ADVERTISEMENT

Presidential scholars rank Trump as worst President ever (even Bottom 5 amongst GOP scholars)

He is just one example. After Clinton finished the scholars had him in the Top 10 and now he has fallen but the only President since him that is now rated higher is Obama. These lists are just hero worship and as the sampling leans heavily towards the liberal wing of academia, they tend to be overly left leaning hero worship...although Reagan is so heavily supported by conservatives, he gets bumped up.

No, the lists overly rate the modern because that is who these guys are familiar with and the politics of who these Presidents are weighs heavily as well.
Uhhhhh, what?

2ih05zo.jpg


qx5u34.jpg


2mmakog.jpg
 
He is just one example. After Clinton finished the scholars had him in the Top 10 and now he has fallen but the only President since him that is now rated higher is Obama. These lists are just hero worship and as the sampling leans heavily towards the liberal wing of academia, they tend to be overly left leaning hero worship...although Reagan is so heavily supported by conservatives, he gets bumped up.

No, the lists overly rate the modern because that is who these guys are familiar with and the politics of who these Presidents are weighs heavily as well.
Did you not see that there were lists stratified by the scholars’ party membership?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Zizkov and RBB89
He is just one example. After Clinton finished the scholars had him in the Top 10 and now he has fallen but the only President since him that is now rated higher is Obama. These lists are just hero worship and as the sampling leans heavily towards the liberal wing of academia, they tend to be overly left leaning hero worship...although Reagan is so heavily supported by conservatives, he gets bumped up.

No, the lists overly rate the modern because that is who these guys are familiar with and the politics of who these Presidents are weighs heavily as well.
Actually, if you look at the break down, there is broad agreement across ideological lines for most presidents. Everyone agrees Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln and both Roosevelts were great. Truman and Ike also universally ranked right behind them. Ideology only pops up in a few places. Liberals ranked LBJ eighth, conservatives ranked Reagan third. There's no objective justification for either of those. They are ideological picks, nothing more.

But up and down the list you will find a lot more consensus than ideology.
 
Did you not see that there were lists stratified by the scholars’ party membership?

Yes, which also kind of hits the point. The ones that there tends to be agreement on are the ones who have started to escape party affiliation because of history or they are our big 2 (Washington and Lincoln).

Another, Trump is not a Top 10 guy by any means but he is like 13 months into his Presidency. How the heck can you rate someone who is barely more than 25% through one term? This is the political equivalent of arguing if LeBron James is better than Kareem.
 
Yes, which also kind of hits the point. The ones that there tends to be agreement on are the ones who have started to escape party affiliation because of history or they are our big 2 (Washington and Lincoln).

Another, Trump is not a Top 10 guy by any means but he is like 13 months into his Presidency. How the heck can you rate someone who is barely more than 25% through one term? This is the political equivalent of arguing if LeBron James is better than Kareem.
No, it isn’t. Every day of the Trump regime is a complete cluster. And I suspect that you didn’t actually look at those lists very closely, because there is a consensus on most presidents by both the Republicans and Democrats that participated, if you’d actually look at the lists. Goat is correct.

Also, LeBron James has been in the NBA for 15 years.
 
No, it isn’t. Every day of the Trump regime is a complete cluster. And I suspect that you didn’t actually look at those lists very closely, because there is a consensus on most presidents by both the Republicans and Democrats that participated, if you’d actually look at the lists. Goat is correct.

Also, LeBron James has been in the NBA for 15 years.

Your first paragraph is just more of the hysteric hyperbole that floats as criticism anymore.

I did look at the lists. I guess we have been so lucky that so many great Presidents have come around siince WWII or that we had so many great founders. All those guys about 130 to 150 years ago (save Honest Abe) really sucked a bag of dicks though. Bush 1 and 2, Clinton, Obama, Kennedy, and Ford...all those guys are in Fillmore territory in 100 years. We overvalue the ordinary that is closer to us and undervalue the ordinary of the past. Some of those guys are punished because nothing terrible happened on their watch to respond to.

I know how long LeBron has been in the league. I was comparing the current generation to a former one.
 
Your first paragraph is just more of the hysteric hyperbole that floats as criticism anymore.

I did look at the lists. I guess we have been so lucky that so many great Presidents have come around siince WWII or that we had so many great founders. All those guys about 130 to 150 years ago (save Honest Abe) really sucked a bag of dicks though. Bush 1 and 2, Clinton, Obama, Kennedy, and Ford...all those guys are in Fillmore territory in 100 years. We overvalue the ordinary that is closer to us and undervalue the ordinary of the past. Some of those guys are punished because nothing terrible happened on their watch to respond to.

I know how long LeBron has been in the league. I was comparing the current generation to a former one.

Well, the presidents from 130 to 150 years ago (save Hones Abe) were really terrible presidents. Before Lincoln were presidents unable to deal with the impending civil war. After Lincoln was an ineffectual impeached president. Then was Hayes, who really struggled incorporating the south back into the union, and Grant beset by scandal. It wasn't a high point for the presidency.

I do agree, any best of is going to skew modern. Best movie, best song, best president. But that doesn't mean we didn't have a bad run of presidents.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RBB89
If only she cared about Japanese Americans.
Eleanor was simply a great lady. The best first lady we have ever had. She was her uncle Theodore's favorite niece but if you want to nitpick then you can find fault with anyone with the benefit of modern hindsight including: Lincoln, Washington, Jefferson and dare I say it, even RONALD REAGAN.
 
Eleanor was simply a great lady. The best first lady we have ever had. She was her uncle Theodore's favorite niece but if you want to nitpick then you can find fault with anyone with the benefit of modern hindsight including: Lincoln, Washington, Jefferson and dare I say it, even RONALD REAGAN.

Eleanor did oppose 9066 directly to her husband, but such as the nature of the times she never publicly opposed the order. She gave a speech on Dec 16, 1941, urging Americans not to give in to hatred of Americans of Japanese or German descent. She also took time to visit internment camps. 9066 is a sin of FDR, not ER.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bill4411
No, but I think people should stop celebrating being stupid and always try to educate themselves and learn from mistakes, instead of doubling down and refusing to ever consider the fact that they may be ignorant regarding something or could possibly ever make a mistake.

You mean like voting for Obama a second time? IMO that was pretty stupid. All of this that is going on (the Russian junk) is simply a political tactic to lessen the amount of time for Republicans to implement their policies. Please explain and speak to why Obama and Dems knew the Russians were active back in 2014 and nothing was done? Speak to the response Obama had towards Romney when Romney said Russia was our biggest concern. Explain why Obama knew in 2014 about Russia, and in 2016 chose to publicly chastise Trump and call him a whiner and told all of America it was impossible to influence the elections. It’s a tactic that’s all.... it’s also misleading on Obama’s part but you guys are okay with his misleading comments ....

in the end Trump will still be President and the Dems will have successfully hampered his ability to fully implement his agenda the first two years. But those uneducated, stupid, rednecks, or whatever other adjective that the Dems like to use (deplorable, racists) don’t like liars and obstructionists. I think all they do is help Trump step into another 4 year term.

I was not a supporter of Trump through the primaries. I voted for someone else. When he won the primary I was furious because I thought we handed the election to Hillary. I voted for him because I didn’t agree with the direction the dem party was taking the country. I didn’t like the policies. I can tell you that if the Dems had put a candidate on the ticket like a Lieberman I would have probably voted that way. But you guys have not accepted your responsibility for allowing the status quo to continue to churn. It troubled me that Dems were willing to let Hillary be on the ticket simply because it was her political time to be president.

The republicans have been actively reforming their party for the past 9 years. I point to the Tea Party. Republicans are voting people out of office for not “doing” what they were sent to Washington to do. I’m not arguing the merits of the Tea Party Platform. The Dems need to take control of their party and vote these lifetime politicians out.

I think (I may be wrong) both sides believe in term limits. It would be great to work together to force it.
 
Yes, which also kind of hits the point. The ones that there tends to be agreement on are the ones who have started to escape party affiliation because of history or they are our big 2 (Washington and Lincoln).

Another, Trump is not a Top 10 guy by any means but he is like 13 months into his Presidency. How the heck can you rate someone who is barely more than 25% through one term? This is the political equivalent of arguing if LeBron James is better than Kareem.

Now now.... you need to consider your audience here. Some believe Obama is a Nobel Laureate and forget when/how that was awarded.
 
Uhhhhh, what?

From the authors of the opinion survey:
Moreover, because they make up such a large percentage of the sample, there is little variation between the overall ranking and those of just Democrats and those who identify as liberal or somewhat liberal.​

The sample of respondents self-identified as 58.4% liberal, 24.1% moderate, and 17.4% conservative. I could be wrong, but I think this is at least partially what IUCrazy2 was inferring; that the lopsidedness in respondent ideology necessarily skews the ranking toward liberal favorites.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 76-1
Uhhh, any list that doesn’t have Nixon in the bottom 5 is automatically suspect.

Makes one wonder exactly what they are ranking.

Trump has been a disaster in most areas, no doubt, but it seems rather early to rank him against historical presidents.
 
Speak to the response Obama had towards Romney when Romney said Russia was our biggest concern.
Even now Russia isn't our biggest concern. China's military is bigger and their technology is growing. China will pass us in GDP. China has stolen vast amounts of our IP. China is greatly increasing their diplomatic spending to gain soft power in the world. China has the keys to North Korea. Russia is the little guy trying to act like a world superpower. They are annoying as can be right now, but China is where the real power lies.
 
Even now Russia isn't our biggest concern. China's military is bigger and their technology is growing. China will pass us in GDP. China has stolen vast amounts of our IP. China is greatly increasing their diplomatic spending to gain soft power in the world. China has the keys to North Korea. Russia is the little guy trying to act like a world superpower. They are annoying as can be right now, but China is where the real power lies.

Fyi. Russia's economy is smaller than that of Italy's
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tacoll
  • Like
Reactions: RBB89
You mean like voting for Obama a second time? IMO that was pretty stupid. All of this that is going on (the Russian junk) is simply a political tactic to lessen the amount of time for Republicans to implement their policies. Please explain and speak to why Obama and Dems knew the Russians were active back in 2014 and nothing was done? Speak to the response Obama had towards Romney when Romney said Russia was our biggest concern. Explain why Obama knew in 2014 about Russia, and in 2016 chose to publicly chastise Trump and call him a whiner and told all of America it was impossible to influence the elections. It’s a tactic that’s all.... it’s also misleading on Obama’s part but you guys are okay with his misleading comments ....

in the end Trump will still be President and the Dems will have successfully hampered his ability to fully implement his agenda the first two years. But those uneducated, stupid, rednecks, or whatever other adjective that the Dems like to use (deplorable, racists) don’t like liars and obstructionists. I think all they do is help Trump step into another 4 year term.

I was not a supporter of Trump through the primaries. I voted for someone else. When he won the primary I was furious because I thought we handed the election to Hillary. I voted for him because I didn’t agree with the direction the dem party was taking the country. I didn’t like the policies. I can tell you that if the Dems had put a candidate on the ticket like a Lieberman I would have probably voted that way. But you guys have not accepted your responsibility for allowing the status quo to continue to churn. It troubled me that Dems were willing to let Hillary be on the ticket simply because it was her political time to be president.

The republicans have been actively reforming their party for the past 9 years. I point to the Tea Party. Republicans are voting people out of office for not “doing” what they were sent to Washington to do. I’m not arguing the merits of the Tea Party Platform. The Dems need to take control of their party and vote these lifetime politicians out.

I think (I may be wrong) both sides believe in term limits. It would be great to work together to force it.


Term limits are a bad policy. All they would do is force out experienced legislators, and hand even more power to lobbyists. Term limits are a ridiculously simplified answer to a complicated problem. Pls, they will never happen.

Fixing gerrymandering to eliminate 80%+ of House seats being "safe" would do a lot more to improve Congressional dysfunction.
 
Term limits are a bad policy. All they would do is force out experienced legislators, and hand even more power to lobbyists. Term limits are a ridiculously simplified answer to a complicated problem. Pls, they will never happen.

Fixing gerrymandering to eliminate 80%+ of House seats being "safe" would do a lot more to improve Congressional dysfunction.
Fine do both.... I don’t think a 30 plus year politician has the slightest idea about living life as an average American. I prefer the best and brightest from our communities going for a period to serve and returning to life in their communities. This will require a cultural change in how we scrutinize politicians also. I’d never want to put my family through the vitriol it requires at the highest levels today.

We also need a change to lobbying rules.... these are easy things to agree about.
 
Fine do both.... I don’t think a 30 plus year politician has the slightest idea about living life as an average American. I prefer the best and brightest from our communities going for a period to serve and returning to life in their communities. This will require a cultural change in how we scrutinize politicians also. I’d never want to put my family through the vitriol it requires at the highest levels today.

We also need a change to lobbying rules.... these are easy things to agree about.
The laws are so complex and convoluted I think having experience in Congress is important. I understand your point but try to understand the tax code, etc with out some background.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hoosier_Hack
Fine do both.... I don’t think a 30 plus year politician has the slightest idea about living life as an average American. I prefer the best and brightest from our communities going for a period to serve and returning to life in their communities. This will require a cultural change in how we scrutinize politicians also. I’d never want to put my family through the vitriol it requires at the highest levels today.

We also need a change to lobbying rules.... these are easy things to agree about.
The laws are so complex and convoluted I think having experience in Congress is important. I understand your point but try to understand the tax code, etc with out some background.
This isn't just a matter of philosophy. Actual research has compared states with term limits to states without. Consistently, they find that states with term limits have weaker legislatures, and more power concentrated in administrative bureaucrats and lobbyists.

https://www.vox.com/polyarchy/2016/10/18/13323842/trump-term-limits
 
The laws are so complex and convoluted I think having experience in Congress is important. I understand your point but try to understand the tax code, etc with out some background.

Taking the tax code into consideration I think it could use reform making it easier. If you have spent money on accountants to explain the tax code and interpret it, you know that is what is.... an interpretation and a payday for the accountant. I think it is insane. I am sick of all the vitriol..... politics as it is has reached my maximum density limits. I shut the tv off (cable,satellite) about 5 years ago I guess to get away from it (maybe longer). It’s gotta change....

Edit: I do understand your point. Global issues also favors a long term Congress/Senate. That said reform with lobbying would go a long way I think in addressing many issues and making it easier to identify people in Congress for sale. I do think it is an area we can agree on and address....
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT