First scholars' ranking rates Donald Trump as worst president ever
165 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Amber902;53144218]If we were to only judge past presidents by the standards of their time then we would have no bad presidents. Thats a really asinine line of reasoning.[/QUOTE]
I don't think so. You can observe how their actions impacted the nation in the long run as a criteria. Thomas Jefferson was a slave owner, and Abraham Lincoln didn't think black people should have equal rights to white people. We don't hold these people to the same standards as you would today. You can take it into perspective with society at the time and still reconcile it with their overall impact on the country via othr avenues.
Was Japanese internment an awful blemish on our nation's history? Absolutely. Was this a widely popular move that had the overwhelming support of the public? Unfortunately, yes. As poorly as this reflects on our society at the time, this should at least be taken into consideration. Otherwise, it makes no sense to compare presidents from wildly different time periods. The situations our nation was in and the relevant issues at their respective times make it impossible to compare presidents by a single standard.
[QUOTE=Lambeth;53144265]I'll have you know alexander of macedonia was objectively pretty great.[/QUOTE]
for the leader of a roving band of murderous thieving rapists, yeah I guess so
[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;53144272]for the leader of a roving band of murderous thieving rapists, yeah I guess so[/QUOTE]
That was a dumb historical joke but I guess tone doesn't really carry over in text.
[QUOTE=Lambeth;53144265]I'll have you know alexander of macedonia was objectively pretty great.[/QUOTE]
And so humble too! Not even the majority of the cities he conquered were renamed Alexandria!
[QUOTE=Bob The Knob;53143764]Interesting bonus question
[t]https://i.imgur.com/cPm8FDT.png[/t][/QUOTE]
its quite telling of our politics that reagan is the arch conservative for the right, and obama is rapidly becoming the arch democrat on the left, they stand pretty apart on a lot of issues that people pay attention to and lock step together on a lot of issues that voters really don't care about.
like if people were more informed they might not be so anti democrat or anti obama
also funny eisenhower is a runner up considering he was perhaps our most reluctant president in modern times and hated the party he represented
why the fuck was andrew jackson in the top 10 at all is my question
[QUOTE=TheHydra;53144391]why the fuck was andrew jackson in the top 10 at all is my question[/QUOTE]
He beat up his supposed assassin after both the guy's guns jammed, that's at least 10th place material right there for rough n' tuff American pride :v:
Worth pointing out that there were only 170 responses and only about a quarter of those voted Republican, with only about 17% identifying themselves as ideologically conservative or very conservative. Might explain why the Republican rankings in particular seem a bit odd.
Also holy [B]shit [/B]people love Obama.
[QUOTE=TheHydra;53144391]why the fuck was andrew jackson in the top 10 at all is my question[/QUOTE]
The natives he ordered the genocide of aren't around to challenge his placement.
[QUOTE=Amber902;53144218]If we were to only judge past presidents by the standards of their time then we would have no bad presidents. Thats a really asinine line of reasoning.[/QUOTE]
You can still base part of the judgement on the contemporaries of presidents.
The Supreme Court strongly objected to Jackson’s removal of Native Americans
J. Edgar Hoover of all people felt that interning the Japanese was going too far.
There were Founding Fathers who supported Anti-Slavery like Ben Franklin.
It’s not black and white in most cases.
[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;53143799]Ew, no. That bastard shouldn't get any honors for how he treated his own citizens. The fact that we glorify that wheelchair bound tyrant is honestly upsetting and I would rather we treat FDR as the shithead he was. Fuck’im[/QUOTE]
Was it right that he signed that order? No. Nobody with a level mind would say it was. But to say such horrible things about the only president in American history to win *two* re-election bids? The one who pulled us out of the single worst economic crash in modern history? The one that pulled us through the worst conflict in modern history so well that we came out of it a fucking superpower [B]practically overnight[/B] while literally every other player in the game had fuck all economy left over? The one that pretty much destroyed a lot of predatory practices companies did towards their workers, advanced social nets 50 years in 5, and pretty much set us on track for a golden age?
He did great things and, in the eyes of everyone who puts him on a pedestal, that atones for his sins. I'd honestly say his accomplishments deserve to put him right at the top and the only reason he's not at the top was that executive order.
He's by far the best president we've had in the 20th century.
[QUOTE=DeadWar;53144091]Shame Eisenhower isn't higher up the list, good man that.[/QUOTE]
You know besides the forced mass deportation of over a million undocumented immigrants (Including some Mexican-American citizens based solely on their ethnicity) that resulted in the deaths of thousands and the general destroying of people's lives and families.
[QUOTE=Amber902;53144218]If we were to only judge past presidents by the standards of their time then we would have no bad presidents. Thats a really asinine line of reasoning.[/QUOTE]
Except this isn't even remotely true. A significant portion of the presidents were considerably terrible even for their time. Do you know nothing of the pre-civil war era?
[editline]19th February 2018[/editline]
James Buchanan, Millard Fillmore, Zachary Taylor, John Tyler, and my personal favorite in terrible presidents Franklin Pierce, are all examples of presidents who were largely detrimental to the country and were recognized as terrible even in their own day. And these are just the pre-civil war presidents.
[editline]19th February 2018[/editline]
Reminder that Pierce was a drunken buffoon who had a childish fit in the middle of a congressional session and tried to fight a senator, after which the entirety of congress threatened to impeach and jail him if he didn't do what they said, and so he became their puppet for the remainder of his presidency.
Oh, yeah, he also layed the groundwork for Bleeding Kansas.
[QUOTE=Raidyr;53144445]Worth pointing out that there were only 170 responses and only about a quarter of those voted Republican, with only about 17% identifying themselves as ideologically conservative or very conservative. Might explain why the Republican rankings in particular seem a bit odd.
Also holy [B]shit [/B]people love Obama.[/QUOTE]
Most likely, people just can't help but draw comparisons between Obama and Trump. While I think Obama was quite a competent and charismatic leader, and would likely rank him as a "Top 5" president, he was hardly flawless. Next to Trump, however, Obama looks like a fabled savior. I just miss the days when my biggest criticisms of the president were strictly political.
[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;53144057]What does this have to do with anything that I’ve said, other than prove my point that Americans would like to whitewash some of the worst treatment of its own citizens that was essentially ignored for nearly half a century.[/QUOTE]
Because arguing instead of debating/discussing and throwing around personal insults makes you look really bad, makes people jaded to your statements, and will never, ever convince anybody to change their opinion.
[editline]s[/editline]
Evidently I am late to this particular party, my bad.
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;53144677]Most likely, people just can't help but draw comparisons between Obama and Trump. While I think Obama was quite a competent and charismatic leader, and would likely rank him as a "Top 5" president, he was hardly flawless. Next to Trump, however, Obama looks like a fabled savior. I just miss the days when my biggest criticisms of the president were strictly political.[/QUOTE]
A lot of Trump supporters like to think he is taking down Obama's legacy but I think the history books will view him far more favorably than he probably would have otherwise been due in large part to the contrast between him and Trump.
[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;53143982]Tell that to survivors of the internment camps. Say that he was good with a straight face[/QUOTE]
Does that make Lincolns actions any better?
The prison camps run by the Union were absolute shit holes and then there was the sanctioning of burning entire cities to the ground with Sherman's March.
[QUOTE=ForgottenKane;53144564]Except this isn't even remotely true. A significant portion of the presidents were considerably terrible even for their time. Do you know nothing of the pre-civil war era?
[editline]19th February 2018[/editline]
James Buchanan, Millard Fillmore, Zachary Taylor, John Tyler, and my personal favorite in terrible presidents Franklin Pierce, are all examples of presidents who were largely detrimental to the country and were recognized as terrible even in their own day. And these are just the pre-civil war presidents.
[editline]19th February 2018[/editline]
Reminder that Pierce was a drunken buffoon who had a childish fit in the middle of a congressional session and tried to fight a senator, after which the entirety of congress threatened to impeach and jail him if he didn't do what they said, and so he became their puppet for the remainder of his presidency.
Oh, yeah, he also layed the groundwork for Bleeding Kansas.[/QUOTE]
This made me look at Pierce's wikipedia page and while he was president a southern representative fucking [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caning_of_Charles_Sumner"]beat[/URL] a northern senator nearly to death with a cane, Jesus we think the divide is bad now. Thankfully shit like that probably won't happen again with the advent of the internet and fast news reporting.
[QUOTE=Bob The Knob;53143764]Interesting bonus question
[t]https://i.imgur.com/cPm8FDT.png[/t][/QUOTE]
id rather JFK than FDR
[QUOTE=TheBorealis;53144759]This made me look at Pierce's wikipedia page and while he was president a southern representative fucking [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caning_of_Charles_Sumner"]beat[/URL] a northern senator nearly to death with a cane, Jesus we think the divide is bad now. Thankfully shit like that probably won't happen again with the advent of the internet and fast news reporting.[/QUOTE]
Shit, that means it could happen and one side would support it.
As for Obama, I would rank him a bit lower (still on top 10) due to not doing enough to help this country and for expanding on drone usage (along with other problems). There was a Democrat supermajority and he wasted his time with getting support from the Republicans. Yes, he was a nice President, but he was too nice to them. I would say 8th would be Clinton due to what he did for this country, then 9th would be Obama.
I have zero doubt that Trump is gonna go down in history as one of the worst presidents of all time, but calling him [I]the[/I] worst strikes me as a bit of a ridiculous exaggeration, especially this early on in his term.
What really chaps my ass about this is that it's putting Obama on an absurd pedestal, way beyond anything he's actually earned. Personally, I think his presidency was pretty mediocre, with a whole lot more feel-good speeches and platitudes than any significant positive change; but because Trump is so utterly cartoonishly incompetent, it just feeds even more into the cultural ideal of Obama as some sort of socialist messiah.
I don't think Obama would make my top 10.
#1. Washington (or Lincoln. Hard to go wrong either way)
#2. Lincoln
#3. Jefferson
#4. Teddy Roosevelt
#5. FDR
#6. Truman (Probably the most controversial one because of the atomic bombs, but he did a lot for civil rights and really established the US as a superpower after WWII)
#7. JFK
#8. Eisenhower
#9. LBJ (Aside from continuing the Vietnam war he was a great president, even if he was a complete asshole.)
#10. James Monroe
beyond that there's still several less popular presidents that are probably ahead of him, but I just couldn't tell you enough about them to say for sure.
[QUOTE=TWKUK;53145254]I have zero doubt that Trump is gonna go down in history as one of the worst presidents of all time, but calling him [I]the[/I] worst strikes me as a bit of a ridiculous exaggeration, especially this early on in his term.
What really chaps my ass about this is that it's putting Obama on an absurd pedestal, way beyond anything he's actually earned. Personally, I think his presidency was pretty mediocre, with a whole lot more feel-good speeches and platitudes than any significant positive change; but because Trump is so utterly cartoonishly incompetent, it just feeds even more into the cultural ideal of Obama as some sort of socialist messiah.[/QUOTE]
For people to consider him a "Socialist messiah" would also require them to misunderstand how the ACA works. Sure, it makes healthcare more affordable by forcing insurance companies to take care of many more people, but the issue with it is that it involves insurance companies at all. The bill is basically what Romneycare would've been, with an equal amount of conservative influence, with a touch of liberalism that makes it not complete garbage (insurance companies forced to include those with preexisting conditions).
So yes, mediocre, basically.
I think Obama is probably overpraised because of partisanship. Especially now that it serves to denigrate Trump. Hell, the man got a nobel peace prize for promises and then ironically spent every day of his presidency bombing someone. Even as a kid I knew that his nobel prize is utterly ridiculous and getting such a prize for "hope" and "change" or whatever he promised (not actually doing anything yet) shows the insanity of the hype he has.
Then people say he was a no scandal president, but what about the IRS scandal, for example, where they refused to give tax exempt status for various conservative groups and sometimes requested lists of members. Considering Obama won by 3% in 2012, I wonder what could have been. Supposedly not collusion with a foreign power, but just corruption undermining your republic from the inside doesn't seem like nothing to me.
[QUOTE=yourself96;53144140]As for Obama, he really can be characterized by mediocrity (as someone pointed out earlier), but from what I can discern from people on both sides of the aisle is that he didn't do anything outstanding. Personally, I believe that is for the best in terms of race relations for the presidency. If he had done anything to create massive animosty, his race could've been used as a tool against any later person who would try to become president, only to be hampered by a predecessor pushing the envelope a bit too hard. ACA is prolly the only big thing i can think off the top of my head he will be remembered for 100% of the time in future history books other than "first president that happened to be black".
Clinton did well though, even if his legacy will be marred by the scandal that cost him his presidential powers near the end. Both Bushes I think belong a bit higher, but not too much more really.[/QUOTE]
I don't think him crying before cameras or going that could have been my son every time a cop shot someone black helped race relations. I think acts like that just serve to erode trust in the police among black communities, which creates further disorder and subsequently the race obsessions we see today were intensified (of course racial issues have to intensify before elections too).
the ordering of the Trump & Obama presidencies is legitimately going to confuse american schoolkids in the future
that america seemed to take a great step forwards with electing a black president, only to elect a massive racist caricature of a self-interested businessman immediately afterwards, in defiance of all normal trends towards liberalism in the world
Lincoln easily deserves the top spot.
What the hell did Washington even do, other than being a Founding Father and lead the Continental Army?
He extinguished the Whiskey Rebellion that occurred due to a new tax law and at the end of his presidency said out loud "Hey, guys, I don't think these political party identities is going to work out, so can you stop that?". Oh, and he signed a few laws that any infant nation would pass at the start.
He was influential but far from the likes of Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, FDR, Truman, LBJ, etc.
[QUOTE=LtKyle2;53145924]Lincoln easily deserves the top spot.
What the hell did Washington even do, other than being a Founding Father and lead the Continental Army?
He extinguished the Whiskey Rebellion that occurred due to a new tax law and at the end of his presidency said out loud "Hey, guys, I don't think these political party identities is going to work out, so can you stop that?". Oh, and he signed a few laws that any infant nation would pass at the start.
He was influential but far from the likes of Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, FDR, Truman, LBJ, etc.[/QUOTE]
I mean he literally set precedent for procedures/roles of the president we take for granted today, that at the time, nobody really knew if the president should be doing.
Not to mention that leading that infant nation was extremely radical territory that didn't have a play-by-play book like previous Monarchies had.
I get what you are saying in that maybe not the top spot, but Washington easily gets somewhere in the top bracket with how easy someone could have messed up the whole experiment that was Continental America.
[QUOTE=LtKyle2;53145924]Lincoln easily deserves the top spot.
What the hell did Washington even do, other than being a Founding Father and lead the Continental Army?
He extinguished the Whiskey Rebellion that occurred due to a new tax law and at the end of his presidency said out loud "Hey, guys, I don't think these political party identities is going to work out, so can you stop that?". Oh, and he signed a few laws that any infant nation would pass at the start.
He was influential but far from the likes of Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, FDR, Truman, LBJ, etc.[/QUOTE]
He set the precedent for how a President should be. He voluntarily left the Presidency -- [i]gave up his power[/i] -- to allow others to step up. Washington wouldn't have lost an election, and he knew it. He chose to give up his power, and at the time, that was [i]revolutionary.[/i] It literally set the stage.
[QUOTE=Trebgarta;53146281]I wonder what makes Wilson one of the best US presidents. His foreign policy was absurd, he introduced segregation to the North, Espionage and Sedition Acts were passed in his time. I guess his economic policies were good?[/QUOTE]
He was the guy behind the federal income tax and the Federal Reserve, guess opinions on those will decide what you think of his presidency (barring the gross racist shit and the other things you mentioned)
Also he won because Theodore Roosevelt was disillusioned with the republicans and formed his own progressive party, which split the vote and enabled one of the few democrat presidents to win during the republican hold of federal politics from after the Civil War until the 20s, I think the election and/or Wilson's presidency started the process of the parties no longer having progressive and conservative factions but each being based around one ideology or the other.
[QUOTE=geel9;53146235]He set the precedent for how a President should be. He voluntarily left the Presidency -- [i]gave up his power[/i] -- to allow others to step up. Washington wouldn't have lost an election, and he knew it. He chose to give up his power, and at the time, that was [i]revolutionary.[/i] It literally set the stage.[/QUOTE]
You make a very good point there on giving up his power and the precendents he set.
All of which may be tested very soon ironically.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.