According to the people of Veeky Forums, who was the best US president?

According to the people of Veeky Forums, who was the best US president?

Other urls found in this thread:

newsroom.ucla.edu/releases/FDR-s-Policies-Prolonged-Depression-5409
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_6102
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

me

William Henry Harrison. He objectively ruined the least amount of crap.

jackson

who was president during the era of good feeling?

This or Coolidge, according to most of Veeky Forums. In reality, neither is even close.

This is maybe true. Depends on how you measure it. Generally, I tend to side with this philosophy, where we measure a POTUS not just by his accomplishments, but what he managed to avoid doing. As history often shows, inaction can be quite beneficial.

Theodore Roosevelt

Polk was better than coolidge

Monroe

Based Wilson

>Saved America by creating the Federal Reserve
>Saved Europe by winning the First World War
>Tried to avert WW2 but dumb euros wouldn't listen

spotted the jew

Spotted the bait

I honestly don't get why WHH is even included in rankings. How you do measure a guy who spent his entire time in office bedridden?

George III

Hillary Clinton

Polk is laughably overrated by dilettantes. They're attracted to the fact that's he's relatively obscure (compared to the traditional choices of Lincoln, FDR, & Washington) and the argument for him is simple enough for a schoolchild to appreciate (he accomplished everything he set out to do, what could be better than that?).

Eisenhower and Washington

Trump

Garfield could have been one of the greatest had he not been shot. Arthur did well. Monroe is strong as well but Its hard to say that any President was better than Washington.

Literally everyone whose answer isn't Lincoln is either a shitposter or doesn't know their American history.

Jimmy Carter

Bill Clinton.

That's like saying Pol Pot is the best Cambodian leader.

Washington #1

Lincoln - auto-genocidal maniac

They're all so awful
I'll say Lincoln reluctantly

Fuck that guy, he bombarded Yugoslavia

Only thing he did wrong was not bombing the rest of the balkans desu

>bombed Serbia
.>wrong

>Historians shit on all the 1850's presidents for not stopping the civil war
>Herald the one president who started it

Really makes you think. Honestly though, Booth is probably the best thing that happened to Lincoln, the radical Republicans were about to rip him a new asshole in Congress. He went out at his peak.

If he had the political skill to preserve the union and avoid war then he would have been the best hands down. I believe had Taylor lived. He would have settled the "states rights" question with minimal bloodshed.

It's hard to n Appease an Autistic who is dead set in starting a civil war for muh Slavery

>the one who started it
>simply getting elected triggered the South so much that its his fault

he wouldn't have settled the slavery issue though, which is why the war began in the first place

>bombarded Yugoslavia
wtf I hate Bubba now

t. Nikola Nikovic

>muh manifest destiny

Polk was a turd.

Best president aside, it's universally agreed that FDR is the worst thing to ever happen to the country, right?

It sounds like you've never actually looked up presidential power rankings and compared them to see how they work. In many of them, WHH is sensibly rejected as an irrelevant meme-outlier, and is therefore not even included in the ranking.

probably Eisenhower.
he didn't really do much
he lobbied for the interstate highway system mainly because from WW2 he knew what a pain in the ass not having one was like
he couldn't be arsed to intervene in the Suez crisis or in Vietnam
if Congress passed a law and the Supreme Court upheld it, then he made sure the executive branch enforced it
otherwise, he played a lot of golf

No user, of course that's not universally agreed upon, and the reason why it isn't is because the statement has obvious contemporary political implications. To argue about FDR is to have a relevant argument in terms of current American politics (the conventonal left-right split of today).

For all the right-leaning people who will bemoan FDR's big gubmint, you can just as easily find left-leaning people who will defend same by waxing policy-wonk about the alphabet soup and say complimentary things about how FDR handled the war (while also inserting the condemnations of internment camps which they are obliged to do).

The point of this post is neither to prop up or to condemn FDR, but to make the simple and true observation that your supposition is false, because what FDR represents goes directly to the basic American political split, which still exists today.

Consider teachers, historians, the academy, people who actually spend the most time with this stuff. You really believe that they don't have some robust FDR apologists among them? Think about what sorts of people they are, and what their political inclinations tend to be. This is enough to recognize the absurdity of your hoped-for statement.

Not really. The post Reaganite reconsideration of FDR is woefully inaccurate and stuck in the economic mindset that is slowly killing off American jobs.

The common argument against the New Deal is that it failed to bring prosperity. That's true, and its also completely besides the point. The New Deal was a controlled decline, rather than the near inevitable collapse into nothing which would have occurred had FDR not taken action. It's like crashing a plane into a field to avoid hitting a building.

I get it- the outright absurdity of claiming to defeat fascism whilst interning Japanese Americans is an inherently hypocritical position that overshadows the act of destroying two evil empires that would have established a new world order, only allowing himself to die once he was sure the world was saved. That's your argument, right?

>Implying the Niihau Incident didn't force his hand

>Niihau Incident
FDR was neither good or evil. Just an idiot.

Reminder that FDR prolonged the Great Depression an entire 7 years.

newsroom.ucla.edu/releases/FDR-s-Policies-Prolonged-Depression-5409

>"Why the Great Depression lasted so long has always been a great mystery, and because we never really knew the reason, we have always worried whether we would have another 10- to 15-year economic slump," said Ohanian, vice chair of UCLA's Department of Economics. "We found that a relapse isn't likely unless lawmakers gum up a recovery with ill-conceived stimulus policies."

>President Roosevelt believed that excessive competition was responsible for the Depression by reducing prices and wages, and by extension reducing employment and demand for goods and services," said Cole, also a UCLA professor of economics. "So he came up with a recovery package that would be unimaginable today, allowing businesses in every industry to collude without the threat of antitrust prosecution and workers to demand salaries about 25 percent above where they ought to have been, given market forces. The economy was poised for a beautiful recovery, but that recovery was stalled by these misguided policies."

>"The fact that the Depression dragged on for years convinced generations of economists and policy-makers that capitalism could not be trusted to recover from depressions and that significant government intervention was required to achieve good outcomes," Cole said. "Ironically, our work shows that the recovery would have been very rapid had the government not intervened."

For decades, it has been an article of faith that FDR lifted America out of the depression. The reality is far different. The New Deal prolonged the Depression significantly, and FDR is quite probably the most overrated and wrongly worshipped former leader of any country.

>he's a contrarian economist

pls stop

Washington

It's all been downhill since.

>The government should just spend more money whenever the economy is bad, this will magically fix everything.

I refuted your argument before you even made it.

This is one of the attitudes about socialism that frustrates me the most, that socialism offers the promised land and never delivers. Socialism acts out of necessity, not hope.

It literally does, in the short to medium term

Fundamental problems cant really be solved by government action

Its subjective in that the return expected from interventionist economic policy is seen differently. I find the projected return of intervention is much misunderstood. Whether or not the farms saved by the New Deal were productive or not is irrelevant in the face of the alternative, which is these jobs ceasing to exist completely.

You guys win. I renounce laissez-faire economics forever.

/thread

Quit being a faggot and defend your point.

Can we agree that JFK is the most overrated, but not actually bad president? Holy shit, if he hadn't died in office he'd be a completely unremarkable person.

I can't, you win this round.

jackson was damn near the best. name a president who gained more territory for the american people.

He was sorta bad though but not that bad.

Polk? Jefferson?

Muh clay doesn't indicate a good leader desu.

Coolidge is a literal meme who is best known for doing.... nothing.

FDR, Eisenhower, teddy lincoln and james Monroe are all contenders. But i'll go with Monroe just to be contrarian.

Jefferson, Polk, McKinley

>Coolidge wasn't good because he "didn't do anything"
>more shit they change=better president
>president comes along, succeeds in banning the letter T, burning all US currency and outlawing trade, killing everyone born on Tuesdays and Fridays, and goes to war with the moon
>great president! Look at all the things he did!

Coolidge wasn't good because he didn't do anything. What did he achieve, he didn't make anything better than it already was he just sat there and let it stay the save, he deserves 0 credit for anything good that happened during his term stince he was responsible for none of it. The best that can be said is at least he didn't fuck anything up, hardly a great president

Donald Trump, current holder of the champion's belt.

Okay, if there are a bunch of farmers that are adding a bunch of new chemicals and mixtures to their crops every year, and getting bad harvests, good farmers? Are they better than a farmer that has the good sense to just plant the crops and let them grow? Is he a better farmer than the ones that keep adding a bunch of shit to the crops?
I think you're assuming that the role of a president is to take the reins of the country and change it to the way he wants it to be. If that's the case, why not just elect a king?

I'm not trolling. Best ever was George Washington Bush Jr. As best president.

Took over an economy on the economic upswing. Started off good.
Then 911
Suddenly has the most demanding question of the 21st century to try and solve. One we are still facing.
Terrorism.
After boosts the shit out of our military
Grabs huge sums of rare metals from various middle eastern countries. Such as lithium.
Saw over and approved extreme advancements to military tech. These advancements led to our commercial drones and satellite technology.
And the whole time Mr.Bush traveled the world answering questions no man should answer. Becoming reviled due to the intense situation he found himself in as the leader of the free world. And this is my opinion. I found his way of being and reacting the most 'normal' way. Humanizing him unlike any other president

Tldr- George Bush Jr. Best president
>I am 100% serious.

America wasn't perfect during his time there were issues and he didn't fix any of them AND he wasn't responsible for the country doing well he just got lucky.

All coolidge did well was be lucky, avoid serious mistake and have a decent relationship with congress.

Eisenhower, anybody who disagrees is wrong.

Woodrow Wilson.

So you're saying he was a great President. Thanks for playing junior.

Eisenhower was top ten but number one isn't that easy. James Monroe was better in my book but its a respectable choice.

He failed to see Black Tuesday coming and didn't take any actions to rein in the overheated market and soften/defray the crash.

Look buddyany respectable expert will tell you that Coolidge was average at best and painfully mediocre and worst, read some fucking history first before you comment on things you don't understand, find me one credible source that Coolidge was even top ten and I'll eat my hat.

hence why I said that was all he did well, HE didn't make any mistakes really but in every other aspect he was mediocre at best and (communication) wise he was historically terrible.

Whoops I replied to the wrong user. I agree with your point that Coolidge was at best mediocre, at worst catastrophically myopic.

>le uncited appeal to authority
>look, dickhead. Any respectable music critic will tell you that Har Mar Superstar is the greatest musical talent of all time. I challenge you to find me one music expert* who disagrees with me
>*anyone who disagrees with me shall henceforth not be considered an expert

I'd rather an appeal to authority than an appeal to (you) I'm sure you are very qualified to talk on this subject. So qualified that you can tell me why Coolidge is a top ten president of all time despite achieving virtually nothing.

Setting aside whether it's universally agreed because that's obviously impossible; if FDR embodies the current American political split, wouldn't that indeed make him terrible considering both sides are terrible? Nobody can honestly say that the general Republican demographic is represented by those who hated his usage of big governmental powers, considering so much of the republican party is guilty of doing exactly the same thing. FDR's legacy can be very much seen replicated in both sides of the current mainstream political spectrum.

Washington or Lincoln and any other answer is retarded just because of the circumstances of their terms

FDR cannot be logically argued to be terrible

I think everyone should post their top 5

In no particular order

>Washington
>Madison
>Lincoln
>Reagan
>Coolidge

It depends on how you feel about having a literal dictator as a president.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_6102

Washington
Lincoln
Teddy
FDR
Jefferson

>Coolidge
>Reagan

I treat him and Winston as warrior kings. If a leader is good, he is usually only good as a wartime leader (warrior king) or as a peacetime administrator (ex: Augustus).

I think FDR was mostly clumsily going along before WW2. He made people feel good about themselves but he did not help the economy much and the new deal is a mixed bag imo.

But he was the man our country needed to confidently lead us into the greatest conflict the world has ever known. I will give him that

We wouldn't have even been in WW2 if not for him.

Get out of here you assmad progressive faggot

>confidently lead us into
By literally allowing US soil to be attacked to provoke the populace into supporting the war 9/11 style?

FDR
Monroe.
Jackson
Teddy
Washington