Who is the most over-rated president of all-time?

[TheGreatGatsby]

Look at all these "nutters" voting (other) Reagan or Bush. What happened to the liberal logic; it takes 50 years before you can adequately judge a president. I always knew that was a bunch of BS.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Of those on the actual list, I had to pick Lincoln. He did quite a bit of damage to the country. But, of those not on the list in the OP, I would agree that it was Kennedy hands down.

Any supporting details for this answer?

 

[regent]

Of those on the actual list, I had to pick Lincoln. He did quite a bit of damage to the country. But, of those not on the list in the OP, I would agree that it was Kennedy hands down.

Any supporting details for this answer?

The American people are not only asked to make this judgement before a candidate has served one day, but millions are spent helping the citizen make the decision a year or so before he even votes. Historians are pretty accurate but they do on occassion change a president few notches up or down. FDR has been rated since the first poll of historians ever taken, as one of the top three president, and recently as the number one best president.
So how does the Republican party handle that? Well, FDR's a communist, historians are communist, college professors are communist, college graduates are communist, high school graduates are communist, schools are communist, teacher unions are communist.

 

[Unkotare]

Of those on the actual list, I had to pick Lincoln. He did quite a bit of damage to the country. But, of those not on the list in the OP, I would agree that it was Kennedy hands down.

Any supporting details for this answer?

The American people are not only asked to make this judgement before a candidate has served one day, but millions are spent helping the citizen make the decision a year or so before he even votes. Historians are pretty accurate but they do on occassion change a president few notches up or down. FDR has been rated since the first poll of historians ever taken, as one of the top three president, and recently as the number one best president.
So how does the Republican party handle that? Well, FDR's a communist, historians are communist, college professors are communist, college graduates are communist, high school graduates are communist, schools are communist, teacher unions are communist.

And how do you address the many failings, gluttony for power, and atrocities of FDR pointed out on this very thread? You know, without simply appealing to the 'authority' of people ensconced in an academic world that we know is anything but objective?

 

[Artevelde]

kennedy

THE most over rated president of ALL time.

Plus one... My reason for choosing "other".

Same here.

 

[rightwinger]

Look at all these "nutters" voting (other) Reagan or Bush. What happened to the liberal logic; it takes 50 years before you can adequately judge a president. I always knew that was a bunch of BS.

The 30-50 years crap is BS. You might not have complete historical hindsight but many blunders and many successes show themselves immediately.

What changes most is perception. A cooling off period makes some stars fade and some busts look not soo bad

 

[rightwinger]

Any supporting details for this answer?

The American people are not only asked to make this judgement before a candidate has served one day, but millions are spent helping the citizen make the decision a year or so before he even votes. Historians are pretty accurate but they do on occassion change a president few notches up or down. FDR has been rated since the first poll of historians ever taken, as one of the top three president, and recently as the number one best president.
So how does the Republican party handle that? Well, FDR's a communist, historians are communist, college professors are communist, college graduates are communist, high school graduates are communist, schools are communist, teacher unions are communist.

And how do you address the many failings, gluttony for power, and atrocities of FDR pointed out on this very thread? You know, without simply appealing to the 'authority' of people ensconced in an academic world that we know is anything but objective?

Any credible list has FDR as the greatest modern President and a top three overall. FDR recreated the office of President and launched the US into Superpower status.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

FDR was one of the worst ever. He advanced the remake of America into a Neo-Socialist Clusterfuck, abusing and ignoring the Constitution in the process. He stole our gold, interred 100,000 citizens and turned Jews trying to flee Hitler back over to the Third Reich

Fuck him.

 

[Unkotare]

The American people are not only asked to make this judgement before a candidate has served one day, but millions are spent helping the citizen make the decision a year or so before he even votes. Historians are pretty accurate but they do on occassion change a president few notches up or down. FDR has been rated since the first poll of historians ever taken, as one of the top three president, and recently as the number one best president.
So how does the Republican party handle that? Well, FDR's a communist, historians are communist, college professors are communist, college graduates are communist, high school graduates are communist, schools are communist, teacher unions are communist.

And how do you address the many failings, gluttony for power, and atrocities of FDR pointed out on this very thread? You know, without simply appealing to the 'authority' of people ensconced in an academic world that we know is anything but objective?

Any credible list has FDR as the greatest modern President and a top three overall. FDR recreated the office of President and launched the US into Superpower status.

Way to avoid the question. Not too fucking obvious.

 

[rightwinger]

And how do you address the many failings, gluttony for power, and atrocities of FDR pointed out on this very thread? You know, without simply appealing to the 'authority' of people ensconced in an academic world that we know is anything but objective?

Any credible list has FDR as the greatest modern President and a top three overall. FDR recreated the office of President and launched the US into Superpower status.

Way to avoid the question. Not too fucking obvious.

Drastic times called for drastic measures

 

[GHook93]

For the purposes of so-called historical perspective, I won't include recent presidents.

FDR in my mind. WW II was fought and won by others! He just lead the charge after Pearl Harbor. And I don't think any of his policies reversed the Great Depression, I believe they prolonged them.


Most underrated? Thomas Jefferson hand down! Even though he is ranked high, he should be the undisputed #1. The guy doubled the size of the country without a size shot being fired. He kept us out of war. He was a small government conservative who actually lived by what he preached. He lead an era of unprecedenced economic growth throughout the country. He was a god amongst men!

 

[regent]

Does the average American know what went on during those FDR years? Well the historians know and they have never rated FDR below the top three presidents, and recently they rated FDR number one. Strong presidents are usually called tyrants, dictators, kings, and so forth and the good strong presidents are called great. Who mentions Martin Van Buren or Taft in our list of presidents why? But we still remember Harding, Hoover and soon Bush as bad. If Republicans thought highly of Bush he would be their poster boy for this election, but Republicans have by-passed Bush and gone back to Reagan, a president rated by historians as slightly above average. Best they got. But Republicans have one president rated Near-Great, Teddy Roosevelt, yet Republicans avoid Teddy like the plague? Wonder why?
We either have faith in the hundreds of historians that rate presidents or faith in the ratings of our political party. I choose the historians.

 

[Artevelde]

Does the average American know what went on during those FDR years? Well the historians know and they have never rated FDR below the top three presidents, and recently they rated FDR number one. Strong presidents are usually called tyrants, dictators, kings, and so forth and the good strong presidents are called great. Who mentions Martin Van Buren or Taft in our list of presidents why? But we still remember Harding, Hoover and soon Bush as bad. If Republicans thought highly of Bush he would be their poster boy for this election, but Republicans have by-passed Bush and gone back to Reagan, a president rated by historians as slightly above average. Best they got. But Republicans have one president rated Near-Great, Teddy Roosevelt, yet Republicans avoid Teddy like the plague? Wonder why?
We either have faith in the hundreds of historians that rate presidents or faith in the ratings of our political party. I choose the historians.

Maybe you should try thinking for yourself sometime. Or is that too challenging?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Does the average American know what went on during those FDR years? Well the historians know and they have never rated FDR below the top three presidents, and recently they rated FDR number one. Strong presidents are usually called tyrants, dictators, kings, and so forth and the good strong presidents are called great. Who mentions Martin Van Buren or Taft in our list of presidents why? But we still remember Harding, Hoover and soon Bush as bad. If Republicans thought highly of Bush he would be their poster boy for this election, but Republicans have by-passed Bush and gone back to Reagan, a president rated by historians as slightly above average. Best they got. But Republicans have one president rated Near-Great, Teddy Roosevelt, yet Republicans avoid Teddy like the plague? Wonder why?
We either have faith in the hundreds of historians that rate presidents or faith in the ratings of our political party. I choose the historians.

FDR couldn't change Harding jock strap.

IF FDR was "great" for giving us 20% Average unemployment for 8 years then FDR should crazyglue his lips to Harding's nut sack.

 

[Artevelde]

Does the average American know what went on during those FDR years? Well the historians know and they have never rated FDR below the top three presidents, and recently they rated FDR number one. Strong presidents are usually called tyrants, dictators, kings, and so forth and the good strong presidents are called great. Who mentions Martin Van Buren or Taft in our list of presidents why? But we still remember Harding, Hoover and soon Bush as bad. If Republicans thought highly of Bush he would be their poster boy for this election, but Republicans have by-passed Bush and gone back to Reagan, a president rated by historians as slightly above average. Best they got. But Republicans have one president rated Near-Great, Teddy Roosevelt, yet Republicans avoid Teddy like the plague? Wonder why?
We either have faith in the hundreds of historians that rate presidents or faith in the ratings of our political party. I choose the historians.

FDR couldn't change Harding jock strap.

IF FDR was "great" for giving us 20% Average unemployment for 8 years then FDR should crazyglue his lips to Harding's nut sack.

Not really an appealing image.

 

[regent]

Does the average American know what went on during those FDR years? Well the historians know and they have never rated FDR below the top three presidents, and recently they rated FDR number one. Strong presidents are usually called tyrants, dictators, kings, and so forth and the good strong presidents are called great. Who mentions Martin Van Buren or Taft in our list of presidents why? But we still remember Harding, Hoover and soon Bush as bad. If Republicans thought highly of Bush he would be their poster boy for this election, but Republicans have by-passed Bush and gone back to Reagan, a president rated by historians as slightly above average. Best they got. But Republicans have one president rated Near-Great, Teddy Roosevelt, yet Republicans avoid Teddy like the plague? Wonder why?
We either have faith in the hundreds of historians that rate presidents or faith in the ratings of our political party. I choose the historians.

Maybe you should try thinking for yourself sometime. Or is that too challenging?

That's why we have historians, doctors, scientists, they may no more about their field than the average citizen or even a political party, in fact, I often feel political parties are not totally objective or honest.

 

[Unkotare]

Does the average American know what went on during those FDR years? Well the historians know and they have never rated FDR below the top three presidents, and recently they rated FDR number one. Strong presidents are usually called tyrants, dictators, kings, and so forth and the good strong presidents are called great. Who mentions Martin Van Buren or Taft in our list of presidents why? But we still remember Harding, Hoover and soon Bush as bad. If Republicans thought highly of Bush he would be their poster boy for this election, but Republicans have by-passed Bush and gone back to Reagan, a president rated by historians as slightly above average. Best they got. But Republicans have one president rated Near-Great, Teddy Roosevelt, yet Republicans avoid Teddy like the plague? Wonder why?
We either have faith in the hundreds of historians that rate presidents or faith in the ratings of our political party. I choose the historians.

Appeal to authority: fallacy

 

[Artevelde]

Does the average American know what went on during those FDR years? Well the historians know and they have never rated FDR below the top three presidents, and recently they rated FDR number one. Strong presidents are usually called tyrants, dictators, kings, and so forth and the good strong presidents are called great. Who mentions Martin Van Buren or Taft in our list of presidents why? But we still remember Harding, Hoover and soon Bush as bad. If Republicans thought highly of Bush he would be their poster boy for this election, but Republicans have by-passed Bush and gone back to Reagan, a president rated by historians as slightly above average. Best they got. But Republicans have one president rated Near-Great, Teddy Roosevelt, yet Republicans avoid Teddy like the plague? Wonder why?
We either have faith in the hundreds of historians that rate presidents or faith in the ratings of our political party. I choose the historians.

Maybe you should try thinking for yourself sometime. Or is that too challenging?

That's why we have historians, doctors, scientists, they may no more about their field than the average citizen or even a political party, in fact, I often feel political parties are not totally objective or honest.

And you believe historians are totally objective or honest? How stupid are you?

 

[Nosmo King]

Perhaps to satisfy the rabid partisans, the question should be phrased differently.

"Given that you view the entirety of history through politically biased glasses and your partisanship does not allow for clear retrospective, which is the most politically under rated President?"

That way those goofy historical facts and true representations of the men discussed here cannot cloud the judgement of the open minded and well schooled "Conservatives" trying to answer. After all, if they didn't hear it from Limbaugh, Beck or Fox news, how trustworthy can facts be?

 

[regent]

Does the average American know what went on during those FDR years? Well the historians know and they have never rated FDR below the top three presidents, and recently they rated FDR number one. Strong presidents are usually called tyrants, dictators, kings, and so forth and the good strong presidents are called great. Who mentions Martin Van Buren or Taft in our list of presidents why? But we still remember Harding, Hoover and soon Bush as bad. If Republicans thought highly of Bush he would be their poster boy for this election, but Republicans have by-passed Bush and gone back to Reagan, a president rated by historians as slightly above average. Best they got. But Republicans have one president rated Near-Great, Teddy Roosevelt, yet Republicans avoid Teddy like the plague? Wonder why?
We either have faith in the hundreds of historians that rate presidents or faith in the ratings of our political party. I choose the historians.

Appeal to authority: fallacy

Yes, appeal to authority can be a fallacy, depending on the authority and how it's used. The authority I'm using are hundreds of noted historians and presidential experts, and your authority?