Trump ranked as worst US president in history, with Biden 14th greatest
- Thread starter Grim Reaper
- Start date
T. A. Gardner
Serial Thread Killer
See post #9. I gave the link to the full study, such as it is (it really sucks).
MAGAts really, really hate it whenever anyone besmirches their Orange Daddy! LOL
Jan 6 treason, child sexual abuse , "Grab them by the Pussy", punking long time allies.
T. A. Gardner
Serial Thread Killer
Wow! You really are delusional.
No, if you are going to make ratings like this, at least try and be objective about it. For example, we have had 21 one-term presidents (doesn't include those who died in office during their first term or Hayes who promised not to run for reelection and did that).
None of them rank high on this list. Many rank towards the bottom. Biden was a one-term president. He ran for reelection and probably was the least successful candidate in the history of the US for that.
All 28 Presidents Who Served One Term, More or Less
More than half of all U.S. presidents have served less than two full terms.www.mentalfloss.com
Let's start with that fact.
Millard Fillmore // 1850-1853
Sure that isn’t Jimmy Johnson the ex football coach?
Pull your head out of your ass!
Yakuda
Verified User
Anyone who thinks Brandon was the 14th best president is a retard. I don't give a fuck who it is.
Trump ranked as worst US president in history, with Biden 14th greatest
Survey of 154 scholars places 45th president behind even ‘historically calamitous chief executives’ linked to civil warwww.theguardian.com
Oh my the ketchup will fly tonight!
T. A. Gardner
Serial Thread Killer
There's a lot wrong with that list in general.
You can cite nearly any study or review you want and the majority will place Trump near the bottom, although I wouldn’t say he was the worse. Biden being 14th is asking a lot, but I wouldn’t put him down in Trump territory, he did achieve the infrastructure and chips legislation thru a heavily partisan CongressA "poll" taken of 154 academics on the basis of little more than their unobjective opinion. Read the actual ratings study.
Presidential Greatness Project
presidentialgreatnessproject.com
Talk about worthless. That is one worthless ratings system there.
These studies really take decades to accurately portray any Administration, there are always long term effects that don’t become apparent till latter
I don’t think winning an election really weighs heavily in attesting a President’s accomplishments and contributions to the countryNo, if you are going to make ratings like this, at least try and be objective about it. For example, we have had 21 one-term presidents (doesn't include those who died in office during their first term or Hayes who promised not to run for reelection and did that).
None of them rank high on this list. Many rank towards the bottom. Biden was a one-term president. He ran for reelection and probably was the least successful candidate in the history of the US for that.
All 28 Presidents Who Served One Term, More or Less
More than half of all U.S. presidents have served less than two full terms.
Let's start with that fact.
T. A. Gardner
Serial Thread Killer
Doesn't mean they're correct. For example, this one has been around a while. On the surface it appears more 'scientific' than the one in this thread.
But if you actually look at the categories and the rankings it is still highly subjective. Many make no sense at all when you consider the background of the president in question.
I would say even with decades of portrayal, these surveys are highly subjective at best largely because they don't try and get some valid quantification of anything relying instead on the opinions of academic historians who often are highly politically biased in their views.
T. A. Gardner
Serial Thread Killer
Well, that's about all Barack Obama ever did in his lifetime...
History isn’t, nor ever was, a science, nothing can be declared objective, however, the consensus view amongst historians, especially over time, usually portrays a pretty accurate narrative, their research is heavily documented and peer reviewedDoesn't mean they're correct. For example, this one has been around a while. On the surface it appears more 'scientific' than the one in this thread.
But if you actually look at the categories and the rankings it is still highly subjective. Many make no sense at all when you consider the background of the president in question.
I would say even with decades of portrayal, these surveys are highly subjective at best largely because they don't try and get some valid quantification of anything relying instead on the opinions of academic historians who often are highly politically biased in their views.
T. A. Gardner
Serial Thread Killer
Much of history can benefit from statistical analysis. This is particularly true when comparing things like the quality of various rulers. It isn't just a subjective narrative. I could care less if their research is heavily documented and especially peer reviewed. I see the later as nearly worthless and the former as something often padded with bullshit.
Benefit, some, but even the statistical analysis, what statistics to analyze, has to be interpreted, as I said, History is not a Science just as Economics, Psychology, Political Science, Anthropology, and an array of other fields where those fields are applied are not Sciences
And if you are looking for an accurate interpretation those experienced in the field, who employ documentation and peer review to support their work, are the best option. Otherwise one is left with the Trump version of history with tidbits as Canada burning down DC, Andrew Jackson should have swung a deal to end the Cicil War, that Fredrick Douglas was doing a great job, not knowing what rhe Reconstruction Era was, etc
Carmine
Loose Cannon
At first glance, I didn't like this post.MAGAts really, really hate it whenever anyone besmirches their Orange Daddy! LOL
I thought is was crediting Pigshit as being the MAMBO King.
As a former Cha Cha King, I never regarded him as a colleague.