djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,124
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jan 22, 2015 12:24:30 GMT -5
update: approval rating now at 16 month high, dating back to August of 2013.
PI: I disagree that the idea behind the ACA is to further subsidize something that is already subsidized. it is actually somewhat worse than that, from your perspective:
the idea is to socialize the cost across all Americans rather than just those that have insurance.
it is actually a really smart idea. it was smart when the Heritage Foundation was advocating it in the early 90's. it was smart when Gingrich floated it as a counterproposal to HillaryCare. it was smart when Romney installed in in Massachusetts. and it continued to be smart when all of those men advocated for the idea right up until the ACA passed.
then, of course, it became a bad idea. Disagree of course- it is a bad idea unless your plan is to make sure we keep creating healthcare millionaires and billionaires at the expense of our fellow citizens.
The true liberal idea is to put everyone in the risk pool and socialize the costs, not keep the current government hybrid where taxpayers cover the old, disabled, and sick (unprofitable customers) and let the private insurers have the rest.
It was a deal with the devil- we force people to buy your shitty products in trade for you to quit cherry picking customers or dropping them in the middle of a major health event.
Not trying to topic creep- but the ACA if anything is proof that Obama is Bush light. He, like the democratic party, have not the balls to stand on real reform against the big money.
i didn't say that the ACA was a good idea, EVT. i said that socializing insurance was a good idea. i said that the goal of 100% coverage was a good idea. i am not much of a stickler about how we get there, but clearly, since the ACA won't get us 100% of the way there, i am not 100% in favor of it.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 30, 2024 8:23:34 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 22, 2015 18:44:56 GMT -5
Nice try... but completely wrong. The idea of healthcare reform is to socialize the cost across all Americans. The ACA isn't healthcare reform. It never has been. It never will be. The ACA is, and always has been, Insurance reform. um...no.
the idea of INSURANCE reform is to do that. i never said healthcare, and if i ever have in the past, i apologize, because it is INSURANCE reform.
Correct, you never said the WORD "healthcare", however that was the subject of what you were posting about, in what you said, that I quoted. There's no such thing as "socialized insurance for medical issues", so therefore you were discussing healthcare in what I quoted. Also pointing it at "healthcare" is how it's referred to in ALL news and political statements. You may have thought you were discussing insurance. You may have intended to discuss insurance. But it was healthcare about which you actually posted. (apologies that the inserted quote isn't properly credited to you djAdvocate, I had to put it in manually because of the two quote level auto edit)
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,124
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 16, 2015 22:45:45 GMT -5
Obama's approval rating is now at -4.4%
he has had three positive results in the last nine days.
the silence from the so-called "liberal media" is deafening.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 30, 2024 8:23:34 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 16, 2015 23:32:13 GMT -5
Obama's approval rating is now at -4.4%he has had three positive results in the last nine days. the silence from the so-called "liberal media" is deafening. Minus 4.4% ? How can a person have an approval rating that's below ZERO? Were 100 people asked and 104 of them said "No. Don't like him"? ETA: If anyone could get a minus though... it makes perfect sense to me that it would be Obama...
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,472
Member is Online
|
Post by billisonboard on Feb 16, 2015 23:38:14 GMT -5
Obama's approval rating is now at -4.4%he has had three positive results in the last nine days. the silence from the so-called "liberal media" is deafening. Minus 4.4% ? How can a person have an approval rating that's below ZERO? Were 100 people asked and 104 of them said "No. Don't like him"? ETA: If anyone could get a minus though... it makes perfect sense to me that it would be Obama... I would explain it but dj would just re-explain it anyway.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,124
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 17, 2015 0:16:26 GMT -5
Obama's approval rating is now at -4.4%he has had three positive results in the last nine days. the silence from the so-called "liberal media" is deafening. Minus 4.4% ? How can a person have an approval rating that's below ZERO? Were 100 people asked and 104 of them said "No. Don't like him"? ETA: If anyone could get a minus though... it makes perfect sense to me that it would be Obama... that is how it is generally tracked. there is a link in the OP. it still works. edit: at this point in his presidency, Bush was -25%. it didn't get better. that is what happens when you are the worst president in 85 years. edit2: Gallup has a really cool tool for comparing presidents. Obama is almost exactly where Reagan was at this point in his presidency in terms of approval (actually, he is slightly above Reagan), and very close to the historical polling norms at the Gallup organization, which reflects the sort of average presidency that i, and most other observers, would expect. PS- to address your pvs post, i don't ever talk about healthcare reform. the ACA doesn't address it, and neither do i.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,124
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 17, 2015 0:16:57 GMT -5
Minus 4.4% ? How can a person have an approval rating that's below ZERO? Were 100 people asked and 104 of them said "No. Don't like him"? ETA: If anyone could get a minus though... it makes perfect sense to me that it would be Obama... I would explain it but dj would just re-explain it anyway. you know me far too well. should i quit the board?
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,472
Member is Online
|
Post by billisonboard on Feb 17, 2015 0:26:08 GMT -5
I would explain it but dj would just re-explain it anyway. you know me far too well. should i quit the board? Would be a shame since we are now officially the ymam board.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,124
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 17, 2015 0:27:15 GMT -5
you know me far too well. should i quit the board? Would be a shame since we are now officially the ymam board. what better time to quit- than when i am on top? and wtf is a ymam, anyway?
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,472
Member is Online
|
Post by billisonboard on Feb 17, 2015 0:45:08 GMT -5
Would be a shame since we are now officially the ymam board. what better time to quit- than when i am on top? and wtf is a ymam, anyway? Officially here, it is Your Money and More, the new name for this message board. It is the URL.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,124
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 17, 2015 0:52:24 GMT -5
what better time to quit- than when i am on top? and wtf is a ymam, anyway? Officially here, it is Your Money and More, the new name for this message board. It is the URL. i saw it in the URL. i just didn't know what it meant. ty.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 30, 2024 8:23:34 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 17, 2015 18:51:48 GMT -5
Minus 4.4% ? How can a person have an approval rating that's below ZERO? Were 100 people asked and 104 of them said "No. Don't like him"? ETA: If anyone could get a minus though... it makes perfect sense to me that it would be Obama... that is how it is generally tracked. there is a link in the OP. it still works. edit: at this point in his presidency, Bush was -25%. it didn't get better. that is what happens when you are the worst president in 85 years. edit2: Gallup has a really cool tool for comparing presidents. Obama is almost exactly where Reagan was at this point in his presidency in terms of approval (actually, he is slightly above Reagan), and very close to the historical polling norms at the Gallup organization, which reflects the sort of average presidency that i, and most other observers, would expect. PS- to address your pvs post, i don't ever talk about healthcare reform. the ACA doesn't address it, and neither do i. Approval ratings are not a good indicator of whether a president was good for the country or not. Never have been, never will be. What makes the best indicator is their impact on the country as a whole. Hypothetical example: A president COULD give everyone everything they want, free healthcare (not even tax supported, but direct debt spending to pay for all of it), free money from the government, et cetera... and people would probably like him/her... giving him/her a pretty high approval... but the damage that would be created would be IMMENSE. And that damage is what would make him/her a bad president. Not how much he/she was liked (approval rating).
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,124
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 17, 2015 22:00:00 GMT -5
that is how it is generally tracked. there is a link in the OP. it still works. edit: at this point in his presidency, Bush was -25%. it didn't get better. that is what happens when you are the worst president in 85 years. edit2: Gallup has a really cool tool for comparing presidents. Obama is almost exactly where Reagan was at this point in his presidency in terms of approval (actually, he is slightly above Reagan), and very close to the historical polling norms at the Gallup organization, which reflects the sort of average presidency that i, and most other observers, would expect. PS- to address your pvs post, i don't ever talk about healthcare reform. the ACA doesn't address it, and neither do i. Approval ratings are not a good indicator of whether a president was good for the country or not. Never have been, never will be. What makes the best indicator is their impact on the country as a whole. that having been said, it is quite true that USUALLY a popular president ALSO ends up being a president that is rated well by historians. those things are not CAUSAL. however, they are RELATED. in other words, the things that make a president popular ALSO tend to make him better than unpopular presidents, with some notable exceptions, such as Truman.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 30, 2024 8:23:34 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 17, 2015 23:30:14 GMT -5
Approval ratings are not a good indicator of whether a president was good for the country or not. Never have been, never will be. What makes the best indicator is their impact on the country as a whole. that having been said, it is quite true that USUALLY a popular president ALSO ends up being a president that is rated well by historians. those things are not CAUSAL. however, they are RELATED. in other words, the things that make a president popular ALSO tend to make him better than unpopular presidents, with some notable exceptions, such as Truman.And Obama.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,155
|
Post by tallguy on Feb 18, 2015 0:17:25 GMT -5
And Reagan.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,124
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 18, 2015 1:15:19 GMT -5
that having been said, it is quite true that USUALLY a popular president ALSO ends up being a president that is rated well by historians. those things are not CAUSAL. however, they are RELATED. in other words, the things that make a president popular ALSO tend to make him better than unpopular presidents, with some notable exceptions, such as Truman.And Obama. well, i suspect that Obama won't do as well as Truman- but i suppose anything is possible.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 30, 2024 8:23:34 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 18, 2015 18:25:03 GMT -5
And Obama. well, i suspect that Obama won't do as well as Truman- but i suppose anything is possible. I wasn't equating Obama with Truman so much as I was agreeing that there are exceptions to the good approval rating=good president theory... Obama is a case in point: If he ends up with a good rating he'll still be a lousy President.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,124
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 18, 2015 20:38:58 GMT -5
well, i suspect that Obama won't do as well as Truman- but i suppose anything is possible. I wasn't equating Obama with Truman so much as I was agreeing that there are exceptions to the good approval rating=good president theory... Obama is a case in point: If he ends up with a good rating he'll still be a lousy President. in your opinion, yes. however, the reason i chided you is because i think that Obama stands a good chance of ending up with a negative rating, just like Truman.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 30, 2024 8:23:34 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 18, 2015 21:28:45 GMT -5
I wasn't equating Obama with Truman so much as I was agreeing that there are exceptions to the good approval rating=good president theory... Obama is a case in point: If he ends up with a good rating he'll still be a lousy President. in your opinion, yes. however, the reason i chided you is because i think that Obama stands a good chance of ending up with a negative rating, just like Truman. If he does end up with a negative rating, then that would actually disprove your point... because his rating and his actual worth (how good of a job he actually did, not how people feel about him) as a President will match ( both lousy).
|
|
mroped
Senior Member
Joined: Nov 17, 2014 17:36:56 GMT -5
Posts: 3,453
|
Post by mroped on Feb 19, 2015 9:38:48 GMT -5
Why do people keep crediting Bush with taking down the Berlin Wall? The man did literally nothing to influence that except staying out of Gorbachevs way. Just because he said "Mr Gorbachev, take down that wall!" doesn't mean he did something.
Gorbachev's Perestroika was well on the way for about 4 years working up and culminating with the Berlin Wall.
And as far as that -4.4% for Obama, could that be reported to a 50/50? as in representing the whole country not just half? Could that be that at this point in his presidency Obama's aproval is 45.6% while GW Bush was at a 25%?
Just wondering but could that be it? I mean, I don't believe that there was ever a president with an80% aproval rate, was there?
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,472
Member is Online
|
Post by billisonboard on Feb 19, 2015 9:48:10 GMT -5
I think you mean Reagan and he is credited because of Americentrism.
Frequently following the speech given in response to a national crisis, presidential approval ratings soar into the 80's and 90's
|
|
mroped
Senior Member
Joined: Nov 17, 2014 17:36:56 GMT -5
Posts: 3,453
|
Post by mroped on Feb 19, 2015 9:54:52 GMT -5
Yeah, Reagan! Thanks! I don't even know why and how I typed in Bush
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,478
|
Post by Tennesseer on Feb 19, 2015 10:47:03 GMT -5
Yeah, Reagan! Thanks! I don't even know why and how I typed in Bush Reagan may have said "Tear down this wall" in 1987, but the wall fell in November, 1989 during Bush's presidency. Easy to confuse the two.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,124
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 19, 2015 14:21:37 GMT -5
Why do people keep crediting Bush with taking down the Berlin Wall? The man did literally nothing to influence that except staying out of Gorbachevs way. Just because he said "Mr Gorbachev, take down that wall!" doesn't mean he did something. Gorbachev's Perestroika was well on the way for about 4 years working up and culminating with the Berlin Wall. And as far as that -4.4% for Obama, could that be reported to a 50/50? as in representing the whole country not just half? Could that be that at this point in his presidency Obama's aproval is 45.6% while GW Bush was at a 25%? there are several surveys that have him at 50/50, so sure. i am just reporting the aggregated total, because that is how i prefer to report surveys.Just wondering but could that be it? I mean, I don't believe that there was ever a president with an80% aproval (sic) rate, was there? yes, there was. Bush had one shortly after 911.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,124
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 19, 2015 14:23:19 GMT -5
in your opinion, yes. however, the reason i chided you is because i think that Obama stands a good chance of ending up with a negative rating, just like Truman. If he does end up with a negative rating, then that would actually disprove your point... that wasn't my point. my point is that it would disprove YOURS (that Obama was an outlier). to be clear, i think Obama will end up with positive approval, and an above average rating by Historians (edit: like Reagan, who you ALSO regard as among the worst presidents, if memory serves). and i am completely confident that Bush will remain in the bottom quartile for a very very long time.
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 20,892
|
Post by happyhoix on Feb 19, 2015 17:10:02 GMT -5
I'm curious to see how the emergence of ISIS/ISIL will impact Obama's rating by historians.
Will future historians think Obama should have reacted faster and with massive military ground assaults when ISIS first emerged, or will they applaud him holding back while international outrage grew, until there was enough anger against ISIS that an Arabian led, truly international coalition came together against them?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,124
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 19, 2015 18:07:42 GMT -5
I'm curious to see how the emergence of ISIS/ISIL will impact Obama's rating by historians. Will future historians think Obama should have reacted faster and with massive military ground assaults when ISIS first emerged, or will they applaud him holding back while international outrage grew, until there was enough anger against ISIS that an Arabian led, truly international coalition came together against them? i don't really know enough about ISIS to comment. however, i am inclined to view his working without an authorization as a detriment, personally. so there are certainly two different ways of viewing our efforts, there. edit: if you are asking me to guess what historians will think, they tend to go pretty easy on presidents for foreign policy issues. for example, Kennedy is rated quite highly. so is Reagan. that is because of what they accomplished DOMESTICALLY. it is hard to view either of those men as successful in terms of foreign policy.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,472
Member is Online
|
Post by billisonboard on Feb 19, 2015 18:10:11 GMT -5
I'm curious to see how the emergence of ISIS/ISIL will impact Obama's rating by historians. Will future historians think Obama should have reacted faster and with massive military ground assaults when ISIS first emerged, or will they applaud him holding back while international outrage grew, until there was enough anger against ISIS that an Arabian led, truly international coalition came together against them? I don't think ISIS/ISIL will be a significant enough factor in the long run to get much mention(purely gut feeling.)
|
|
deziloooooo
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 16:22:04 GMT -5
Posts: 10,723
|
Post by deziloooooo on Feb 19, 2015 19:02:54 GMT -5
I'm curious to see how the emergence of ISIS/ISIL will impact Obama's rating by historians. Will future historians think Obama should have reacted faster and with massive military ground assaults when ISIS first emerged, or will they applaud him holding back while international outrage grew, until there was enough anger against ISIS that an Arabian led, truly international coalition came together against them? i don't really know enough about ISIS to comment. however, i am inclined to view his working without an authorization as a detriment, personally. so there are certainly two different ways of viewing our efforts, there. edit: if you are asking me to guess what historians will think, they tend to go pretty easy on presidents for foreign policy issues. for example, Kennedy is rated quite highly. so is Reagan. that is because of what they accomplished DOMESTICALLY. it is hard to view either of those men as successful in terms of foreign policy. When it comes to Kennedy..from what I have read and what has been made public..if true and so far I have not read anything that says it is not..Just for his one handling of a particuler crisis ..if he did nothing else in his short term in office...rates him as one of the greatest Presidents ever or how ever one rates Presidents.. His decision and his alone on the handling of the Cuban Missile crisis gives him that title of a great President...They have the tapes of the decision making on our side of that crisis..It seemed ALL those in the discussion , liberal, conservative , former leaders..GOP, Democratic , his advisers..Bobby too..wanted a invasion of Cuba..Florida was packed with our armed forces..trains had moved hundreds of Tanks to the eastern ports..ships were being loaded..Planes moved to the South East ....and he said no... As we found out when the Soviet Union ended and became just Russia and there was that brief window of openness with them as to what had really gone down during the cold war..we found out that not only had the Cubans been given the intermediate missiles to reach the USA and the nuclear warheads that went on them but the Soviets had given Cuba tactical Nucs too .the ones that are used against troop concentrations..invasion fleets and Castro was adamant about useing them if his country, Cuba, was invaded ..no matter what...better the Island become a cinder then his regime fail and be over thrown.. Since I lived just out side Hartford..Pratt and Whitney{Jet engines}..not far from Sikorsky{choppers}, New London..{submarines} and so many other defense related businesses..I remember that period very well..old enough to be very scared ..my parents I remember were also quite concerned..Dad even more so..he was with Pattons' third during WW2 as a Tank Commander.. It was estimated casualties on our part would be 60 million or so..Cuba gone naturally and the Soviet Union too..they had no where near the Nucs and delivery systems we had and lets not forget the fall out and Europe too..they would have been drawn in too I am sure.. Kennedy...for no other reason a great President...I thank him..my kids thank him and my grand kids thank him ..Thank G-d it was he in that chair over anyone else but if not him it would have been Nixon and that was a long time before his approach to China..a different Nixon IMHO..with all the pressure from both sides plus his own feelings of the Communist...while one never knows ..with Kennedy we know what went down. As said..for that decision making alone..a great President...and for many of you who may be younger..some may be aware but I am guessing you know more about his sexual escapades then this one..
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,124
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 19, 2015 19:51:10 GMT -5
i don't really know enough about ISIS to comment. however, i am inclined to view his working without an authorization as a detriment, personally. so there are certainly two different ways of viewing our efforts, there. edit: if you are asking me to guess what historians will think, they tend to go pretty easy on presidents for foreign policy issues. for example, Kennedy is rated quite highly. so is Reagan. that is because of what they accomplished DOMESTICALLY. it is hard to view either of those men as successful in terms of foreign policy. When it comes to Kennedy..from what I have read and what has been made public..if true and so far I have not read anything that says it is not..Just for his one handling of a particuler crisis ..if he did nothing else in his short term in office...rates him as one of the greatest Presidents ever or how ever one rates Presidents.. His decision and his alone on the handling of the Cuban Missile crisis gives him that title of a great President...They have the tapes of the decision making on our side of that crisis..It seemed ALL those in the discussion , liberal, conservative , former leaders..GOP, Democratic , his advisers..Bobby too..wanted a invasion of Cuba..Florida was packed with our armed forces..trains had moved hundreds of Tanks to the eastern ports..ships were being loaded..Planes moved to the South East ....and he said no... As we found out when the Soviet Union ended and became just Russia and there was that brief window of openness with them as to what had really gone down during the cold war..we found out that not only had the Cubans been given the intermediate missiles to reach the USA and the nuclear warheads that went on them but the Soviets had given Cuba tactical Nucs too .the ones that are used against troop concentrations..invasion fleets and Castro was adamant about useing them if his country, Cuba, was invaded ..no matter what...better the Island become a cinder then his regime fail and be over thrown.. Since I lived just out side Hartford..Pratt and Whitney{Jet engines}..not far from Sikorsky{choppers}, New London..{submarines} and so many other defense related businesses..I remember that period very well..old enough to be very scared ..my parents I remember were also quite concerned..Dad even more so..he was with Pattons' third during WW2 as a Tank Commander.. It was estimated casualties on our part would be 60 million or so..Cuba gone naturally and the Soviet Union too..they had no where near the Nucs and delivery systems we had and lets not forget the fall out and Europe too..they would have been drawn in too I am sure.. Kennedy...for no other reason a great President...I thank him..my kids thank him and my grand kids thank him ..Thank G-d it was he in that chair over anyone else but if not him it would have been Nixon and that was a long time before his approach to China..a different Nixon IMHO..with all the pressure from both sides plus his own feelings of the Communist...while one never knows ..with Kennedy we know what went down. As said..for that decision making alone..a great President...and for many of you who may be younger..some may be aware but I am guessing you know more about his sexual escapades then this one.. i honestly don't give two whits about the sexual conduct of a president, so long as it does not prevent him or her from performing their job.
|
|