You must log in or register to comment.

yaddablahmeh t1_j7iz5d6 wrote

I think he was 55 years old. I forgt what it was like to have such a "young" president. The last two seem ancient. (And I'm not that young.)


GirraficPark t1_j7j85n7 wrote

Well, he is actually younger than our last two (four years younger than Biden, a month younger than Trump). So during his time in office, he was over two decades younger than they were during their respective terms.


Anticode t1_j7jcu93 wrote

It's a bit strange that a significant proportion of US politicians are - and have been - the same age, regardless of what point in time you're looking at them. It's almost like a single ~5 year window is all that's generally been allowed to hold office since the late 1980s. The same pattern is visible in congress/senate. It's like all of the big political "headliners" essentially spawned from the same graduating class.

Bush was born in 1947. Hillary? 1947. Romney? 1947.

Trump was born in 1946. Bill Clinton? 1946.

Biden, 1942. McConnel, 1042. Pelosi, 1940. Sanders? 1941.

The last four of five presidents (ie: the last 30 years) were born within ~5 years of each other - and if you ignore Biden, ~2 (!). Obama is obviously an outlier, but when we look at his political arc, he seems quite anomalous anyway; like something "unplanned" and capitalized upon.

In any case, there's a lot of data to pull from so it's easy to cherry pick names and dates. It's surely just coincidence that most of the Big Names most often thrown around in the media are born within a few years of each other.

What's not a coincidence is that the average age of US politicians is quite high. In some cases the same age group has remained in power/significance for the last ~30 years. The average age for the senate and house is 63 and 58 respectively, implying half of them are older than that.

It's obvious that American culture fetishizes age as if it were a function of wisdom, even though we often tease that same age group for being technologically/socially inept and culturally backwards. Bizarre.

Sometimes I like to imagine what the country would be like if it was being managed by people in their 40s-50s rather than 70-80s. When our bosses at work are older than 60 we start to doubt their performance and judgement, right? Somehow we don't do that for our politicians (generally speaking).


Ianjh t1_j7jdlei wrote

That McConnel bit had me cracking up. Typo or intentional?


Inline_skates t1_j7jotpd wrote

I mean turtles do live a long time


Auran82 t1_j7jsztj wrote

Am I not turtley enough for the turtle club?


RonAmok t1_j7m1u2b wrote

Did NOT expect a Dana Carvey subreference today.


BabyGotTrack t1_j7mbj9k wrote

i'm giggling like a 5th grader who's teacher just said "duty"


redditseddit4u t1_j7jdrjj wrote

Fact checked McConnell being born in 1042 and was surprised to find out it’s true


x_kwyjibo_x t1_j7jece2 wrote

Boomers vote in droves. There are a lot of them and that’s why they’ve held onto power so long. They are dwindling and the younger generations are finally outnumbering them, but I’m not sure Millennials and Gen Z have started turning out with regularity yet. When we finally see that apple cart overturned, we’ll finally see the transition in power.


Techguyeric1 t1_j7jl2gg wrote

Unfortunately Gen X will be the new boomers, and I'm a very late Gen Xer (born in 1980) there will always be elderly people who voted heavily more than younger generations.

As people get older they tend to start to vote more conservative as they feel that things are getting more out of their realm of control.

Most boomers were teenagers in the 60s and would have been the liberals of the time, yet they are mostly conservative now.

It'll happen to my generation as most are now at that age where the latch key kids see the coddling of kids as they are becoming soft.

It's a vicious cycle really and will only be stopped when younger generations start to take public office seriously, and fight for the change they want.


NotTroy t1_j7jyrln wrote

I've got good news or bad news for you, depending on how you feel about it. Gen X won't be the new Boomers, Millennials will be. Gen X is actually a lower population than Boomers or Millennials. Now that all Millennials are of age to vote and even the youngest of them are approaching their 30's, and with Boomers increasingly dying off, Millennials will progressively make up the plurality of the voting population with each election cycle (they're also a larger cohort than Gen Z).

The other half of this news is that Millennials and Gen Z are seeming to defy the conventional wisdom that people become more conservative with age. Studies are showing that Millennials and Gen Z are generally getting more progressive as they age.


Anticode t1_j7jt4hc wrote

> As people get older they tend to start to vote more conservative

This is not necessarily true (anymore?). Studies are starting to find that 1) People actually become more liberal as they age; and/or 2) Views remain relatively stable throughout life.


>If people really become more liberal as they age, why does common wisdom hold the opposite to be true?

>People might find an average 60-year-old to be more conservative than an average 30-year-old, Danigelis said, but beware of extrapolating a trend. The older person, for example, might have started off even more conservative than he or she is now.


>Consistent with previous research but contrary to folk wisdom, our results indicate that political attitudes are remarkably stable over the long term. In contrast to previous research, however, we also find support for folk wisdom: on those occasions when political attitudes do shift across the life span, liberals are more likely to become conservatives than conservatives are to become liberals, suggesting that folk wisdom has some empirical basis even as it overstates the degree of change.


All-in-all, it's pretty hard to track these sort of things since there's a ton of factors at play. Studies that occurred near the emergence of Trump onto the sociopolitical stage may have had their self-identification (rather than their beliefs) pushed left, now given an example of what right really looks like, for instance. It's hard to say.

In any case, I suspect that it's more generational than anything - specifically as a result of socio-environmental pressures. It's a bit much to get into this late at night, but I hypothesize that "conservativism" is a behavioral (mal)adaptation in the same way ADHD is a maladaptation to the flicker-frame-flashy-light modern world.

In the case of conservative behaviors, the symptoms emerge primarily in the amygdala, the part of the brain that controls for anger/disgust. If ADHD emerges to better handle the fast paced technological world (and subsequently results in failures to focus on more traditionally "slow" activities), then conservativism emerges in response to fear/chaos which subsequently results in failures to empathize with outgroups. You can think of it like a survival mechanism that switches on in response to war/conflict historically (and still responds to the illusion of danger).

Studies find that liberals and conservatives can be detected by brain scans alone and that's the part that's more heavily active in conservatives. It's why their responses to the world are so often based in fear or aggression (often both simultaneously).


Re: Brain scans, etc. --


thatc0braguy t1_j7lrcp9 wrote

Conservatism comes from money & ownership, generally. Money is the biggest indicator of where you will fall politically. (Celebrities being the outlier since their income comes from us giving them sales)

Because successive generations have less to conserve, they themselves are less conservative in general. As long as the economy continues to drive inequality, this will not reverse.

There's also the issue of medical complications where liberals are more likely to die earlier due to the stresses of poverty vs conservatives who can stay on top of their health through regular checkups. For example, republicans celebrated AIDS wiping out large demographics who were very anti-conservative.


Anticode t1_j7mg4x1 wrote

I think you've got the arrangement of the dynamic backwards. Red states are some of the poorest in the union. I suspect that the reason why so much of the wealthy elite are conservative is a combination of...

  1. The republican party is practically specifically geared towards policies that benefit the rich, obfuscated by social policies that revolve around things the voters are angry about.

  2. Those least concerned with equity, empathy, and fairness are those most likely to pursue extreme wealth - and to acquire it (via variously unethical means).

I also think that having wealth also inspires people towards paranoia and fear, as they've now compartmentalized themselves from the masses and/or recognize the disparity (subconsciously or otherwise).

Like another commenter pointed out, democrats raised more money than republicans during that period of time (if you ignore the big-big contributions).

That being said, I deeply agree with you that democrats are the 'default party' and that there is no liberal party.

(Which is why I like to say that republicans/democrats are the offensive and defense lines of the elite respectively.)


thatc0braguy t1_j7mk57s wrote

I wouldn't disagree with anything you've said.

I can't say for sure, but the "why" of the poorest states voting majority for the rich man's party is because those states don't see themselves as poor Laborers, they consider themselves "future millionaires" and vote accordingly.


Chewybunny t1_j7m02q3 wrote

To an extent - more money from the top 300 richest zip codes in 2013–14 went to Democrats than Republicans, by a significant but not overwhelming margin, if you set aside those contributions over $1 million made by wealthy individuals to their own campaigns.

This could be because the big four metro areas of in New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco, and Washington, D.C. have the highest concentration of the 300 richest zip codes. The top 5% of the people living in those zip codes contribute to Democrats twice as much as they do to Republicans.


thatc0braguy t1_j7m199b wrote

Democrats are more the "default party" not necessarily liberal.

If anything I would consider the US has two conservative parties and zero labor parties.


TracyMorganFreeman t1_j7m0lnh wrote

I'd bet people becoming more liberal than age stems from a) a more polarized electorate and b) what it means to be liberal being expanded.


sassergaf t1_j7jnblj wrote

Interestingly most boomers I know are liberals and environmentalists.


Ibkbembo t1_j7lvly1 wrote

Because your study didn't account for location bias. Good luck with your grant application.


sassergaf t1_j7nd4bj wrote

Grant? They don’t all live in the same place.


Ibkbembo t1_j7oz5ip wrote

Well, Steve still does, but Jeff moved to the PNW like 5 years ago.


Techguyeric1 t1_j7jkqih wrote

To be fair ol'Moscow Mitch looks horrible for someone supposedly born in 1942, but he looks amazing for someone born in 1042, and it explains so much


Mokatines t1_j7k76lh wrote

>It's obvious that American culture fetishizes age as if it were a function of wisdom, even though we often tease that same age group for being technologically/socially inept and culturally backwards. Bizarre.

Nah ... the respective parties push who they want to push, so the American people are usually given the choice of two geriatrics. God forbid they vote 3rd party. Which they wont because the main party candidates will point to Ross Periot.


RareCodeMonkey t1_j7kcvkm wrote

>When our bosses at work are older than 60 we start to doubt their performance and judgement, right?

That judgement is called age discrimination. I am for more age diversity in USA presidents, thou.


zaphodp3 t1_j7jnlg5 wrote

Were all these older politicians better when they were younger though? Seems like plenty of younger ones are idiots too.


fuelvolts t1_j7l8jvh wrote

> The average age for the senate and house is 63 and 58 respectively, implying half of them are older than that.

That's median, not mean. Average doesn't mean that "half" of them are older. Although, you did mention imply, which I guess is technically true. Which is the best kind of true.


asdaaaaaaaa t1_j7k5l42 wrote

> It's almost like a single ~5 year window is all that's generally been allowed to hold office since the late 1980s.

It's almost like politics heavily operate as an isolated group of individuals who all work to keep the status quo for each other and keep others out. Good luck getting someone who's doesn't fit one of two molds even halfway to getting elected.


Ccaves0127 t1_j7ndv7f wrote

Fetishizing age as wisdom, I would argue, is actually wayyyy more common in almost every other culture


ghengilhar t1_j7lf9ts wrote

McConnel thinks the Norman conquest is a little too progressive.


JimThePea t1_j7jmmx3 wrote

Another fun way to look at it: Biden first ran for president 12 years before George W did.


CalvinDehaze t1_j7jnu24 wrote

4 out of the last 5 presidents have been baby boomers. Thats 22 out of the last 30 years.


bunkSauce t1_j7jvl00 wrote

TBF, baby boomers is anyone born in an 18 year period starting in 1946. So, if presidents are often in the age range of 45-70, which is pretty much the bell curve of presidential age distribution... 22/30 seems .... expected. I mean, you jave to be 35 to be president, and the presidents who were younger than 45 were extreme outliers.

In 1992, the first baby boomer is turning 46. In 2035, the last baby boomer will turn 71.

In 2000, the age range of boomers was everyone between 36 and 54 years old.

In 2004, the age range of boomers was everyone between 40 and 58 years old.

In 2008, the age range of boomers was everyone between 44 and 62 years old.

In 2012, the age range of boomers was everyone between 48 and 66 years old.

In 20q6, the age range of boomers i everyone between 52 and 70 years old.

We just live in the time where baby boomers are laregly comprised of ages rangin from 45 to 75. When thay age range is the typical presidential age range, it should be no surprise.


Vegan_Harvest t1_j7km0lo wrote

And what difference did it make? He was a terrible president.


fuzzy_viscount t1_j7l9bzc wrote

Well this young president was a puppet for a multinational firm and duped everyone into unjustified war so, yay younger leadership?


RedditIsOverMan t1_j7iwkto wrote

7.5 minute miles for a 60 yr old? not bad.


Mintyphresh33 t1_j7j34jj wrote

Shit I wish I could do that and I’m 38


onFilm t1_j7kdteq wrote

If you're relatively healthy, you can easily achieve that! Just start off slow.


Phormicidae t1_j7kr8wg wrote

I wish I could get some magical advice. I've been running 5k's regularly for about 10 years. I rarely get under 30 minutes. I'm not embarrassed about stats, just that I never improve.


grown t1_j7lek8n wrote

Sounds like some cross training might help. Try some interval training. Better yet, biking or a spin class. For someone that does 5ks regularly like you, it's hard to imagine your heart rate is getting all that high in a 30 minute 5k. That's just a consistent, slow jog. Even if you don't do anything else, try keeping a close watch on your heart rate when exercising and work in bursts of increasing it.


Phormicidae t1_j7lfg0h wrote

I only recently started interval training. I admit I don't even know what heart rate goals I should be looking at. Am I looking to sustain a high heart rate? Or to sustain a lower heart rate with the same activity? Thanks for your advice, btw.


cheese_stick_mafia t1_j7m0w7x wrote

Note that answers to this question will heavily depend on your medical history. If you've had any heart related issues then going off of pure Max HR percentages will not be advisable. The general goal is you want to sustain a high heart rate temporarily.

With that said, assuming everything is normal with your heart, just try to do intervals that get your heart into 80-90% of your max for a few minutes at a time. A simple one is go to a track and sprint full speed for 1 lap and then walk a lap. Repeat until you hit 3 miles. That'll give you the interval feeling that you want to go for. Search online for other interval formats


onFilm t1_j7l9djn wrote

Could range from anything from injury, health and age, to diet, lifestyle, generics, environment. Even if you're not increasing your times you might still be increasing your general fitness, diet, lifestyle, etc, by keeping to running.


Iseepuppies t1_j7jhikd wrote

That’s actually really good for a 60 year old lol. My best mile was while playing semi pro football and it was 5:45 (not that I worked on long distance training much but cardio is cardio) I don’t even know if I could do a 7.5min now at 29. I’m also all broken and shit from work.


Peakswashere t1_j7jr8wh wrote

Guy was a stud lol. Most 30 year olds these days couldn’t do that.


OSUfan88 t1_j7m31ee wrote

He was a damn impressive mountain biker as well.


aviddemon t1_j7jn3ci wrote

Shit I am 27 and having a difficult time getting a mile time under 10 minutes


Carbot1337 t1_j7mpq9c wrote

I'm 39 and this makes me feel better about my 9 minute times lol


sik0fewl t1_j7itglo wrote

I could've sworn we wore longer shorts in 2001.


Tato7069 t1_j7iw8et wrote

That was actually the exact day everything changed


MSTmatt t1_j7iv6vj wrote

Nah, pre-9/11 was still the 90s


myfuntimes t1_j7ivt4a wrote

The 90s were totally known for long shorts. Aka, the Fab 5 and Michael Jordan. The 80s were short shorts on men.


ascii42 t1_j7iwtzt wrote

Unless you're John Stockton.


itsallsmart t1_j7l9bkb wrote

Yeah, but he was the butt of many jokes because of it. On the playground court we'd pull our shorts way up and yell Stockton like you might yell Kobe


Knyfe-Wrench t1_j7ixxj8 wrote

The Fab 5 and Michael Jordan were what started making them popular. It would take years to catch on and become the norm.


myfuntimes t1_j7iysee wrote

Depending on age. I can accept I wore longer shorts whereas Bush and the older generation would dare wear short shorts.


norapeformethankyou t1_j7j78tc wrote

I still don't feel comfortable wearing shorts above the knee. Just doesn't feel right.


[deleted] t1_j7l3k8q wrote

I distinctly remember everyone telling me in the late 90s that it wasn't the real 90s any more.


BillyShears2015 t1_j7j3clb wrote

We did, we just made fun of “old dudes” who still wore shorts like that. Now, those shorts are back in style and we’re the old dudes because our shorts are all long and lame. The wheel of karma never stops turning


NickNash1985 t1_j7n0fyk wrote

“These kids look like IDIOTS,” I say, staring out the window of my mom’s house wearing a fresh set of JNCOs, an Atari t-shirt from Gadzooks, and a ball chain necklace. It had been raining earlier and my Jinks are soaked up to my nuts area.


dbbost t1_j7iwd5v wrote

Yeah maybe but 60 year old men didn't


redditseddit4u t1_j7jdxz7 wrote

I’d guess the 3 guys following Bush are all ex-military and were used to wearing short shorts


Sackyhack t1_j7j0mzh wrote

Running shorts have always been that long


OrgeGeorwell t1_j7j4nq8 wrote



sik0fewl t1_j7kei3q wrote

Thanks. I knew something was off when swore/wore were rhyming, but I couldn't put my finger on it!


MindSecurity t1_j7j6xso wrote

Bush looking like a fucking young, fit buffalo after our current and last POTUS.


[deleted] t1_j7jrba9 wrote



[deleted] t1_j7lb6gt wrote

All US presidents seem to be, well... apart from some obvious exceptions.

I always thought it was part of the job, that you just kinda had to accept that some good looking coach would be assigned to keeping you as fit and healthy as possible but apparently not in all cases.


Ccaves0127 t1_j7ne0i8 wrote

He was literally doing marathons while President


Peakswashere t1_j7nfl5l wrote

That’s awesome. Hope to be in that good of shape when I’m in my 50s


fallenmonk t1_j7ml1bd wrote

I mean, current POTUS is in good shape, he's just old.


TheGillos t1_j7j349w wrote

I'm sure that will be the most eventful thing to happen that day.


MaxRebo120 t1_j7jnd4u wrote

Not even close…he would read a truly nail-baiting story of a pet goat later that day.


Grumplogic t1_j7npbb9 wrote

I was thinking yesterday about how you never hear about Presidents reading books to children after that. Such a bizarre dictomy, the image of innocence of Bush holding that children's book in a classroom and the horror that was happening in New York.


rbrutonIII t1_j7jgltg wrote

Regardless how you feel about him, I think most people would agree he would be a great person to have a dinner with.

He seems like the type of person that even if you disagree you can have an amicable productive conversation, and maybe even crack a joke or two in between. Hard to find these days.


[deleted] t1_j7n7srm wrote



rbrutonIII t1_j7n8ss0 wrote

And you wouldn't want to ask his perspective? What he knew and didn't know? You wouldn't want to give ANY effort into understanding him and what happened, but would rather sit back and judge?

Then why the fuck should anyone try to understand or give credit to you? Attitudes and people like this are the reason we don't have intelligent discourse and any sort of common ground anymore


[deleted] t1_j7nmi74 wrote



rbrutonIII t1_j7nvm3h wrote

Exactly my thoughts. He's a guy I can honestly see saying I didn't do that as well as I should have. Not everyone ruined my plan, nothing was my fault blah blah blah.... He'd give an honest explanation of what he knew and what he did because of it, and how he sees it now. The value of something like that first hand cannot be understated.

And then you can also watch him giggle as he tells how he would yell duck when Cheney entered the room, or like how the Japanese secret service had to show them how to work the fancy bidet (just made that one up, but there's got to be tons of stories just like it)


tittysprinkles112 t1_j7k2r7g wrote

I don't think so. That man is a war criminal.


ROLOTONYBROWNTOWN785 t1_j7kvmeg wrote

Seriously fuck bush. His PR team should win a Nobel prize for how people view him as likeable now. Him and his entire administration of fucking war criminals.


rbrutonIII t1_j7n9o6t wrote

Well he is a likable guy. But being a likable guy, or what I'd call affable, is mutually exclusive from any sort of criminal activity he's accused of.

And it doesn't matter if YOU like him or not. It's very evident. Look at the interactions he has with people versus the past president. He is very easy to talk to and "get along with". Part of the reason why he became president most likely.

People who can't differentiate a person's actions from their personalities are a huge problem in this world. Nice people can do bad things, and people who do bad things can be extremely nice. And in the same way, people who do bad things can also do good things. People are not entirely black and white.


[deleted] t1_j7nfp6q wrote



rbrutonIII t1_j7nfy1s wrote

If you look closely, you'll see this little word in the front of my sentence called "part". Do you seriously think people don't know his father was a president and he would be very very involved in politics?

What that means is if he was a massive asshole that nobody liked, even with those connections he wouldn't have gone far. See how that makes sense?

And wtf? Just like trump did? Do you think trump's dad was president and involved in politics like the bush family? Wtf are you smoking? Part of his campaign was this whole not a politician going to come in there and run it like a businessman type of thing


[deleted] t1_j7nhf2p wrote



timk85 t1_j7pj0hs wrote

It's funny you think it's a "PR Team" that has contributed to it.

Ah, what a magical worldview you must have.


Brad_Wesley t1_j7kr64t wrote

Does his being a war criminal mean that you couldn't have an amicable and productive conversation and maybe even crack a joke or two in between?


Valyrian_Kobolds t1_j7lpuxv wrote

Why the fuck would a decent person want to be UwU buddy buddy with a war criminal?


Brad_Wesley t1_j7lrsfr wrote

The question wasn’t whether or not someone would want to be buddies with a war criminal.


rbrutonIII t1_j7nap73 wrote

This is so irritating for me. It's like people don't want to admit the world is not completely black and white and they should put some sort of effort into their opinion.

If you ask these people, do you think if someone commits a crime worthy of prison you should just throw them in prison for the rest of their life? You get a resounding "NO!". But then they go and try and hold someone else's actions over them for their entire life.

And then regardless of how you feel about the person, the opportunity to have a dinner with a president? That's an opportunity very very few people have and a source of information that cannot be replicated or compared. Even if you spend the whole dinner beating the person up for what they did, to that person I would think it would be worth it? Too many people just see a word and name and trigger out a response without any semblance of thought or rationality.


Gary_Vigoda t1_j7jvufa wrote

Bush's Dad and their buddies in the military industrial complex hijacked the US in the 80s/90s by teaming up with the major media conglomerates to take over independent media, wipe out the journalism industry, and keep young people from protesting their endless wars.

The reason Americans got FOX News is because these guys deregulated the media, allowing it to be monopolized which is why Disney, Warner, Viacom, etc own everything now.


ilikemrrogers t1_j7kf6jw wrote

Clinton was actually the one to deregulate all of that in the Telecommunications Act of 1996. I was in broadcasting at the time, and when he signed it into law, TV culture changed almost immediately.

I no longer needed an FCC license to do my job. Saturday morning cartoons went away. Well… the good “classic” ones anyway. iHeart Media (clear channel at the time) immediately started taking over.


AbeLincoln30 t1_j7l23qp wrote

he deregulated Wall Street, too... gutted Glass Steagall... 10 years later, financial meltdown


Kant-Touch-This t1_j7n81u8 wrote

Worth noting that this was a law, passed by a turbo Republican congress. Though you’re right that the WH had a significant hand in it though the Clinton/Gore aim seemed more focused on open internet. Worth checking out his signing statement. I love the bits about an “information superhighway”. I also love how oldsters who worked in that industry all insist they worked in “high technology” 😝


ilikemrrogers t1_j7n8v4y wrote

You’re absolutely right. It was a Republican Congress and a Dem President.

One of my biggest (well, THE biggest) criticisms I had of Hillary during her run was that she never said, “we championed a lot of causes that ended up turning out poorly. I learned from those mistakes.” She stood by almost everything they did (and yes, they did it. She was as much the person behind the curtain as Dick Chaney was to Bush.).

My lifelong career was going to be broadcasting until that changed it all. Much of the magic left. Now, you don’t even need a studio to have a local station anymore. Put up a transmitter and a receiver, link it to an automated radio piece of software in LA, and boom. You have radio stations everywhere spouting what you want people to hear.


buzzzzz1 t1_j7kiarb wrote

Good. Without a doubt, Fox News is right wing and a lot of times over the top. Without Fox News, every other TV news outlet would be left leaning.


ELE712 t1_j7j3qmu wrote

Only facts, no opinions.


teddyespo t1_j7j6znm wrote

so like factual facts or alternative facts?


LordRekrus t1_j7jka05 wrote

Makes him sound actual smart.


emperorOfTheUniverse t1_j7loot6 wrote

He was smart. Everyone just liked to portray him as an idiot, because of how he talked and that they disagreed with his policies.

Edit: You'll be hard pressed to find any POTUS that there isn't almost if not more than half the country decrying as an 'idiot'. Everyone is smart from their armchair. But the fact is nobody gets into that chair without tremendous effort and poise to begin with, and then once they do get there the hard work starts. Presidents aren't dumb.


squ1bs t1_j7lrlrb wrote

Almost every single piece of footage I have observed of the man suggests to me that he is of well below the intelligence required to hold office. His dad, on the other hand, was sharp as a tack, and a dangerous man.

I believe he was a puppet, as was Obama, Trump and as is Biden now - controlled by the military and CIA. The office of president has been as meaningful as the Office of King/Queen of the UK since somewhere between LBJ and Nixon. The power no longer resides with the president - they merely lobby for favor. It diminishes with each new election.

Let the downvotes commence.


emperorOfTheUniverse t1_j7lyj82 wrote

And deservedly so. It's a ridiculous hot take anchored in paranoia, conjecture, and unfounded conspiracy.


NickNash1985 t1_j7n0xrr wrote

I love how you bounce around various conspiracies like it’s common knowledge when it’s a perfectly simple task to just point out that W. was a war criminal.

You don’t have to make things up to make him look bad.


Mrsparkles7100 t1_j7jhtvp wrote

All that training helped him to build up his quick cat like reflexes.

man throws shoes at President Bush.

Then the less hyped sequel.

Iraqi who there shoe at Bush, has shoe thrown at him during press conference.


HaikuBotStalksMe t1_j7jo83m wrote

I like how the news at the time was like "having a shoe thrown at someone is a sign of disrespect in Iraq".


HerpToxic t1_j7kz7oj wrote

god I remember when Bush was considered to be the stupidest President to ever exist


OSUfan88 t1_j7m40zn wrote

Which was originally really not true. He's always been quite intelligent.


animeyescrazyno t1_j7khboq wrote

George W. Bush is 76 years old now. He was president more than 20 years ago now. There are have been 3 presidents since he left office now.



fuk_ur_mum_m8 t1_j7lxp57 wrote

And he's still four years younger than the current president.


Helstar_RS t1_j7jk9wz wrote

Terrorism bad. Now watch this jog.


Techguyeric1 t1_j7jlah3 wrote

Fuck who would have thought 20 years later we wish we had a president like Bish the lesser after the shit show we have had the past 6 years


Deep-Thought t1_j7m03g9 wrote

Seriously? You'd rather have a fucking war criminal? How did you fools forget our economy very nearly collapsing completely in 2008, being lied into a war against Iraq, the ineptly run invasion of Afghanistan, Abu Ghraib, Gitmo, CIA black sites, Katrina, the Patriot Act, Valerie Plame, the Harriet Miers nomination, the dirty campaigning against McCain and Kerry, his tax cuts for the wealthy, etc...


CUM_AT_ME_BRAH t1_j7m2uox wrote

He didn’t forget. He was 4 years old at the time. He never had the opportunity to remember.


Techguyeric1 t1_j7mpv7r wrote

Obama was a better president, he just couldn't get anything done.

He's a billion times better than Sweet potato Hitler, and Biden wasn't the best person, but he was better than Sweet potato Hitler.

I'd rather have had Gore as president, but comparing bush the lesser with 45 and Biden, he was objectively a better president. Which really isn't saying much.


Deep-Thought t1_j7msg8k wrote

What's so bad about Biden, that a war criminal was apparently better?


Techguyeric1 t1_j7n3f4t wrote

Nothing really bad, but he should have been better he had the house and a slim majority in the Senate and has done close to Jack shit


Deep-Thought t1_j7nnjcq wrote

And yet you think GWB, the war criminal, was better? Wtf?


ApexHawke t1_j7jnmuw wrote


And later that day, that man would go on to orchestrate AIDS.


flexibleservicemain t1_j7jr1ho wrote

It's crazy how different the image quality is even though 2001 doesn't seem that long ago. 4:3 analog video of the president. Nowadays it's almost impossible to find that same footage in SD.


audiofx330 t1_j7k8s3w wrote

He knows him and his buddies are about to make billions!


Fiyanggu t1_j7jkwnx wrote

I wonder if he still pounds the pavement every morning. I remember they made a big deal of his jogging every day when he was in office. I don't recall Obama doing much jogging, but Clinton also did a lot of jogging while in office.


ilikemrrogers t1_j7kfob0 wrote

The joke was Clinton would jog every morning… to McDonalds.


IIdsandsII t1_j7kq5az wrote

earned that shit.

once a week i'll do like a 10 miler and that's my preferred after run meal.


timk85 t1_j7pj3kd wrote



Netflixisadeathpit t1_j7k07j7 wrote

A war criminal who, in a just world, would have been neuremberg'd


Speedracer666 t1_j7mn3xn wrote

What a fuck all day that turned out to be.


livelyfellow t1_j7la69p wrote

Do not humanize this man.

He was warned numerous times about an impending attack and did nothing. Then used the attack and subsequent war for political gain.

He is absolutely NOT someone I wanna sit down and have a beer with knowing he could have done something and chose instead to twiddle his thumbs

Edit: the fact that you would downvote this comment shows how little you care for the lives lost on 9/11 as well those lost to a war that we have seen first hand was an utter waste of time and resources. That George W Bush gets to bumble along while people say "what a silly old man, he seems like a chill guy" is insane to me


Futuramafryday t1_j7jmiag wrote

Terrible president, warhawk who should've lost to Gore in Florida (and probably 5 other states), probably the worst since Reagan, but I have to admit he's one of two living presidents I want to grab a beer with, the other being Carter. Nothing really against Obama but he's on much different level of intellect than me that he'd probably think I was a jackass. But Carter and Bush just have that quality where you could sit at the bar and shoot the shit. I agree with very little Bush did in office, but I'd be down to talk 1946-2000 and 2009-2023.


SparrowBirch t1_j7jncp3 wrote

I think Clinton could tell you a few good stories too.


Futuramafryday t1_j7jopnx wrote

Oh no doubt about him having some good stories, considering again, he's probably on that list too, just a bit of a far 3rd. I feel like Carter would be fun to talk about the universe and in his late 90s could articulate on existential questions, just someone you can drown a few beers with and come out thinking a bit differently about life. Bush is the opposite, drown more than a few beers with and come out exactly the same with some wild stories. Clinton is probably a good middle ground, some beers, some thoughtful discussion, and some wild stories.


AbeLincoln30 t1_j7l2vul wrote

kinda hard to grab a beer with a guy who had to quit drinking


AceBlade258 t1_j7jgrhw wrote

lol, TIL I'm a 9/11 conspiracy theorist: something about "We can talk about it af-... at the next event." makes me all 'Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm...' But like, it was Dubyuh.

Edit to be clear: I remain on the same 90% confidence that 9/11 was genuine act of "terror".


HuudaHarkiten t1_j7l5p6m wrote

Probably was thinking about jumping into a shower or something and was about say "we can talk about it after I've changed clothes" or something, then realised that he has other shit to do and then changed it to basically "next time I see you guys"