Support NeoGAF

[Michael F. Assbender]

Watch america's untold history documentary

Watch the Loose Change documentary. It exposes George W. Bush as a criminal mastermind unlike anything the world has ever seen.

 

[Riposte]

Dropping the bombs were necessary to win the war.

Half true.

 

[Michael F. Assbender]

Why? He was a racist piece of shit that got us involved in WWI for no reason and then failed to even get his own League of Nations through Congress.

Read the post from the person he was responding to.

 

[Back-In-Black]

Watch the Loose Change documentary. It exposes George W. Bush as a criminal mastermind unlike anything the world has ever seen.

LOL, true.

Half true.

What's the other half? Unless you're saying it wasn't "necessary" just more effective as opposed to wasting possibly hundreds of thousands of American lives on an invasion of Japan.

Read the post from the person he was responding to.

Except, I don't buy any of that because the League of Nations failed and Teddy Roosevelt existed at the same time. Who was, you know, not the massive piece of shit that Wilson was.

 

[AuthenticM]

Lower than Ronald Reagan? Get the fuck out of here.

 

[Michael F. Assbender]

Lower than Ronald Reagan? Get the fuck out of here.

Reagan screamed at Gorbachev's stupid purple forehead to tear down the wall. And when he refused, Reagan just punched it until it fell.

Except, I don't buy any of that because the League of Nations failed and Teddy Roosevelt existed at the same time. Who was, you know, not the massive piece of shit that Wilson was.

I agree Wilson probably wasn't the nicest person, but I also agree with the person who said you have to view these people thru the prism of their time. Otherwise, slave-owning Washington is rated way too high. As is pretty much every pre-20th century man on that list.

And yes, the LoN failed. But it set the table for the success (as it were) of the UN. So there's that.

 

[astroturfing]

as an ignorant non-American asking, would he be higher if the Republicans weren't such 100% obstructionists trying to block everything Obama tried to do? didn't they essentially try to sabotage his presidency from day 1, to make sure he wasn't considered a good president at the end, even if it came at a great cost to the nation?

from an outsider's perspective Obama was pretty good (and fucking AMAZING compared what you have now lol), he seemed like he was really pro-science and listened to factual advice, was super respectful of allies, wanted to protect the environment, obviously for equal rights for everyone... i would preferred another 8 years of him to be honest, even with the obstructionism.

those drone killing campaigns though.. hundreds of innocent women and children blown to bits from invisible weapons from the sky. but even that would have probably been 20 times worse with any Republican president. oh god.. i don't even want to think of all the shit an inhuman monster like Trump is authorizing... ugh probably mass torture going on right now in secret black sites...

 

[Michael F. Assbender]

as an ignorant non-American asking, would he be higher if the Republicans weren't such 100% obstructionists trying to block everything Obama tried to do? didn't they essentially try to sabotage his presidency from day 1, to make sure he wasn't considered a good president at the end, even if it came at a great cost to the nation?

from an outsider's perspective Obama was pretty good (and fucking AMAZING compared what you have now lol), he seemed like he was really pro-science and listened to factual advice, was super respectful of allies, wanted to protect the environment, obviously for equal rights for everyone... i would preferred another 8 years of him to be honest, even with the obstructionism.

those drone killing campaigns though.. hundreds of innocent women and children blown to bits from invisible weapons from the sky. but even that would have probably been 20 times worse with any Republican president. oh god.. i don't even want to think of all the shit an inhuman monster like Trump is authorizing... ugh probably mass torture going on right now in secret black sites...

Most likely he would be ranked higher if not for obstruction from Congress. A lot of his lower marks came from a failure to work with congressional Republicans, but it's incredibly difficult to work with someone who won't give you the time of day.

 

[VivaciousSoul]

Reagan vs Obama

Public Persuasion (Reagan +13)
Reagan Score: 90.9
Reagan Rank: 5
Obama Score: 77.9
Obama Rank: 10

Crisis Leadership (Reagan +8.7)
Reagan Score: 74.1
Reagan Rank: 8
Obama Score: 65.4
Obama Rank: 15

Economic Management (Obama +8.7)
Reagan Score: 60.9
Reagan Rank: 16
Obama Score: 69.6
Obama Rank: 8

Moral Authority (Obama +8.7)
Reagan Score: 68.8
Reagan Rank: 13
Obama Score: 77.5
Obama Rank: 7

International Relations (Reagan +21.7)
Reagan Score: 76.8
Reagan Rank: 9
Obama Score: 55.1
Obama Rank: 24

Administrative Skills (Obama +13.9)
Reagan Score: 47.4
Reagan Rank: 33
Obama Score: 61.3
Obama Rank: 19

Relations with Congress (Reagan +31.1)
Reagan Score: 68.9
Reagan Rank: 8
Obama Score: 37.8
Obama Rank: 39

Vision/Setting an Agenda (Reagan +11.6)
Reagan Score: 84.9
Reagan Rank: 6
Obama Score: 73.3
Obama Rank: 12

Pursued Equal Justice for All (Obama +38.6)
Reagan Score: 44.6
Reagan Rank: 23
Obama Score: 83.2
Obama Rank: 3

Performance within Context of Times (Reagan +6.6)
Reagan Score: 74.1
Reagan Rank: 8
Obama Score: 67.5
Obama Rank: 15

 

[Back-In-Black]

as an ignorant non-American asking, would he be higher if the Republicans weren't such 100% obstructionists trying to block everything Obama tried to do? didn't they essentially try to sabotage his presidency from day 1, to make sure he wasn't considered a good president at the end, even if it came at a great cost to the nation?

from an outsider's perspective Obama was pretty good (and fucking AMAZING compared what you have now lol), he seemed like he was really pro-science and listened to factual advice, was super respectful of allies, wanted to protect the environment, obviously for equal rights for everyone... i would preferred another 8 years of him to be honest, even with the obstructionism...

It's going to take some time before historians have a better grasp on Obama but even now I don't think it's a stretch to see him being ranked much higher and looked upon much more favorably in the near future. I'll just quote myself from earlier:

People keep saying he's mediocre, likely because he didn't pass enough major bills to his name like "Obamacare." But, you realize an effective Presidency is more than that? Why do you think George Washington and Lincoln are ranked so high? Washington set the precedent for the entire Presidency and Lincoln saved the Republic. Obama kept the country from economic collapse, pulled us out of two foreign wars, killed Osama Bin Laden, all the while passing through the largest overhaul of America's healthcare system since LBJ's Greater Society.

Reagan screamed at Gorbachev's stupid purple forehead to tear down the wall. And when he refused, Reagan just punched it until it fell.

I agree Wilson probably wasn't the nicest person, but I also agree with the person who said you have to view these people thru the prism of their time. Otherwise, slave-owning Washington is rated way too high. As is pretty much every pre-20th century man on that list.

And yes, the LoN failed. But it set the table for the success (as it were) of the UN. So there's that.

Oh I do, it's just that during Wilson's time there were plenty of non-racist or at least much less people around, such as TR. High ranking individuals that advocated for equality, so the whole "he was a man of his time" doesn't fly straight with me. He was a garbage person who had some lofty ideas he couldn't actually execute on. FDR is the true hero, not Wilson.

 

[Slayven]

I think it is too early. But at the same time, I think in 10+ years he will probably be higher. Easy top 10

 

[VendettaRed07]

I disagree with the rankings on some of those but with those metrics the listings make more sense as to why it is the way it is

Like public persuasion. Reagan might even be too low. He sold his crap policy like no one else.

Where Obama was really really bad at that. He never really did well at selling his legislation or plans. He should have come out with some graphs and shit or something.

I also think syria brings Obama down a lot. Can't just overlook how the worst human displacement crisis since World War 2 happened under his watch

 

[Back-In-Black]

I disagree with the rankings on some of those but with those metrics the listings make more sense as to why it is the way it is

Like public persuasion. Reagan might even be too low. He sold his crap policy like no one else.

Where Obama was really really bad at that. He never really did well at selling his legislation or plans. He should have come out with some graphs and shit or something.

I also think syria brings Obama down a lot. Can't just overlook how the worst human displacement crisis since World War 2 happened under his watch

How so? How was that in any way his fault or under his control?

 

[Josh5890]

The guy you quoted was referring to Eisenhower. And I think you are referring to Regan.

I was. Crap I was up too late last night lol

 

[VendettaRed07]

How so? How was that in any way his fault or under his control?

He could have handled the situation differently.

A no fly zone should have been implemented to stop assads sectarian geonocide and barrel bombing.

He also bluffed and it blew up in his face and that hurt our credibility. You can't draw a red line and say "don't cross it or else", and then do nothing when they do.

It was an incredibly difficult situation and there was no easy answer but it's hard to argue on the side of "he made all the right decisions" on this situation. Every other person on that list had something like this happened under them it would absolutely been factored in to their overall rating

 

[jstripes]

I think part of the reason Reagan is remembered so fondly is because the '80s were the last real boom times. (Never mind that the boom was only outwardly visible, and was the result of burning American industry to the ground for Wall Street gains.)

 

[Slayven]

I think part of the reason Reagan is remembered so fondly is because the '80s were the last real boom times. (Never mind that the boom was only outwardly visible, and was the result of burning American industry to the ground for Wall Street gains.)

Thought that was the clinton years?

 

[JABEE]

It's going to take some time before historians have a better grasp on Obama but even now I don't think it's a stretch to see him being ranked much higher and looked upon much more favorably in the near future. I'll just quote myself from earlier:





Oh I do, it's just that during Wilson's time there were plenty of non-racist or at least much less people around, such as TR. High ranking individuals that advocated for equality, so the whole "he was a man of his time" doesn't fly straight with me. He was a garbage person who had some lofty ideas he couldn't actually execute on. FDR is the true hero, not Wilson.

FDR received his first National position as an appointment from Woodrow Wilson. FDR looked up to Woodrow Wilson.

FDR rounded up Japanese-Americans and placed them in camps, a position also supported by Eleanor. FDR also held racist beliefs about miscegenation which may have played into his lack of reluctance to treat Japanese-Americans differently from German or Italian Americans during that time.

Teddy Roosevelt was also a bigot and white supremacist by modern standards.

 

[necrosis]

jfk, polk and reagan are too high

the latter two were fucking monsters

 

[Ragnar Blackmane]

Andrew Jackson on place 18, not even halfway through the list. The guy who pretty much ordered the genocide of native American people. And Truman who decided to nuke two civilian centres despite his entire staff of generals and admirals telling him that it's not needed on 6). And Reagan on 9).

Calling this list bullshit.
Those historians sure had some pretty rose tinted glasses .

 

[Back-In-Black]

He could have handled the situation differently.

A no fly zone should have been implemented to stop assads sectarian geonocide and barrel bombing.

He also bluffed and it blew up in his face and that hurt our credibility. You can't draw a red line and say "don't cross it or else", and then do nothing when they do.

It was an incredibly difficult situation and there was no easy answer but it's hard to argue on the side of "he made all the right decisions" on this situation. Every other person on that list had something like this happened under them it would absolutely been factored in to their overall rating

Oh, I don't think he handled the situation perfectly, especially the whole "red line" situation. But, the Syrian Civil War was going to break out regardless of anything he did. As to establishing a No-Fly-Zone that's the first step to a full blown military conflict and it's difficult to support such an action when you have no clear side to back, we saw that result in Libya. With a No-Fly-Zone you have to think about what happens when one of our planes gets shot down.

 

[jstripes]

Thought that was the clinton years?

The Clinton years were prosperous, but not really on the same level in terms of visibility. There was a certain amount of self awareness that decade. The '80s on the other hand are synonymous with yuppies and over the top exuberance.

 

[Michael F. Assbender]

The Clinton years were prosperous, but not really on the same level in terms of visibility. There was a certain amount of self awareness that decade. The '80s on the other hand are synonymous with yuppies and over the top exuberance.

I don't have the numbers in front of me, so I'm willing to accept that I may be wrong, but I'm pretty sure that in terms of sheer numbers, Americans prospered far better and across a wider spectrum under Clinton.

Though I get what you're saying about visibility. Rising out of the stagflation of the 70s gave rise to conspicuous consumption in the 80s. It was morning in America and all that jazz.

 

[EYEL1NER]

Polk isn't a president that I know too much about but I need to read up on him now, I guess. Some posters ITT have made some strong arguments for why he should be high up on the list (or maybe not high in a "Best" list but definitely high on a "Most Influential/Biggest Shapers of the Nation" list for sure).

 

[Ragnar Blackmane]

What's the other half? Unless you're saying it wasn't "necessary" just more effective as opposed to wasting possibly hundreds of thousands of American lives on an invasion of Japan.

1) 1.5 Million Soviet troops invading Manchuria and Korea in the two weeks before the surrender (coinciding with the nukes) and getting as far as South Korea in a mere 2 weeks, which made the Japanese situation completely hopeless, as it prevented any reinforcements from the Asian mainland, those several million Red Army troops would have eventually invaded the Japanese islands and...

2) The fact that the Soviets joined the war destroyed any hope for the Japanese to get a more favorable, Soviet mediated peace settlement rather than having to unconditionally surrender. Many of the desperate late war actions such as the Kamikaze also were supposed to act as aces in the negotiations (see how willing we are to fight to the last man? Totally not worth going that far, so give us a better deal! -> backfired in hindsight). The Japanese government constantly was in touch with the Soviet embassador in Japan trying to get them to negotiate but the Soviets and Stalin stonewalled.

3)Eisenhower, Nimitz and McArthur (so pretty the entire US high command and unlike Truman experienced military men) were all against the bombings, citing them as unneeded and especially Eisenhower called it an unneccesary, awful thing later

4) Truman wrote a letter after the A-bombing that proved that he had massive racist prejudices against the Japanese and believed that those 'beasts only understand the language of violence', which in turn casts doubt on whether or not he actually gave the go ahead for the nuking out of racist motivation rather than necessity.

5) Casualty rate estimations for a invasion of Japan were severly overblown and corrected down several times later to the point of estimated US casualties being less than 100k. Especially the earlier estimates also completely overlooked the fact that several million Soviet troops would have invaded the Japanese main islands at the same time.

6) The moralistic concerns: Is it okay to directly target civilians, women and children with an ABC weapon just because it might save the lives of soldiers fighting on your side? Arguably in violation of the Geneva Convention even at the time? Because the drop points of the bombs weren't over strategic military targets but civilian urban centres. There is a reason Eisenhower, Nimitz and McAthur were against it... and those were the commanders of the men that would have died.
Or as Leo Szilard said:

Let me say only this much to the moral issue involved: Suppose Germany had developed two bombs before we had any bombs. And suppose Germany had dropped one bomb, say, on Rochester and the other on Buffalo, and then having run out of bombs she would have lost the war. Can anyone doubt that we would then have defined the dropping of atomic bombs on cities as a war crime, and that we would have sentenced the Germans who were guilty of this crime to death at Nuremberg and hanged them?

This is actually referenced in Wolfenstein The New Order where the Nazis nuked American cities to "prevent unecessary loss of life on both sides that would have been caused by a ground invasion".

Sadly this is information that rarely pops up in more mainstream American media and documentaries.

 

[theignoramus]

I fucking hate stupid posts like this. "X Person was a piece of shit." Please come up with a list of world leaders from 1918 who would qualify as not pieces of shit? You can't isolate a man from history and judge him exclusively under a modern lense. If we judged historical figures on the basis of our modern prejudices, then Donald Trump may very well be considered less of a piece of shit than Abraham Lincoln, and that's ridiculous.

Wilson was a great mediator, had strong domestic policy, and provided a framework of peace for Western democracies. The concept of the United Nations was derived from his philosophy of statecraft, and while Republicans have maligned the UN for 30 years, its has secured a lasting peace for some 70 years, something that no other international framework has ever provided before or after it. If there is one president who can be credited with making the modern world, behind FDR, it's Woodrow Wilson.

A great mediator... He allowed a full blown race riot to occur literally on the front steps of his White House because he refused to mediate. He screened Birth of a Nation in his White House and stood by while the Klan reconstituted itself by the millions.
Under his watch, the Red summer race riots took place across 19 American cities and thousands were beaten in the streets, murdered and publicly lynched. What a great fucking mediator. What a domestic policy wonk. Fuck that piece of shit.

 

[kess]

The biggest joke of this list is picking George W. Bush over Chester Arthur, a fairly harmless president who oversaw the passage of the Civil Servive Reform Act, a massive improvement in merit based government employment that served as a backbone for progess in the late 1800s.

 

[Piecake]

The fact that Kennedy is so high and Jefferson is so low makes me question that list. Obama is about where he should be.

It's all opinion, but yeah.

The Embargo Act of 1807 is probably one of the dumbest policies in American history and The enforcement act needed to actually somewhat enforce that stupid policy was one of the most severe government power grabs in American history and seems quite blatantly unconstitutional.

Defiance of the law caused Jefferson to seek a drastic solution, the First Enforcement Act, in April 1808.175 It required all vessels of any size in the nation to receive clearance to sail, and to load its cargo under the supervision of a federal treasury official. No ship with cargo could leave a port near foreign territory, for any reason, without the permission of the President himself. Congress authorized naval vessels and smaller gunboats to stop any vessel and search it if officials suspected an intent to evade the ban. Federal officials could seize domestic goods in any area near foreign territory until a bond was posted to guarantee their delivery within the country. Congress did not require warrants or any judicial review for the search and seizure of ships or goods on land

So much for the guy who advocated for limited government, state's rights, and protecting the individual rights of citizens.

Not to mention the absolute failure of the Embargo Act to stop England from violating American neutral trade rights resulted in America either having to completely submit to England or go to war. Obviously submission was never going to happen.

Jefferson even had a chance to actually do something actually constructive about Britain violating our neutral trading rights by signing the Monroe-Pinkney Treaty and giving American sailors and people in general documents of citizenship. Jefferson rejected both because the treaty said nothing about impressment and he thought that giving out documents of citizenship would result in the impressment of British citizens working on American ships and in American trade, which would hurt the American economy. Instead, he passed the fucking Embargo Act...

 

[GSG Flash]

Reagan is way too high, considering he's partly responsible for what the modern Republican party has become.

 

[collige]

Reagan vs Obama

lol @ Reagan's International Relations
double lol @ "Relations with Congress"

 

[watermelons]

the drop points of the bombs weren't over strategic military targets but civilian urban centres.

Civilian casualties as a result of strategic bombing are inevitable.

Hiroshima was a staging area for troops, had 2 military headquarters, had a military port, had a great deal of military industry and supplies, and had 40,000 troops stationed there.

The Japanese at the time were wondering why we hadn't already bombed them to hell, and the government had been evacuating people for quite some time prior to the bombing because they knew it would eventually become a target.

I don't know as much about Nagasaki, but I do know it was a shipyard and that military ships were built there. Nagasaki also had a lot of Japans heavy industry, most notably steel and arms manufacture.

They were both legitimate strategic targets. The other options for ending the war were either a massive land invasion,or a blockade. An invasion would have massive loss of lives, and a blockade would slowly starve the population.

If you feel the overwhelming need to moralize every single thing that happened in the past I suggest becoming a university professor so you can lecture your countrymen.

 

[Ragnar Blackmane]

Civilian casualties as a result of strategic bombing are inevitable.

Hiroshima was a staging area for troops, had 2 military headquarters, had a military port, had a great deal of military industry and supplies, and had 40,000 troops stationed there.

But the target point of the bomb literally was the civilian urban center. The military headquarters survived mostly intact and the supply depots and military port (both several kilometres away from ground zero) mostly suffered superficial damage. Usually strategic bombing is aimed directly at military installations with hits on civilian target being a side effect of the inaccuracy of carpet bombing.

You also ignore how the fact that the Soviet Union joined in and made the entire situation hopeless for the Japanese by itself might have lead to a surrender.

I also like how you ignored all my other points in favor of giving me a sermon about morals.

 

[Cocaloch]

If you feel the overwhelming need to moralize every single thing that happened in the past I suggest becoming a university professor so you can lecture your countrymen.

What is this? Are you using this as an insult in a thread about historians? Who do you think historians are exactly?

Frankly the list is dumb and historians shouldn't be wading in pointless lists like this, but with the scope of this thread it's an important argument to make.

 

[DontBeThatGuy]

Reagan was trash. Obama dealt with the most obstructionist (and insane) Republican party in a long, long time. One term president was there goal, they failed, but it didn't stop that train. (also, pathetic mid-term turnout)

 

[Back-In-Black]

But the target point of the bomb literally was the civilian urban center. The military headquarters survived mostly intact and the supply depots and military port (both several kilometres away from ground zero) mostly suffered superficial damage. Usually strategic bombing is aimed directly at military installations with hits on civilian target being a side effect of the inaccuracy of carpet bombing.

I also like how you ignored my other points in favor of giving me a sermon about morals.

How did you feel about the fire bombing campaign conducted throughout the majority of the war?

 

[Pagusas]

How in the hell is he only 7th in moral authority ?

Obama is probably the best human being to ever be president since Roosevelt. I fail to see any better man than him except maybe John Adams and Lincoln.

Obama should be TOP 3 easily in that category.

John Adams, what? After reading a few Washington and Hamilton biographies I can't see how anyone would consider John Adams a good man.

 

[Rumblebones]

Did these historians take into account Obreezy was the first black President in a still very much racist county and was tasked with the burden of reversing the effects of the worst financial downturn since the Great Depression whilst having an antagonistic Republican majority Congress obstructing him at every opportunity? Did they take into account Obama actually did it whilst saving the American auto industry, improving foreign relations and setting the table for universal healthcare down the road with the ACA as the forebearer of such plans?

I dunno, 12th just seems a bit low.

 

[Michael F. Assbender]

John Adams, what? After reading a few Washington and Hamilton biographies I can't see how anyone would consider John Adams a good man.

His second cousin Samuel brewed a hell of a beer though.

 

[ianpm31]

Obama should be at number 9 at the very least. Reagan is way too high on the list

 

[Ragnar Blackmane]

How did you feel about the fire bombing campaign conducted throughout the majority of the war?

Those still mostly directly targeted military targets and industry, at least more so than the nukes themselves. Also not a fan of bombing civilian centers in any form so I don't see it as a valid excuse for dropping the nukes either, especially not on the target points that were picked for them.
See also the fact that US prosecutors didn't press charges for German carpet and fire bombings at the Nuremberg trials (as a result the over prosecutors dropped them too) as a result of the morality issues and civilian casualties as a result of their own bombing campaigns (e.g. Dresden).

 

[Piecake]

But the target point of the bomb literally was the civilian urban center. The military headquarters survived mostly intact and the supply depots and military port (both several kilometres away from ground zero) mostly suffered superficial damage. Usually strategic bombing is aimed directly at military installations with hits on civilian target being a side effect of the inaccuracy of carpet bombing.

You also ignore how the fact that the Soviet Union joined in and made the entire situation hopeless for the Japanese by itself might have lead to a surrender.

I also like how you ignored all my other points in favor of giving me a sermon about morals.

There is zero evidence that Japan was willing to surrender

http://historynewsnetwork.org/article/52502

The only evidence that they were is simply wishful thinking.

As for your estimates, those casualty estimates are only for the first 120 days and do not include an estimate of Japanese solider and civilian deaths. The invasion of Japan would have taken more than 3 months.

 

[Zyae]

This is ranking by historians guys... They know what they are talking about

Those still mostly directly targeted military targets and industry, at least more so than the nukes themselves. Also not a fan of bombing civilian centers in any form so I don't see it as a valid excuse for dropping the nukes either, especially not on the target points that were picked for them.
See also the fact that US prosecutors didn't press charges for German carpet and fire bombings at the Nuremberg trials as a result of the morality issues and civilian casualties as a result of their own bombing campaigns (e.g. Dresden).

No they didnt dude. German and Japanese cities were leveled by allied bombing. It wasnt targeted military sites.

 

[Michael F. Assbender]

Someone needs to do a full on documentary series detailing the ups and downs of each individual president. It would be a 45 part series, so each president (other than maybe William Henry Harrison) would get a full episode. I think that would be fascinating.

And would likely cost way too much.

 

[watermelons]

There is zero evidence that Japan was willing to surrender

On our own terms, you mean. They would not have surrendered if we were going to dissolve the imperial office and the supreme war council.

They also wanted to keep their emperor, Burma, the Dutch colonies, the French colonies and would not allow for the trials of war criminals.

 

[Bonen no Max'd]

lol @ Reagan's International Relations
double lol @ "Relations with Congress"

Huh? Reagan's policy was absolute dogshit but his ability to work with Tip O'Neill was pretty instrumental to him getting anything done over his presidency, he never had a Republican congress to work with.

Now, you might say "wow O'Neill sure was a dumbass for working with Reagan" which is probably true but much of the efforts to deregulate and destroy antitrust was a bipartisan action.

 

[AntraxSuicide]

Why? He was a racist piece of shit that got us involved in WWI for no reason and then failed to even get his own League of Nations through Congress.

Except, I don't buy any of that because the League of Nations failed and Teddy Roosevelt existed at the same time. Who was, you know, not the massive piece of shit that Wilson was.

Nah, Teddy had his own shitty views on black people and whatnot. Literally all of our leaders did until probably Carter. Lincoln has his famous "I in no way support the equality of the white and black races" line.

We can (and should) judge them very harshly for these views, but if you're doing a ranking, you kind of have to grade on a curve because otherwise it just defeats the point. If I hold that racist views knock you down below the non-racists, then we're essentially just saying that only Carter, HW, Clinton, and Obama get to vie for the top 4 spots. Not really a good exercise.

 

[Barrage]

I think Obama is properly rated here as a President. As a figure Of history he will loom incredibly large.

The biggest part of his legacy is still to be decided. If the ACA somehow survives Trump and becomes a fixture of American life Obama will make the Top 7.

 

[JinjoUnchained]

These lists are always biased toward activist Presidents who "do something", regardless of whether they should have done it or not. So they'll have a racist, murderous POS like Andrew Jackson in the top 20 because he "shaped the modern Presidency". Same for our worst President Wilson who "did something", "something" in this case being bring back the Klan and lying us into WW1.

Meanwhile, actual good presidents who didn't try to overstep their job title get shafted. Like John Tyler, who established the precedent for peaceful transfer of power, bucked his own party by vetoing their protectionist tariffs, and was much more conciliatory toward Native Americans compare to other contemporary presidents. Or Warren Harding, who inherited a huge recession from Wilson, but refused to bail out the big banks and focused recovery on relief to the poor and middle class.

 

[Back-In-Black]

Someone needs to do a full on documentary series detailing the ups and downs of each individual president. It would be a 45 part series, so each president (other than maybe William Henry Harrison) would get a full episode. I think that would be fascinating.

And would likely cost way too much.

I mean the History Channel did a series called "The Presidents" that went through each one. Though obviously not every one got their own episode.

Nah, Teddy had his own shitty views on black people and whatnot. Literally all of our leaders did until probably Carter. Lincoln has his famous "I in no way support the equality of the white and black races" line.

We can (and should) judge them very harshly for these views, but if you're doing a ranking, you kind of have to grade on a curve because otherwise it just defeats the point. If I hold that racist views knock you down below the non-racists, then we're essentially just saying that only Carter, HW, Clinton, and Obama get to vie for the top 4 spots. Not really a good exercise.

I'm not saying he was perfect but he was better than Wilson. He invited the first black person ever to the White House. Of course, he got so much heat for it he never did it again.

 

[jchap]

Reagan should be a bit higher