Post best US president and explain why

What Historians will say: FDR, Abraham Lincoln, George Washington

What """""Veeky Forumstorians"""" will say: Polk, Coolidge, Jackson

Moron who got us balls deep in Vietnam
Gave the Israelis whatever they wanted thanks to powerful Jewish donors such as Abe Feinberg
Great Society formed the welfare state without enfranchising blacks

I could go on but it's a waste

>Who is Hector Garcia

Go back to /pol/

He was comfy

Without the US involved in the war since 1939 the Nazis would have had a much better chance at winning. FDR knew that the US being pulled into the war in a situation much like what did happen was inevitable allowed him to plan for it both in terms of supporting the allies and war strategy/foreign affairs. The fact that he was able to work so well with both Stalin and Churchill, as well as come out ahead in the Pacific with Mao Zedong and Chiang Kai Shek at each others' throats is as impressive as Eisenhower coordinating the Brits with the Americans. AND he did it all when much of the country was opposed to war before Pearl Harbor. The guy knew what was coming and did a hell of a job planning for it.
...Except for the fact that we're still cleaning up his messes, and his recovery programs didn't work, they prolonged the Great Depression by seven years
faggot

>Got a bunch of young white men killed so useless gooks wouldn't have to suffer under Communism

Fuckim

The historians poll is blatantly political and includes presidents that haven't been out of office long enough to judge historically. It holds as much merit as a Veeky Forums post because it's quite literally just """""academic""""" s/his/tposting.

Moron who inflamed literally every crisis foreign and domestic, and ruined us for the next decade.

Great domestic politician. Perfidious foreign meddler.

Shit foreign and domestic policy. Short-sighted, liar, quick profit, eternal economic and political damnation. Quintessential 80's guy.

>The historians poll is blatantly political and includes presidents that haven't been out of office long enough to judge historically. It holds as much merit as a Veeky Forums post because it's quite literally just """""academic""""" s/his/tposting.

That's because being president of the US post-1950s means you're leader of the entire free world, while being president from the long stretches of eras between it's founding, the civil war, and the world wars was comparitively an irrelevant position in shaping the world. More responsibility naturally means you're more likely to have a polarized rank (Near the very top or very the bottom)

The top 4 post WW2 presidents are currently ranked:

>5. Eisenhower (R)
>8. JFK (D)
>9. Reagan (R)
>10. LBJ (D)

Literally a 50/50 mix of presidents from both parties, so what political bias are you referring too?

I liked him better when he was brain damaged

JFK shouldn't be on any poll desu since he never really ended his presidency on his own terms

JFK effectively de-escalated the Cuban missile crisis which was probably the closest the humanity has ever been to complete nuclear annihalation.

That alone is worthy of a high historical ranking.

Where did you get the ranks?

>so what political bias are you referring too
The one where progressives are weighted more heavily than non-progressives. Your goal post moving to post-war presidents is cute, though.

qz.com/914825/presidents-day-the-best-us-presidents-in-history-as-ranked-by-presidential-historians/

Maybe that's because a "progressive" literally means somebody who promotes or enacts societal reform that revolutionized the standard by which we view the world and conduct ourselves today. Don't confuse the contemporary leftist definition of a progressive with a traditional progressive. Jimmy Carter was a leftist "progressive" and he's near the low end of presidential rankings. Nixon did a ton of "progressive" things too, and he's also very low.

Wilson basically invented Democratic "progressivism" but he's tepidly ranked because he couldn't actually achieve his goals.

>my personal observation on the matter debunks studies to the contrary because reasons
Nope.

What the hell are you even talking about?

You keep trying to debunk liberal bias in the Historian's poll through your own personal observations despite the fact that it's been proven through multiple studies.

washingtontimes.com/news/2011/may/24/republican-presidents-lag-in-historical-rankings/
articles.baltimoresun.com/2000-02-06/entertainment/0002140249_1_schlesinger-arthur-m-bias

You keep trying to make it out as some objective thing, but it has never been objective. It's slanted left with the rest of academia.

His admin also effectively catalyzed the Cuban Missle Crisis so I'm gonna say that's a net loss overall.

>it's been proven through multiple studies.
The only thing the that study you linked 'proved' was that historians rank liberal presidents better than the general public does. Are you to say that the general public's opinion is the true infallible ranking of presidents?

>I am incapable of reading actual studies so I will simply read the news articles interpretation of it because I am an unironic pseud
I almost forgot where I was for a moment

The Historian survey I posted is from 2017, while the articles you just posted are much older. In most cases, Republicans have trended upwards, while the Democrats have gone done.

Reagan is now 9th, and he keeps getting higher with every new survey.

>2011
>much older

He didn't catalyze it, just failed in his plot to stop it early on. It would have happened regardless of his attempt in assisting the Cuban rebels.

His only mistake was getting caught.

>Most historians readily concede that, politically, their colleagues lean left. That doesn’t mean their conclusions or assessments are incorrect, though, historian Jeff Kimball said.

>“When you’re talking about judging presidents, you’re talking about judging politics,” the professor at Miami University in Ohio said. Everyone, he said, has a subjective point of view.

>“But does that mean that none of us are capable of a detached point of view? I don’t think that’s the case,”

Stop arguing semantics you pedantic fuck. You have yet to actually explain your specific qualms with the recent ranking I posted.

Obama's entry at 13th is the only particularly ridiculous assertion that I see.

>inability to accept inherent unintentional bias in a post-modern world on a history board of all places
Like I said, a pseud with an inability to read the actual study and instead the interpretation found in the article. Thanks for playing.

Nigger I linked you two fucking studies worth of qualms that you proceeded to handwave away

Did you read the study?

The WashingtonTimes article literally fucking complains about shit that isn't true of the survey I posted.

It in fact even mentions the one I posted specifically citing it as one of the more fair rankings, and that was in 2009, and Republican presidents have since generally gone up even more in the 2017 survey.

It was complaining about some random examples of trash surveys that put Reagan 18th.

Racism is a good thing.