Honestly, who was the best US president, solely looking at what their accomplishments during the presidency?
How does Obama stand up to the rest of them?
>trusting the Dishonest Abe
Guy started the most destructive war in American history on American soil against Americans. I think the Fort Sumter situation could have been handled better, as all it did was lead to more secession. Also suspended Habeas corpus and made the U.S. more authoritarian. Impressing immigrants,silencing copperheads and what not.
He was a great president from a power point of view, but started a horrible drift in American politics.
>I think the Fort Sumter situation could have been handled better,
By bending over to the Confederacy in a gutless display of moral cowardice? Sure.
>Impressing immigrants,silencing copperheads and what not.
Boo hoo, compare that with today. At least he won the war.
I've always been a big fan of Wilson, Roosevelt (both), Clinton, and Jefferson. Reagan is probably the worst president in living memory by a fucking mile. Andrew Jackson is overrated as well. Obama is slightly above average in my book, wouldn't be notable at all.
I don't think you could be any more obvious that you are a hardcore Republican.
Georgie b. Jr. Got that sonuvabitch that tried to kill his daddy. Good family values makes a good leader. Also we can't let third worlders think they can get to us without consequences. Even trying is bad enough for death.
FDR, only fedora-tier libertarians deny this.
Obama is an innocuous corporate shill and is pretty much middle of the pack I guess, maybe a little worse than average for refusing to prosecute the bankers.
>Destroyed National Bank
>fucked over Indians for literally no reason
>literally started the spoils system
Not to mention he killed a guy during a duel when he already won. Guy's a total shit, both as a politician, and as a person.
He was so overwhelmingly popular that his policies became the policies of the democratic party.
He WAS the democratic party. To have so profoundly influenced the entire country's political perspective for decades after relinquishing power is an achievement of popularity and force of will that is nothing short of exceptional.
>stole from Social Security
>tax cuts for the rich
A M N E S T Y for illegals
Also I love what he did to the national debt (increased it a shit ton)
I actually can't think of a wore president.
Read my post, I said he was a great president from a power point of view; but he started a drift that leads into what you consider horrible today. He started that trend.
Fort Sumter pushed several more states into secession. I feel he could have done better there without killing millions of Americans and wrecking the entire infrastructure of the country.
He had his part to play mate. The war was defensive on the Southern side. I also don't consider Fort Sumter a battle, It was b8 the CSA took.
He was populist as fuck, I'll give you that. The common man at the time loved him, because he was one of their buddies. It caused a total shift from the say, Jeffersonian type of president, ie intellectual, to candidates that had to rely on pandering to the lower class to look like "just an average guy." He was 100% a marker in a shift in US politics, but it isn't necessarily a good thing.
In terms of advancing the country and being a net benefit to the world, this guy, Lincoln, and FDR easily.
My beef with FDR was that he trusted the Soviets too much. He should have let the soviets get hit more so we could have had a more independent eastern Europe. Luckily Truman saved the situation and stopped the soviets from expanding.
Banks suck man. Emperor Jackson was great.
What was the first George Bush like? What the fuck did he accomplish? In my head it goes Reagan to Clinton because I forget Bush existed.
Had absolutely nothing to do with him. He refused to prepare the US for war at all to play nice with Germany and avoid war. Then suddenly he became convinced we had a moral obligation to join and threw a nation with almost no army or military industry into war. The only good thing he did was give Pershing the ability to run the war as he saw fit.
>not including Buchanan in the hall of shame
Fuck the banks, fuck all of them. Also I guarantee no president has had a more based pet, or a big ass wheel of cheese.
>implying destroying the bank was a bad thing
>implying he caused the panic
The panic was the result of inflationary policies set in place by Biddle in order to force Jackson to keep the bank alive. I won't defend the other two actions however killing the Bank was just about the only good thing AJ did.
>The panic was the result of inflationary policies set in place by Biddle
Not at all.There were many 'causes' of the panic 1837 and the panic of 1839. One was Jackson's 'specie exchange' policy which made it so the government would only accept purchases of large tracts of public land in the form of hard specie (gold and silver) and not bank notes. Not only did this drain the economy of specie, but it undermined the trust people had in back notes, this combined with a recall of loans made to Americans by GB banks caused a massive outflow of specie from America which caused many banks to go on runs and eventually close down.
>millions of lives
It isn't being isolationist as much of wanting to involve a whole country in a war that frankly, didn't concern them. Allies helping allies is literally what started WW1, and WW (president) wanted to not have America follow suit into that. It was only after Germany blatantly caused the deaths of over 100 US citizens that they decided to act.
>It was only after Germany blatantly caused the deaths of over 100 US citizens that they decided to act.
Wasn't the Lusitania pretty transparently bait? I think they found it really was carrying weapons, and in waters it knew it shouldn't have been in.
>I think this is the most extraordinary collection of talent, of human knowledge, that has ever been gathered together at the White House, with the possible exception of when Thomas Jefferson dined alone.
Are you serious? The logic is simple, the US joins the war sooner, the Allies therefore win sooner, and therefore the death count drops.
Saying the US was neutral before April 6, 1917 is like saying the US was neutral before Pearl Harbour, complete nonsense. We sold to both sides but a blind eye was turned to the fact that 5-6 times more stuff was sold to the Allies. In 1916 the Brits got 60% of their munitions from the US.
Lincoln above all for keeping the Union together during a state of rebellion. Without Lincoln I'm honestly not sure if America would be in the state it is today- it probably would have fractured further when the South was beaten and leading even more future conflicts.
Abe is an example of the right man born for the right time for the right job who died too soon. The South would have been better off had he been able to institute his programs for rehabilitation of the traitor states instead of oppressing them even more.
>How does Obama compare
Literally who the president. Honestly guys compared to the past Obama isn't that good or that bad. He's just as "meh" as shit gets. The only reason why he won't be forgotten like many other Presidents is because he's half black.
Jefferson had a mixed record as an executive.
The economy floundered horribly in response to Jefferson's attempt at 'economic warfare' by suspending American trade in an attempt to bring GB to the negotiating table.
Meme president. He was the vice president for Reagan, so everyone that supported Reagan at the time (ie the whole country) voted for him. In a famous speech claimed to no new taxes. And then he raised taxes. That's about it.
>>Destroyed National Bank
that is the highlight of his presidency
Not his fault
>>fucked over Indians for literally no reason
fuck indians, Justice Marshall is a faggot
>>literally started the spoils system
Only good thing he ever did was kill the bank, other than that he just fucked Indians for no reason, ignored the balance of power, and initiated cancerous populist politics.
>prevented a early secessionist movement
>removed savage indians
>won the battle of New Orleans
>in many duels
Most based pres m8.
Didn't give a fuck about Marshall and his abusive court system.
I think Marbury vs Madison was a mistake
I see Obama as a lesser George Bush. If he has done something diabolically awful to America like Fox News makes it out to be, I havent noticed it. Instead, he's done hundreds of small things that add up to a whole of shittiness. He just sat back on his back porch for 8 years while America falls apart because of all of Bush's policies, and didnt lift a finger to solve one issue (unless someone else pushed him into doing it).
Leftists claim he is the greatest thing ever, right wingers claim that he was the worst thing that happened. I just see him as mediocre who put no effort into fixing anything.
Hold up friend. Had it not been for the most popular third party candidate since Teddy Roosevelt, he might have easily slid into a second term.
Bush Sr. wasn't terrible. He had a strong foreign policy and arguably won some acclaim with how he handled the whole Iraq thing. Ross Perot really fucked his shit up.
FDR (that war was unnecessary DESU senpai)
He will be known for being the first black president and having a shit foreign policy.
The neo-con presidents:
and Hillary Clinton should she win
all have the same neo-cons advising them.
Their foreign policies are all variations of the same theme.
>I think Marbury vs Madison was a mistake
>won the battle of new orleans
We ain't taking non-presidential stuff into account, if we did Jefferson and Roosevelt would be eternal don't-even-try God tier.
Literally in the Constitution.
Do you know why your list is shit? Judging a presidential candidate before she even is elected/done anything as president. Fuck off.
epic meme, literally name one thing he did that wasn't absolute shit. That's right, nothing. You can't expect shit from a frenchophilic shit.
Perhaps he wasnt bad, I just dont see anything distinguishing about him outside of that memorable sound bite. To me he was an extension of Reagan, which depending on your point of view of things could be a good or bad thing.
>prevented nuclear armagedon
>established peace corps
>set the goal to send the man to the moon
>redirected the cold war to the space race to avoid unecessary death of other people and make the socialism-capitalism dispute actually be good for society
>egypt project. if continued by later administrations, would have prevented the middle east from being the hell hole we know.
>believed in tax cuts
>moved foward several civil rights
JFK is based. one of the few democrats worthy of admiration.
Traitor to the american people and ruined the Republic
It would have, but what made it a good decision by Jefferson is that he agonized endlessly over whether he actually had the power to make the purchase after making it because the deal was an no-brainer.
Jackson's 'killing of the bank' was more party politics than it was sound policy.
The 2nd BUS was ultimately a stabilizing for the young republic and the US was never for a moment better off without it. It didn't stop the circulation of worthless paper currency being printed by local banks. It didn't stop the reckless speculation of the time. What it did do was stimulate partisan policies by replacing the stolid BUS with a litany of "pet banks" chosen for their loyalty to the incumbent party. The US lost the ability to assuage the swings of the business cycle with sound monetary policy and gained nothing by Jackson's rash and peculiar crusade.
True as Monroe pretty well forced his hand. A lot of people don't know this but Monroe's daughter became great friends with Naopleon's step daughter and this created a great friendship between Napoleon's family and Monroe's. Due to this relationship it was Monroe that basically conducted the deal. He borrowed several million pounds from a bank in England in order to pay a small part of the price so the deal could be secured all before even telling TJ.
Kinda hard to fix shit when everyone in the Senate and HoR who doesn't have a D after their name votes against you just for the sake of voting against you. It sucks to be him, but I don't give him any points for potentially doing something.
I.E. people with a stake in the country.
Indians, see above. Nigs, see above to a lesser degree.
Women couldn't own property so it's just another way to say landowners.
he also knew about it.
What interests? We had been fucking china for resources for the last 50 years.
>So who could vote again? Landowning white males. Yeah, real nice republic
And who were the most educated and most active people in society when it was founded? White landowning males should be the only people to vote.
He caused WW2.
WW causing WW2 is blaming him for the incompetence of the Congress he was unfortunate enough to have at the time.
And it really doesn't help that only white, landowning males were allowed to be educated and be politically/economically active. That's pretty circular reasoning.
>White landowning males should be the only people to vote.
Should have been*. Nowadays I'd go with resident, literate males, as homeownership is a stupid idea economically, and nearly impossible in the city.
>And it really doesn't help that only white, landowning males were allowed to be educated and be politically/economically active. That's pretty circular reasoning.
No it was just that white landowning males were usually the most literate or had any stake in the country. it Isn't an oligarchy of any sorts. the US was 90% white all the way up until the 1970s
buttmad northerner detected
>>set the goal to send the man to the moon
>>redirected the cold war to the space race
>implying the space race wasn't a big military experiment and each country showing how great their missile tech is
Sohe enslaved them by developing the rural areas of the country and making sure they wouldn't have to starve?
Without basic social safety nets you end up with things like Elderly citizens who can't work anymore either having enough money on hand to last them the rest of their life or starve
>Going into debt is generally bad if you can avoid it.
That's why you don't buy a house you cant afford anon, or agree to a dipshit mortgage.
But renting is absolutely retarded if you can afford to own. The money you pay in rent just goes into a black hole, at least by paying a mortgage you're gaining equity.
Washington and Lincoln are the competitors for #1. There are others, like TR, who were based af but who didn't really do anything game changing.
Washington basically founded America, and Lincoln saved America.
FDR gets props for setting us up to win WWII. Loses props (to me; reasonable men may differ) for hugely expanding the rule of federal government.
Nixon was terrible at managing domestic affairs.
>didn't attempt to reverse the great society
>instituted price controls to attempt to combat inflation despite overwhelming evidence that it would not work
>was a corrupt power hungry individual
>the sad thing is that there are people this legitimately incoherent
>like TR, who were based af but who didn't really do anything game changing
Teddy should be in everyone's top five. He busted monopolies and built the canal, he was hugely influential in growing the economy.
>for hugely expanding the rule of federal government
If you criticize FDR for this you might as well forget Lincoln. That aside, FDR did give the fed a more prominent role in running the nation but it was fine because he really ran a government for and by the people. How else could he have been elected four times otherwise? The US government as the sociopathic and incompetent organization we know it today started with Truman and was continued with his successors.
Autism in it's purest form. Beating Japan was a massive net benefit for the US and all of Asia. Your shitty principles would've gotten millions of people killed and enslaved for nothing.
I believe Calvin Coolidge to be one of the great. His minimalist approach to governance is a lesson everyone can learn from, whether or not you're a libertarian. Of course exceptional times call for exceptional people, but peaceful times call for non-reformers who know how to take a step back.
Unfortunately "I'll do nothing if it happens to be the best course of action" isn't a very marketable political message.
Fuck off, you Hamiltonian dickcheese. Knocked out most of the national debt and kicked the Barbary pirates' asses.
>How else could he have been elected four times otherwise?
Because he broke with a 150 year old convention and ran for a third/fourth term, and the longer someone's in an elected position the less likely they are to be unseated.
>The US government as the sociopathic and incompetent organization we know it today started with Truman and was continued with his successors.
FDR's government was totally centralized around him to the point that people were afraid to contradict him even after he began his descent into stroke-induced deliriousness. And it was his government that saw the first large-scale penetration by Soviet espionage. But even if FDR's government was totally exceptional and competent and Truman was the one who made it "sociopathic and incompetent", the fact that FDR expanded federal power in the first place AND ran with Truman as VP means he STILL bears responsibility for it.
Let me just ask you this then, why was the Lusitania allowed near an active warzone after both sides had already warned of the possibility of accidental civilian casualties and why after that very thing happened was it of tantamount importance to escalate the conflict by sending American troops to avenge the deaths of the people who at best were killed by their own negligence?
Are you still listening to what your fucking high school teachers told you about Coolidge. "Le he let da free market go loose and that is what caused the depression." Maybe you should brush up on the subject before accusing me of memery and stupidity for saying Coolidge's approach to government was good.
At least under Jefferson, I wouldn't have to watch my mouth for concern of offending our delicate President Adams.
>Your shitty principles would've gotten millions of people killed and enslaved for nothing.
its not the united states' job to police the world and protect all the people in it. If Asia can't deal with the Japanese by themselves then they deserve whatever the Japanese decide should be their fate for their negligent dealing with them. And it wouldn't be for nothing. It would be preventing the loss of American lives in turn, and that's not an ethos argument. That manpower and industry that could have been used on infrastructure and development was wasted on war efforts and has had a profound impact on our development as a nation in that we can't reasonably fuction anymore without being at war with someone. If you want to say that human life has an intrinsic value, which it doesn't but that's beside the point, then that's fine but even in that context your statement makes no sense since not getting involved in the war would have had greater long-term benefits for the US. And if you're meaning to say that Asia should have come first well then fuck you.
Not even that guy btw. This kind of thinking just rustles me intensely.
Yeah sorry. I really shouldn't shit up this board with those types of comments. What I'll ask instead is for you to prove that any of those things were objectively bad or wrong.
Reagan got reelected Kennedy didn't :^)
In all seriousness Reagan was very good, and Kennedy was the last pro-guns relatively pro-freemarket Liberal. Probably one of the last good Liberals, though he did have shit factors.
But to deny Reagans greatness is historical illiteracy, the work force participation rate under Obongo is what it is at when Reagan started, which is 10% below what it was when Reagan finished. The poverty rate now is equal to the Soviet Union at its fall. On 90% of scales Reagan trumps most in the recent times. Only big issue I can think of is the deficits he was happy to run, which although justified in the Cold War, were not divine.
What's wrong with fucking over an indigenous people with 0 compensation?
What's wrong with causing an economic panic?
What's wrong with starting the political process of rewarding political positions to people that support you, and not based on merit?
Andrew Jackson was a dick. He is pretty much the prototype populist president, and the start of the decline from the more intellectual presidents of the past to the shitshow we have today.
How about stealing from Social Security? Taxcuts for the rich? Reagan is a meme president that didn't do anything right. Cutting taxes while tripling (debatable number) national debt is a retarded strategy. Not to mention funding actual terrorists in the Iran-Contra scandal.
>saves the country from the bank and injuns
>beats his assassin nearly to death with a cane
>start of decline
FDR's economic policies were disastrous, and often worked to prolong the Depression.
On foreign policy, though, Roosevelt was top tier. He saw the war coming miles ahead of time and managed to tradition the U.S economy from a period a anemic recovery to a full blown industrial war machine in record time.
Saved from native americans is rather strong. More like exploited ruthlessly. Saving the country from the bank is debatable, but the way he brushed aside checks and balances makes him a dick.
>first populist president
>not a signal of the decline
>Hamilton greatest founding father
>Not knowing Hamilton's ideas during the constitutional convention included making a LITERAL HOUSE OF LORDS in the U.S Congress.
He had the foresight to see Industry as the next great economic advancement I'll give you that, but as a man of the revolution he falls woefully short.
>the US joins the war sooner, the Allies therefore win sooner, and therefore the death count drops.
Not necessarily, the biggest advantage the U.S had against the Germans was that they had fresh eager legs on the ground ready to charge against a tired, beleaguered, and morale drained German army. If the war was fought earlier, its very possible the Germans might have mustered enough men and will to hold back, and create a different but still stagnant front.
>If Asia can't deal with the Japanese by themselves then they deserve whatever the Japanese decide should be their fate for their negligent dealing with them
Well, I'll just say I'm extremely grateful people like you weren't in charge of the US at the time.
>That manpower and industry that could have been used on infrastructure and development was wasted on war efforts
We lost only 400,000 men out of a nation of 140,000,000. The casualties were almost nothing. The fact that the war production got the US out of the Depression is universally known, since you don't know this you should probably stop posting.
>And if you're meaning to say that Asia should have come first well then fuck you
I believe in anything that benefits the world. The US intervening in WWII was massively beneficial to both the US and Asia.
You are absolutely nuts man, just nuts. Your argument has absolutely zero substance, and you're not educated on this issue at all.
Obama is funding actual terrorist right now kek
His tax cuts hit all levels and they worked, he had the period of the fastest growth in modern history, double the Obama recovery from an arguably worse situation. Everyone got richer, just because taxes got cut on the upper bracket, doesn't mean it was wrong.
I could get into the more delicate Economics of it, job creation, what taxes should be focused on to create higher growth, but essentially any tax cut at any level helps everyone.
Dipping into Social Security is always pretty shit, it just happened the other day under the current administration though. Not a solely Reagan issue, whether he approved it or not.
As mentioned deficits were an issue, but you can say that the needed expenditure to fight the cold war, I personally see the higher debt in order to defeat the Soviets as justified. You could debate me on that though, there was reform happening whether Reagan put them in debt or not.
>Butthurt Southerners hating on Abe
Never gets old, stay keked rebs
It is. Trying reading just one book, just one. We gave 16,000,000 people a uniform and a weapon, we then gave everyone else a job making that equipment. It doubled our GDP and saved the economy.
>Yeah, the republican party strongly opposes Obama for no known reason
It started with him trying to pass Obamacare. He initiated a little bit before Summer Recess, and when Republican's went home during the summer they heard so much shit about from their constituencies, the refused to back it in any capacity and from then on basically became the Anti-Obama league, as their voters became the anti-Obama league.
Too be fair to them, though, the Affordable Health Care Act is really a steaming pile of crap. Literally written from the bottom up by pharmaceutical companies.
FDR was a bigger dick than him by that metric.
The president can be a dick if he pleases
Jackson is the president we need today
>It is. Trying reading just one book, just one. We gave 16,000,000 people a uniform and a weapon, we then gave everyone else a job making that equipment. It doubled our GDP and saved the economy.
Sorta yeah, it didn't make a strong economy though, it was an unnatural one that if not for the cold war and world policing would have died out very quickly after and created a bigger depression than the one before the war.
Our entire existence is predicated on the fact that a certain sect of colonists got massively buttblasted over English tax policies. They weren't even that bad. Some of the tax policies were already in place, they just started to be enforced more rigorously for one. Others were a LOWERING of certain taxes.
why did the world start to go to hell in a hand basket after the 1900s?
I mean globally.
Sure we live in the most peaceful era but it sure doesn't feel like it.
Maybe Evola was right
Funny thing is the taxes were implemented by George Washington but a few years after to pay for their defence like the British had planned the first tax to do. The US revolution was just a shill for power.
I'm not sure what you are trying to argue. Who do you think matters more currently in the world stage, Denmark or America?
His tax cuts GREATLY favored the rich, more than anything else. Not only that, you say that Reagan cut taxes, but he raised them 11 times.
Trickle-down economics is fucking garbage. I'd argue it has more to due with the time Reagan took office than it did the actual policy for the benefits that occurred.
Reagan was a peacetime president, he wasn't engaged in the Cold War to the extent of his predecessors. The Soviet Union was already fizzling out of existence by the time he took office.
>Our entire existence is predicated on the fact that a certain sect of colonists got massively buttblasted over English tax policies.
Rather, that they rejected Parliament's unprecedented attempts to control colonial affairs, which they perceived as violating their rights as Englishmen.
It really is. The US really does look like a whiny, bratty child when you look at the actual things the revolutionists were complaining about. It all turned out okay in the end, but damn.
>Confirmed for Occupy Democrats tier
No free-market Economist has ever used the term, find one book that did, please. Only opposition to his policy used the term.
And you admitted yourself, maybe by mistake that his times were better, you can say it was by chance that it was, but that is anti-intellectual.
We tried trickle-down with Bush Jr, didn't we? We saw the fucking shit storm that all the banks caused, with worldwide implications. That shit is awful.
And of course no free-market economist would use trickledown as a term to describe their golden boy. Not going to get into an economics debate, since I don't feel that it is related to the topic, but Reagan's policies "working" is more of a fluke that promotes the boom/bust cycle more than anything else.
House of Lords as in one based on landed generational peerage. He wanted the establishment of a new official aristocracy in America, having literally just seen a war fought over ideals such as liberty and equality.
This is not an easy question to answer, but the answer is Lincoln, followed by Teddy Roosevelt, FDR, Washington, and Polk.
Anyone who argues against Lincoln on top is just trying to be unique, or make an argument against. It's not really debatable.
>x was a result of the great war
This. This. A thousand dead men in a trench this.
The Great War has shaped so much of our modern world it surprises me it doesn't get more coverage in grade school history.
>responsible for perhaps 2 million Vietnamese civilian deaths
You're a piece of shit.
>I feel he could have done better there without killing millions of Americans and wrecking the entire infrastructure of the country.
you know nothing about the circumstances into which he was thrust, the options which were available to him, or the decisions he had to make. Read a fucking book before badmouthing one of the greatest leaders of men to have ever existed.
>international terrorism campaign (drones)
>throwing billions at unaccountable financial sector
>let torturers of the loose
>screwing over Palestinians
>propping up Military Industrial Complex
>overseeing death of American industry
>widespread and fundamentally illegal surveillance of large section of humanity
>highest number of whistle-blowers jailed
>not nearly enough done to curb greenhouse gas emissions
All that said, he's probably still the best of the bunch.
>>international terrorism campaign (drones)
better than the old way which was either boots on the ground or missile strikes or dropping bombs on them
>>screwing over Palestinians
>>highest number of whistle-blowers jailed
>caring about Snowden
>>not nearly enough done to curb greenhouse gas emissions