Who was the greatest president in U.S. history?

Andrew Jackson

Social democrat detected.

This isn't a 'I agree/disagree' with his policy issue. This is having an appreciation for one man who was able to impress his will on the American landscape in a way that no president has done before or since.

What FDR was able to accomplishment in both the domestic & foreign realms are unrivaled.

How about you tell us about his accomplishment then?

Pearl Harbor.

This question needs to be divided into two categories.

Best President over life accomplishments from youth till death and best President while in office given their individual skill suited for the highest elected office in the land.

Lincoln: Minority vote elected into office. Coming from nothing. Illiterate parents, roots in the sticks of the Old North West and Kentucky. INCREDIBLE GIVEN THE PRESSURE OF THE TIMES

Jackson, Jefferson, McKinley, Washington all contrast from life time achievements.

This.

Polk came in with a plan, succeeded, then dropped the mic as promised.

FDR

Also congrats for a lack of shitposts.

Certainly.

The New Deal fundamentally changed the role of the federal government in a way that was unimaginable even years earlier. Many aspects of it endure to this day like FDIC which stopped a banking crises in its tracks, the Securities Exchange Commission which normalized accounting methods gave all investors access to basic financial information of publicly traded companies where before only the privileged with the right strings to pull could see, the Glass-Steagall act (whose repeal in 1998 has been argued to be one of the causes of the 2008 financial crises) helped protect the money of depositors from speculation, Social Security, originally written to be entirely self funding and debt free (legislation after FDR's death would alter that) protected some of the most vulnerable US citizens from abject poverty, the Federal Home Loan Banks would help ordinary citizens obtain the credit they needed to buy homes, the TVA brought electricity of millions of rural Americans, the WPA would construct numerous much needed infrastructure improvements & adorn them with lasting works of art.

While shepherding these unprecedented bills through congress he managed to reform the democrat party into a new coalition that would dominate the next 60 years of congress. Democrats would control the House for all but 4 years between 1935-1997 and the senate for all but 10 of those years. From 1935-1997 the democratic party that FDR forged would control both chambers of congress simultaneously for 52 of those 62 years.

Finally, he put the US on a path that made it the world's greatest superpower & laid the foundations for the post WW2 international order which would be the greatest period of prosperity America had ever seen as well as one of the most peaceful eras in all of history.

1. Washington
2. Jefferson
3. Lincoln
4. FDR
5. Roosevelt
6. Obama
7. Trump
8. McKinley
9. Polk
10. Sanders

Jefferson was a better founding father than he was a president. His administration hardly did anything other than having the windfall of the Louisiana Purchase fall in his lap. His use of a total embargo as an attempt at an economic weapon was ruinous for American shipping and achieved nothing.

>investors access to basic financial information of publicly traded companies where before only the privileged with the right strings to pull could see,
Interesting. Did this problem started the great depression?

no

600,000 dead American soldiers disagree

trump

I LIKE IKE

>Introduction of Democratic-Republican Party
>Embargoing the warring nations of the Napoleonic wars is bad?
>Lewis and Clark, stepping stone for Manifest Destiny
>Ending international slave trade into America
>-Pro-agrarian
>Limiting Federal power

How much more based can you be?

He said was, not will be.

I hear a lot on /pol/ that FDR was not a good president, what is their reasoning? As a non-American I only know what I've read from Wikipedia.

He massively expanded the power and role of the federal government. And that's terrible.

Basically their argument is
>expanded the government and the great depression would go away eventually
But as proves, it was used in a productive manner that did end the Great Depression and improved the living conditions of untold numbers of Americans.

he's a gommie and killed lots of sweet innocent Nazis

No, actually 2/3 of those 600,00 agreed with, fought, and died for Lincoln and his Union.
And I'd hardly call those 200,00 confederates true Americans for abandoning their country

...

inb4 no true scotsman counter-non-argument

Is a big government really bad though? I can understand WW2 from a /pol/ perspective. (But honestly that doesn't make him a bad president objectively, only in the eyes of /pol/)

The thing is, Hitler also implemented similar reforms and expanded the government, so...

What's the deal with /pol/? Shouldn't FDR be /theirguy/ except for WW2?

4 million slaves agreed

>Is a big government really bad though?
Some /pol/acks think so, but I don't know how they will achieve their Jewish genocide with a decentralized state. Also, you forget, /pol/ only likes Hitler because it is edgy and offends people or they are legitimate Neo-Nazis. /pol/ is mainly a joke with way too many people involved, which is why it is a pain. But I digress.

/pol/ isn't a joke, its hyperbole. That's the entire point. They [we] really are 'evil racists/sexists/etc' by modern standards, we just exaggerate our own views for the lols, because if someone would think you were a Nazi if you shared the same views as the people who defeated the Nazis, you may as well have them think you're Nazis.

Not withstanding the actual Nazis. How much of it is exaggerated varies from pollack to pollack.

No because he was a big gov guy who didn't have the White race as his top priority.

Small government is simple, neat, and promises easy solutions to hard problems.

It also doesn't work, but that never stopped an idea from staying around.

>Doesn't work

Loving every laugh. The overwhelming majority of governments throughout history weren't a fraction as large as the modern US government. The sheer scale of our government in money, personnel, and authority is practically unheard of throughout human history.

Whatever silver of irony in /pol/ has died in 2016

>The sheer scale of our government in money, personnel, and authority is practically unheard of throughout human history.

Spoken like a true american who hasnt stepped foot outside his state, most probably his county

Maybe at one time, but we all know the saying about idiots in good company.

"Any community that gets its laughs by pretending to be idiots will eventually be flooded by actual idiots who mistakenly believe that they're in good company."

>Trump
>Literally hasn't even been inaugurated yet, never mind all his shitty policy positions

wew

That's because industrialization is a new phenomenon.

Industrialized societies work differently from agricultural societies.

In practice "the free market will fix it" has never been an effective solution to industrialized societies problems.

GW.

Woodrow Wilson, literally right about everything.

I mean, so far he has overcome all establishment barriers to him and his revolutionary ideology. He has, in small part, reintegrated many groups of people into politics, and methods of discussion, that previously felt no voice or hope. As for policy, we don't know yet, but if he follows through on even half of what he says, we will have many landmark successes unthinkable and unimaginable the past 50 years. I base this position on the list on the assumption he succeeds in pushing his goals into reality, and he has the strong, relentless virtue to do so. Finally (or firstly) he helped expose the enormously crooked systems of the Left, even though by no means is the Left a wrong ideology ( he himself agrees with many many Leftist policies, to his party's dissatisfaction ). He, like his predecessor, has opened the possibility for many different types of people entering into the political sphere once more, if they show the same national patriotism.

I agree...somewhat. Setting aside his proposed domestic policies, contemporary world politics provides Trump a Yuge opportunity, to befriend Russia, strengthen Britain, knock down China, and compete more strongly with Asian and Mexican economies. All while maintaining already-existing trends at home.

>revolutionary ideology
It's populism with a strongman persona, hardly unique.
>reintegrated many groups of people into politics
True to an extent, but the percentage of the population voting has dropped.
>and methods of discussion
Like Twitter shitposting? Hardly new.
>that previously felt no voice or hope
Again, fair enough.
>we will have many landmark successes unthinkable and unimaginable the past 50 years
Like what, a wall that doesn't combat the main form of illegals in the nation (overstayed visas), trade protectionism, and international political stability (especially regarding the Middle East and Israel)?

I think it is fair to give the man a chance, but this is far more credit than the man deserves.

>revolutionary ideology
It's populism with a strongman persona, hardly unique.
+Unique in the fact that half of (more like a fourth based on voting percentages, as I'll mention) the population STRONGLY opposes this persona, in an age of centrist, soft-spoken, politicians who cater to constituents, rather than to their own Egos, as Trump serves.

>reintegrated many groups of people into politics
True to an extent, but the percentage of the population voting has dropped
+Yes, which is quite frankly disastrous to our democracy. We could have not just a 3rd party, but a 4th party too, if more voters presented respectable candidates, creating more discussion and possibilities in a democracy. This has been true of the scene in America for years and years, and this type of non-partisan persona, I believe creates an opportunity for more non-partisan politicians to have a real chance: I think Bernie fills these shoes in voters' eyes too

>and methods of discussion
Like Twitter shitposting? Hardly new.
+But he's the best at it, and we will see him shutting down entire nations in a matter of 10-20 word tweets

>that previously felt no voice or hope
Again, fair enough.
+it's important to note that many still do, but Trump in part due to his unpopularity gives others, of other ideologies, thicker skins and the courage to present their ideas, and land on their feet and win, despite ALL media disavowals

>we will have many landmark successes unthinkable and unimaginable the past 50 years
Like what, a wall that doesn't combat the main form of illegals in the nation (overstayed visas), trade protectionism, and international political stability (especially regarding the Middle East and Israel)?
+the wall is one component, not to mention the reintroduction of tariffs in our Globalist world, one in which the U.S. controls most international banks, shipping, and dealership, providing income to a nation that basically provides all these services for free the past half-century.

>the population STRONGLY opposes this persona
Because his comments are usually inflammatory and occasionally borderline authoritarian.

>I think Bernie fills these shoes in voters' eyes too
If anything, Bernie will take over the Democratic party with the backing of the vastly liberal youth and get hesitant backing by other Democrats for his social policies rather than economic ones.

>But he's the best at it, and we will see him shutting down entire nations in a matter of 10-20 word tweets
I'm going to take a guess and say that will range from terrible to disastrous most of the time. Good for keks, bad for the actual planet and human race.

> thicker skins and the courage to present their ideas, and land on their feet and win, despite ALL media disavowals
Any evidence of this you could give is anecdotal at best, and I hardly believe dialog has improved since Trump was elected. If anything, it has gotten even more fiercely partisan.

>not to mention the reintroduction of tariffs in our Globalist world
>tariffs
>good
A protectionist economy is only useful for the development of industry, something America will have a hard time doing considering the wages that China and India pay unless you want to reduce the already poor minimum wage.
If we abandon the concept of a free market, China of all people will be the main proponent for it. They can and will look to fill our shoes, and nations will turn to the cheaper option. Especially if institutions like NATO are disbanded.

He's only a "strongman" when someone "flexes" on him, watch him in a friendly interview and he's the nicest and most personable guy you could imagine. All while remaining truthful.

>"flexes"
Man has a broad definition of "flexing".

China, free market? huh ok...a revolution is required before China goes any further than it already has

Which is already nipping at the US' heels. They are easily one of the big world players, all they need is a shift of power.

Heels, shins, thighs, hips, stomach, chest, neck, head. China has a long way to go, pal

The US usurped the power of France and UK over an economic depression caused by market instability and loss of industry, who is to say China won't do the same? It's not like there isn't precedent for nations trying to get around countries with heavy tariffs, like the entirety of Europe trying to get around the Ottomans, going as far as around a continent and finding a new one in a search to avoid paying tariffs.

Never underestimate what just a little tax can do. You'd think anyone with an American education would know this, giving how much they talk about the founding fathers and the Boston Tea Party.

China is the greatest trading partner to the U.S., these tariffs proposed are exactly purposed to diminish the possibility of China going through the exact loopholes you mention, who may not impose tariffs themselves, but has a state-controlled manipulation of currency value and output quotas. Guess what we have now: a loss of industry, and these tariffs may very well help prop U.S. industries up to succeed

Boston Tea Party was a meme and an act of propaganda. National and Federal tariffs and taxes were very quickly introduced in the Federalist papers

A loss of industry and a buildup of college based jobs and a service economy, offering non-material goods or college skills. Industry is a failing part of the American economy, and any major tariff on China would directly correlate to imbalance in the world market and a rise in prices for many manufactured goods that Americans use. Hell, even American flags are made in China.

And I wasn't saying China would go through the loopholes, I am saying other nations will go and do business with China rather than the US because they would try to undercut us in the service industry.

>No Nixon
Kill yourself.

In many economic viewpoints, cheap foreign labor isn't good for the sustainability of tue home nation in the long-run, and you can theoretically see this over the course of the liberal era of the French and British trade empires.
A quick, final, question to you, because this thread is about the U.S. and not China, but who do you think would rather trade with China than the U.S.?

>shitty policy positions
Kys
I'm more excited for him than I would have been for Reagan

>but who do you think would rather trade with China than the U.S.?
Assuming the incoming Trump presidency shakes us the political world as much as he says he will, many nations will lose faith in the US and believe them to be unstable and not trustworthy. Nations on the fence already like Turkey or some South American nations would definitely turn towards the East, whereas our traditional allies in Europe would not be as quick to turn on us. Also, a (middle east nation here) - Chinese alliance would be a fear, especially Saudi Arabia which has faced more scrutiny from the recent legislature to allow for US citizens to sue them over 9/11. Then you have Russia, which may seem unlikely given their past, but it may serve as a useful opportunity to fight a common foe.

Then, very simply put, these countries will be bound to the same short-term fate the U.S. industrial base has been facing the past 15 years, where cheap goods come in, but jobs go out, and personal and national debt rises.

You also forget that the U.S. has never defaulted on a debt, so I hardly think economical untrustworthiness is a fair projection. As for your comments about alliances, well, that's a different issue (aside from the arms-trading aspect).

I'd put him in top 20, but definitely not top 10. If you can think of anything he proposed that is greater than anything proposed by those I listed, then I would put him there; but honestly, even though I think he was certainly decent, he wasn't extraordinary like these were/will be.

polk

FDR was a cunt that sold half of Europe to Staliln and thus laid down the foundations to what would end up turning most of the Western European countries into America's vassal states.

Kek another one of these threads again. Good old Veeky Forums never disappoints me.

Ronald Reagan

Who was the nicest president in U.S. history?

He's going to be elected in 2028.

You're probably right about that desu

Aren't you supposed to be at the inauguration, Donnie?

>remaining truthful.
The same man that tweeted that global warming is a Chinese hoax, and then outright denies tweeting it during the debates. Such a truthful man indeed.

I think Jackson fits that mold better than Teddy does.

Literally winning WWII, which eventually resulted in America standing as the lone global superpower.

>what is the Roman Empire

Jimmy Carter was a nice man doing a tough job.
He was the first to RSVP to Trump inauguration. I also read his book "a call to action recently". It really shows how privileged and lucky American woman are in America compared to places like India the rape nation of the world.

Washington or Eisenhower.

This, this so much

Lincoln. Cliche choice, but it's a cliche choice because it's true. Anyone who says otherwise is just being a contrarian.

>Anyone who says otherwise is just being a contrarian.

Even if they say the OG GW was the best?

How is FDR overrated? He was president for 4 terms and would have served longer if he didn't die from polio.