Who was, objectively speaking, the worst US president?

Who was, objectively speaking, the worst US president?

FDR, Carter, Obama, Lincoln.

Lincoln went to war to keep the United States United. How is he the worst US President?

Completely disregarded the fucking law

>Obama
>no W. Bush

Depends on what you want your president to do. I mean some could legitimately say Lincoln and FDR were autocratic, but I believe that was necessary at the time to stop the country from falling appart

you mean the southerners who attacked a federal fort?

Conservacuck detected.

For a non-meme answer

Taft

What's wrong with Taft? Regardless of your views on the early progressive movement, his only fault was being too cautious and moderate and not as quick to action as Roosevelt or Wilson. That being said, though, his cautiousness wasn't necessarily as actively damaging as, say Buchanan's.

He was a classic case of being a great Chief Justice but a poor President. Still, far from being the worst.

This guy by default.

Woodrow Willson was pretty bad desu, he gets a good rep for 'winning' ww1 but I think he was kinda underhanded

why does Buchanan get so much shit? He tried to stop the civil war. He failed because Lincoln was elected precisely on a platform that would cause civil war. After the election he more or less kept the same position that Lincoln did, that secession was illegal. If anything, I think his leadership during the war might even have been superior to Lincoln's.

Literally imprisoned journalists

you mean some imperialist northerners refused to give back land it had stolen from a sovereign state

>Obama
He's not even the worst US président of the 21th century.

>imperialist northerners

Literally the man who ruined the world

Man, these are some shit opinions.
I'm not a fan of some of them but they certainly were not the worst.

Obama had a pretty solid first term but his second term is what screwed him over.
Lincoln won a war against people trying to betray the union and won.
Carter warned us about the future of America and managed to work for peace in the middle east and has done more good in making peace in the sand lands then any other president up to date right now. (I personally like him but in terms of rankings yes he was not that great)
FDR isn't my favorite either but to say he is in one of the worst is pretty stupid.

Give reasons why these people you listed sucked as president.

fbpb

Buchanan doesn't get much credit because he knew war was going to happen. He did whatever he could to make sure it just didn't happen on his watch and we never credit him enough for that.

Also I think Buchanan said that they could secede legally. Don't quote me on that.

Questions like these aren't worth answering, because no one person or ideology can benefit everyone so it's all just subjective "hurr durr" he hurt group x instead of my preferred group y

They were bad (well Carter was just mediocre) but Wilson beats them all.

Became president without a single u.s. Voter having a say. Bungled everything. Provided zero leadership during the mid seventies as the nation drifted aimlessly towards oil embargo and economic collapse.

He could of pulled us out of the darkness of Watergate, restored dignity, boldly stood up to OPEC, supported the reinvention of the rust belt before it fully rusted over. He could of been important and meaningful instead of just falling down every flight if stairs he came across.

Worse, he made the nation virtually ungovernable for Carter. It was Ford that nailed the coffin shit on the middle class. Carter inherited a nation in rubble.

...

>Obama
8 years of tepid neoliberalism is hardly disastrous, just moderately bad. Hell, he was better than Trump and the Bushes (which isn't saying much.)

Reagan and Nixon were disastrous in the degree to which they strengthened the federal government's authoritarian power.

Any reasons besides "because textbooks and PBS told me"?

...

No, I mean Lincoln. He completely defied the constitution AND court orders to knock that shit off.

And he saved the Union.

And?

It was all worth it in the end.

Harding at least had the humility to admit he was shit.

Bad character for a president as he admitted but really good presidency. Some excellent decisions.

And we didn't fucking balkanize thanks to him. There is no "and?" after that.

that guy who filled a civilian boat with munitions so the Germans would sink it and let him enter the war

Poor CSA would've eventually reunited with the rest.

Those munitions wouldn't have blown up if the Germans hadn't shot them

Germany wouldn't have shot if if they hadn't carried contraband of war and the Brits hadn't ordered their ships to ram any u-boat surfacing to give them a warning

The boat wouldn't be carrying contraband if the Germany hadn't spent the last 3 years torturing Belgian children.

what if the children consented tho

When the Archduke breaks NAP by invading Bosnian Serbs' private property so you start a World War.

no Grant did. Abraham "let's march on richmond" Lincoln led the union into mistake after mistake. The only redeeming qualities about his were his great speech writing abilities and the fact that he was assassinated before he could be blamed for the disastrous reconstruction. inb4 he was going to ship them back meme

>"let's march on richmond"
that was a sound plan. macclellan was within hair's breadth of victory but he became soft and went all "muh army is outnumbered gorillion to one" despite numerical superiority

>it's another "leeaboos think that suspending haebas corpus is worse than slavery" episode

The correct answer: Pierce, Buchanan, A. Johnson, Hayes, Reagan.

edit: add Coolidge and Fillmore to the list

Came here to say WHH and JQA.

Fucking Hayes and Coolidge? You really hate responsible fiscal policies? You prefer men with a """vision"""

I hate the dismantling of Reconstruction in exchange for winning an election (Hayes) and embracing laissez-faire insanity, autistic racial theory to limit immigration from Southern and Eastern Europe (which could have saved many lives before and during World War II by taking in Jewish and other European refugees, and violent, counter-productive enforcement of Prohibition (Coolidge).

I'm curious: why JQA? He's the reason the Andrew Jackson had so much money to blow through.

>I hate the dismantling of Reconstruction in exchange for winning an election (Hayes)

Well sucks that it was the deal made by his party members but ending the reconstruction was a good choice. It was a hopeless effort.

>and embracing laissez-faire insanity

holy shit

>violent, counter-productive enforcement of Prohibition

Coolidge (just like Harding) was against things like prohibition, the Fed or the KKK but it doesn't mean they had the tools to get rid of them or that they believed they had the constitutional right for it.

Buchanan is the only president to come from the state I live in, so I kind of like him

Andrew Johnson was absolute dogshit and helped botch the beginning of reconstruction and all that.

agreed

One good thing I have to say about him is that he wasn't as bad as some people say while still pretty bad.
Also Pierce was worse.

Most Wasted Potential

>I don't think any of these things are good but I'm not going to do anything because I worship this scrap of hemp paper to the letter
>even though Jim Crow is a blatant violation of the 14th and 15th amendments

Why is the American right so autistic?

DRUMPF
AM I RIGHT?
HAHAHA

You probably didn't know that by the time he came into office federal troops were only in two states right? Grant started the end of the reconstruction period because it had no sense and even longer period of treating the South as conquered territory would only make the population more bitter and angry. Hayes himself adovated for the voting rights for the Blacks but he couldn't do miracles.

True. At least Taylor and Harding left some lasting legacy. However his vice president Chester Arthur had the most amazing change of hearts in the history of American politics so his sacrifice wasn't wasted at least. It's a comforting thought.

T. Commie

Reagan a cute!

They were able to get angry and revolt because they never were dealt with properly in the first place. Hang every Confederate officer, politician, and plantation owner, redistribute the land to ex-slaves and yeoman white farmers. The fact that Lincoln advocated a mil Reconstruction is why I only rank him as the 2nd best president (behind Franklin "Thundercock" Roosevelt).

I want a serious answer: regardless of whether or not he gets a 2nd term, how do you think he'll go down in history when compared to other presidents ?
Imagine 20 years from now when the pro/anti Trump hysteria dies down and the man himself will be dead.
How do you think we will look back on him ?

Almost certainly as a corrupt, erratic laughing stock at minimum, destroyer of civilization at maximum. Too early to call but it won't be pretty.

Very quickly: if there will be no boots on the ground in Syria he's gonna be better than Bush Jr. and Obama at least.

Still not bad. Modern presidential model makes it basically impossible for a good president to emerge unfortunately. Way too much power. But he can be all right if he favors more restraint.

Depends. He hasnt done enough memorable shit yet. If he goes on like he does he will be remembered as a flip-floppity dude with huge controversies all over him
[Spoiler] and memes [spoiler/]

I think he's going to be regarded as dissapointing.
Both by his feverish supporters who genuinely wanted him to push back agaisnt globalism and MAGA, and by the masses who expected him to be nothing short of Hitler 2.0.
Oh I'm sure there will be those who will forever stand by their initial assumptions of him, but as a increasingly frustrated supporter of him, I think a few years from now we are just going to look back and go "oh yeah, that happened".

this, on an objective level. anyone who says otherwise reflects their misunderstanding of the question, or US history.

Lincoln was republican.

A good argument for 'the office makes the man '. I've seen it written that only someone who knew corruption inside-out like Arthur could've achieved such effective reform.

But Wilson was the patient zero really.

>trump
>restraint
pick ONE

>better than Trump
Hi Obama

I image that he will serve as some sort of example to warn of the dangers of strong-manning political campaigns during periods of discontent. I am making this assumption because I believe his economic policies will result in a depression and generally fuck things up worse than Reagan or GWB. I also hope that there will be some sort of concession by the republicans that climate change poses a great existential threat and that brining back archaic and high polluting jobs is not a valid way to trigger patriots into voting.

Harding was based as fuck though, wish he didn't die in office.
I also wish Coolidge ran for another term.

He could do everything right and historians will still vilify him. Obama made rank 12 on the fuckin historian's poll this year and he hadn't even left office yet. I wouldn't take anything academic historians have to say on American presidents at face value. There's always a hidden political agenda.

We know you only like FDR because he made it possible for autistic weeaboos like yourself to live off of the government for life.

fucking this, historians are shit

>mfw they still rank Johnson in the top 10 and not in the bottom 10 despite Vietnam and creating unsustainable programs

This is probably the most realistic possibility.

On the other hand, Trump may wind up as a canary in a coal mine. He has shown that America, at present, is ripe for demagoguery. What's going to happen when someone smarter and more cunning than Trump takes advantage of that? It might very well be close at hand.

>He has shown that America, at present, is ripe for demagoguery
Yeah like Mr. "Hope and Change" didn't already do that. He told us literally nothing on the campaign trail outside of that phrase and he crushed his opponents.

I specifically voted for him on the syria issue. I'm extremely disappointed.

Let me amend my statement, then: someone smarter and more cunning than Trump who nonetheless share's Trump's disinterest in constitutional republicanism.

>Man known for lying caught in a lie

You have nobody to blame but yourself. His flip flopping on issues was highlighted several times.

/pol/ told me differentlty

>who nonetheless share's Trump's disinterest in constitutional republicanism
So... Mr. "Hope and Change." His stance on the constitution during his term shows very well he did not give a flying fuck about it and as a "constitutional scholar" he knew exactly how to skirt the line.

he's a politician. there was no non-liar option. all I could do was hope no matter who I vote for.

LBJ. Both "great society" and Vietnam were giant money sinkholes that crashed the U.S. economy for 20 years. Plus the only good thing he did (civil rights) was pioneered and written by Kennedy so attributing it to LBJ is inaccurate.

on top of there being no non-liar option, hillary was promising to push the globalist agenda in syria.

Honestly, with no offense, you should have seen it coming.
The media lied a lot about him but I sure as hell did not vote for him expecting him to be an "honest politician" (as if). I did not want him to flop on the Syria issue (and I don't think we are going to war), nor did I expect him to, but I can't say it came as a complete surprise.
Trump used to be a tv star. Those people lie for a living (same as politicians).

As a complete shit when compared to my presidential legacy as I leave the oval office.

I'm not surprised that he lied. as I said, there is no non-liar option. but why would I vote for the person who was promising to intervene in syria based on this?

I don't think we are going to war, but my faith in him possibly fighting against globalist interests has been completely shattered. it doesn't feel good to be fed a stream of utter lazy bullshit from the top of your own government as an excuse to pursue capitalistic interests.

I just don't know how with information being as accessible as it is in this day and age that we can seriously have another vietnam/iraq/libya. most people I talk to outside of this crevice have little to say other than "he's a dictator" and "did you see the video of the children?".

and now talk of shoving globalist cock down north korea's throat. I'm just ranting I'm pissed.

>Obama
Yeah, no. We're talking Buchannan levels of incompetence here, not "hurr I dun like them" shit.

Don't cut yourself on that edge kiddo

He's probably going to be a laughingstock for all but the hardcore conservatives.

All memes aside? I think Trump had the potential to break the presidential arch type set up by FDR and that all following presidents have followed.

But realistically, it's looking like he might go down as your typical, post-Reagan GOP president that was much more corrupt than his predecessors.

His presidency will be akin to Grant's, too bad Trump isn't as likeable nor a decorated General like Grant, that was the only thing that kept Grant from being shit tier

>mfw_hitshin_on_table.jpg

>complaining about autistic weeaboos on Veeky Forums

>World Warâ„¢

a president who just wanted another slice of pie would be pretty great, imo.