Worst. Ranking. List. EVER!!!

[Camp]

FDR was a disaster

80 years of history disagree with you. The citizenry of America elected him as President four times and decades of these historian ratings put him consistently in the top three rated Presidents. His influence and legacy are overwhelmingly felt to this very day. His programs and accomplishments are undeniable. Americans are still using the infrastructure he was responsible for building and creating during his time as President.

According to our Representatives, who, for the entirety of my existence, have been saying the infrastructure he created and are still using is crumbling and hasn't been repaired nor addressed since... well... FDR.

That is totally and categorically wrong. Of course, much of it has crumbled or even disappeared over the 70 or 80 years that some or even much of it were built. The point is that much of it has not crumbled or disappeared and still serving the public, and saving vast amounts of taxpayer funding. Many of the dams are still producing electricity and irrigation, the roads, tunnels, and bridges are still being used and the buildings are still standing. If challenged I can produce endless examples from across the nation. My town, like so many others, still has a Post Office building that was built during FDR's administration. Folks are still driving on the Blue Ridge Parkway and folks are still getting into Manhatten via the Lincoln Tunnel. Vast areas of farmland from the east to the west are still being irrigated by FDR built irrigation systems, including the dams. Is the Golden Gate Bridge still in operation?

 

[bendog]

you lost me with your editorializing

 

[NightFox]

Survey: Historians rank Obama 12th best president

Well goody-goody gumdrops for President Douche Bag, I assume there's another Nobel Peace Prize in the offing?

 

[deanrd]

Over time, Obama will rise up the list:

 

[ColonelAngus]

William Harrison served like a month. He seems overrated in this ranking.

Shouldn't all the slave owner Presidents be in a tie for last place?

 

[fncceo]

What historians?

These Historians.

 

[jwoodie]

A survey of college professors? Are you kidding? I couldn't care less what they "think."

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Calvin Coolidge: Hands off President. Let the business sector do what they want and prosperity will follow. Prosperity did follow.....until they led us into the Great Depression

That prosperity allowed people to invest in the stock market at unprecedented levels. Like I said, it's like blaming heroin addiction on a good-paying job. It's all that money's fault.


BTW, Papa Kennedy recognized to coming market bubble and jumped out. Otherwise, we would have never had a JFK.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

ColonelAngus

I hear you are an "acquired" taste.

 

[ColonelAngus]

ColonelAngus

I hear you are an "acquired" taste.

It gets very humid down south,

 

[Camp]

What historians?

This particular panel of historians consisted of 91 historians selected and organized by C-Span. The metrics consisted of judging each President on a scale using ten "leadership" attributes. Most of these historian panels/groups consist of significantly large numbers of participants and include a wide range of historians of differing leanings and political influences.
This is only the third group and rating done by C-Span. To have genuine confidence in accuracy other ratings by other groups need to be compared.

Right off the top, putting Obama anywhere near that high destroys any confidence in the accuracy of the opinions. What exactly did he do, other than create domestic and international chaos?

"Commanding moral authority"? How insulting.

Perhaps understanding the use of the metrics is beyond your intellectual ability. Clinton got a high rating in some metrics, such as the economy and ability to work with Congress to pass legislation. He got a bottom of the barrel rating for moral authority and that is what will hinder him getting a higher rating forever.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

ColonelAngus

I hear you are an "acquired" taste.

It gets very humid down south,

There is something about you I don't like. I don't know why. Can't quite put my finger on it.

 

[ColonelAngus]

ColonelAngus

I hear you are an "acquired" taste.

It gets very humid down south,

There is something about you I don't like. I don't know why. Can't quite put my finger on it.

You've been with the wrong women.

 

[rightwinger]

Calvin Coolidge: Hands off President. Let the business sector do what they want and prosperity will follow. Prosperity did follow.....until they led us into the Great Depression

That prosperity allowed people to invest in the stock market at unprecedented levels. Like I said, it's like blaming heroin addiction on a good-paying job. It's all that money's fault.


BTW, Papa Kennedy recognized to coming market bubble and jumped out. Otherwise, we would have never had a JFK.

Its all fun and games until someone loses an eye

Coolidge is notorious as a hands off President. Let the children do what they want ...what could possibly go wrong?
Yes, we had some short term prosperity as the Stock Market built into a huge unsupportable bubble

That bubble burst on poor Herbert Hoover a mere seven months into his Presidency

 

[Peach]

Obama too high so early after his term, Trump at this point giving Buchanan a challenge : ) FDR of course, one of the greats.

 

[bendog]

What historians?

This particular panel of historians consisted of 91 historians selected and organized by C-Span. The metrics consisted of judging each President on a scale using ten "leadership" attributes. Most of these historian panels/groups consist of significantly large numbers of participants and include a wide range of historians of differing leanings and political influences.
This is only the third group and rating done by C-Span. To have genuine confidence in accuracy other ratings by other groups need to be compared.

Right off the top, putting Obama anywhere near that high destroys any confidence in the accuracy of the opinions. What exactly did he do, other than create domestic and international chaos?

"Commanding moral authority"? How insulting.

Perhaps understanding the use of the metrics is beyond your intellectual ability. Clinton got a high rating in some metrics, such as the economy and ability to work with Congress to pass legislation. He got a bottom of the barrel rating for moral authority and that is what will hinder him getting a higher rating forever.

That's the problem with the OP's editorializing. It's editorializing based on a choice of political party or ideology. Personally I think LBJ was one of the most destructive presidents ever, but I cannot argue he didn't get his legislative agenda thorough to deliver voters what he said he'd deliver, or that he didn't leave a legacy. I just don't like the legacy. LOL. I'm not sure I like Lincoln's either. (-:

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

What historians?

This particular panel of historians consisted of 91 historians selected and organized by C-Span. The metrics consisted of judging each President on a scale using ten "leadership" attributes. Most of these historian panels/groups consist of significantly large numbers of participants and include a wide range of historians of differing leanings and political influences.
This is only the third group and rating done by C-Span. To have genuine confidence in accuracy other ratings by other groups need to be compared.

Right off the top, putting Obama anywhere near that high destroys any confidence in the accuracy of the opinions. What exactly did he do, other than create domestic and international chaos?

"Commanding moral authority"? How insulting.

Perhaps understanding the use of the metrics is beyond your intellectual ability. Clinton got a high rating in some metrics, such as the economy and ability to work with Congress to pass legislation. He got a bottom of the barrel rating for moral authority and that is what will hinder him getting a higher rating forever.

The use of metrics is still nothing more than an exercise of opinion. These rankings are in large part an exercise of personal political affections.

By all logic and common sense, Obama resides somewhere in the bottom ten. His only saving grace was that he was a bit more useless than he was damaging. Still, we will be years in repairing the damage he and his media cronies caused.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Coolidge is notorious as a hands off President. Let the children do what they want ...what could possibly go wrong?
Yes, we had some short term prosperity as the Stock Market built into a huge unsupportable bubble

None of that caused the depression. All the amateur investors that gambled all their money and lost it, caused the depression. Coolidge provided the money by being a damn good president.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

That's the problem with the OP's editorializing. It's editorializing based on a choice of political party or ideology. Personally I think LBJ was one of the most destructive presidents ever, but I cannot argue he didn't get his legislative agenda thorough to deliver voters what he said he'd deliver, or that he didn't leave a legacy. I just don't like the legacy. LOL. I'm not sure I like Lincoln's either. (-:

I agree that my choice is based on opinion and the poll is based on metrics. It's just fun to talk about it.

 

[rightwinger]

What historians?

This particular panel of historians consisted of 91 historians selected and organized by C-Span. The metrics consisted of judging each President on a scale using ten "leadership" attributes. Most of these historian panels/groups consist of significantly large numbers of participants and include a wide range of historians of differing leanings and political influences.
This is only the third group and rating done by C-Span. To have genuine confidence in accuracy other ratings by other groups need to be compared.

Right off the top, putting Obama anywhere near that high destroys any confidence in the accuracy of the opinions. What exactly did he do, other than create domestic and international chaos?

"Commanding moral authority"? How insulting.

Perhaps understanding the use of the metrics is beyond your intellectual ability. Clinton got a high rating in some metrics, such as the economy and ability to work with Congress to pass legislation. He got a bottom of the barrel rating for moral authority and that is what will hinder him getting a higher rating forever.

The use of metrics is still nothing more than an exercise of opinion. These rankings are in large part an exercise of personal political affections.

By all logic and common sense, Obama resides somewhere in the bottom ten. His only saving grace was that he was a bit more useless than he was damaging. Still, we will be years in repairing the damage he and his media cronies caused.

If they are a result of personal political affections.....How did Eisenhower and Reagan rank so high?