NationStates Jolt Archive

Who was the greatest president the United States has ever had?

Very hard to say.

I would say clinton, then truman.

Fdr

Hey wheres Teddy Roosevelt??? Teddy Roosevelt was the best President we ever had!

I'm saying FDR.

fdr indeed.

Your disgracing all the other Presidents by putting them on a list with FDR.

Hey wheres Teddy Roosevelt??? Teddy Roosevelt was the best President we ever had!

haha ok. if you like imperialistic presidents.

haha ok. if you like imperialistic presidents.

Man, Teddy Roosevelt was giving a speech one day and someone shot him, now his speech booklet stop the bullet (which was in his breast pocket) but he didn't let some would be assisan stop his speech, he kept on talking!

I would say Teddy Roosevelt for the best ever and Reagan for the second best.

Top Ten Fav Prezs(Not in order):
FDR, Lincoln, George Washington, Woodrow Wilson, Clinton, Ike, Teddy Roosevelt, Ronald Reagan, First George Dubya, and Kennedy

My #2 pick was FDR but #1 was Washington, it takes alot of guts to start off a nation like he did, even if he didn't want to

Your disgracing all the other Presidents by putting them on a list with FDR.
You Nazi!

You Nazi!
What a great post. :rolleyes:

FDR RULED!Kicked ass in WW2 and stop the gr8 depression.HE KICKED ASS FACE THE FACTS.

I can't believe Reagan has 3 votes. I don't think he's even in the top 10, but i put him in the poll because otherwise everyone would be like "where's reagan?", "you forgot reagan", and stuff like that.

I will say Washington for one very good reason: His reluctance to seek or hold on to power. He had to be convinced to run (unapposed practically) for President, and after 2 terms, he willingly gave it up without there being a Constitutional Amendment or even a precedent for doing so.

k

Where's Taft?!

He's the best President EVER! He's fat and he likes to eat and he's cool and he did a good job in office! He's the best we've ever had! :)

George Washington for voluntarily resigning his power after two terms, recognizing that limited government power is vital to a free and healthy nation. So powerful was his statement that the tradition he created was carried on by every president since him until FDR, after which the two-term tradition was made into constitutional law.

No one else in this poll (EDIT: indeed, no other president in all of American history) can even come close to such greatness.

Great poll choices! I voted FDR. Lincoln and Kennedy were hard not to choose though, and both Washington and Reagan were great too.

Truman ~ The Buck Stops Here
Integrated the Armed Services
Most of Kennedy's Social Reforms were drafted under Truman
Kicked McCarthy's arse
Arose out of failures

Reagan was the most popular ... that doesn't make him the greatest. What he did in eight years took all the way through Clinton to fix. Then, of course, Bush destroyed it all again in just a year ... but hey, who's counting, right?

Anyway ....

Best President ever? Hard to say.

You could say Washington, but how would have Washington reacted to 9/11?

Would FDR have been able to maintain the diplomacy needed during the SALT talks?

Could Lincoln have handled the Vietnam War?

How do you think Clinton would have handled the Civil War?

If Bush were our first President, would he have stepped down after two terms - even though he really would not have had to at the time?

There is no real acid test for determining who the best President was. Different times call for different actions and different responses come from differences in the men who served.

In the history of the United States, only 43 men have been able to rise to the office of the Presidency and, for that, they each should be given their due.

I'd have to say Lincoln. He saved the union, and in the process, jumpstarted the national economy, and liberated three million people.

I disagree with most of you. The best US President was Ronald Reagan. He was the people's President. He was the best and strongest leader the US ever had. And we will miss him dearly.

In the history of the United States, only 43 men have been able to rise to the office of the Presidency and, for that, they each should be given their due.

I'll give 'em all thier due except for the current one.

I disagree with most of you. The best US President was Ronald Reagan. He was the people's President. He was the best and strongest leader the US ever had. And we will miss him dearly.

He was not the people's president... not by a long shot. And for all his talk of smaller government he greatly increased it's size. The only president to actually decrease the size of government was Clinton, despite all the Republican attacks against him. As soon as I made the pool, I thought "DAMN! I forgot Clinton!"

I'll give 'em all thier due except for the current one.


Sometimes their "due" is a bullet in the face. ;)

Fine, if that's what the "due" is, then i guess ol' Bushie will get what's coming to him.

Thomas Jefferson. Fixed the "Alien and Sedition Acts" which were like the Patriot Act on Steroids, and pretty much stole 1/3 of the US from Napoleon.

George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, James Monroe, Andrew Jackson (except for the Trail of Tears), John Tyler, and Grover Cleveland.

Worst Presidents (NO FLAMING):

1.Abe Lincoln- Murdered federalism along with 600,000 Americans, incarcerated thousands who disagreed with him, confiscated firearms, imposed draconian press censorship, never freed a single slave, etc.
2.FDR- New Deal, deceived us into WWII, helped build the USSR into a credible threat
3.Wilson- 16th and 17th Amendments, Federal Reserve, WWI, League of Nations
4.Carter- Gave away our canal, betrayed loyal anticommunist allies in Nicaragua, Iran, and Rhodesia, gutted our military, SALT II, the hostage crisis, crappy economy
5.Nixon- Betrayal of Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, and Taiwan, SALT I, etc.
6.LBJ- Great Society, Vietnam War
7.Ike- Operation Keelhaul, betraying loyal allies in Cuba, South Vietnam (and imposing a brutal dictatorship), South Korea, Hungary, etc., SEATO,
8.Truman- UN, NATO, Fair Deal, Korean War, betrayal of China, Poland, etc.
9.JFK- Betrayal of Laos, Katanga, etc., Cuban Missile Crisis, Berlin Wall, wanting to surrender our entire military over to the UN (read the State Department document 'Freedom from War')
10.Hoover- Saved the Soviet empire from collapse in 1921, set the precedent for FDR's unconstitutional New Deal
11.Clinton- Socialist, pro-gun control, Kosovo, NAFTA, WTO, etc.
12.George W. Bush- Iraq War, No Child Left Behind, Patriot Act, etc.
13.George H.W. Bush- Gulf War I, never met a dictator he didn't like
14.Ford- Self-explanatory
15.Reagan- A counterfeit conservative who did not decrease government or government spending, and was falsely labeled an anticommunist; his policy toward Chile, South Africa, etc. is ample proof of his phony anticommunism (as is his friendship with Garbageoff)
16.Harding- Need I say more?
17.Grant- Rampant corruption

Worst Presidents (NO FLAMING):

[#1]Abe Lincoln

Thank you very much, i couldn't agree more

He was not the people's president... not by a long shot. And for all his talk of smaller government he greatly increased it's size. The only president to actually decrease the size of government was Clinton, despite all the Republican attacks against him. As soon as I made the pool, I thought "DAMN! I forgot Clinton!"

The last President to ever decrease government was Coolidge.

Who was the greatest president the United States has ever had?

Theodore Roosevelt. He should have been president for life.

Thank you very much, i couldn't agree more

I hope you're not being sarcastic.

i'm dead serious, he was a horrible president, not what they make him up to be the schools, i could ramble on for hours as how bad of a president he was, but i won't cause i gotta go to a movie pretty soon

Truman followed in Washington's footsteps and stopped after two terms, even though technically he was only elected to one. Truman was the last president to NEVER have a college degree, talk about true man of the people. He may have been supported by political 'machines', yet he did do his own work in his own way. He dropped the two bombs in Japan solely for the resolution of the war and to prevent loss of AMERICAN lives at a more catastrophic rate that actually marching on Japanese soil would've done.

Another thing Truman did was talk 'off the cuff' well. Give him set wording and he was practically fumbling up the speech. Most importantly, he wasn't a man that really wanted the prestige of political power, hell.......the man started politicking in Missouri only because he had no other way to make a buck than public service. Now that's some character.

We need Truman back again.

Who is the most unknown president, like Millard Fillmore?

I think the best president was either Teddy or Clinton. The problem also is that we only remember presidents who presided over wars, the first few and the last few.

For those who like FDR, here's an interesting thing to read from his grandson:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6364551/site/newsweek/

FDR is not the best president. He started the downward trend to socialism embodied by Medicare and Social Security. These (and other) programs trap people with the promise of free _____ (insert service/good here), keeping them dependent on government, yet providing far worse service than the private sector.
He did do a good job of drawing the US into a necessary war isolationists did not want to be a part of (with quite a bit of help from the foolish Japanese); and lend-ease was an ingenious way of giving support to Britain without having to commit completely to the war. However, his personal governing style did not lead to a quicker end to the war. He consistently played the armed forces against each other and forced the OSS down all their throats.

His inability to see the negatives of Communism and good old "Uncle" Joe Stalin helped bring about the Cold War. An example of which is his sheltering of numerous Soviet agents such as Harry Dexter White and Lauchlin Currie even though he was warned of their connection to Soviet spy networks. This inability to root out subversive influences lead directly to leaks which might have revealed US deciphering of Japanese codes through the Magic project and nearly caused the Army to abandon project Verona which was deciphering Soviet codes.

As far as the Depression goes, for all intents and purposes that was ended worldwide because of WWII. The best things FDR did was appoint George Marshall and insist that Ike was left alone to prosecute the war.

Theodore Roosevelt. He should have been president for life.

Man I wish we could find someone whos in Teddy Roosevelt direct bloodline and have them run for President!

Man, Teddy Roosevelt was giving a speech one day and someone shot him, now his speech booklet stop the bullet (which was in his breast pocket) but he didn't let some would be assisan stop his speech, he kept on talking!

Incidentally that was not while he was president. It was when he was running for reelection against Wilson. And he lost. Evidently, saying "It'll take more than that to bring down a Bull Moose" just didn't quite resonate with the voters. Maybe they realized making the Carribean "our lake" was a little, um, stupid.

haha ok. if you like imperialistic presidents.
Dude, most US presidents are imperialists. I don't like it, but it's nothing unique. Besides, Teddy Roosevelt was quite progressive. (As far as I know) he was the first trust-buster! :sniper:

I think FDR was the best though. His only major evil act was putting the Japanese-Americans in concentration camps. Which is pretty good for 13 years.

Incidentally that was not while he was president. It was when he was running for reelection against Wilson. And he lost. Evidently, saying "It'll take more than that to bring down a Bull Moose" just didn't quite resonate with the voters. Maybe they realized making the Carribean "our lake" was a little, um, stupid.

Yea but the fact that he didn't even let a bullet stop him is still kick ass!

Great poll choices! I voted FDR. Lincoln and Kennedy were hard not to choose though, and both Washington and Reagan were great too.
I've never understood what was so great about JFK. His work in the Cuban Missile Crisis was great, but what else was there? Remember, he started US troop deployment in the Vietnam War.

Best President ever? Hard to say.

You could say Washington, but how would have Washington reacted to 9/11?


He'd probably have said "holy shit, how'd they make a tower that big/"
Then "holy shit, how'd they get all that metal to fly?"
then he'd have passed out.

That's still be better than what Bush did though.

8.Truman- UN, NATO, Fair Deal, Korean War, betrayal of China, Poland, etc.


Don't forget the execution of hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilians in order to show off his new nuclear toys to Stalin, thus kickstarting the Cold War with the USSR.

To the people who think Lincoln is one of the worst Presidents: maybe you should take a high school American history class. That or move out of the Deep South.

I've never understood what was so great about JFK. His work in the Cuban Missile Crisis was great, but what else was there? Remember, he started US troop deployment in the Vietnam War.

I put him in for the same reason as Reagan. People would keep asking "Man, where's JFK? He's the best!" So I put him in.

FDR RULED!Kicked ass in WW2 and stop the gr8 depression.HE KICKED ASS FACE THE FACTS.

Haha, stopped the great depression. He worsened and prolonged it. You can resurrect an economy by paying kids to dig holes and fill them in again.

WHAT!? Ronald Reagan was one of the worst Presidents we've ever had!

To the people who think Lincoln is one of the worst Presidents: maybe you should take a high school American history class. That or move out of the Deep South.

I took an AP level course on US History, and that is where i get my view points on how horrible a president he was.

I'd have to say Lincoln. He saved the union, and in the process, jumpstarted the national economy, and liberated three million people.
Don't forget that he suspended habeus corpus and all the people he killed for the deadly sin of declaring independence.

FDR wasn't a president, he was our next king.

Fine, if that's what the "due" is, then i guess ol' Bushie will get what's coming to him.

I'm still waiting impatiently on the 20 year curse.

Don't forget that he suspended habeus corpus and all the people he killed for the deadly sin of declaring independence.

Yes, he really should have let the south suceed... Then it would have been nice and non-partisan in both countries.

Don't forget that he suspended habeus corpus and all the people he killed for the deadly sin of declaring independence.

And the people who declared independence also favored state rights over human rights. But Lincoln favored the Union over human rights. So.. they both suck.

I'm still waiting impatiently on the 20 year curse.

Maybe its taking a coffee break?

WHAT!? Ronald Reagan was one of the worst Presidents we've ever had!

I couldn't agree more, but I put him in becuase the poll is to figure out what everyone thinks, and its obvious that he would recieve a significant amount of votes.

I put him in for the same reason as Reagan. People would keep asking "Man, where's JFK? He's the best!" So I put him in.

At least he (started) something for civil rights... though LBJ actually put it in effect.

And the people who declared independence also favored state rights over human rights. But Lincoln favored the Union over human rights. So.. they both suck.
Slavery was not the issue of the civil war like many people think it was. Only 5% of the people in the south actually owned slaves, and they weren't the ones fighting. And don't say because of conscription, because the government didn't have the power AKA a confederacy

To the people who think Lincoln is one of the worst Presidents: maybe you should take a high school American history class.


Actually, I found my university-level American history classes to be far more interesting. There I learned about the basic Federalist/Anti-Federalist conflict that existed during the American Revolution. In high-school history classes, the common image presented is one of a room full of men who are completely united and in agreement of where the brand new nation should go. This image is far form the reality. Basically, the Federalists believed that strong centralized government was necessary, while the Anti-Federalists were of the opinion that a must looser decentralized association of what would essentially be independant nations was the best way to go. The initial attempt by the Anti-Federalists to form their idea of government, the Articles of Confederation, didn't work out so well and so the Federalists created what we know refer to as The Constitution as a solution. The Anti-Federalists, however, did not go away and were still very active, mainly in the South.

The Civil War was simply the Federalist/Anti-Federalist conflict taken to the extreme of military violence. Economically speaking, the Northern states were highly industrialized, where as the Southern states were chiefly agricultural in nature. As such, the population was mainly concentrated in the North, thus the North possessed the most political power. Even so, the North relied on the South to supply the raw materials needed for the Northern industry to produce products and services. When the Anti-Federalist South finally got tired of increasing Federalist political power, they jumped ship, just like the American colonists had originally done to the King in 1776. The North knew this was a very bad thing, as without Southern agriculture supplying their factories, they were screwed. Thus, Lincoln sends the the military into the South to bring them back into the Union. The Emancipation Proclamation was simply a means of breaking the back of the South in order guarantee Northern victory, as without slaves to work the fields, the Southern economy would (and did) fall apart.


That or move out of the Deep South.

strawman.

If you judge a president by who best kept their promises you would have to go with James K. Polk.

"Who is James K. Polk?"

That is what the Whigs said in 1844.

The Democrat Polk ran on a platform promising 1) the annexation of Texas, 2) settlement of the Oregon dispute with Great Britain, 3) reestablishment of an independent treasury, and 4) acquisition of territory from Mexico that eventually became California, New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada, Utah, and parts of Colorado and Wyoming.

Four years later he had accomplished all four and left the White House after only one term.

Not the most well known, but he did what he promised to do.

nicely put Marineris Colonies

Don't forget that he suspended habeus corpus and all the people he killed for the deadly sin of declaring independence.
Need I remind you that it was the Confederates that fired the first shot of the Civil War?

Southerners?! *shudders*

Need I remind you that it was the Confederates that fired the first shot of the Civil War?
They may have fired the first shots, but they were taking back their land from union forces that wouldn't leave from their perfectly legal succesion(sp?)

strawman.

No, more of a personal attack.

Need I remind you that it was the Confederates that fired the first shot of the Civil War?

True enough, but that was exactly what Lincoln wanted. Read, for example, The Real Lincoln, by Thomas J. DiLorenzo. Slanted as hell, but meticulously researched, and a damn good read. Most of his sources were pro-Lincoln.

They may have fired the first shots, but they were taking back their land from union forces that wouldn't leave from their perfectly legal succesion(sp?)

Winners write the history books.

Winners write the history books.
That is true, very true. Take pearl harbor for example, we may have been bombed, but the history books never mention that we cut off 90% of their resources

Actually, I found my university-level American history classes to be far more interesting. There I learned about the basic Federalist/Anti-Federalist conflict that existed during the American Revolution. In high-school history classes, the common image presented is one of a room full of men who are completely united and in agreement of where the brand new nation should go. This image is far form the reality. Basically, the Federalists believed that strong centralized government was necessary, while the Anti-Federalists were of the opinion that a must looser decentralized association of what would essentially be independant nations was the best way to go. The initial attempt by the Anti-Federalists to form their idea of government, the Articles of Confederation, didn't work out so well and so the Federalists created what we know refer to as The Constitution as a solution. The Anti-Federalists, however, did not go away and were still very active, mainly in the South.

The Civil War was simply the Federalist/Anti-Federalist conflict taken to the extreme of military violence. Economically speaking, the Northern states were highly industrialized, where as the Southern states were chiefly agricultural in nature. As such, the population was mainly concentrated in the North, thus the North possessed the most political power. Even so, the North relied on the South to supply the raw materials needed for the Northern industry to produce products and services. When the Anti-Federalist South finally got tired of increasing Federalist political power, they jumped ship, just like the American colonists had originally done to the King in 1776. The North knew this was a very bad thing, as without Southern agriculture supplying their factories, they were screwed. Thus, Lincoln sends the the military into the South to bring them back into the Union. The Emancipation Proclamation was simply a means of breaking the back of the South in order guarantee Northern victory, as without slaves to work the fields, the Southern economy would (and did) fall apart.


This does not really explain why Lincoln should be thought of as the worst President ever. It is more history than an argument.

They may have fired the first shots, but they were taking back their land from union forces that wouldn't leave from their perfectly legal succesion(sp?)

Arab militants use the same excuse.

Arab militants use the same excuse.

Good point.

No, more of a personal attack.

Well, I took the statement as implying that those who dislike Lincoln are in favor of slavery, as slavery is historically associated with the "Deep South." Obviously, the institution of human slavery is very easy to refute and prove evil. Thus, linking those who dislike Lincoln with slavery is an easy way to make such people look bad without actually examining valid arguments and ideas, like the one I gave above. Thus, strawman.

If you judge a president by who best kept their promises you would have to go with James K. Polk.

"Who is James K. Polk?"

That is what the Whigs said in 1844.

The Democrat Polk ran on a platform promising 1) the annexation of Texas, 2) settlement of the Oregon dispute with Great Britain, 3) reestablishment of an independent treasury, and 4) acquisition of territory from Mexico that eventually became California, New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada, Utah, and parts of Colorado and Wyoming.

Four years later he had accomplished all four and left the White House after only one term.

Not the most well known, but he did what he promised to do.

A very interesting, but good argument. Very well put. By contrast, our current president would be the worst if it were measured on pomises and honesty.

Another interesting fact about Lincoln:

William Lloyd Garrison said he did not have "a single drop of anti-slavery blood in his veins."

Well, I took the statement as implying that those who dislike Lincoln are in favor of slavery, as slavery is historically associated with the "Deep South." Obviously, the institution of human slavery is very easy to refute and prove evil. Thus, linking those who dislike Lincoln with slavery is an easy way to make such people look bad without actually examining valid arguments and ideas, like the one I gave above. Thus, strawman.

I see where you got it from now. However, if I was to imply anything it would be that many southerners are known to be anti-progressive. Some still wave confederate flags and wish the South would have won. I would have implied that these southerners have a hatred for Lincoln because they lost to him.

This does not really explain why Lincoln should be thought of as the worst President ever. It is more history than an argument.

My goal was not to prove those who dislike Lincoln right. My goal was to present a view of American history that is contrary to that commonly given in high-school level American history classes. Lincoln did not issue the Emancipation Proclamation because he was an abolitionist, but because he was searching for a way to economically destroy the South in order to guarantee Northern victory in the Civil War.

Well, living in Illinois aka "The Land of Lincoln" (the only state where schools have Lincoln's birthday off instead of President's Day), all we ever here about Lincoln is how great he was. We're also the only state that still uses pennies in toll booths (yes, because of Lincoln's face). And our licence plates say "Land of Lincoln" and have his face on them. It's Lincoln, Lincoln,Lincon!!! It's particularly bad in the state capital, where they have completely preserved/reconstructed his entire neighborhood, and have whole museums in his honor.

Well, living in Illinois aka "The Land of Lincoln" (the only state where schools have Lincoln's birthday off instead of President's Day), all we ever here about Lincoln is how great he was. We're also the only state that still uses pennies in toll booths (yes, because of Lincoln's face). And our licence plates say "Land of Lincoln" and have his face on them. It's Lincoln, Lincoln,Lincon!!! It's particularly bad in the state capital, where they have completely preserved/reconstructed his entire neighborhood, and have whole museums in his honor.

I can understand this. It is kind of like how Kansans hate "The Wizard of Oz" and Iowans hate "Field of Dreams".

In my book Bill''Da Man'' Clinton,Hilary would make a Great'' Woman'' Prez also.

I see where you got it from now. However, if I was to imply anything it would be that many southerners are known to be anti-progressive. Some still wave confederate flags and wish the South would have won. I would have implied that these southerners have a hatred for Lincoln because they lost to him.

Ah, but then many "southerners" could consider Lincoln's policy of using military force for economic and political gain while preventing people from choosing their own form of government as being highly anti-progressive. Nothing about such a position is necessarly pro-slavery.

my top 10:

in no particular order-

1.Abe Lincoln (keeping country together)
2.FDR (WWII and New Deal)
3.George Washington (establishing powers of presidency)
4.Thomas Jefferson (Louisiana Purchase)
5.Woodrow Wilson (League of Nations, lowering tariff)
6.Harry Truman (Truman Doctrine, UN, NATO)
7.Bill Clinton (NAFTA, economic achievements)
8.JFK (civil rights laws, Cuban missile crisis)
9.Andrew Jackson (further defining presidency)
10.Teddy Roosevelt (National Parks, Panama Canal)

Ah, but then many "southerners" could consider Lincoln's policy of using military force for economic and political gain while preventing people from choosing their own form of government as being highly anti-progressive. Nothing about such a position is necessarly pro-slavery.

True enough.

Best Presidents in chronological order:

George Washington
Thomas Jefferson
James Madison
Abraham Lincoln
Grover Cleveland
Richard Nixon
Ronald Reagan
George W. Bush

Now, I'll admit that he doesn't get much press, but ol' Ruthie was a very timely and effective Prez!

(pre Prez)
* A Civil War veteran (enlisted at age 49!) from the Ohio Infantry, he was an actual war hero, with 4 wounds. (None of which were contested by Swift-ironclad vets).
* Elected to Congress, even though he refused to campaign! Despite this, he continued in his role as a Colonel in the Union army and did not take his congressional seat until after the war. Now if *that* isn't integrity (unlike, say, W or Clinton?), I don't know what is.

(As Prez)
* Combated bi-metallism, worked to end a huge recession by going back to the gold standard.
* Boasts the 1st Presidential Library!
* Also a modernizer, he was the first President to have a typewriter and a telephone in the White House.
* Defeated an attempt by the Congress to force him to accept unwanted legislation by attaching amendments – riders -- to necessary appropriations bills. By the time Hayes left office, senators could suggest but not dictate the appointment of officers, nor was the President's veto power destroyed.
* Initiated civil service reform, aimed at ending patronage.
* Hayes reassigned the few remaining troops guarding two Southern statehouses. Before doing so, however, he extracted promises from southern leaders that they would protect southern African Americans in their political, economic, and civil rights.
* Signed a bill that, for the first time, allowed women attorneys to appear before the U.S. Supreme Court.
* 1st President to visit the west coast while in office.
* Declined a second term, which he'd promised when inaugurated.

Best Presidents in chronological order:

George Washington
Thomas Jefferson
James Madison
Abraham Lincoln
Grover Cleveland
Richard Nixon
Ronald Reagan
George W. Bush
That's a pretty bad list.

I don't know much about Cleveland and Washington was obviously a good prez. The only reasons anyone knows who Jefferson and Madison were is because of what they did in the revolution and because they were two of the earliest presidents.

Nixon was bad for obvious reasons (except his foreign policy before he became paranoid, but thats not nearly enough to consider him one of the best), and Reagan was such a damn hypocrite.

And the fact that you would even consider putting W. on the list of best presidents, let alone actually doing it, would make me lose all respect for you had I known anything aoubt you before reading this post. Not only is he one of the worst presidents of all time, how can he even be considered as for one of the best before his term first term is even completed? That's the only reason I dont have him listed as the very worst.

And the fact that you would even consider putting W. on the list of best presidents, let alone actually doing it, would make me lose all respect for you had I known anything aoubt you before reading this post. Not only is he one of the worst presidents of all time, how can he even be considered as for one of the best before his term first term is even completed? That's the only reason I dont have him listed as the very worst.

That is a very good point. We're only now coming to a point where we can objectively judge the Reagan presidency's effects on our nation. We're not nearly at a point where we can evaluate Bush, Clinton, or Bush. There just hasn't been enough time to see the fruits of their labors, so to speak.

That's a pretty bad list.

I don't know much about Cleveland and Washington was obviously a good prez. The only reasons anyone knows who Jefferson and Madison were is because of what they did in the revolution and because they were two of the earliest presidents.

Nixon was bad for obvious reasons (except his foreign policy before he became paranoid, but thats not nearly enough to consider him one of the best), and Reagan was such a damn hypocrite.

Jefferson did a lot as President. He wrote the Declaration of Independence and the French counter-part (not as President though), purchased Lousiana from Napoleon, removed an alcohol tax, and helped pave the way for America to seperate itself from Europe. He is also highly respected by the libertarian party for his small government policies.

Nixon would be considered one of the greatest Presidents of our time if it were not for Watergate. He was the first President to visit communist Russia and prevent a war between Russia and China.

Jefferson did a lot as President. He wrote the Declaration of Independence and the French counter-part (not as President though), purchased Lousiana from Napoleon, removed an alcohol tax, and helped pave the way for America to seperate itself from Europe. He is also highly respected by the libertarian party for his small government policies.

Nixon would be considered one of the greatest Presidents of our time if it were not for Watergate. He was the first President to visit communist Russia and prevent a war between Russia and China.

I did say that Nixon was excellent at foreign policy. Also, Jefferson didn't write the Declcaration as president. And if you ask me, an alchohol tax could do a lot to help out with our deficit right now. Also good ideas are taxes on tobacco and SUV's. But you're right, I sould give Jefferson more credit.

Also, Jefferson didn't write the Declcaration as president.

He wrote the Declaration of Independence and the French counter-part (not as President though)

:)



Is should add that the alcohol tax was hated by many of the citizens at that time.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say Martin Van Buren, the only president bold enough to have a campaign associate say "vote early, vote often."

Why is Kennedy even on this list? He did nothing outside of almost start WIII. He sucked.

Why is Kennedy even on this list? He did nothing outside of almost start WIII. He sucked.

He did a lot to develop our space program, sent us to Vietnam, and prevented a crisis with Cuba.

This is a no contest. Thomas Jefferson was by far the best president of all time. The Louisiana Purchase was genius. Also many of his non-presidential feats were great, such as the Declaration. However, one of my greatest reasons for choosing him are his philisophical stances, such as smaller government, self-reliance, personal responsibility, and lower taxes. Read some of his corresspondence some time. Since I'm a libertarian, when I read some of the things he wrote, I try to think of ways to reanimate his body and get him back in the Oval Office. The man was a genius, and very ahead of his time, as many of the things he talked about are still completely relevent today.

He did a lot to develop our space program, sent us to Vietnam, and prevented a crisis with Cuba.
He caused that crises with Cuba and the USSR, He did not send us to space, he got us deeper into vietnam.

How 'bout Coolidge?

Thought this was funny

...in 1925, the Coolidge administration arranges the Locarno Agreements: Europeans pledge not to go to war. Britain and Italy are to guarantee this.



January 17, 1929: Kellogg-Briand Pact is signed by Coolidge; 62 nations sign. It renounces war as a national policy and parties agree to peaceful means for adjustment of international differences.


Whoops...

Nixon would be considered one of the greatest Presidents of our time if it were not for Watergate. He was the first President to visit communist Russia and prevent a war between Russia and China.

And he might've actually been one of the greatest if he had ended the Vietnam War as soon and fast as possible, and if he'd never started the drug war.

I did say that Nixon was excellent at foreign policy. Also, Jefferson didn't write the Declcaration as president. And if you ask me, an alchohol tax could do a lot to help out with our deficit right now. Also good ideas are taxes on tobacco and SUV's. But you're right, I sould give Jefferson more credit.

There already are taxes on alcohol and tobacco. In most states the total tax on cigarettes is over 100% the retail price. I doubt it would possible to raise tax revenue enough to cover the current deficit. As tax rates increase, they hit a point where revenue stops increasing and starts to decline. The only way to kill the deficit is to destroy spending.

In my view, the only three Presidents that really should be on this list are Washington, Lincoln and FDR.

Washington set the tone for all the presidents after, and the presidency was fairly ill defined when he took office. He could very easily have decided to be President for Life, which is what a lot of people at the start assumed the Presidency was... the consequences would have been awful (look at the track records of Presidents for life)

Lincoln pure and simple saved the Union, held the Norths war effort together, and prevented the US from fracturing into two or more nations who would have constantly been at odds with one another.

FDR held the US together in the worst economic depression ever, prevented the nation from polarizing into extremes like in for example, Germany or France, and then led the Allies to victory.

Hard to pick between the three, but none of the rest would have been possible without Washington, so he gets my vote.

Doh! I voted for JFK, but I didn't see other. The best president was Thomas Jefferson IMO. He's the closest to a libertarian that we've had.

I don't like FDR. He bloated gov. more than George W.

William Henry Harrison. He died shortly after his inaugural address, having done hardly any harm to his country.

True enough, but that was exactly what Lincoln wanted.
No difference. They still started the fighting.

That's a pretty bad list.
Not to mention very partisan. The most recent Democrat he has is Grover Cleveland!

my top 10:

in no particular order-

1.Abe Lincoln (keeping country together)
2.FDR (WWII and New Deal)
3.George Washington (establishing powers of presidency)
4.Thomas Jefferson (Louisiana Purchase)
5.Woodrow Wilson (League of Nations, lowering tariff)
6.Harry Truman (Truman Doctrine, UN, NATO)
7.Bill Clinton (NAFTA, economic achievements)
8.JFK (civil rights laws, Cuban missile crisis)
9.Andrew Jackson (further defining presidency)
10.Teddy Roosevelt (National Parks, Panama Canal)
Funny, your reasons for praising these guys are the same reasons Roach-Busters has them on his "worst presidents" list.

Why is Kennedy even on this list? He did nothing outside of almost start WIII. He sucked.
Wasn't it Eisenhower that placed missiles in Turkey and Kruschev that placed missiles in Cuba?

How 'bout Coolidge?

So I'm told he was the last US Pres to reduce the size of government.

William Henry Harrison. He died shortly after his inaugural address, having done hardly any harm to his country.

Curse your eyes, I was going to post that - some reports even claim that it was the fact that he swore his oath of office on a cold day without wearing his coat that lead to the pneumonia that kiled him a month later.

William Henry Harrison. He died shortly after his inaugural address, having done hardly any harm to his country.
You make a good point. Alomst, if not all the presidents that people have suggested as good so far, someone else has refuted as bad. But hey, what argument could you make against good ol' William Henry Harrison?

This is a no contest. Thomas Jefferson was by far the best president of all time. The Louisiana Purchase was genius.

I'm not saying he isn't up there, but Jefferson got lucky on this one. It just so happened that he happened to be in the right place at the right time when this huge chunk of land was put on the market for only $15 million. Who wouldn't have done the same had they been in Jefferson's position?

Not to mention very partisan. The most recent Democrat he has is Grover Cleveland!

Cleveland was our last good Democratic President.

Man, Teddy Roosevelt was giving a speech one day and someone shot him, now his speech booklet stop the bullet (which was in his breast pocket) but he didn't let some would be assisan stop his speech, he kept on talking!

Teddy Rosevelt was tough and very cool obviously, our best president, no. I would have to say Bill Clinton, although its 50/50 with FDR, Im only saying Clinton because he was more recent, and was fighting Republicans that criticized his every move.

Those of you who said Reagan, you should be shot! The man armed Saddam Hussein, and Osama Bin-Laden.

Funny, your reasons for praising these guys are the same reasons Roach-Busters has them on his "worst presidents" list.

Lol :D

(Btw, some of the ones he listed were on my best Presidents list)

Teddy Rosevelt was tough and very cool obviously, our best president, no. I would have to say Bill Clinton, although its 50/50 with FDR, Im only saying Clinton because he was more recent, and was fighting Republicans that criticized his every move.

Those of you who said Reagan, you should be shot! The man armed Saddam Hussein, and Osama Bin-Laden.

And FDR did the same for Stalin.

I'm going to say the one whom nobody else will dare mention. The man who added the most terrority to the US of any President. The man who just plain kicked ass. That President was President Polk, the best President ever!

(Note: This post is sarcastic. Despite my appreciation for the long term effects of Polk's actions, it is true that his motives were absurdly partisan, and his opportunities for greater succeses were prominent. However, the above pretty aptly sums up how good everyone else's arguments have been up to this point)

Cleveland was our last good Democratic President.
Bill Clinton was the last good Democratic president, and he was a lot better than simply "good". And don't forget the other awesome Dems between now and Cleveland (ie. Carter, JFK, Truman, and, FDR) and the above average but not as good ones (ie. LBJ and Wilson).

And FDR did the same for Stalin.

Yeah but at the time, we were fighting the Nazis.

George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, James Monroe, Andrew Jackson (except for the Trail of Tears), John Tyler, and Grover Cleveland.
...
17.Grant- Rampant corruption
I think Grant at least top 5 overall, you make it sound like most those things are worse than Corruption...oh well i respect your opinion non-the-less
anyway...Andrew Jackson...the common man is the best president ever and Harrison is the worst since he had about 1 month to settle into his job...then died
EDIT: as i started reading i thought of T. Roosevelt...forgot him...heck i could have just pointed to Mount Rushmore and pointed out 4 top tier presidents (jefferson, Washington, T. Roosevelt and Lincoln; for those who forgot)
EDIT-2: just one other note: no president is perfect, its all opinion on who did more or less i guess...
EDIT-3: ok i'm doing anal editing now...i now disagree with saying Harrison...umm...i'll say...LBJ i guess...

Teddy Rosevelt was tough and very cool obviously, our best president, no. I would have to say Bill Clinton, although its 50/50 with FDR, Im only saying Clinton because he was more recent, and was fighting Republicans that criticized his every move.

Those of you who said Reagan, you should be shot! The man armed Saddam Hussein, and Osama Bin-Laden.
This guy gets it! FDR and Clinton all the way! And Reagan should be on the "Worst Presidents List".

Yeah but at the time, we were fighting the Nazis.

Why not let the Soviets and Nazis wipe each other out, and then finish off the winner?

Of the ones on the list, probably Abraham Lincoln. But have all of you forgotten about Jimmy Carter, the only human ever elected??

Of the ones on the list, probably Abraham Lincoln. But have all of you forgotten about Jimmy Carter, the only human ever elected??

Carter was a sleazy traitor. He gave away our canal, backstabbed very loyal and strongly anticommunist allies in Rhodesia, Nicaragua, Taiwan, Iran, etc., gutted our military, mangled our economy, made us an international pariah (especially during the hostage crisis), was a two-faced jackal who never hesitated to denounce "human rights" abuses in anticommunist nations but always looked the other way or babbled a feeble excuse in cases of human rights abuses in communist nations, drastically undermined our security (SALT II), bloated an already oversized government (Departments of Education and Energy), was a UN p***y, a compulsive liar and hypocrite, wanted to renew ties with Vietnam (even though they never returned all our POWs), etc. Carter was just an all-around slimeball.

(And please don't flame if you disagree)

Very hard to say.

I would say clinton, then truman.
Thas why i voted "other"

Carter was a sleazy traitor.

<...He gave away our canal
<...backstabbed..allies in Rhodesia, Nicaragua, Taiwan, Iran, etc.
<...gutted our military
<...mangled our economy
<...made us an international pariah
<...never hesitated to denounce "human rights" abuses

WOW...Everything you say makes so much sense...im impresed :rolleyes:

Why not let the Soviets and Nazis wipe each other out, and then finish off the winner?

Hmm, let me count the reasons why this was a piss-poor idea. . .

1) Soviet Russia wouldn't have lasted until the winter of '40 without the U.S. churning out goods for them. Their army had been knocked on it's ass from the very beginning, and the Russian industry was still a long way from being even close to matching either America's or Germany's. As a result, with no help from America, it's not that hard to envision them getting simply steamrolled. Stalin wouldn't have left Moscow, and Germany had the tools to take Moscow had it not been for desperate rearguards using American equipment. If Stalin died, so did the Russians.

Thus, the Nazis would have been in the position of a) holding a vast reserve of industrial capacity, b) coupled with the vast natural resources of the Russian empire, and c) presenting a Steel Curtain of defense along the French coastline, instead of d) expending their industrial might trying to pin down or drive back the Russian juggernaut, while e) their resources were being steadily depleted, which gave us the opportunity to f) attrition them down in a bloody three-front war.

You tell me which set of options (a, b, and c, or d, e, and f) are preferable.

2) It keyed up American industry.

America in 1940 was still wracked with economic shudders from the Great Depression. As such, it wasn't like someone could magically flick an "ON" switch, and then, presto!, you have 20,000 Shermans at your disposal. No, we had to switch over our civilian production lines to war production lines, and the only reason people do that is because a) someone is attacking us and we need them, or b) someone is attacking someone else and they want to buy them from us. As such, it was the unspooling of our economy in 39-40, led in no small amount by the Russians, that allowed us to get into the wartime production that drowned the Germans and Japs in '44-'45. Had we not helped them, getting up to full-production might have taken another year or two--time that would have given Hitler the opportunity to entrench and cost more American lives.

3) It saved American lives.

Every German killed by the Russians was one less German that was shooting at our men and possibly killing them. . .and you know what, the Russians were very, very adept at killing Germans.

4) It saved German lives.

Need I remind you that anything that prolonged the war also prolonged the Holocaust? Having Russia lose in the opening rounds would have greatly prolonged the war. As it was, there were only a few thousand Polish Jews that survived the Holocaust. . .had the war gone on longer, they might have been wiped out to a man.

5) Larger historical point.

You don't like Stalinism. Okay, that's fine. In point of fact, it's better than fine, because there is a hell of a lot to dislike about Stalinism. But you forget in your raging that there was a larger issue at work in 1940, and that was whether Europe would remain free in any form. Yes, the Nazis were that damned dangerous, and we needed all the help we could get in any form to combat them. That meant taking help even from people we might not have wanted to, like Joseph Stalin. If you think that this was a deal with the devil, then you'd be right. If you want to think that somehow this evil wasn't necessary, then I'd suggest that you put down the Pat Buchanan revisionist history books and try something else for a change.

I understand Washington, Lincoln, Reagan, and FDR being there, but why the hell is JFK on this list!

Hmm, let me count the reasons why this was a piss-poor idea. . .

Damn you... You beat me to it!

Damn you... You beat me to it!

Well, you can add to it if you want. The list is by no means exhaustive.

To Roach-Busters:

You probably said somewhere in the previous 8 pages of this thread who YOU think America's best president was, but I don't feel like looking for it. Who do think is the BEST. And you can't give a list of "These are the best in no prticular order". Just one. Thank you.

Well, you can add to it if you want. The list is by no means exhaustive.

Nah, you did a much better job than I ever would have.

To Roach-Busters:

You probably said somewhere in the previous 8 pages of this thread who YOU think America's best president was, but I don't feel like looking for it. Who do think is the BEST. And you can't give a list of "These are the best in no prticular order". Just one. Thank you.

Washington.

WOW...Everything you say makes so much sense...im impresed :rolleyes:

Eh, shut up.

Hmm, let me count the reasons why this was a piss-poor idea. . .

1) Soviet Russia wouldn't have lasted until the winter of '40 without the U.S. churning out goods for them. Their army had been knocked on it's ass from the very beginning, and the Russian industry was still a long way from being even close to matching either America's or Germany's. As a result, with no help from America, it's not that hard to envision them getting simply steamrolled. Stalin wouldn't have left Moscow, and Germany had the tools to take Moscow had it not been for desperate rearguards using American equipment. If Stalin died, so did the Russians.

Thus, the Nazis would have been in the position of a) holding a vast reserve of industrial capacity, b) coupled with the vast natural resources of the Russian empire, and c) presenting a Steel Curtain of defense along the French coastline, instead of d) expending their industrial might trying to pin down or drive back the Russian juggernaut, while e) their resources were being steadily depleted, which gave us the opportunity to f) attrition them down in a bloody three-front war.

You tell me which set of options (a, b, and c, or d, e, and f) are preferable.

2) It keyed up American industry.

America in 1940 was still wracked with economic shudders from the Great Depression. As such, it wasn't like someone could magically flick an "ON" switch, and then, presto!, you have 20,000 Shermans at your disposal. No, we had to switch over our civilian production lines to war production lines, and the only reason people do that is because a) someone is attacking us and we need them, or b) someone is attacking someone else and they want to buy them from us. As such, it was the unspooling of our economy in 39-40, led in no small amount by the Russians, that allowed us to get into the wartime production that drowned the Germans and Japs in '44-'45. Had we not helped them, getting up to full-production might have taken another year or two--time that would have given Hitler the opportunity to entrench and cost more American lives.

3) It saved American lives.

Every German killed by the Russians was one less German that was shooting at our men and possibly killing them. . .and you know what, the Russians were very, very adept at killing Germans.

4) It saved German lives.

Need I remind you that anything that prolonged the war also prolonged the Holocaust? Having Russia lose in the opening rounds would have greatly prolonged the war. As it was, there were only a few thousand Polish Jews that survived the Holocaust. . .had the war gone on longer, they might have been wiped out to a man.

5) Larger historical point.

You don't like Stalinism. Okay, that's fine. In point of fact, it's better than fine, because there is a hell of a lot to dislike about Stalinism. But you forget in your raging that there was a larger issue at work in 1940, and that was whether Europe would remain free in any form. Yes, the Nazis were that damned dangerous, and we needed all the help we could get in any form to combat them. That meant taking help even from people we might not have wanted to, like Joseph Stalin. If you think that this was a deal with the devil, then you'd be right. If you want to think that somehow this evil wasn't necessary, then I'd suggest that you put down the Pat Buchanan revisionist history books and try something else for a change.

Why not support the anti-Hitler resistance, then?

Why not support the anti-Hitler resistance, then?

. . .Because a low-level guerrilla resistance movement is not the kind of thing you a) send tanks to, b) use to tie down 2/3 of the German Army, and c) count on to do anything other than make themselves a nuisance. A few blown-up bridges is and never could have been a substitute for the Red Army at their lowest ebb, to say nothing of how effective they became in '44-'45.

William Henry Harrison. He died shortly after his inaugural address, having done hardly any harm to his country.

w00t!

Xenophobialand, I agree.

While not a US citizen, I liked FDR. No way would a man in a wheelchair be elected nowadays, either.

Lincoln, hands down. He did what needed to be done to keep the country together during the biggest crisis in its history. 'Nuff said.
Honorable mentions: Washington, Jefferson, Teddy Roosevelt, FDR, Truman.
Best president of my lifetime (I was born in 1966): Clinton. Eight years of peace and the greatest amount of prosperity we've had in modern times. And all that while everybody's panties were in a wad over a blowjob.

I understand Washington, Lincoln, Reagan, and FDR being there, but why the hell is JFK on this list!
The power of charisma. He handled the Cuban Missile Crisis well, but he wasn't in office long enough to be on any legitimate best-of list. Although you have to respect any guy who got to bang Marilyn.

Lincoln, hands down. He did what needed to be done to keep the country together during the biggest crisis in its history. 'Nuff said.
Honorable mentions: Washington, Jefferson, Teddy Roosevelt, FDR, Truman.
Best president of my lifetime (I was born in 1966): Clinton. Eight years of peace and the greatest amount of prosperity we've had in modern times. And all that while everybody's panties were in a wad over a blowjob.

Clinton did get us in one war, though.

And he might've actually been one of the greatest if he had ended the Vietnam War as soon and fast as possible, and if he'd never started the drug war.
Nixon mishandled Vietnam as badly as LBJ. Nixon spread the war into Cambodia and sparked the protests that ended in the Kent State tragedy. And he was a crook and a wacko.

Carter was a sleazy traitor. He gave away our canal, backstabbed very loyal and strongly anticommunist allies in Rhodesia, Nicaragua, Taiwan, Iran, etc., gutted our military, mangled our economy, made us an international pariah (especially during the hostage crisis), was a two-faced jackal who never hesitated to denounce "human rights" abuses in anticommunist nations but always looked the other way or babbled a feeble excuse in cases of human rights abuses in communist nations, drastically undermined our security (SALT II), bloated an already oversized government (Departments of Education and Energy), was a UN p***y, a compulsive liar and hypocrite, wanted to renew ties with Vietnam (even though they never returned all our POWs), etc. Carter was just an all-around slimeball.

(And please don't flame if you disagree)
Gutted our military--with defense outlays that were actually bigger than Reagan's?
Backstabbed allies--most of which you list were right-wing dictatorships?
An international pariah--so much of one that nations all over the world now trust him to oversee their elections?
If anything, Carter had too much integrity for the job. It does take a bit of ruthlessness, though not as much as Nixon or our current cretin.

Gutted our military--with defense outlays that were actually bigger than Reagan's?
Backstabbed allies--most of which you list were right-wing dictatorships?
An international pariah--so much of one that nations all over the world now trust him to oversee their elections?
If anything, Carter had too much integrity for the job. It does take a bit of ruthlessness, though not as much as Nixon or our current cretin.

Somoza and Smith, contrary to what the Human Rights Hypocrites say, were not dictators. International pariah, yes. Remember the hostage rescue mission fiasco?