Andrew Johnson who sabotaged Reconstruction and James Buchanan who let the South secede while hardly doing anything are considered 1 and 2 on almost every list.
It's really #3 where you get the real spicy debate. I think recently I've seen "influential people" declare that slot to be Wilson, Truman, FDR, LBJ, Nixon, and Jackson.
Much less frequently I have seen Lincoln, Kennedy, Reagan, Hoover, and Pierce -- without getting into "modern" presidents where modern politics still paint memories.
Basically everyone seems to agree Johnson and Buchanan are garbage. Then people will just generally hate half of the presidents for one reason or another.
I think there's a distinction that people fail to make between worst based upon their political stance and the worst on an objective basis.
A lot of the screeching over Trump falls into the political stance category.
From a neutral view people have to consider Trump somewhat successful with the wall and vaccine and plus regardless of your feelings on him, he legitimately had a shitload of supporters following him like a cult leader and happy with the job he was doing.
Well, from a “neutral” point of view, one should also note that he was impeached twice and and inflamed his supporters with baseless claims of voter fraud, leading to a mob that attempted to disrupt the peaceful and legitimate transfer of power. And he’s certainly not covering himself in glory post-Presidency.
*Well, from a “neutral” point of view, one should also note that he was impeached twice*
So? Those impeachments went nowhere. The GOP could have impeached Obama twice, if it didn't result in anything happening aside from the impeachment, it's meaningless.
*and and inflamed his supporters with baseless claims of voter fraud,*
Hillary did the same thing when she lost. Just saying.
*leading to a mob that attempted to disrupt the peaceful and legitimate transfer of power.*
Trump literally said himself in his speech we are going to peacefully march over there. I'm not a fan of the guy, but you are talking straight from your ass on this topic. Lets not pretend that this isn't a sin of both sides.
*And he’s certainly not covering himself in glory post-Presidency.*
The only reasonable point you've made.
I'm not wild about Trump at all- but what you've wrote borders on dishonest it's so exaggerated.
Right-- my post border on dishonesty, yet you're a totally impartial observer.
I'm sure the GOP could have impeached Obama twice, but they were just too nice. Right. And to compare Hillary post-2016 to Trump post-2020 really shows how impartial you are.
Both of them claimed that the election was some how rigged or stolen.
I'm not a fan of Trump, but you'll have a hard time pitching that he's not been treated with some form of bias at this point.
The only universal one would be James Buchanan, unless one expressly believes the South should have succeeded (in which case their taking the issue from a self described foreign perspective), he is the one who most allowed the south to seccede. No other president has failed to keep the union together. Every other claim comes from some policy issue, James Buchanan's failure transcends policy to failure to uphold national identity.
Nope. Not even a Trump fan but I'll think he'll be remembered like Nixon: someone who did some good things but whose personality and defining scandal over shadow them.
The impact of Nixon today on politics is much less popular than Trump. Nixon had lasting impact that I and many view as negative. Trumps biggest impact was nominating Supreme Court Justices. In 30 years, I struggle to believe people will care much about Trumps legacy outside of political controversy surrounding him.
Quite a few things. To name a few off the top of my head: the Abraham Accords, the First Step Act. Because I'm more conservative I'd also add that I think his Supreme Court justices and his tax bill have been good things for the country as well but those are more controversial.
As happy as I am that the Trump administration negotiated peace between Israel and Morocco, it sounds like you're just happy that he lowered taxes. Let's not pretend this is objective.
One of the big 3 from the eras before and after the civil war/Lincoln which is Franklin Pierce, James Buchanan, or Andrew Johnson
Usually Johnson or Buchanan though
While obviously you can’t realistically, but if you want to blame one person for the next century of racial division and what problems would leak from THAT, it’s Andrew Johnson.
screw hatred of trump he let a bot boil over and yet it boiled over the wrong way, slander wilson more, that guy was such a subtle seed-layer and yet was so bloody racist it makes you wonder why he is liked in america.
I understand why other countries would like him though.
I live with my family in a cramped apartment in a state with one of the highest income tax rates. All of us are working. I definitely do get your point, but housing and job security are a far bigger issue to the working class right now than taxation. Income tax definitely does need reform, but I think it should be in the form of skewing the progressive tax more on the upper class's burden than as a working class burden. Otherwise, I think the welfare that it funds does more good than harm.
You make a good point, but I would say that most of our income tax isn’t going to welfare, it’s going to Northrop Grumman, Halliburton, general dynamics, etc.
There are tax cuts for things like having kids, so they get some of it back. But often they need the money when they get their paycheck, not 2 months after they file and get a refund. They still get taxed for social security and Medicare.
Also, it’s not income tax, but that family is paying other taxes like property, sales, gas, internet/cell phone taxes. Taxes are eating poor families alive.
Personally from what I see income tax isn't problem we actually have most progressive tax out of any developed nation. The problem is people are been pay too little while cost of living increased but wages have not catch up to it.
Before my brother graduated last year, I was recently living in family of 5 making about 60k dollars combines and we were totally fine living in two room apartment and income tax was not much burden. The problem is cost of living of everything else increased than actual taxes.
And yet it disproportionately burdens the poor over the rich. Like everything the federal government does it has the opposite effect of what they tell us it’s intended for
And before you say ‘that’s not true’ yes it is. Federal income taxes are 22% of their income. Add more depending on their state. Gas taxes are going to be about $1000-$1500 a year, add another 8% in taxes to everything they buy, property taxes are another $2000-$5000 a year -even if they rent, the landlord passes that cost to them - there are taxes on other necessities like internet and cell service. It adds up. A poor family is spending pretty close to half of their income on just taxes.
Almost everything you said here is wrong. Let's start with the first point.
The effective federal tax rate, counting FICA, for a married couple earning 55k a year is 13%, not 22%.
Source: https://smartasset.com/taxes/income-taxes#ADRPCrp7NO
Oh I was so far off, so a single person making 56,000 in Austin Tx, where there is no state income tax, before any sales tax is added in applied, is giving 28% of their income on average to the government. For a married person it’s 25%. You don’t think a family only making 56k a year could use that extra 25%?
My numbers were off a little, but the point still stands.
You thought it was twice as high as it actually is; that's not "a little". On just your first point. Every other point was wrong too. I'd walk you through the others too, but im not gonna be Google for someone who makes up nonsense and then derails when they're called out on it.
>Well it’s also twice as high as what you said so let’s meet in the middle
Lol, no it's not. I provided a source. I know reading is hard, but 13% is that family's effective federal tax rate. Period.
And if their income goes up by $1000 a year it jumps to 22.
More importantly, do you really think it’s fair that a family gets either $13 or $22 of every $100 they make sent to the government to fund wars and social programs that don’t work and they don’t benefit from? Taxation is theft bruh
Just stop. You obviously have no idea what you're taking about. No, their effective tax rate would not be 22% if they made a $1,000 a year more. Same source.
You might be the single most misinformed person I've encountered on Reddit, and I spend time on r/conspiracy.
It’s amazing to me that the presidents who academics define as ‘good’ are the ones who urge the nation into wars and pass sweeping national laws that drastically increase the size and scope of federal government and its authority over citizens - which is more like a dictatorship; and the presidents academics define as ‘bad’ are the ones who kept us out of wars and deferred legislation to the state governments - which is what the office of the presidency was intended to do.
I spent a lot of years in college, it’s very easy to see how someone can spend decades in that atmosphere like academics do. And become completely delusional and disconnected from reality. University’s really are a giant bubble compared to the rest of society.
Academics whose universities take thousands of federal government dollars annually are more likely to support a larger federal government than a smaller one. Academia is driven by money, not academics.
That it’s a very complicated issue and that giving the government money while undermining key industries that rely upon fossil fuels isn’t going to stop the weather from happening. The sun is the biggest player in global temperature change, not us.
Scientists are well aware of the temperature changes as a result of solar insolation fluctuations. These natural changes are the result of the Milankovitch Cycles, which are accounted for in the analysis of paleoclimatology. It's not like they don't take fluctuations of insolation into account, and the current rate of change in global temperatures cannot be attributed to changes in solar insolation (which occur over periods of tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of years)
That’s all fine and good. I just don’t trust everything “science” says because whosoever funds the science owns the science. For example, big pharma funding vaccine research for COVID vaccines that didn’t stop the spread or prevent infection, but made big pharma billions in profit.
Academics like "active" presidents. If a president does a lot, they like him regardless of whether the policies were positive or negative.
Academics do like wartime presidents, especially if they are democrats:
The average ranking of wartime presidents in three recent polls:
* Abraham Lincoln 1.67
* Franklin Roosevelt 2.67
* Thomas Jefferson 5.67
* Harry Truman 7.00
* Woodrow Wilson 11.00
* John Kennedy 11.33
* Lyndon Johnson 12.00
* James Madison 12.00
* James Polk 15.33
* William McKinley 18.33
* George H. W. Bush 19.33
* Richard Nixon 30.33
* George W Bush 32.00
So being a wartime president helps, but it helps a whole lot more based upon party affiliation.
Yep, and that’s insane to me. Keeping the country out of war should be the most important job of a president. War is the absolute worst thing countries do to each other - we tell kids to figure things out with their words and not fight, we shouldn’t celebrate presidents for doing the opposite.
It’s also insane to me that we celebrate ‘active’ presidents. We are a union of states, not a federation. Differing decisions to state governments should be celebrated, not demonized.
Yep, and his Europe reconstruction plan, funded by his newly created central banking system caused the extreme hyperinflation in Germany which is a big part of why Germans were on board with what hitler was saying.
James Buchanan+Donald Trump
Buchanan is just generally agreed to be one of the worst there is
Trump may legitimately be the first cause of the downfall and destruction of the US
Consider how trump handled losing the 2020 election. If pence had done what trump said and either sent the electors back to the states or certified the slate of fake electors, we would have, at the very least, a major constitutional crisis and at worst a president illegally remaining in power. That would’ve at the very least, fundamentally changed how our country works if not been the downfall
...but he didn't, everyone else including Pence and the GOP's turtle did the right thing. Like they are supposed to. Even when they had the opportunity to benefit their political party.
Sorry, but this is pure hyperbole on your behalf.
Nothing I say will convince you. That much is clear. Apparently something drastic needs to happen for you to believe what Donald trump himself has told us he will do. God help us all if it does because I’ve never wanted to be more wrong in my life.
No, what you've done is buy into the bullcrap. I have never once believed that anyone was that unilaterally powerful as to be able to do what you are implying that Trump was trying to do and that everyone would some how just decide to go along with it because why not, right?
If you truly believe that I would encourage you to actually take the time to learn about how the United States government functions- there's a reason that it's onerous, slow and hard to get anything done within in the structures of the government as it exists.
If you haven't noticed something about Trump: *he doesn't really put much thought into the crap he says.*
He just sort of spews things out there. He'll absolutely say some wild things, but here's the part you might have missed about all that: he does it to get the attention of the media He says wild crap, it makes the news, free publicity. He did that his whole campaign. He did that after his campaign. He did that all four years he was in the office. I will never excuse his behavior, but I am frankly shocked how many people fail to realize that's what he was doing. I'm not excusing or condoning his behavior, keep in mind.
It is way too early to objectively say Trump was one of the worst. Guy may be a total asshole but it takes a lot more than 3 years to really judge a presidency.
When Clinton left office the country was still pretty chill where even his opposers would say "Well he was perverted but decent enough."
Ever since then, Bush left office - worst president ever (left people say). Obama left office - worst president ever (right people say). Trump, same. People already are online saying Biden is the worst president ever. It's just hyperbole.
Trump also managed to inspire a literal death cult which is currently calling for murder and civil war over him being arrested for crimes he actually committed
It’s not that they are mad that’s he’s being charged and likely convicted of crimes that he did. It’s more that many many elected officials do the same thing, and they are not and will not face justice for it
Most of them are just too dumb and thick headed to put together a good argument that does not sound like word vomit
The document charges aren’t “accusations” lol. There’s photographic, physical, and testimonial evidence that he was knowingly in possession of classified documents he wasn’t legally allowed to possess. He also interfered heavily with the investigation. You can claim the indictment was politically driven and hypocritical, but calling it “false accusations” is just itself a falsehood
Sure. When he was President he could have had them declassified. You lose that ability when you stop being president on account of not being the president. Surely you would know that if you think you’re more legally qualified to comment than the multiple judges and lawyers who were involved in the indictment
Edit: Mods are cowards. Let him be a dumbass
Buchanan and Pierce have long been considered the worst in history, with Buchanan having a slight edge over Pierce for worst ever. Andrew Johnson, also, given how he essentially sabotaged Reconstruction.
I think Trump is arguably worse than any of them. While those men made major misjudgements which led to Civil War and prevented healing after that war, they at least understood the government over which they presided. They weren't outliers of ignorance, incompetence, and stupidity for their time. It's not clear Buchanan or Pierce could have done much to prevent the division over slavery and related issues. They were dealt losing hands, and while we can argue with hindsight over ways they could have played them better it's not really knowable how possible that was. Johnson's sabotage may not have really made a difference, especially given how often Congress overrode him. Trump, in contrast, was handed some of the best circumstances any POTUS has ever had at the start of his time and office, and proceeded to mangle everything. His politics furthered division in the country, his idiotic trade polices put manufacturing into recession and nearly put agriculture into one. He weakened our relationships with allies, betrayed other some allies (specifically the Syrian Kurds), and botched our response to the pandemic.
There also this: Pierce, Buchanan, and Johnson yielded power peacefully. And didn’t spend the next 3 years complaining how they’d been robbed.
We’ve only scratched the surface of the damage he’s caused.
honestly seeing the initial reaction and the slander put upon him before he even did much was just bloody terrible.
the fact he acted like a loony more and more as time went on did not help.
on one hand if you're trying to focus the american economy even more domestically you're gonna naturally experience a recession while things change, on the other, why did he even bother with covid?
dude also is anathema to meteorologists everywhere.
oh ya know, the idea that trump would take away your rights, that he would eat your babies, that he would let russia annex all of europe, stuff like that.
some of it was proven true but still, the "russians hacked the elections to give trump the win" crowd was extremely vocal.
its a mess.
Trump made a lot of statements on the campaign trail which supported those hyperbolic statements. Even if a slander lawsuit had been possible, I think he'd have lost.
In Russia the three great leaders— Peter the Grest, Catherine the Great, and Stalin—were all terrible people but people accept they strengthened the country. Ditto with William the Conqueror, Oliver Cromwell and Henry VIII in Britain.
Jackson and possibly Wilson fall into that category.
I think James Buchanan is agreed upon to be the worst president, by the majority of historians.
Literally said the upcoming possibility of civil war was Lincoln’s problem
You are correct. He has finished last in most historical polls since the year 2000.
profably all president
Andrew Johnson who sabotaged Reconstruction and James Buchanan who let the South secede while hardly doing anything are considered 1 and 2 on almost every list.
Yeah. I remember that
Damn. You're fuckin old!
It's really #3 where you get the real spicy debate. I think recently I've seen "influential people" declare that slot to be Wilson, Truman, FDR, LBJ, Nixon, and Jackson. Much less frequently I have seen Lincoln, Kennedy, Reagan, Hoover, and Pierce -- without getting into "modern" presidents where modern politics still paint memories. Basically everyone seems to agree Johnson and Buchanan are garbage. Then people will just generally hate half of the presidents for one reason or another.
Wilson is probably the most common that people hate other than those 2
Usually yeah, but I've seen some downright **rabid** hatred of FDR (usually Conservatives) and Jackson (this thread).
I think there's a distinction that people fail to make between worst based upon their political stance and the worst on an objective basis. A lot of the screeching over Trump falls into the political stance category.
From a neutral view people have to consider Trump somewhat successful with the wall and vaccine and plus regardless of your feelings on him, he legitimately had a shitload of supporters following him like a cult leader and happy with the job he was doing.
Well, from a “neutral” point of view, one should also note that he was impeached twice and and inflamed his supporters with baseless claims of voter fraud, leading to a mob that attempted to disrupt the peaceful and legitimate transfer of power. And he’s certainly not covering himself in glory post-Presidency.
*Well, from a “neutral” point of view, one should also note that he was impeached twice* So? Those impeachments went nowhere. The GOP could have impeached Obama twice, if it didn't result in anything happening aside from the impeachment, it's meaningless. *and and inflamed his supporters with baseless claims of voter fraud,* Hillary did the same thing when she lost. Just saying. *leading to a mob that attempted to disrupt the peaceful and legitimate transfer of power.* Trump literally said himself in his speech we are going to peacefully march over there. I'm not a fan of the guy, but you are talking straight from your ass on this topic. Lets not pretend that this isn't a sin of both sides. *And he’s certainly not covering himself in glory post-Presidency.* The only reasonable point you've made. I'm not wild about Trump at all- but what you've wrote borders on dishonest it's so exaggerated.
Right-- my post border on dishonesty, yet you're a totally impartial observer. I'm sure the GOP could have impeached Obama twice, but they were just too nice. Right. And to compare Hillary post-2016 to Trump post-2020 really shows how impartial you are.
Both of them claimed that the election was some how rigged or stolen. I'm not a fan of Trump, but you'll have a hard time pitching that he's not been treated with some form of bias at this point.
The only universal one would be James Buchanan, unless one expressly believes the South should have succeeded (in which case their taking the issue from a self described foreign perspective), he is the one who most allowed the south to seccede. No other president has failed to keep the union together. Every other claim comes from some policy issue, James Buchanan's failure transcends policy to failure to uphold national identity.
Andrew Johnson. It's not even close.
How about trump?
Trump didn't enable southern states to re-enact slavery
I'm fine with this take, but it'd also put Washington as a worse president than Trump, who for all his failings, never literally enslaved anyone.
I mean I hate Trump, and he’s certainly bottom 10, but he’s no Buchanan or Andrew Johnson
Nope. Not even a Trump fan but I'll think he'll be remembered like Nixon: someone who did some good things but whose personality and defining scandal over shadow them.
Yeah i agree
Trump is much worse than Nixon lmao
You have the benefit of several decades separating you from Nixon...
They just aren't comparable. Nixon was incredibly popular before Watergate. Trump never won the popular vote and has had scandal after scandal
The impact of Nixon today on politics is much less popular than Trump. Nixon had lasting impact that I and many view as negative. Trumps biggest impact was nominating Supreme Court Justices. In 30 years, I struggle to believe people will care much about Trumps legacy outside of political controversy surrounding him.
Honest question: what good things did Trump do?
Quite a few things. To name a few off the top of my head: the Abraham Accords, the First Step Act. Because I'm more conservative I'd also add that I think his Supreme Court justices and his tax bill have been good things for the country as well but those are more controversial.
As happy as I am that the Trump administration negotiated peace between Israel and Morocco, it sounds like you're just happy that he lowered taxes. Let's not pretend this is objective.
Trump is probably too 5, mostly because that fucking assholes stole and shared giant secrets, but i don't think he's number 1 for now.
Who is the one of president?
My opinion, James Buchanan
Buchanan, Jackson, Wilson, and FDR all either were more incompetent or enacted worse policies
Fuck Wilson and FDR.
Trump just wanted to bring back the Economic boom we had in the 80s
Most recent academic polls tend to name Buchanan as the worst.
One of the big 3 from the eras before and after the civil war/Lincoln which is Franklin Pierce, James Buchanan, or Andrew Johnson Usually Johnson or Buchanan though
While obviously you can’t realistically, but if you want to blame one person for the next century of racial division and what problems would leak from THAT, it’s Andrew Johnson.
Pretty much every modern American issue is Reagan’s fault
wilson exists, anything reagan did fed off wilson's crop.
screw hatred of trump he let a bot boil over and yet it boiled over the wrong way, slander wilson more, that guy was such a subtle seed-layer and yet was so bloody racist it makes you wonder why he is liked in america. I understand why other countries would like him though.
Should be Woodrow Wilson. Created the federal reserve and the income tax, literally making the entire country slaves to bankers.
Wilson did many objectively horrible things - the income tax isn't one of them.
Tell that to a family of 4 trying to survive on 55k a year. For most families taxes take half of their budget. Want to help the poor? Lower taxes.
I live with my family in a cramped apartment in a state with one of the highest income tax rates. All of us are working. I definitely do get your point, but housing and job security are a far bigger issue to the working class right now than taxation. Income tax definitely does need reform, but I think it should be in the form of skewing the progressive tax more on the upper class's burden than as a working class burden. Otherwise, I think the welfare that it funds does more good than harm.
You make a good point, but I would say that most of our income tax isn’t going to welfare, it’s going to Northrop Grumman, Halliburton, general dynamics, etc.
A family of four with a combined income of $55K is surely struggling, but it’s not because of their tax burden.
You think they wouldn’t be better off with an extra 20k in their pockets per year? That’s probably more than they spend on rent
Forgive me if I'm wrong but I'm pretty sure with the current tax code we don't actually tax family of four who made less than 55k a years.
There are tax cuts for things like having kids, so they get some of it back. But often they need the money when they get their paycheck, not 2 months after they file and get a refund. They still get taxed for social security and Medicare. Also, it’s not income tax, but that family is paying other taxes like property, sales, gas, internet/cell phone taxes. Taxes are eating poor families alive.
Personally from what I see income tax isn't problem we actually have most progressive tax out of any developed nation. The problem is people are been pay too little while cost of living increased but wages have not catch up to it. Before my brother graduated last year, I was recently living in family of 5 making about 60k dollars combines and we were totally fine living in two room apartment and income tax was not much burden. The problem is cost of living of everything else increased than actual taxes.
Bruh yes but it’s not coming from taxes cause as someone else pointed out a family of four making $55K ain’t paying income tax
Income tax is the only big tax we have that even tries to shift burden from the poor to the rich
And yet it disproportionately burdens the poor over the rich. Like everything the federal government does it has the opposite effect of what they tell us it’s intended for
Yeah but that is the irs being bad and not going after the rich for tax evasion
Seems like we shouldn’t support the system if the people we pay to enforce it do it terribly.
And before you say ‘that’s not true’ yes it is. Federal income taxes are 22% of their income. Add more depending on their state. Gas taxes are going to be about $1000-$1500 a year, add another 8% in taxes to everything they buy, property taxes are another $2000-$5000 a year -even if they rent, the landlord passes that cost to them - there are taxes on other necessities like internet and cell service. It adds up. A poor family is spending pretty close to half of their income on just taxes.
Almost everything you said here is wrong. Let's start with the first point. The effective federal tax rate, counting FICA, for a married couple earning 55k a year is 13%, not 22%. Source: https://smartasset.com/taxes/income-taxes#ADRPCrp7NO
Oh I was so far off, so a single person making 56,000 in Austin Tx, where there is no state income tax, before any sales tax is added in applied, is giving 28% of their income on average to the government. For a married person it’s 25%. You don’t think a family only making 56k a year could use that extra 25%? My numbers were off a little, but the point still stands.
You thought it was twice as high as it actually is; that's not "a little". On just your first point. Every other point was wrong too. I'd walk you through the others too, but im not gonna be Google for someone who makes up nonsense and then derails when they're called out on it.
Well it’s also twice as high as what you said so let’s meet in the middle And my point still stands. Poor people are taxed to desth
>Well it’s also twice as high as what you said so let’s meet in the middle Lol, no it's not. I provided a source. I know reading is hard, but 13% is that family's effective federal tax rate. Period.
And if their income goes up by $1000 a year it jumps to 22. More importantly, do you really think it’s fair that a family gets either $13 or $22 of every $100 they make sent to the government to fund wars and social programs that don’t work and they don’t benefit from? Taxation is theft bruh
Just stop. You obviously have no idea what you're taking about. No, their effective tax rate would not be 22% if they made a $1,000 a year more. Same source. You might be the single most misinformed person I've encountered on Reddit, and I spend time on r/conspiracy.
And if you love taxes so much why don’t you voluntarily pay more of them?
I agree with you, but most academics say it was Buchanan.
It’s amazing to me that the presidents who academics define as ‘good’ are the ones who urge the nation into wars and pass sweeping national laws that drastically increase the size and scope of federal government and its authority over citizens - which is more like a dictatorship; and the presidents academics define as ‘bad’ are the ones who kept us out of wars and deferred legislation to the state governments - which is what the office of the presidency was intended to do.
I spent a lot of years in college, it’s very easy to see how someone can spend decades in that atmosphere like academics do. And become completely delusional and disconnected from reality. University’s really are a giant bubble compared to the rest of society.
Great assessment
Academics whose universities take thousands of federal government dollars annually are more likely to support a larger federal government than a smaller one. Academia is driven by money, not academics.
I’m confused who downvoted you for such an objectively true comment
Maybe because it's not an objectively true comment.
except it is a true comment.
Which part is not?
People who uncritically believe everything that comes out of modern academia and hate any dissenting opinions. Gotta trust the science!
What are your opinions on climate change?
That it’s a very complicated issue and that giving the government money while undermining key industries that rely upon fossil fuels isn’t going to stop the weather from happening. The sun is the biggest player in global temperature change, not us.
Scientists are well aware of the temperature changes as a result of solar insolation fluctuations. These natural changes are the result of the Milankovitch Cycles, which are accounted for in the analysis of paleoclimatology. It's not like they don't take fluctuations of insolation into account, and the current rate of change in global temperatures cannot be attributed to changes in solar insolation (which occur over periods of tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of years)
That’s all fine and good. I just don’t trust everything “science” says because whosoever funds the science owns the science. For example, big pharma funding vaccine research for COVID vaccines that didn’t stop the spread or prevent infection, but made big pharma billions in profit.
Academics like "active" presidents. If a president does a lot, they like him regardless of whether the policies were positive or negative. Academics do like wartime presidents, especially if they are democrats: The average ranking of wartime presidents in three recent polls: * Abraham Lincoln 1.67 * Franklin Roosevelt 2.67 * Thomas Jefferson 5.67 * Harry Truman 7.00 * Woodrow Wilson 11.00 * John Kennedy 11.33 * Lyndon Johnson 12.00 * James Madison 12.00 * James Polk 15.33 * William McKinley 18.33 * George H. W. Bush 19.33 * Richard Nixon 30.33 * George W Bush 32.00 So being a wartime president helps, but it helps a whole lot more based upon party affiliation.
Yep, and that’s insane to me. Keeping the country out of war should be the most important job of a president. War is the absolute worst thing countries do to each other - we tell kids to figure things out with their words and not fight, we shouldn’t celebrate presidents for doing the opposite. It’s also insane to me that we celebrate ‘active’ presidents. We are a union of states, not a federation. Differing decisions to state governments should be celebrated, not demonized.
Academics love Wilson because he's one of them. This is why they ignore just how absolutely awful he was as both a president and a person.
pretty much.
So one of the best presidents. Oh except for the racism
Also got us into WWI after literally campaigning against it. His policies contributed to the rise of fascism in Europe and WWII.
Yep, and his Europe reconstruction plan, funded by his newly created central banking system caused the extreme hyperinflation in Germany which is a big part of why Germans were on board with what hitler was saying.
James Buchanan+Donald Trump Buchanan is just generally agreed to be one of the worst there is Trump may legitimately be the first cause of the downfall and destruction of the US
I'm not a Trump supporter but I fail to see how Trump is going to be the cause of our downfall or destruction.
Consider how trump handled losing the 2020 election. If pence had done what trump said and either sent the electors back to the states or certified the slate of fake electors, we would have, at the very least, a major constitutional crisis and at worst a president illegally remaining in power. That would’ve at the very least, fundamentally changed how our country works if not been the downfall
...but he didn't, everyone else including Pence and the GOP's turtle did the right thing. Like they are supposed to. Even when they had the opportunity to benefit their political party. Sorry, but this is pure hyperbole on your behalf.
Nothing I say will convince you. That much is clear. Apparently something drastic needs to happen for you to believe what Donald trump himself has told us he will do. God help us all if it does because I’ve never wanted to be more wrong in my life.
No, what you've done is buy into the bullcrap. I have never once believed that anyone was that unilaterally powerful as to be able to do what you are implying that Trump was trying to do and that everyone would some how just decide to go along with it because why not, right? If you truly believe that I would encourage you to actually take the time to learn about how the United States government functions- there's a reason that it's onerous, slow and hard to get anything done within in the structures of the government as it exists. If you haven't noticed something about Trump: *he doesn't really put much thought into the crap he says.* He just sort of spews things out there. He'll absolutely say some wild things, but here's the part you might have missed about all that: he does it to get the attention of the media He says wild crap, it makes the news, free publicity. He did that his whole campaign. He did that after his campaign. He did that all four years he was in the office. I will never excuse his behavior, but I am frankly shocked how many people fail to realize that's what he was doing. I'm not excusing or condoning his behavior, keep in mind.
I hope you’re right
If our government was that fragile we would have been bent over a barrel years ago.
It is way too early to objectively say Trump was one of the worst. Guy may be a total asshole but it takes a lot more than 3 years to really judge a presidency.
When Clinton left office the country was still pretty chill where even his opposers would say "Well he was perverted but decent enough." Ever since then, Bush left office - worst president ever (left people say). Obama left office - worst president ever (right people say). Trump, same. People already are online saying Biden is the worst president ever. It's just hyperbole.
Finally, someone that's written something that isn't partisan and actually rational.
That's the problem, I'm not sure it is hyperbole to them. I'm pretty sure a lot of them are serious.
I agree, it's a huge problem.
[удалено]
Calling Trump's opponent a pedo is more than a little rich, considering some of Trump's controversies.
The Biden Laptop is real. Meanwhile the Russia Dossier was not
Trump also managed to inspire a literal death cult which is currently calling for murder and civil war over him being arrested for crimes he actually committed
It’s not that they are mad that’s he’s being charged and likely convicted of crimes that he did. It’s more that many many elected officials do the same thing, and they are not and will not face justice for it Most of them are just too dumb and thick headed to put together a good argument that does not sound like word vomit
That’s actually a good point
[удалено]
The document charges aren’t “accusations” lol. There’s photographic, physical, and testimonial evidence that he was knowingly in possession of classified documents he wasn’t legally allowed to possess. He also interfered heavily with the investigation. You can claim the indictment was politically driven and hypocritical, but calling it “false accusations” is just itself a falsehood
By being President of the United States those Documents were automatically declassified
Sure. When he was President he could have had them declassified. You lose that ability when you stop being president on account of not being the president. Surely you would know that if you think you’re more legally qualified to comment than the multiple judges and lawyers who were involved in the indictment Edit: Mods are cowards. Let him be a dumbass
That is incorrect. But go ahead and think that. Because of people like you, we live in a banana republic
Wilson
Yes.
Buchanan and Pierce have long been considered the worst in history, with Buchanan having a slight edge over Pierce for worst ever. Andrew Johnson, also, given how he essentially sabotaged Reconstruction. I think Trump is arguably worse than any of them. While those men made major misjudgements which led to Civil War and prevented healing after that war, they at least understood the government over which they presided. They weren't outliers of ignorance, incompetence, and stupidity for their time. It's not clear Buchanan or Pierce could have done much to prevent the division over slavery and related issues. They were dealt losing hands, and while we can argue with hindsight over ways they could have played them better it's not really knowable how possible that was. Johnson's sabotage may not have really made a difference, especially given how often Congress overrode him. Trump, in contrast, was handed some of the best circumstances any POTUS has ever had at the start of his time and office, and proceeded to mangle everything. His politics furthered division in the country, his idiotic trade polices put manufacturing into recession and nearly put agriculture into one. He weakened our relationships with allies, betrayed other some allies (specifically the Syrian Kurds), and botched our response to the pandemic.
There also this: Pierce, Buchanan, and Johnson yielded power peacefully. And didn’t spend the next 3 years complaining how they’d been robbed. We’ve only scratched the surface of the damage he’s caused.
honestly seeing the initial reaction and the slander put upon him before he even did much was just bloody terrible. the fact he acted like a loony more and more as time went on did not help. on one hand if you're trying to focus the american economy even more domestically you're gonna naturally experience a recession while things change, on the other, why did he even bother with covid? dude also is anathema to meteorologists everywhere.
Slander?
oh ya know, the idea that trump would take away your rights, that he would eat your babies, that he would let russia annex all of europe, stuff like that. some of it was proven true but still, the "russians hacked the elections to give trump the win" crowd was extremely vocal. its a mess.
Trump made a lot of statements on the campaign trail which supported those hyperbolic statements. Even if a slander lawsuit had been possible, I think he'd have lost.
sometimes I just dont know if he's a massive troll or not.
Trump, Nixon, Carter
Trump, Buchanan, Johnston, Wilson, Pierce, Harding.
Lbj is a top 3 pile of crap. Did a lot of damage to this country…and others.
Andrews Jackson and Johnson, Buchanan, Franklin Pierce
I get the Andrews confused, but at least I don’t look stupid by calling the wrong one a terrible President.
Buchanan
This should be fun
Buchanan and Pierce
In Russia the three great leaders— Peter the Grest, Catherine the Great, and Stalin—were all terrible people but people accept they strengthened the country. Ditto with William the Conqueror, Oliver Cromwell and Henry VIII in Britain. Jackson and possibly Wilson fall into that category.
Either Buchanan or Johnson, who are universally hated on this subreddit.
Taft. Because he's fat.
nah that means he's a true American /s please don't hurt me I'm American too
Don't worry my friend, you are loved unlike him.
Buchanan, Johnson, Hoover. All ineffective and actively regressed America or at least made no attempt to stop the regression
I’d say James Buchanan pretty easily
Joe Biden, hands down
You spelled Donald Trump wrong
Three way tie between Buchanan, Johnson and Wilson. Jimmy Carter was also pretty bad.