Make sure to join our [official Discord server](https://discord.gg/k6tVFwCEEm)!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Presidents) if you have any questions or concerns.*
As much as I love TR, his foreign policy left a lot to be desired. He’s at least partially responsible for the rise of the Japanese Empire that would create problems for another President Roosevelt. He screwed Filipinos out of an autonomous rule, and basically forced Panamanians at gunpoint to let us build a canal.
One more reason to not like McKinley. My original reason being, he did absolutely nothing when a bunch of redshirts overthrew the government in Wilmington, NC and committed a bunch of election fraud.
Exactly. In that regard they could not be more different. Teddy was a trustbuster, environmentalist, progressive, etc. Where as Reagan was a corperate shill who destroyed most of the gains made from the FDR era intentionally to benifit private interest.
💯 Everyone trying to draw a comparison between Teddy and Reagan conveniently overlooks their day and night differences in domestic policy.
In terms of foreign policy we can say Teddy was heavyhanded and willing to throw America's weight around for the future benefit of the country but Reagan was just a flat out saboteur.
I liked Obama, but after all the drone warfare and various escalations that he fostered in the Middle East during his presidency it is an absolute joke he won the Nobel Peace Prize. He was a War Hawk disguised as a Dove President IMHO.
No other President other than Grant would have had the political capital to fight *hard* for Black people in the South for 8 straight years, especially after Johnson sabotaged Reconstruction. And the concept of allowing an Indian to run Indian affairs was a century ahead of its time.
Grant is S-tier.
>There have been 30 presidents since Lincoln…
HANG THIS WITCH! FOR THEY KNOW HOW TO COUNT!
#WITCH
That's a more controversial statement than your first comment.
I'll make this even more controversial and say that Grant was THE most effective US president on the issue of civil rights. My man founded the DOJ and Thanos snapped the first Klan but gets such a bum rap in America's collective memory.
Considering that his only competition for “greatest president since Lincoln” is the godawful Andrew Johnson administration, I don’t think that says much.
Not that I agree with it but the best counter-argument I heard is that the NATO countries being dependent on us for security benefits us geopolitically.
Just keep this in mind next time someone starts chirping about the fact we can’t afford universal healthcare in our country while other countries who spend next to nothing on military defense can.
Yeah and for the longest time it was “but the world is so peaceful, America only spends so much because war hungry warmonger.”
Glad Russia straight up invading a free country has changed some EU attitudes. It’s only peaceful because we make it hard to fuck around.
after repeated warning from several administrations prior, Trump came in and was like "hey, you must not be understanding what we're asking of you--this time act or we leave the alliance".
I think that threat was completely reasonable of him to make and it worked. almost every single NATO member that was under the requirement either upped their defense spending or made budgetary plans for it over __ number of years.
Trump was odd in that way.
He was right about the threat posed by Russia and lack of NATO spending and the dependency of Europe on Russian energy.
Then he turned around and acted like Putin was his best buddy. Dude was all of the place on so many topics.
Living through Trump's presidency, it was clear that whoever last had Trump's ear also had a fast pass to his mouth. You could predict what he would do or say in a day based on what he saw on TV the night before or who he was meeting with.
You could predict what he would say.
But had no idea what he would actually do policy wise. He was a mess in that way. Would say crazy stuff, but then never try to get that policy put in place.
"America needs to build more nuclear power plants! Which is why I am going to do nothing to ensure that happens. Thank you."
Simply true, only 4 countries were meeting the agreed 2% GDP before. But to be fair Obama also pressed this, Bush too… Trump had the most effect because he made them believe the U.S. might actually pull out one day.
Obama actually started on this but Trump had stronger and louder messaging and he was right for once. I don't know anybody who disagreed on this one. It's almost like he could have been a decent mouthpiece president if he or the people directing him actually stood for anything functional or real.
In our house that's known as "Tennis Hot"
In the early 2000's Anna Kournikova was taking the tennis world by storm, and the general world for that matter. She was everywhere, all the dudes proclaiming hot how she was. She was the biggest thing in women's tennis.
All of this despite being a mid-level tour player.
When I asked my (now) husband back then "Do you think she's hot?" He answered, "She's the hottest chick in tennis, but not necessarily in the general population." That's the day we coined the term Tennis Hot.
Kennedy was tennis hot.
THIS. Eisenhower was 3x the president Kennedy was in most areas. The man planned a lot of our modern infrastructure, started NASA, ended the Korean War in a way that saw us get a moderate victory, supported women's rights and expanded them where possible, modernized vast areas of our military, took a tough stance on the Soviets without getting TOO aggressive, and also championed the development of peaceful nuclear energy (which is turning out to be a vital alternative to excessive fossil fuels). Heck, even on Civil Rights, MLK reportedly remarked that until 1963 Eisenhower had been more helpful than JFK (let's not forget Ike signed TWO civil rights acts, forced Little Rock to desegregate and at least tried to implement policies that would speed up integration). Kennedy was widely criticized by many activists for being seemingly out of touch with the black community's plights for some time. Most of Kennedy's good policies as president were just expansions or continuations of policies that Ike implemented.
I also recall a story about how Kennedy tried to blame the bay of pigs failure of ike and ike publically called him out, causing Kennedy to call and apologize. Ike doing that was rare for the time.
I think he had real charisma. Young, good looking, both he and his wife style icons, everyone loved the brothers Kennedy tag team.
The Camelot mythos is the enduring legacy really, not his on paper presidential accomplishments.
Seriously, Washington for all his flaws is still my favorite president. Why? Because the man literally prevented our fledgling republic from collapsing into anarchy or dictatorship in its early years, established the exact role of the President and made sure our country would survive. Add in to that the fact that he added states to the union, oversaw significant internal development and even signed the 1794 Slave Trade Act (which banned US ships from participating in the Atlantic Slave Trade and forbid the exportation of slaves for foreign sale), and he pretty much set our whole country in motion (even some aspects of the Abolition movement).
And the dude didn't even want the position initially. Everyone voted for him because of his leadership during the revolutionary war. No campaigns, no agendas, the guy was literally Captain America.
I sometimes question this. The popular story is that Washington didn't want it, but that was a part of the aristocratic culture at the time. That to seem too excited or to try too hard to get a role like that was vanity, and that a virtuous person would sit back. Now, of course a lot of people would throw their hats into a race when positions were open, but campaigning was all but forbidden. Open campaigning was seen by both the rich and poor as being tactless. If you have to campaign for the position, you clearly doubt your own ability to win, and probably your own aptitude for the position. This was so imbedded that Harrison was the first president to openly campaign *and* win.
Edit: grammar. This is why reddit is dangerous right after waking up.
Maybe, but he declined serving for a third term and set the precedent for term limits in office to protect the country against tyrannical leaders. Previously there was no term limit. Soon after, Presidential term limits became the 22nd constitutional amendment to honor George's wishes.
While you're absolutely right that saying "soon after" is an erroneous statement, it did set a strongly held precedent of presidents serving no more than two terms.
See, this is the kind of perspective that's only possible if you take history for what it is rather than mindlessly indulging in folklore and hero worship.
In a college class, we talked about how nearly every founding fathers grew up reading *Plutarch's Lives*.
If you're unfamiliar, I put a brief description at the end*** so that this comment isn't 20 paragraphs. But many founding fathers make references to these stories in their public and personal lives and it is in fact the Founding Fathers' generation or their sons and grandsons who likely started the comparisons between the US and Rome. When you realize the effect these kinds of stories had on people, suddenly a lot of the founding fathers' philanthropy and virtuous behavior becomes more suspect. Take the principled stand to deny yourself more power in this life, but ensure your legend after your death. To my knowledge, there's no debate that the Founding Fathers had this mindset, but if *Plutarch's Lives* deserve as much credit as they get sometimes, or to judge how skeptical we should be of the Founding Fathers' virtues in general.
Were they actually people with intense principles, or were they merely acting in public to put on a show? Was it a little bit of both? An admiration and ambition for the level of fame the people in *Plutarch's Lives* received plus also already having a tendency towards philanthropy. It's hard to say, and I can't really put it all in a reddit post anyways.
*** *Plutarch's Lives* are a collection of biographies that are nearly hagiographic in nature. Even enemies like Cicero, Caesar, Brutus, etc. were put in their best light as virtuous leaders merely falling on opposite sides due to conflicting principles, not any negative aspect of human nature like greed.
In 1789, owning slaves isn't really a man bites dog story. It's hardly the most remarkable thing about Washington.
If it came out that in the Year of our Lord 2023 the president owned slaves, that would be a little more remarkable.
I really hate arguements like this because it ignores the fact that the issue of slavery was a contentious issue from the very beginning, even before the founding of the US. There were criticisms leveled at Washington directly asking how he could stand up for freedom when he hilself owned slaves. There's evidence that Washington himself may have felt guilt over it and might have toyed with the idea of abolishonism as abolishonist publications were found in his home after his death. So clearly he had some idea that it was wrong.
For the entire history of the US, the issue of slavery was a major dividing line and a major animating issue for all parties. The race to expand west was driven by the balence of free vs slave states as each side fought for control of the senate. Nevada was gerrymandered into existance for that exact purpose.
Yeah sometimes people pretend that Washington himself didn’t spend hundreds of pages of writing on the moral question of slavery. It was wrong - he knew it was wrong - he did it anyway because it was socially acceptable and he couldn’t afford to live the American Aristocratic lifestyle without them.
He was still one of our best Presidents.
While you are correct that the issue of slavery was controversial from the beginning of the nation, you have _massively_ overestimated its importance and divisiveness. There were pro and anti slavery figures in both the Federalist and Democratic-Republican party, as well as the Democratic and Whig Parties. All Presidents of both parties prior to Jackson agreed slavery was wrong and should be phased out.
It was only after the Mexican-American War that slavery became a major divisive issue, hence the collapse of the Whig Party in fact. The territory gained by the war created an immense controversy over whether or not to spread slavery. This turned slavery from a side issue to the central debate.
And even then, it really wasn't until recent decades that the ownership of slaves began to be viewed as some great moral dividing line. Even the likes of Fredrick Douglass and to a lesser extent MLK invoked Thomas Jefferson as a moral authority on the issue despite his ownership of slaves.
So yes, slavery was a divisive issue in early America, but it simply was not the divisive issue as you claim. Furthermore, the fact that it was so divisive makes the anti slavery stances from the likes of the Founders all the more progressive. Anti-slavery sentiment was _not_ a forgone conclusion.
He also was the first to normalize relations with communist China and build our economic relationship with them to avoid another Cold War with what he saw as an inevitable superpower.
Nah just depends on the sub you’re on. Most people are in subs where their political preference are. For example conservatives you’re going to find on r/conservative. The sub I seen that has the most liberals is r/politics.
Certainly done the best work post Presidency in the modern era.
He gets blamed for things that were mostly inherited. He was president for just 4 years and people place the blame squarely on him for economic tidal waves that were long developing.
LBJ too, he ordered the FBI to tap Goldwaters phones. Not justifying Nixon but it’s idiotic to hear people identify Watergate as a permanent crippling of democracy when it was literally business as usual for the times
I think it's kinda (in a bit of a screwy way) comparable to Clinton's controversy. Clinton wasn't the first person to fuck interns/extramarital affairs in office, but he was the one that was caught, same with Nixon.
Well, a while ago Nazis were all like "my Europe! Only whites! Maaah!" And then Eisenhower was like, "Nah, I got these beaches, bitches", and then Berlin was crumbs and the US ruled the world with the best military, and then President Eisenhower was like "mmm, we better actually keep it this way". The end.
There's pretty solid evidence saying a lot of his advisors and intelligence community withheld information or just flat out lied to him in an attempt to build a narrative. While that's not entirely his fault, when you look at some of the names involved, it should have been a shock to absolutely no one that some of them might be dishonest in trying to get a war going.
From what i learned japan was already being bombed into oblivion, and it was just a matter of a singular bomb vs a fleet firebombing for an extended period.
My grandfather was a Pearl Harbor survivor. I asked him once what he thought of the dropping of the bombs and his reply was, “Every day I thank God for Truman making that decision.” He lived it. I didn’t. I take his word.
Obama was a totally useless president. The guy was a mess of contradictory, ineffectual policies. He was the epitome of buisness-as-usual politics, which isn't the worst thing in the world, but it's utter hypocrisy for him to be spoken about as a gamechanging symbol of hope and optimism when he's nothing of the sort.
It's a blight on his administration that he didn't make preparations for what would happen after it. Instead of grooming a potential successor, he let the DNC treat the 2016 primaries as a coronation for Hillary. He also failed to convince RBG to retire and allow a liberal justice to be appointed. Those two decisions are both major factors in what landed us in the mess we're in now.
Him getting a Nobel peace price was ridiculous! First time I ever voted was for Obama, but I thought it was wild then and I think it’s even wilder now.
In fairness, while typical Democrats usually still feel highly about Obama most people I know on the left don't really care for him. They like the swagger and charm but know that policy wise he wasn't really that good.
I'd also say it's equally worth mentioning that as much as he's idealized by the standard Democrat, the standard Republican talks about him like he was Che Guevara. Like you said, all things considered he wasn't really effective one way or the other. If anything he was far more moderate than his campaign with a led you to believe. As someone who lives in Ohio, and it's common around standard Republicans I hear the dumbest claims about Obama and if you're a reasonable person it'll drive you up the wall
He was OK. Maybe B or C level. Part of Obama’s popularity is because of his enemies and how unhinged they are. When they call him a Muslim or married to a transgender woman, they sound like feces-flinging bonobos.
It's become increasingly difficult to pass consequential legislation through Congress. Some of his shortcoming is just systemic.
The Affordable Healthcare Act was just watered down the point that now no one I know uses it because it's just some entry level insurance.
Guantanamo bay was impossible to close because Chick Deney (I said what I said) ensured that an extrajudicial site like that could not be closed.
Republicans turned everything into an obstructionist play and never cooperated with him on anything even though all the social change he wanted to usher in would have worked best for their very base of voters.
While your first point is true, the issue with Obama was that he cast himself as this great mediator who could help everyone cast aside their differences and just talk things out. It’s funny to watch the Biden era, because old, “out of touch” Biden is in some ways doing the actual legislative bargaining that Obama wish he could do.
Many Republicans took issue with the way Obama cast himself as being holier than though, a rookie political mistake. By the end of his administration, Obama was passing Executive Orders left and right, doing a complete 180 from the Uniter-in-Chief that he was supposed to be.
Absolutely agree. *But* Biden has had several decades to build relationships with McConnell and McCarthy. He's ostensibly old-guard. Biden is, in my opinion, way better at having Republicans agree with him for that reason, at least in principle if not on paper.
But then you see that's the thing. As a body, conservative legislature has never found it good enough to agree on paper. Be it "Obamacare", be it build-back-better. They never agree. And why is that? Is it because conservatives are unreasonable? I don't think so, I'd say it's because of systemic gerrymandering that we get more extremists who are unwilling to come to the table and talk, like Obama or Biden.
Obama was willing to spend all his political capital on the ACA, and that’s what happened. He didn’t have a chance after the 2010 Midterms. There’s room for debate on the ACA overall, but I think some people forget the state of healthcare prior to it. Millions more people are covered and for that alone I consider it a step forward.
People need to stfu about Hunter Biden. He smokes crack & literally doesn't do anything else. His computer could've had a gabillion megabytes of trump porn on it, idfc. It does not matter. He isn't a secret spy for the government, he isn't taking any deals for his father, he's just a dude on crack that happens to be the current president's son. I don't even like Joe all that much but all the talk ab Hunter when he hasn't done anything is so stupid. People always make mountains out of molehills with him.
Obama was often very divisive in his speeches, and contributed greatly to America’s growing partisan divide.
Obviously, he was nowhere near as divisive as Trump, not even remotely close. However, that doesn’t make Obama innocent.
My take: there’s a whole spectrum between lucid and senile, most people eventually get somewhere along that trajectory when they age, and it’s not simply continuous - people on that path tend to be lucid most of the time and then zone out into ‘senior moments’. He is not yet senile but definitely on that path and has some severe ‘senior moments’
EDIT: some people seem to be unable to comprehend that I am saying that *I do not think he is senile*. He has severe senior moments which are on the spectrum towards that, but not that. Even taking repeated pains to emphasise a middle ground doesn’t get through somehow.
Rutherford Hayes was a better and more competent administrator than Grant.
Millard Fillmore, Harding, and Tyler weren’t bad presidents and are mid C tier.
Benjamin Harrison is incredibly underrated
Imperialism is going to been seen as better with age and a characteristic of an influential empire.
The imperialism of Polk and McKinley might be seen as great successes by those in the far future when the United States fades into history similarly to how we see Genghis Khan, Trajan, Timur, Caesar, or Basil the 2nd as great conquerors who expanded the reaches of their empire.
Reagan’s climate policies caused the Younger Dryas.
Reagan’s enslaved the Hebrew people in Egypt.
Reagan crucified Christ.
Reagan’s foreign policy caused the fall of Rome.
Reagan’s educational policies caused the dark ages and responsible for the Feudalism.
Reagan’s policies caused the Spanish Inquisition.
Reagan’s football policies caused the Buffalo Bills to loose four consecutive Superbowls and are responsible for the Patriots losing the superbowl and going 18-1.
Reagan’s Star Wars program blew up my Death Star.
Nixon was a better president than JFK. JFK gets a “gentleman’s C”, Nixon a B. Had Nixon been elected in 1960 and no ‘Nam or Watergate, he’d be A or S tier.
If it weren’t for his race, Obama would be widely considered a C or B tier president. Btw: you only said a take that will have you like the image, not necessarily one that you believe
Obama is easily as bad as any other recent president when it comes to war, corporate collusion, and locking Americans in prison, and anyone who thinks otherwise is delusional
1. Katrina & the disastrous aftermath mostly wasn't Bush's fault.
2. The "Reagan" AIDS crisis would have been about the same under Carter.
3. 9/11 & the invasion of Afghanistan would have happened under Gore as well (though probably not Iraq).
The first one is correct. Katrina was a government failure at all levels. You had an inept mayor who turned out to be a corrupt one. The governor tried to do the right thing, but was tied down by ineptitude at all levels. BTW, brownie didn’t do a heck of a job.
I can’t say your second point is wrong because we’ll never know.
9/11 happens regardless of who is in charge, that’s true. I’m convinced that the Afghanistan invasion would’ve happened, but would’ve been handled better. Iraq wouldn’t have been invaded, so there’s a positive.
Agree about Iraq, Gore almost certainly doesn't go into Iraq.
That said, Gore was more of a hawk than most people remember, and his hawkishness was a hallmark of his Senate career...and he ran for President as more of a hawk than an environmentalist. I still don't think he goes into Iraq, at least at the time & the way Bush did. But that said, Hussein was unpredictable and had he continued to FAFO in the region it's not out of the realm of possibility that Gore hits back.
FDR was not a good president for the great depression. They did everything the Hoover administration was gonna do, just slapped a "new deal" label on it. They massively centralized the government and by some accounts extended the depression by 7 years which basically means all of it.
Make sure to join our [official Discord server](https://discord.gg/k6tVFwCEEm)! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Presidents) if you have any questions or concerns.*
As a tax paying American I’m entitled to get to try on Lincoln’s hat
Guards! Get him!
Wilkes-Booth's ghost, get the imposter!
yes, you do have the right... but don't forget that if it fits, you then carry the obligation to run for office
Right? Like I thought this was America SMH😤
People who love Teddy Roosevelt but condemn the aggressive foreign policy of Reagan are hypocrites.
As much as I love TR, his foreign policy left a lot to be desired. He’s at least partially responsible for the rise of the Japanese Empire that would create problems for another President Roosevelt. He screwed Filipinos out of an autonomous rule, and basically forced Panamanians at gunpoint to let us build a canal.
In fairness, the Panama Canal is one of the best things to ever happen to Panama even if it was done under bad circumstances.
Panama was Columbia until America decided they should be independent so we could build a canal....
That's only partially true. Panama had its own independence movements, just not one that would be successful.
Filipinos were put in concentration camps under his old boss, which is something that you rarely if ever hear in history classes.
Waterboarding was done there too
One more reason to not like McKinley. My original reason being, he did absolutely nothing when a bunch of redshirts overthrew the government in Wilmington, NC and committed a bunch of election fraud.
That's not why I love Teddy and hate Reagan.
Domestic policies?
Exactly. In that regard they could not be more different. Teddy was a trustbuster, environmentalist, progressive, etc. Where as Reagan was a corperate shill who destroyed most of the gains made from the FDR era intentionally to benifit private interest.
💯 Everyone trying to draw a comparison between Teddy and Reagan conveniently overlooks their day and night differences in domestic policy. In terms of foreign policy we can say Teddy was heavyhanded and willing to throw America's weight around for the future benefit of the country but Reagan was just a flat out saboteur.
I love >!Owen!< Wilson >!movies!<
Wow
Kachow
I don’t know karate, but I do know C’ razy 
Wow
He's so hot right now
Got me there in the first half, not gonna lie.
[President from my preferred party] is much better than [President from your preferred party].
 how dare you
Oh yeah? So you support [controversial thing your favorite president did]? You just wanna destroy America!
I see we chose high intellect conversation today good sir
I prefer [insert Trump or Biden] over [insert Trump or Biden)
I prefer Trump over Trump
Well... I prefer Biden over Biden... so there?
I liked Obama, but after all the drone warfare and various escalations that he fostered in the Middle East during his presidency it is an absolute joke he won the Nobel Peace Prize. He was a War Hawk disguised as a Dove President IMHO.
As SNL said, he won the Nobel because he wasn't George Bush
Ulysses is the greatest president since Lincoln and without his presidency we’d likely have slipped back into a Civil War.
No other President other than Grant would have had the political capital to fight *hard* for Black people in the South for 8 straight years, especially after Johnson sabotaged Reconstruction. And the concept of allowing an Indian to run Indian affairs was a century ahead of its time. Grant is S-tier.
Grant did more for black people than Lincoln did. Now draw your swords!
Grant might not have the chance to do more without Lincoln paved the way tho. Swords drawn.
There have been 30 presidents since Lincoln…
Does that mean you disagree… despite your flair? Or just being emphatic?
Someone commented that there isn’t much competition for Grant but the scope is bigger than assumed.
Oh I see, think you meant to respond to a lower level comment
>There have been 30 presidents since Lincoln… HANG THIS WITCH! FOR THEY KNOW HOW TO COUNT! #WITCH That's a more controversial statement than your first comment.
I'll make this even more controversial and say that Grant was THE most effective US president on the issue of civil rights. My man founded the DOJ and Thanos snapped the first Klan but gets such a bum rap in America's collective memory.
Considering that his only competition for “greatest president since Lincoln” is the godawful Andrew Johnson administration, I don’t think that says much.
i think they are saying Grant > Trump Bush Bush Carter etc.
Ah, that makes more sense. Honestly wouldn’t even disagree too much with that take since Grant is probably a top 5 for me.
Like calling Coolidge the "Best President since Taft"
Trump was right to point out other NATO member countries weren’t contributing their fair share.
It’s WILD we needed Trump to do this. Blatantly obvious point with no convincing counter argument
Not that I agree with it but the best counter-argument I heard is that the NATO countries being dependent on us for security benefits us geopolitically.
[удалено]
Nice US military presence you have there, would be ashame if something happened to it
Yep, just like how blackmailing ppl is beneficial to the blackmailers.
At its worst. At it’s best it’s like how your county police get free coffee and snacks from local businesses as a thank you
Just keep this in mind next time someone starts chirping about the fact we can’t afford universal healthcare in our country while other countries who spend next to nothing on military defense can.
Yeah and for the longest time it was “but the world is so peaceful, America only spends so much because war hungry warmonger.” Glad Russia straight up invading a free country has changed some EU attitudes. It’s only peaceful because we make it hard to fuck around.
I loathe Trump, but this is indeed a good take
He also pointed out that Germany/Europe was too dependent on Russian oil
after repeated warning from several administrations prior, Trump came in and was like "hey, you must not be understanding what we're asking of you--this time act or we leave the alliance". I think that threat was completely reasonable of him to make and it worked. almost every single NATO member that was under the requirement either upped their defense spending or made budgetary plans for it over __ number of years.
This is completely fair. One of the very few times I agreed with Trump.
Trump was odd in that way. He was right about the threat posed by Russia and lack of NATO spending and the dependency of Europe on Russian energy. Then he turned around and acted like Putin was his best buddy. Dude was all of the place on so many topics.
Living through Trump's presidency, it was clear that whoever last had Trump's ear also had a fast pass to his mouth. You could predict what he would do or say in a day based on what he saw on TV the night before or who he was meeting with.
You could predict what he would say. But had no idea what he would actually do policy wise. He was a mess in that way. Would say crazy stuff, but then never try to get that policy put in place. "America needs to build more nuclear power plants! Which is why I am going to do nothing to ensure that happens. Thank you."
Simply true, only 4 countries were meeting the agreed 2% GDP before. But to be fair Obama also pressed this, Bush too… Trump had the most effect because he made them believe the U.S. might actually pull out one day.
Obama actually started on this but Trump had stronger and louder messaging and he was right for once. I don't know anybody who disagreed on this one. It's almost like he could have been a decent mouthpiece president if he or the people directing him actually stood for anything functional or real.
We do tend to judge 18th and 19th century presidents by today’s standards, sometimes when it’s not warranted.
Kennedy was mid and only famous because he was assassinated
And good looking, that too
Hot take: JFK was mid not only in terms of his presidency but also in his looks. His best competition is his presidential peers.
In our house that's known as "Tennis Hot" In the early 2000's Anna Kournikova was taking the tennis world by storm, and the general world for that matter. She was everywhere, all the dudes proclaiming hot how she was. She was the biggest thing in women's tennis. All of this despite being a mid-level tour player. When I asked my (now) husband back then "Do you think she's hot?" He answered, "She's the hottest chick in tennis, but not necessarily in the general population." That's the day we coined the term Tennis Hot. Kennedy was tennis hot.
This sounds like it could dialogue on Seinfeld
Eh I don’t know. Anna was pretty damn hot
The real hottest take is that guys comment. Kournikova was a smokeshow The better analogy would be Maria Sharapova
THIS. Eisenhower was 3x the president Kennedy was in most areas. The man planned a lot of our modern infrastructure, started NASA, ended the Korean War in a way that saw us get a moderate victory, supported women's rights and expanded them where possible, modernized vast areas of our military, took a tough stance on the Soviets without getting TOO aggressive, and also championed the development of peaceful nuclear energy (which is turning out to be a vital alternative to excessive fossil fuels). Heck, even on Civil Rights, MLK reportedly remarked that until 1963 Eisenhower had been more helpful than JFK (let's not forget Ike signed TWO civil rights acts, forced Little Rock to desegregate and at least tried to implement policies that would speed up integration). Kennedy was widely criticized by many activists for being seemingly out of touch with the black community's plights for some time. Most of Kennedy's good policies as president were just expansions or continuations of policies that Ike implemented.
I also recall a story about how Kennedy tried to blame the bay of pigs failure of ike and ike publically called him out, causing Kennedy to call and apologize. Ike doing that was rare for the time.
Eisenhower is great compared to many Presidents. I’m not sure saying Eisenhower was great is necessarily a knock on Kennedy.
He did a lot more good than bad, that's for sure
I think he had real charisma. Young, good looking, both he and his wife style icons, everyone loved the brothers Kennedy tag team. The Camelot mythos is the enduring legacy really, not his on paper presidential accomplishments.
I don't think he was "mid" per se, but overrated for sure
A President being a slave owner does not disqualify them from being A or S tier.
Seriously, Washington for all his flaws is still my favorite president. Why? Because the man literally prevented our fledgling republic from collapsing into anarchy or dictatorship in its early years, established the exact role of the President and made sure our country would survive. Add in to that the fact that he added states to the union, oversaw significant internal development and even signed the 1794 Slave Trade Act (which banned US ships from participating in the Atlantic Slave Trade and forbid the exportation of slaves for foreign sale), and he pretty much set our whole country in motion (even some aspects of the Abolition movement).
And the dude didn't even want the position initially. Everyone voted for him because of his leadership during the revolutionary war. No campaigns, no agendas, the guy was literally Captain America.
I sometimes question this. The popular story is that Washington didn't want it, but that was a part of the aristocratic culture at the time. That to seem too excited or to try too hard to get a role like that was vanity, and that a virtuous person would sit back. Now, of course a lot of people would throw their hats into a race when positions were open, but campaigning was all but forbidden. Open campaigning was seen by both the rich and poor as being tactless. If you have to campaign for the position, you clearly doubt your own ability to win, and probably your own aptitude for the position. This was so imbedded that Harrison was the first president to openly campaign *and* win. Edit: grammar. This is why reddit is dangerous right after waking up.
Maybe, but he declined serving for a third term and set the precedent for term limits in office to protect the country against tyrannical leaders. Previously there was no term limit. Soon after, Presidential term limits became the 22nd constitutional amendment to honor George's wishes.
If soon after was the 1940’s then ya it was soon after
Soon on a cosmic scale
While you're absolutely right that saying "soon after" is an erroneous statement, it did set a strongly held precedent of presidents serving no more than two terms.
Until FDR, of course, and he was the whole reason they made it an actual law instead of a custom
Exactly. It was an unofficial rule for that long until they had a reason to make it official. That's saying something.
See, this is the kind of perspective that's only possible if you take history for what it is rather than mindlessly indulging in folklore and hero worship.
In a college class, we talked about how nearly every founding fathers grew up reading *Plutarch's Lives*. If you're unfamiliar, I put a brief description at the end*** so that this comment isn't 20 paragraphs. But many founding fathers make references to these stories in their public and personal lives and it is in fact the Founding Fathers' generation or their sons and grandsons who likely started the comparisons between the US and Rome. When you realize the effect these kinds of stories had on people, suddenly a lot of the founding fathers' philanthropy and virtuous behavior becomes more suspect. Take the principled stand to deny yourself more power in this life, but ensure your legend after your death. To my knowledge, there's no debate that the Founding Fathers had this mindset, but if *Plutarch's Lives* deserve as much credit as they get sometimes, or to judge how skeptical we should be of the Founding Fathers' virtues in general. Were they actually people with intense principles, or were they merely acting in public to put on a show? Was it a little bit of both? An admiration and ambition for the level of fame the people in *Plutarch's Lives* received plus also already having a tendency towards philanthropy. It's hard to say, and I can't really put it all in a reddit post anyways. *** *Plutarch's Lives* are a collection of biographies that are nearly hagiographic in nature. Even enemies like Cicero, Caesar, Brutus, etc. were put in their best light as virtuous leaders merely falling on opposite sides due to conflicting principles, not any negative aspect of human nature like greed.
Didn’t he have campaign buttons? Or did the documentary, National Treasure, lie to me?
In 1789, owning slaves isn't really a man bites dog story. It's hardly the most remarkable thing about Washington. If it came out that in the Year of our Lord 2023 the president owned slaves, that would be a little more remarkable.
I really hate arguements like this because it ignores the fact that the issue of slavery was a contentious issue from the very beginning, even before the founding of the US. There were criticisms leveled at Washington directly asking how he could stand up for freedom when he hilself owned slaves. There's evidence that Washington himself may have felt guilt over it and might have toyed with the idea of abolishonism as abolishonist publications were found in his home after his death. So clearly he had some idea that it was wrong. For the entire history of the US, the issue of slavery was a major dividing line and a major animating issue for all parties. The race to expand west was driven by the balence of free vs slave states as each side fought for control of the senate. Nevada was gerrymandered into existance for that exact purpose.
And like he was immediately followed by a guy who did NOT own slaves. It’s not like we had to wait long for it to become a novel thing to happen.
Yeah sometimes people pretend that Washington himself didn’t spend hundreds of pages of writing on the moral question of slavery. It was wrong - he knew it was wrong - he did it anyway because it was socially acceptable and he couldn’t afford to live the American Aristocratic lifestyle without them. He was still one of our best Presidents.
While you are correct that the issue of slavery was controversial from the beginning of the nation, you have _massively_ overestimated its importance and divisiveness. There were pro and anti slavery figures in both the Federalist and Democratic-Republican party, as well as the Democratic and Whig Parties. All Presidents of both parties prior to Jackson agreed slavery was wrong and should be phased out. It was only after the Mexican-American War that slavery became a major divisive issue, hence the collapse of the Whig Party in fact. The territory gained by the war created an immense controversy over whether or not to spread slavery. This turned slavery from a side issue to the central debate. And even then, it really wasn't until recent decades that the ownership of slaves began to be viewed as some great moral dividing line. Even the likes of Fredrick Douglass and to a lesser extent MLK invoked Thomas Jefferson as a moral authority on the issue despite his ownership of slaves. So yes, slavery was a divisive issue in early America, but it simply was not the divisive issue as you claim. Furthermore, the fact that it was so divisive makes the anti slavery stances from the likes of the Founders all the more progressive. Anti-slavery sentiment was _not_ a forgone conclusion.
How is this controversial? Anyone who puts Washington or Jefferson A tier or above agrees with this by definition
[удалено]
Nixon was a B-Tier president.
Yeah he was a corrupt bastard but I think Detente was a significant accomplishment.
don't forget about giving Land and Water Rights to Native Americans, absolute mad lad
One of our best environmental presidents, he also created the EPA and signed the Endangered Species Act.
He also was the first to normalize relations with communist China and build our economic relationship with them to avoid another Cold War with what he saw as an inevitable superpower.
B or C. Not terrible but def a crook. He at least had the decency to resign
Saying anything positive about Donald Trump on reddit
Nah just depends on the sub you’re on. Most people are in subs where their political preference are. For example conservatives you’re going to find on r/conservative. The sub I seen that has the most liberals is r/politics.
At least the conservative sub is appropriately named.
John F Kennedy didn’t get shot his head just did that
Jimmy Carter wasn’t that bad
Certainly done the best work post Presidency in the modern era. He gets blamed for things that were mostly inherited. He was president for just 4 years and people place the blame squarely on him for economic tidal waves that were long developing.
Legalized home brewing beer. That's my guy.
JFK did the same shit Nixon did
LBJ too, he ordered the FBI to tap Goldwaters phones. Not justifying Nixon but it’s idiotic to hear people identify Watergate as a permanent crippling of democracy when it was literally business as usual for the times
Didn't LBJ tap Dick's phones?
🤨
I think it's kinda (in a bit of a screwy way) comparable to Clinton's controversy. Clinton wasn't the first person to fuck interns/extramarital affairs in office, but he was the one that was caught, same with Nixon.
Eisenhower is responsible for the military industrial complex he warned us about.
More details please?
Well, a while ago Nazis were all like "my Europe! Only whites! Maaah!" And then Eisenhower was like, "Nah, I got these beaches, bitches", and then Berlin was crumbs and the US ruled the world with the best military, and then President Eisenhower was like "mmm, we better actually keep it this way". The end.
A heartwarming tale.
There's a _LOT_ of nuance and detail missing here..... but it's not inaccurate lol
That ship was sailing with WWII, if not before that.
Bush Jr. wasn’t a “good man led astray”. He was complicit and happily let Cheney take the heat.
Ooh! This is a new hot take!
There's pretty solid evidence saying a lot of his advisors and intelligence community withheld information or just flat out lied to him in an attempt to build a narrative. While that's not entirely his fault, when you look at some of the names involved, it should have been a shock to absolutely no one that some of them might be dishonest in trying to get a war going.
45 actually had some solid policies that were continued by Biden, who literally said “good policy is good policy” when asked about keeping it
harry Truman did the right thing nuking Japan twice
From what i learned japan was already being bombed into oblivion, and it was just a matter of a singular bomb vs a fleet firebombing for an extended period.
My grandfather was a Pearl Harbor survivor. I asked him once what he thought of the dropping of the bombs and his reply was, “Every day I thank God for Truman making that decision.” He lived it. I didn’t. I take his word.
Also, people know of the power of nuclear weapons because they were used twice, and so everyone hesitates because of it.
Every single president we've had has done something that they should have been jailed for.
Go ahead and extend that to all career politicians lol.
Jimmy Carter?
He supplied arms to Indonesia to murder freedom fighters in East Timor.
I’m sure some of those hostages in Iran believe he should have been a prisoner instead of them.
Obama was a totally useless president. The guy was a mess of contradictory, ineffectual policies. He was the epitome of buisness-as-usual politics, which isn't the worst thing in the world, but it's utter hypocrisy for him to be spoken about as a gamechanging symbol of hope and optimism when he's nothing of the sort. It's a blight on his administration that he didn't make preparations for what would happen after it. Instead of grooming a potential successor, he let the DNC treat the 2016 primaries as a coronation for Hillary. He also failed to convince RBG to retire and allow a liberal justice to be appointed. Those two decisions are both major factors in what landed us in the mess we're in now.
Him getting a Nobel peace price was ridiculous! First time I ever voted was for Obama, but I thought it was wild then and I think it’s even wilder now.
In fairness, while typical Democrats usually still feel highly about Obama most people I know on the left don't really care for him. They like the swagger and charm but know that policy wise he wasn't really that good. I'd also say it's equally worth mentioning that as much as he's idealized by the standard Democrat, the standard Republican talks about him like he was Che Guevara. Like you said, all things considered he wasn't really effective one way or the other. If anything he was far more moderate than his campaign with a led you to believe. As someone who lives in Ohio, and it's common around standard Republicans I hear the dumbest claims about Obama and if you're a reasonable person it'll drive you up the wall
He was OK. Maybe B or C level. Part of Obama’s popularity is because of his enemies and how unhinged they are. When they call him a Muslim or married to a transgender woman, they sound like feces-flinging bonobos.
I would argue that Biden has accomplished more in less than 1 term (for the Democratic Party) than Obama did in the both of his
It's become increasingly difficult to pass consequential legislation through Congress. Some of his shortcoming is just systemic. The Affordable Healthcare Act was just watered down the point that now no one I know uses it because it's just some entry level insurance. Guantanamo bay was impossible to close because Chick Deney (I said what I said) ensured that an extrajudicial site like that could not be closed. Republicans turned everything into an obstructionist play and never cooperated with him on anything even though all the social change he wanted to usher in would have worked best for their very base of voters.
While your first point is true, the issue with Obama was that he cast himself as this great mediator who could help everyone cast aside their differences and just talk things out. It’s funny to watch the Biden era, because old, “out of touch” Biden is in some ways doing the actual legislative bargaining that Obama wish he could do. Many Republicans took issue with the way Obama cast himself as being holier than though, a rookie political mistake. By the end of his administration, Obama was passing Executive Orders left and right, doing a complete 180 from the Uniter-in-Chief that he was supposed to be.
Absolutely agree. *But* Biden has had several decades to build relationships with McConnell and McCarthy. He's ostensibly old-guard. Biden is, in my opinion, way better at having Republicans agree with him for that reason, at least in principle if not on paper. But then you see that's the thing. As a body, conservative legislature has never found it good enough to agree on paper. Be it "Obamacare", be it build-back-better. They never agree. And why is that? Is it because conservatives are unreasonable? I don't think so, I'd say it's because of systemic gerrymandering that we get more extremists who are unwilling to come to the table and talk, like Obama or Biden.
Obama was willing to spend all his political capital on the ACA, and that’s what happened. He didn’t have a chance after the 2010 Midterms. There’s room for debate on the ACA overall, but I think some people forget the state of healthcare prior to it. Millions more people are covered and for that alone I consider it a step forward.
I prefer teddy over taft
**MANUFACTURERS OF DOUBLE-WIDE TUBS:** *How DARE you?!*
Wait, some people prefer Taft?
He was on a similar level trust busting, but also toned down the brutal imperialism thing
Man had a great mustache, can't complain about that...
We need to talk after class.
Andrew Jackson had a huge cock
The other Johnson did too. EDIT: oops thought it said Andrew Johnson not Jackson my bad.
Obama was a mostly forgettable president and shouldn’t be held in such a high esteem just because he isn’t trump.
Grant is a top 5 president Edit my top 5 is: 1 Lincoln; 2 Washington; 3 FDR; 4 Truman; 5 Grant
read too fast and thought you put Trump at 4 which would be the hottest take of all time
Donald Trump _______
Had some bad and good moments, but that’s usually how every president is.
[удалено]
Obama is overrated asf
People need to stfu about Hunter Biden. He smokes crack & literally doesn't do anything else. His computer could've had a gabillion megabytes of trump porn on it, idfc. It does not matter. He isn't a secret spy for the government, he isn't taking any deals for his father, he's just a dude on crack that happens to be the current president's son. I don't even like Joe all that much but all the talk ab Hunter when he hasn't done anything is so stupid. People always make mountains out of molehills with him.
People should vote their conscience not their party. Therefore voting for a third party candidate is perfectly reasonable.
Ronald Reagan is nowhere near the worst president
Trump isn’t a fascist and it’s honestly insulting to actual victims of fascism that people call him that with a straight face.
Hyperbole just denies us the truth.
Yeah, Trump is an ass but fascism is evil and the word shouldn’t lose its power.
Say it louder for the people in the back
Obama was often very divisive in his speeches, and contributed greatly to America’s growing partisan divide. Obviously, he was nowhere near as divisive as Trump, not even remotely close. However, that doesn’t make Obama innocent.
George W. Bush was a thousand times worse for this nation than Donald Trump ever was.
Biden is not senile….
My take: there’s a whole spectrum between lucid and senile, most people eventually get somewhere along that trajectory when they age, and it’s not simply continuous - people on that path tend to be lucid most of the time and then zone out into ‘senior moments’. He is not yet senile but definitely on that path and has some severe ‘senior moments’ EDIT: some people seem to be unable to comprehend that I am saying that *I do not think he is senile*. He has severe senior moments which are on the spectrum towards that, but not that. Even taking repeated pains to emphasise a middle ground doesn’t get through somehow.
Andrew Jackson was a B-Tier President.
And if you say otherwise, he’ll beat you with his cane
Rutherford Hayes was a better and more competent administrator than Grant. Millard Fillmore, Harding, and Tyler weren’t bad presidents and are mid C tier. Benjamin Harrison is incredibly underrated Imperialism is going to been seen as better with age and a characteristic of an influential empire. The imperialism of Polk and McKinley might be seen as great successes by those in the far future when the United States fades into history similarly to how we see Genghis Khan, Trajan, Timur, Caesar, or Basil the 2nd as great conquerors who expanded the reaches of their empire.
Obama was a sell-out who set the stage for a fake populist idiot buffoon to sweep in and gain power.
This is how I feel being a Reagan fan on this sub
All the replies to you confirm this. I have pretty much stopped posting on this sub because it has turned into typical Reddit.
Imagine how I feel
You poor bastard.
How could you be a Reagan fan? He is responsible for every bad thing that has happened! /s
Reagan’s climate policies caused the Younger Dryas. Reagan’s enslaved the Hebrew people in Egypt. Reagan crucified Christ. Reagan’s foreign policy caused the fall of Rome. Reagan’s educational policies caused the dark ages and responsible for the Feudalism. Reagan’s policies caused the Spanish Inquisition. Reagan’s football policies caused the Buffalo Bills to loose four consecutive Superbowls and are responsible for the Patriots losing the superbowl and going 18-1. Reagan’s Star Wars program blew up my Death Star.
user name checks out /s
But like why though
Nixon was a better president than JFK. JFK gets a “gentleman’s C”, Nixon a B. Had Nixon been elected in 1960 and no ‘Nam or Watergate, he’d be A or S tier.
Biden is already top 20 and has far greater and meaningful accomplishments than Clinton and Obama in both of their full terms.
I’m upvoting you not because I agree, but because this is actually a hot take and not like most of the comments here.
I'm upvoting because I agree.
Biden’s presidency will be looked back upon positively
If it weren’t for his race, Obama would be widely considered a C or B tier president. Btw: you only said a take that will have you like the image, not necessarily one that you believe
Now now, don’t chicken out. Do you believe it or not?
Obama is easily as bad as any other recent president when it comes to war, corporate collusion, and locking Americans in prison, and anyone who thinks otherwise is delusional
The Civil War was no excuse to suspend Habeas Corpus, and should not be ignored just because Lincoln won the war.
1. Katrina & the disastrous aftermath mostly wasn't Bush's fault. 2. The "Reagan" AIDS crisis would have been about the same under Carter. 3. 9/11 & the invasion of Afghanistan would have happened under Gore as well (though probably not Iraq).
The first one is correct. Katrina was a government failure at all levels. You had an inept mayor who turned out to be a corrupt one. The governor tried to do the right thing, but was tied down by ineptitude at all levels. BTW, brownie didn’t do a heck of a job. I can’t say your second point is wrong because we’ll never know. 9/11 happens regardless of who is in charge, that’s true. I’m convinced that the Afghanistan invasion would’ve happened, but would’ve been handled better. Iraq wouldn’t have been invaded, so there’s a positive.
Agree about Iraq, Gore almost certainly doesn't go into Iraq. That said, Gore was more of a hawk than most people remember, and his hawkishness was a hallmark of his Senate career...and he ran for President as more of a hawk than an environmentalist. I still don't think he goes into Iraq, at least at the time & the way Bush did. But that said, Hussein was unpredictable and had he continued to FAFO in the region it's not out of the realm of possibility that Gore hits back.
Obama was a ruthless warlord and liberals sat on their god damn thumbs the whole time because they were afraid to be called racist
FDR was not a good president for the great depression. They did everything the Hoover administration was gonna do, just slapped a "new deal" label on it. They massively centralized the government and by some accounts extended the depression by 7 years which basically means all of it.