my government should be prosecuted for this serious offense against the people ~
                        
                        De-Funding or Non-Funding with explicit intent to Close Down a Government just because you don’t get your way is a dangerous practice and will cost us all dearly in the end, as it already has ~
                        
                        P.S. Carly Fiorina can obviously memorize debating points but unfortunately, her only position of note was her tenure at Hewlett Packard, during which time, she fired hundreds of hard working employees, the stock cratered from the moment she took the reigns, and then was fired herself by the Board of Directors ~ So goes Wall Street Greed ~ Believe it or not, this is the absolute BEST the conservatives got ~

                        replyreport
                        1. 0

                           promisemposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                           AP, I'm  a former Republican who believes that there are good Republicans and bad Republicans as well as good and bad Democrats.
                           
                           One of the biggest problems this country now faces is political bigotry -- painting one side of the other with a broad brush.
                           
                           I respect your position as a liberal Democrat, but I also urge you to look for the good on both sides of the aisle.

                           replyreport
                           1. 58

                              Alternative Primeposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                              promisem ~
                              
                              Maybe my problem is that I discard propaganda media outlets like "Fox -Snooze" and study only FACTS, PLATFORMS, SPEECHES, ACTIONS & VOTING RECORDS of all public servants ~
                              
                              FINDINGS ~ "Good Republicans" are an Endangered Species while the Vast Majority of Democrats Champion a Better Quality of Life for the MAJORITY of Americans ~
                              
                              Do you realize how much irreparable damage is done to this nation when  backward republicans gleefully practice "Brinkmanship"? This isn't the 1870's, to my knowledge we have entered a new millenium headed for 2016 and beyond where ALL Americans will indeed have Comprehensive Health Care as a Constitutional Right despite venomous conservative opposition ~

                              replyreport
                              1. 0

                                 promisemposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                                 AP, I agree that Fox News distorts the truth for the sake of a political agenda and appealing to its conservative audience.
                                 
                                 But if you condemn Fox for doing it, it's only fair to condemn MSNBC for the same thing on the left.
                                 
                                 We shouldn't tolerate bias and propaganda on either side.

                                 replyreport
                                 1. 58

                                    Alternative Primeposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                                    MSNBC was conceived and born as a progressive equalizer to Fox News and that's a fact ~
                                    
                                    But I don't think you're completely understanding my point promisem, which is once again, republicans cater to greedy, unscrupulous, extremely wealthy individuals and entities while progressive democrats champion the majority cause ~
                                    
                                    There is no righteousness, good, nor compassion within the now obsolete republican party and I will support any prosecutions of insane conservatives who in the future, strive to "Shut Down" my Federal Government ~

                                    replyreport
                                    1. 0

                                       promisemposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                                       I do understand your point. I think you fail to see mine.
                                       
                                       Do you think all Republicans are evil and all Democrats are good?

                                       report
                                       1. 80

                                          Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                                          seems like it. totally.
                                          " George Washington is the only other U.S. president that can possibly be ranked higher than Barrack
                                          Yet, he he did rank Washington higher. Very Very interesting.

                                          report
                           2. 80

                              Credence2posted 9 years agoin reply to this

                              Really Promisem, it is hard to find anything to like about today's GOP. As a moderate Democrat, I can easily understand AP's point of view.
                              
                              Advocate of the extreme right, is now the mainstream for GOP operatives and that is scary. It all started with Goldwater and got much worse with Reagan.
                              
                              There is an ominous  and disturbing trend that surround the GOP in reference to all the rest of us that are not blessed to be part of the 1 percent.
                              
                              I have to look really hard to find anything noteworthy on the other side, when you do it came from a moderate GOP that no longer exists.

                              replyreport
                              1. 0

                                 promisemposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                                 That's one reason why I don't consider myself a Republican anymore. The party is actually not in control of conservatives; it's in the control of Libertarians who now contribute the largest amount of campaign funds.
                                 
                                 With all due respect, anyone who says absolutely nothing is good about the other side is practicing the same kind of extremism that you condemn on the part of the Republicans.
                                 
                                 I'm not asking you to like them or vote for them. I'm asking you to avoid generalizations and seeing all Democrats as good and all Republicans as evil.

                                 replyreport
                                 1. 80

                                    Credence2posted 9 years agoin reply to this

                                    But promisem, that is what we are here to debate over, if neither side can never be faulted, it wouldn't be any fun. I have to call them as I see them and from my perspective, the Right appears to go over the foul line with more regularity and consistency than does the Left. I don't like them much and have not voted for them, but I am also duty bound to call them out, when they get outrageous. The field is open to such an attack on the Democrats and the Left, I just tell those that do to have all their ducks in a row and have done their homework. I have been known to 'eat crow' but you gotta to be good to get me to swallow.

                                    replyreport
                                    1. 0

                                       promisemposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                                       I have never said that neither side can be faulted. Again, I'm saying that calling one side all good and another all bad is faulty. Anyone who does that isn't debating. They are just venting.
                                       
                                       If you are duty bound to call them out when they get outrageous, then you also are duty bound as a citizen to praise them when they do something good.

                                       report
                              2. 58

                                 Alternative Primeposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                                 Republicans are non-existent ~
                                 
                                 Conservatives now consist of a rogue group of anarchistic individuals who are regressive in nature and fight daily to feed the rich while all others suffer ~
                                 
                                 Ronald Reagan would have been strung up by his jelly beans by todays insane conservatives, and Bush the Senior almost was after raising taxes ~

                                 replyreport
                                 1. 0

                                    ahorsebackposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                                    Must be nice to be politically, immature and idealistic ,  Keep in mind  ......That Then there is political  Reality !

                                    replyreport
                           3. 0

                              ahorsebackposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                              +++++++++++++

                              replyreport
                           4. 0

                              ahorsebackposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                              +++++

                              replyreport
                        2. 0

                           ahorsebackposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                           Alternative prime ,  I guess you just proved my point , thank you !

                           replyreport
            2. 80

               Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years agoin reply to this

               … and just for the record, I almost threw up all over my keyboard when I read the following:. (Luckily I have a plastic covering for it, if it ever does happen.)
               
               " George Washington is the only other U.S. president that can possibly be ranked higher than Barrack ~ If you reflect on President Obama's monumental achievemnts in just seven short years, it's near miraculous ~"
               
               Especially this:
               
               "and I think you're sexy again ~ ---> smile <---"
               
               ( Don't be surprised if I get banned for such impertinence.)
               
               Why would Alternative Prime have any respect whatsoever for PRESIDENT WASHINGTON????
               I wonder

               replyreport
               1. 58

                  Alternative Primeposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                  Kathryn ~
                  
                  R U TIPSY A*G*A*I*N?????  ----> Un-Sexy <----  ----> <----
                  
                  If U study the facts and obstain from gazing at Fox-Snooze Propaganda you'll surely realize I'm correct in my assessment ~

                  replyreport
6. 0

   ahorsebackposted 9 years ago

   I wonder more and more these days about why one WOULD want to the president of such a  nation of increasingly lowly or uninformed voters , I'm glad they actually still do however ,  even though Americans have become amazing at   not properly vetting the candidates themselves . It's become merely a media sponsored  low grade - high profile popularity  contest .     
   
   I suspect that at one time in our history the voters that were required for a candidate to attain that position were far more adept at  the amount of self education required  for responsibly choosing a true leader .    President Obama  was however never  vetted  by most people  that voted for him .    One day in our future  the  presidential elections  will be taken far more seriously than that !     He was however  elected  , in my understanding,   by  18- to 28 year olds .    These elections  were completely about  perceived image ,   And Now , we will write  and re- write history according to these same imaginary  popularity contest  standards .   
   
   I believe Pres. Obama will , in time ,   become known as an instigator  of racial  turmoil that wasn't even necessary  at all  , he has certainly accomplished much in  such negative discourse .   To the point of  being simply inflammatory , he said it himself , "bring it on " when asked about discussions about  racial division in America ,  in my opinion he has  simply been fueling a divisive  and negative discussion !

   replyreport
   1. 77

      colorfuloneposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      That was well said. Polite!

      replyreport
7. 68

   rhamsonposted 9 years ago

   There is no difference between the two parties when it comes to greed and it's paralyzing affect on our politics. Wall Street Banks, Oil Companies and such are the ones whose greed buys those we think are in our corner. They are bought and paid for. How else could so many good bills not even make it to the floor when either party is in charge. Pelosi, Boehner, Reid and McConnell all control what is debated and decided by Congress. They are OWNED by special interest in each of the categories I mentioned. Ideologies not withstanding, it makes no difference with the huge amount of money going their way.

   replyreport
   1. 0

      ahorsebackposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      +++++ I don't know how but we must overcome our partisan  bigotry in America , Both our parties must , as voters  , wake up before it's  way too late !

      replyreport
      1. 80

         Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years agoin reply to this

         Yep.

         replyreport
      2. 0

         promisemposted 9 years agoin reply to this

         Agree 100%.

         replyreport
   2. 58

      Alternative Primeposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      rhamson ~
      
      There is an enormous difference in the platforms of Progressives verses Conservatives ~ Just look at the issues and forget the Fox Propaganda

      replyreport
      1. 0

         ahorsebackposted 9 years agoin reply to this

         But Alternative Prime, there really isn't that much Difference except for those who only want a Difference !   
         What we need to do is clean out congress  and start over ! Send a huge message " Enough is Enough "   don't you think the results would change things immediately  and for the better ,this  Cleaning out congress  of the business as usual  rhetoric  would  alter the congressional  gridlock immediately and for decades to come  !  Putting  serious  change at the front lines  where it belongs ! How long will Americans differ  constantly  simply to remain  as differing ?

         replyreport
         1. 58

            Alternative Primeposted 9 years agoin reply to this

            ahorseback ~
            
            You are partially correct ~ We need to clean Obstructionist CONSERVATIVES out of congress ~

            replyreport
      2. 68

         rhamsonposted 9 years agoin reply to this

         "There is an enormous difference in the platforms of Progressives verses Conservatives ~ Just look at the issues and forget the Fox Propaganda"
         
         Absolutely there is a big difference between the ideologies of the parties. What you fail to understand is that the arguments are based on these theories but the solutions will never happen. Look at the bills that have passed for abortion, gay rights and now healthcare. The other side wants to regurgitate the arguments all over again knowing even if there is a reversal it will not matter much at all. Mitch McConnell who is now Senate Majority Leader and filibuster monster has NEVER voted against a big oil bill. "McConnell has been under the deep-pocketed billionaire Koch brothers’ spell for years, doing their evil bidding like promoting Big Oil, undermining financial reform and regulations, and fighting against a living wage for the peasants, I mean… working-class Americans." [1]
         
         Reid is heavily underwritten by Wall Street and the Super Pacs where "In order to hang on to his leadership post, where Reid blocks anything he doesn’t like or anything that's controversial (read: that will help create jobs) from getting to President Barack Obama’s desk," [2]
         
         Go to this link and find out how much of Congress is dedicated to ideology and how much to money.
         http://www.motherjones.com/politics/201 … e-sponsors
         
         The argument is not over who is the most attentive to Americas needs as it is who is most attentive to its' greed. American politics is not about governing but more about getting paid.
         
         [1] http://bluenationreview.com/mitch-mccon … z3inY0jZym
         [2] http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/pet … ire-donors
         [3] http://www.motherjones.com/politics/201 … e-sponsors

         replyreport
         1. 58

            Alternative Primeposted 9 years agoin reply to this

            rhamson ~
            
            Once again you're trying to convolute campaign contributions with real time actions or, lack thereof taken by politicians ~
            
            The primary difference between McConnell & Reid is their VOTING records & Values ~
            
            Reid has spent a lifetime trying to strengthen or enhance the quality of life for the majority of Americans ~
            
            McConnell is now a Professional Republican Obstructionist / Anarchist / Insane Asylum Candidate who is maniacally obssessed with revoking, cancelling, and repealing the health insurance policies of millions of Americans who need coverage ~

            replyreport
            1. 68

               rhamsonposted 9 years agoin reply to this

               "The primary difference between McConnell & Reid is their VOTING records & Values ~"
               
               What makes you think their voting records are any different than their values. Was it not Wall Street that collapsed the economy in 2007? Did Congress or Harry Reid prosecute anybody on Wall Street for their actions? No, because through tearing down the boundaries of Glass/Stegal, that Wall Street wanted Congress to do, they were able to strong arm a bailout and get richer in the process.Look at his record if you don't believe me. Is this magic or something? Are these slime bags able to destroy the government yet are blameless because they tell you they are doing something else based on an ideology? Get your head out of the sand man.

               replyreport
               1. 58

                  Alternative Primeposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                  WoW rhamson ~
                  
                  I believe we can partially agree on the non-prosecution of Wall Street Geed Mongers ~ More aggressive legal action against these corporate criminals needs to materialize in the future ~  If there is one shortcomming in the Obama Administration it is Non-Prosecution of these "Earnings at ALL Cost" un-patriotic leeches ~
                  
                  However ~ Who was on the right side of obtaining, or making it more attainable to get Health Insurance? Harry Reid was while McConnell, believe it or not, even after ACA ratification by our Supreme Court, This regressive idiot is still trying to terminate Obamacare coverage for over 6 MILLION AMERICANs ~ And the number of newly insured will continue to rise ~ Pretty big difference between the parties I'd say ~
                  
                  And the list of divergence continues ~ Conservatives are bankrupt of ideas, they just continue to obstruct as a strategy to hurt Americans while desperately trying to save their jobs ~

                  replyreport
                  1. 68

                     rhamsonposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                     The greatly lauded ACA passage is not all it is cracked up to be. The estimated 47 million uninsured has sunk to approximately 30 million. The problem it has a great big hole in it. The affordability is a misnomer. I cannot afford heath care insurance as it is too costly on my own and the exchange in my state makes it impossible for me to qualify. They are telling me my share based on my income is more that I can afford. The answer. Tap into Medicare? It is then on the government to support me in this? The requirement for medical insurance combined with my age and condition makes outside employment impossible for me. I have to struggle along in my sixties on my own. My situation is one of the occasions that has fallen through the cracks. The ACA is a mess. Single payer was the only way this was going to work and Obama caved to the GOP and their healthcare lobbyists to keep it privatized and expensive.
                     
                     
                     http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/won … o-they-are

                     replyreport
8. 0

   ahorsebackposted 9 years ago

   So, How can we do this , first and last  Setting aside partisan rhetoric ,   Is it even possible ......
   Should you and I right now give up on the idea ?   
   Is there a way for us to come to a place where we could  even begin to find  our  way through  the jungle of voting for the next man  [woman ] to lead our country ?
   
   Grass Roots !
   
   How can we  can do this ?

   replyreport
   1. 77

      colorfuloneposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      It isn't going to happen with hatred and hate speech, that is not working.
      Never has.
      It can happen with respect.

      replyreport
   2. 0

      promisemposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      As many of us as possible stay committed to the truth and not rhetoric.
      
      Convince others to stop defending their parties at all costs, especially when their parties abuse power or spread propaganda.
      
      Support a viable third party.

      replyreport
      1. 80

         Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years agoin reply to this

         we wish.

         replyreport
      2. 58

         Alternative Primeposted 9 years agoin reply to this

         Why embrace a thrid party now when one is not necessary?
         
         If anything, a one party system is what we need ~
         
         Democrats and Republicans couldn't be more divergent ~ over the past 7 years, Democrats have enriched the lives of the majority of Americans while republicans have attempted to sabotage and obstruct this progress ~ How you could even begin to compare the two is mind boggling but I understand the old conservative tricky rhetoric ~ We're bad republicans so let's just try to paint all of us bad, including progressives ~ It really dosen't work ~

         replyreport
         1. 80

            Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years agoin reply to this

            <"Democrats have enriched the lives of the majority of Americans ...">
            
            Then why are things so bad in the US right now?

            replyreport
            1. 58

               Alternative Primeposted 9 years agoin reply to this

               Kathryn ~ R U living with wilderness way up thar in that remote Montana cabin?? He seems to be <personal attack snipped> as well ~

               replyreport
               1. 0

                  ahorsebackposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                  AP  , One party system ?  I take back all I've thought about you , your  for communism !

                  replyreport
                  1. 58

                     Alternative Primeposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                     Nope ~ We have one party fighting for a better quality of life for American Workers, Senior Citizens, Minorities, & Income Challenged ~ And they are getting results regardless of Venomous Republican Oppossition & Obstructionism ~
                     
                     That Party is the home of Democrats which includes Bernie Sanders who is technically associated with Socialism at that's just fine with the majority ~
                     
                     Nice try though a horseback ~    <----
                     
                     P.S. ~ Corporations & Corporate Puppets CRINGE at the thought of "Socialism" ~ Just remember that ~

                     replyreport
               2. 80

                  Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                  REPEATING:
                  Then why are things so bad right now. If you can't answer this, I doubt you are a real person.
                  Like maybe you are made out of wood.
                  Like maybe you have an elongated wooden nose growing longer with every post.
                  
                  
                  <"That Party is the home of Democrats which includes Bernie Sanders who is technically associated with Socialism at that's just fine with the majority ~">    

                  replyreport
                  1. 58

                     Alternative Primeposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                     Well, um Kathryn, I'll be honest ~ I do sometimes have an elongated wooden "SOMETHING" that does grow longer with every post but it's nowhere on my face ~ ----> <---- <---- <---- <----
                     
                     And at my age, without "Phoney Pharmaceutical Enhancement", believe me, that's  good thing ---->   <----
                     
                     Bad? I'm not sure how U define "Bad" versus "Good", but by all measures this country is definately on the right track economically, militarily, etc ~

                     replyreport
                     1. 80

                        Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                        … with every post? !
                        
                        Oh, I get it now. You are an exaggerator!
                        Good to know. 
                        
                        Exaggerate: "represent (something) as being larger, greater, better, or worse than it really is." Dictionary
                        
                        For example, your comment here is a huge exaggeration. <"…  this country is definately on the right track economically, militarily, etc.">
                        
                        Peace, A. Prime.

                        replyreport
                        1. 58

                           Alternative Primeposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                           Kathryn ~
                           
                           I’m pretty sure ALL my EX’iz would disagree with your "Exaggeration Accusation" ------------------------------------------------------------------>
                           
                           But I guess now you'll just Accuse me of being a B*R*A*I*N*L*E*S*S - GIGOLO   

                           replyreport
                           1. 80

                              Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                              No, I maintain you are an exaggerator.
                              How many impressed EXs (ALL?) can a man have?

                              replyreport
                  2. 0

                     promisemposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                     I don't agree that things are so bad now. Unemployment is down, wages are up, the federal deficit is declining, we're getting out of our pair of trillion dollar wars, etc.
                     
                     Just look at the rest of the world. It's much worse off than the U.S.

                     replyreport
                     1. 58

                        Alternative Primeposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                        promisem ~
                        
                        Things are as GOOD as they can possibly  be after a 6 1/2 year Presidential Tenure ~ 1 1/2 years to go so we'll see, but so far so good ~
                        
                        You neglected to mention the following ~
                        
                        * Bin Laden GONE
                        * Khaddaffi GONE
                        * Stock Market uP
                        * Real Estate Market uP
                        * Over 6 MILLION Americans & Counting with NEW Health Insurance Coverage Thanks to ACA "ObamaCare"
                        * Gay Rights Confirmed by our Supreme Court
                        * We are Safe & SECURE - No Major Terrorist Activity on U.S. Soil
                        * Virtually ZERO Inflation
                        
                        AND THE LIST OF ACCOMPLISHMENTS GO ON
                        
                        Of course there are still issues that need attention, but you'll never achieve a 100% average in a mere 8 years ~

                        replyreport
                        1. 68

                           rhamsonposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                           You wear rose colored glasses my friend if you count these as improvements
                           
                           * Bin Laden GONE
                           Not relevant to anything for close to 10 years after the 911 attacks.
                           
                           * Khaddaffi GONE
                           Not relevant since Reagan
                           
                           * Stock Market uP
                           Phony market made of inflated paper and based on 0% interest Federal Reserve making it that way
                           
                           * Real Estate Market uP
                           Where?
                           
                           * Over 6 MILLION Americans & Counting with NEW Health Insurance Coverage Thanks to ACA "ObamaCare"
                           And 30 million still uncovered with many others looking for a decent plan they can afford.
                           
                           * Gay Rights Confirmed by our Supreme Court
                           So what!
                           
                           * We are Safe & SECURE - No Major Terrorist Activity on U.S. Soil
                           Unsecured borders are you idea of safe?
                           
                           * Virtually ZERO Inflation
                           Where do you live? Everything is up except maybe gas. That is all over the place. The FAA had to threaten the airlines to lower their fares because they were gouging travelers with inflated prices from two years back while their fuel has been down since then.

                           replyreport
                     2. 80

                        Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                        Well, maybe it is only California which is FLOUNDERING.
                        
                        Currently Senate Bill 350 plans to get Californians to ride bikes and take buses, or BUY new electric cars. The California Gasoline Restrictive act of 2015 is a proposed law that will RESTRICT the use of gasoline and diesel fuel by 50%. Visit  www.DontTakeMyGas.org.
                        
                        My daughter and son-in-law would like to open a restaurant. It is IMPOSSIBLE, due to gov't regulations, mandates, insurances, etc.
                        
                        My son and his wife, who is physical therapist, is paying close to $2,000 a month to RENT an apartment; money which could be used as a HOUSE payment. It is practically impossible to get the down or qualify to buy a house for even the above average wage earner. Those who are able to purchase a house must have a two wage earner household.
                        
                        So, homes are missing mothers. Many kids are dropped off at Early Daycare at their public schools and picked up at 6 from their After School Daycare program. The daycare where I sub is full of surly belligerent children. No wonder. These same children attend public school Summer Day Camp, all day all summer. These programs, (where I work,) are staffed with frustrated "teachers" who do not have the background to deal with kids all day, (they are not required to have credentials.) Kids put up with staff yelling at them, threatening, falsely promising / never delivering rewards. Reading and Writing are punishments!  To top it off, these children have few hours with their moms, (as most moms MUST work from the time the baby is six moths old. (...and then there is the issue of Preschools. augh!)     
                        
                        I can no longer afford adequate insurance. I currently have the worst insurance possible. I got Obama Care to avoid being fined. Now, I am paying for NOT much.
                        We lost a very good insurance system in California.
                        
                        Illegal aliens are ALLOWED to take the jobs that citizens should have.
                        
                        The millennial generation youth have FEW survival skills, thanks to their addiction to computer games and terrible public school educations.
                        
                        It is hard to find GOOD food. When you go into a grocery store its food food, everywhere, but nothing to eat.  For instance, Salmon is pulled out of antibiotic infused farms, injected with dye, frozen, sent to China, unfrozen, packaged, refrozen, and then sent back to the States. Yum. Prepared, canned, frozen foods are laden with sugar and salt. Corn and corn products have been making some people throw up ever since corn was genetically modified. Natural foods are way expensive. Meats are loaded with hormones. Vegetables are coated with pesticides and grown in depleted soil. Our children are now either too skinny or too fat. How can they develop muscles in front of screens?
                        
                        Whats BOOMING is the Pharmaceutical Industry. Thats telling.
                        Kids line up for their doses of Adderal or Ritalin at public schools.
                        
                        I could go on. This is just a START.

                        replyreport
9. 0

   ahorsebackposted 9 years ago

   You couldn't be more wrong about Bernie Sanders ,  being from the same state , I can say he is an  pariah  ,  he is the very definition  of original political  rhetoric ,     Bernie Sanders is not a listener , he is a talker . And although that is  much,  much loved by the young and politically lazy ,   one has to ask  about Bernie 'where's the beef" .     His entire political career has evolved under the dome  of a forty + year streak of very left extremism in the Vermont political scene . protected from outside influences  by an eighty percent left voting legislature ,  his socialist and admittedly  leftist cronyism  is almost totally  rhetorical  sixties  university  scene .  That - is exactly what I'm talking about in Kathryn's  other forum post about what's wrong in American politics .
   
   Love Bernie Sanders ?   Get real , get politically  educated, get to work  and stop  defaulting to letting someone else do the work , learn your candidates .

   replyreport