homer said:
toastboy44562 said:
homer said:
1.) So, theoretically, if I was the president of the USA, during a golden age, and did absolutely nothing, but the country prospered anyways, would that make me a great?
2.)What if I became a president during a depression, but managed to make the USA better? Which president would you consider better? One man changed america for the better, while the other did nothing, but inherited a prosperous nation. The people had a better time under my presidancy,although I did nothing.
3.)Neither screwed up, is that what truly matters?
|
1.) You would be considered great, that is why many presidents get re-elected
2.) I would consider a president that has changed america for the better during a depression better. For instance if obama expanded many buisnesses in america just as clinton did I would consider obama better. even though the economy was better overall better off during clinton's age.
3.) In the eyes of a lot of people, as long as a president doesn't totally screw up he is a success.
|
1.)You are probably right. If people were happy during my presidency, and I did nothing, I would probably be re elected, but I was not asking for the theoretical opinion of what we think the American people would choose, I was asking for yours.
2.) Agreed.
3.) Yet again, that is probably what the general population believes, but is that what you believe?
|
1.) what i believe? well as long as america sees a tiny bit of advancement and growth and the president did nothing i would re-elect them in no time. Im conservative but if things need to be fixed then they need to be fixed.
3.) I guess i believe it. For instance if america was doing great and I did nothing and it kept going great I would consider myself a great president. because if i changed anything it might've made things worse
