Who was the single greatest US President in US history?

Who was the single greatest US President in US history?

Other urls found in this thread:

nbcnews.com/business/business-news/harriet-tubman-replace-former-president-andrew-jackson-20-bill-n559251
twitter.com/AnonBabble

Jackson.
Someone prove me wrong.

muh yooman rights

Calvin Coolidge.

I can't, you're right. The irony of Jackson is that he gets shit on for "killing the indians" when he is the only reason many of their entire tribes weren't wiped out by aggressive white settlers. Totally ignorant of history.

Jefferson

Washington in likability
Jackson in will
FDR in scope

JQA was the greatest person to become president, but the most effective presidency would probably go to FDR.

human rights don't exist for literal cavemen
next question

...

FDR my dude

What

Trump

pretty sure they don't live in caves

Whelp not that it matters now. Those same Indian tribes are part of the reason he will soon be booted off the $20 bill for a leader who actually stood for what this country's constitution was about. Freedom and equality for all man; not just white. Perhaps that entire situations wouldn't have been an issue if settlers just kept off their land.
Though, i'm still intrigued by how in the hell the suffragists kept dancing around the fact that the constitution obviously meant "men" when it said "all men" considering it was written like that?
>awaiting all the /pol/ tears not because I'm a sjw but just because it's funny and I don't give a fuck either way.
nbcnews.com/business/business-news/harriet-tubman-replace-former-president-andrew-jackson-20-bill-n559251

Andrew Jackson hated the banks, so I doubt he would've even wanted on fiat currency printed by possibly the least accountable organization on Earth.

Fixed that for you, OP.

damn right

This is a very funny meme.

No.
He was the most handsome though.

Eisenhower

Even better reason to replace him then.
Anyway, is anyone going to answer my question or give me some resources on the women's suffrage movement? Like seriously how did they win that interpretation of the constitution? Shit, liberals can barely interpret the 2nd amendment the way they want without gun lovers going crazy but somehow women suffragists were able to convince the supreme court that "all men created equal" means all women too? Like literally how? The feminists back then must have been pretty intelligent to pull that off.

>hero of two worlds
>is only a hero of one world

They didn't reinterpret the constitution, they managed to get it amended to add women.

There was this weird thing people did back in the day where they'd change the constitution if they wanted to fundamentally change America's laws.

Like how prohibition required a constitutional amendment but the controlled substances act didn't.

>Like how prohibition required a constitutional amendment but the controlled substances act didn't.
Nowadays they just put activist judges in the SC and legislate from the bench.

Um, excuse you, he closed 2bus. I will give him credit for his handling of the nullification crisis, and admit I find his personality quite interesting, but he does not deserve the title of greatest president.

No, he should be kept there for the irony.

He instituted the spoils system, killed the national bank, started a panic with his monetary policies, shunned pragmatic internal improvements because northerners benefited more than southern sharecroppers.

Jackson's greatest achievement was political, not executive. He would be the foundation which the Democratic party was built on until the Civil War.

idk about greatest but I like Tyler because he fucked shit up :^)

>He instituted the spoils system
Really? You don't think nepotism existed before Jackson?

>killed the national bank
Good, fuck banks and fuck the Federal Reserve.

>started a panic with his monetary policies
Better than being slaves to the Federal Reserve System

>shunned pragmatic internal improvements because northerners benefited more than southern sharecroppers.
Sharecropping did not exist until after the Civil War. Further, the Civil War only really happened because the North and South were allowed to develop in different ways at different rates.

If you help only one region of the country, you don't think other regions will mind?

>killed the national bank
This was one of the main reasons why I picked him.
Modern banking is a fucking ponzi scheme and the dickhead bankers back in 08 proved this.

>Really? You don't think nepotism existed before Jackson?
Practically every president until Jackson operated on a kind of classical principle of 'disinterestedness', the idea of sacrificing personal concerns for the good of the whole, it's a theme that comes up commonly in the writings of the founding fathers. Jackson threw that high-minded thinking out the window and fully engaged in patronage and favor lending for political reasons.

>Good, fuck banks and fuck the Federal Reserve.
I, for one, much prefer an executive who rationally makes decisions by weighing the evidence and not acting on personal prejudice.

>If you help only one region of the country, you don't think other regions will mind?
The reason why internal improvements didn't help Southerners as much was because they were still operating on a backwards slave economy where a few landed psuedo-aristocrats controlled the vast majority of prime land and water ways. Whereas in the north a new canal or bridge or road could help thousands and thousands of independent farmers and manufacturers help bring their products to market and reduce costs for everyone.

Completely depends on what politics you prefer and how well any president executed your favored policies. My vote still goes for Lincoln

>Abraham "I watch BLACKED" Lincoln
>not worst

Fuck off Cletus

I like him.

I really, really like this pic.

Mind if I save it?

But trump had two scopes

>2016

You realize fuckery like that has been reversed by this administration?

It was already mandated to go into monetary circulation in 2020 or something like that though.
Whatever, I was really looking forward to seeing /pol/ tears though.

Hmm that's right. Why is that anyway? How come we can't add amendments anymore?

>How come we can't add amendments anymore?
We can. We just don't because its a lot easier to just get activist judges to make shit up. Like Obamacare being a "tax" and the Patriot Act somehow not violating your right to privacy.

Basically, interpret the constitution however they want?
But would wouldn't it have a longer lasting effect to actually add it to the constitution, then you could federally mandate a law easily across all states and the chances of it being repealed(for example gay marriage) would be slim.

BOOM HEADSHOT

>Basically, interpret the constitution however they want?
Yes.

Judicial rulings have practically just as much strength as actual amendments to the Constitution, since they're the ones deciding what those amendments actually mean.

Its way easier to convince 5 judges to do your bidding than it is to convince 32 states, especially when there are elected officials in those states that stand to get voted out if they go against the people, while judges are in for life.

Lincoln and it's not even close.

Obama unironically. He got us out of the recession and pulled the country out of the pit dug out by the neocons of the Bush regime. He was also a good orator, a trait found among great leaders that is a rarity nowadays. And he had a vision to provide health care for all, something no one was really talking about.

>He got us out of the recession
I'll bet you also credit Clinton for the gains of the tech boom in the 90s, too.

Nevertheless, please explain what Obama did as president to pull us out of the recession.

George because he was humble and stoped shit from getting out of hand too early
Lincoln because of the irony of his story
The roosevelts because they ensured our countries future

Obama could have been great, but he was too much of a big spender and got fucked by 2008 and congress

T. fudd who doesn't understand the difference between a national bank and private banks.

National banks are an absolute necessity, without them, the government has much more limited lines of credit, much higher costs of borrowing, and overall inability to dictate financial policy. National Banks exist at the expense of private bankers, because they limit the formerly lucrative practice of lending to governments.

Before the advent of National Banks, countries that wanted to borrow money had to go to wealthy bankers, and negotiate individual loans at steep interest rates. With National Banks, the government borrows from the National Bank, who then can sell bonds to raise money to back the loan. This results in lower risk for the loan, and reduces the interest rate since the National Bank isn't seeking to make a profit.

Before the Bank of England was established, the English Crown paid around 12% interest on loans to finance its war against France. Once established, the Bank of England was able to provide loans to the government at 8% interest.

Fast forward 80 years. While Britain and France had comparable economies and spent around the same amount of money on the American Revolutionary war, Britain was able to handle its debt load while France couldn't. Britain borrowed money from it's national bank, while France borrowed money from German, Swiss, and Dutch bankers, who charged more interest.

>a vision to provide health care for all
It's pretty easy to get everyone to sign up for health insurance when you can threaten them with monthly $600 fines if they don't have it.

Please explain how that's worse than the taxpayers having to foot the bill for uninsured people using the emergency room.

>Obama the best
I am laughing he is mid tier in the higher rating. Though we will see if the things he did will be helpful later down the line.

LMFAO

king nigger was almost as bad as dubya

I'd go with either Truman or Washington. They handled crisis well in my opinion. Lincoln is up there too, but he was killed before he could finish.

It's hard not to simply reply with George Washington

Jackson came into office to stop the nepotism and only ended up furthering it, and even still put in less competent friends than the president before and after him.
>better than being a slave to the Feder reserve System
actually it wasn't, because it started a fucking economic panic.
Also that guy forgot the part where he presided over the only time the American government wasn't in debt....and squandered it for petty reasons.

>too much of a big spender
but he decreased the deficit? He was a pretty average spender by presidential standards, even while paying for a war he inherited.

There's a difference between the budget deficit and the national debt

Your point? He reduced the source of the debt...the deficit. He could of spent less but he certainly wasn't a "big spender" like FDR, Johnson, Nixon, and Reagan.

That being said I don't disagree with you, I'm not in the camp that thinks Obama is anywhere near a "great" president. His legacy might change that but I seriously doubt it.

Well, the national debt continued to go up under Obama, as did the trend of higher government spending per capita, and as a percentage of GDP.

I don't think he was wrong to do these things, but it's what happened. It'd be more accurate to say he was fiscally responsible, rather than tight fisted.

I think he was a good president, but he had the opportunity to be a great president and blew it.

Not a bad leader, but a very frustrating one to the people who backed him in 2008.

I was disputing the "big spender" tag that someone put to him.
As you sorta mention, the debt increase is something that almost every president has contributed to and Obama's spending policy, when compared to other presidents, wasn't all that gaudy though it looks like it on the surface because of Iraq/Afghanistan and the increased built-in government spending that Bush also had to deal with.

Yeah, honestly one of the main reasons the "he's a great president" narrative gets pushed so much by members of the left is because its common among Republicans to criticize Obama as the "worst" president. Both of these views kinda sicken me because of how contrarian they seem to be.

I'd argue that he was the best president of the generation.

Better than Bush or Clinton.

I'd argue thats a pointless argument because this generation of presidents is what...4-5 guys? Not a huge sample. Obama is perhaps more striking because he seemed a little more personally involved in the policy change (or attempts at) of our government, and as someone mentioned, had a great deal of political energy behind him initially, which sort of stands out from modern presidents. But again, among the greatest presidents ever? No. there's a "powergap" between him and the "great presidents"

Bill clinton was better than him.

Trump will probably be better than him.

The only living presidents he beats is bush 1 & 2

>Bill Clinton
Clinton, probably the best of the 4 presidents you mentioned, presided over an economic bubble that was a long time coming (and *arguably* partially the result of Reagan era corporate/finance/investment incentives), the same can be said for Bush Sr. I'd say both of their presidencies were more or less a wash considering their policy roll in the financial crisis (along with Reagan, however you didn't mention him so im not gonna bother with the comparison). Obama more or less ended up being a wash except he had to deal with the bulk of the financial crisis and his promise to leave Iraq (which may or may not have been too early). The ACA is tough because on one hand it has supposedly saved peoples lives, on the other it supposedly has increased premiums (I suspect that the help the ACA has done is overstated and the rate increases are just healthcare providers using it as an excuse) Your assertion that Trump "will probably be better" is puzzling considering he has done very little (by virtue of only being in office for a 5 months) other than make the healthcare situation worse (seriously what is that bill supposed to accomplish?). I haven't seen any indication that his cabinets picks have increased economic confidence at all and his job numbers are sub-par. It seems he'll be Bush Sr. 2.0, except with a more 'colorful' personality.

This is a sober, informed, well-reasoned post, which probably means it's going to be ignored totally.

>gets btfo
>b-but /pol/
Like pottery. Fuck off, reddit.

>trump will probably be better than him
>there are people that unironically believe this

...

Washington.

> as did the trend of higher government spending per capita, and as a percentage of GDP

The numbers say otherwise.

Federal outlays per person under Obama never reached Bush's record in 2009.

I think Obama is definitely above average. The only way he could have been more successful is by "abusing" his supermajority for the two years that he had it in order to have a more compliant congress for the rest of his term.

This would include things like

> Asking for Ginsberg and Kennedy's resignation once he won the presidency, replace them with 50 year olds.
> Remove Joe Liberman and Ben Nelson through some method. Have the CIA accident them if necessary.
> Completely forego attempts to work with Republicans and pass the bill the Democrats wanted. Compromising with Republicans didn't get him a single vote when he needed it, and watered down a lot of legislation.

Measures like that would have made Obama a more effective president, but it would also be much more morally dubious.

>effective
>moral
Take one.

Well exactly, Obama chose to be moral over being effective and as a result he turned out to be not nearly as effective as he could have been.

History will be kinder on Obama simply by virtue of being sandwiched between the all-time two WOAT Presidents.

lol someone is mad. Seems like I don't even have to wait for that law to pass to drink some delicious /pol/ tears.

>because it started a fucking economic panic.

This has been debunked multiple times. The panic started overseas for fucks sake

>Delusion is a powerful thing
Trump literally said he was going to reverse the decision as . Why do you think he can't?

FDR or Teddy

>hold jackson in highest esteem
>keep him on national bank reserve note
>his portrait overlooks the signing of executive orders giving banks more power and less oversight
Always liked that about Trump.

>put a man who hated the idea and presence of national banks on the 20 dollar bill
kek

Also I never said he couldn't. I'm just saying it's still funny seeing your obvious tears and anger now, whether it will or will not happen by 2020.
Plus the idea that even if he does, he isn't getting a second term(unless the dems are so incompetent that they somehow fuck up even worse than last time) against the next democratic candidate in 2020.

>healthcare for all

20 million*

Correct but more complicated than that.

The national bank requires a functioning and modernized financial system to work within.
The Ethiopian or Venezuelan National Banks are not necessarily a net benefit to their nations. That's mainly because a lack of a modernized financial system and the idiotic fiscal policies of their government.

If your nation has these failures, then your chance of Weimar/Republic of Vietnam/Venezeula increases substantially.

Relatively low interest rates are a great incentive for more government spending on plausibly dubious investments. Of course, it depends on many other factors as well.

There's a disturbing number of individuals itt who unironically are say Washington and Truman.

FDR

Are you retarded? This guy was a fucking idiot and everyone knew it.

Washington is a valid choice though. not the de-facto choice, but you can place a lot of key traditions on his decisions.

since you're not even american I don't think it matters what your opinion of my historical figures is

>Ctrl F Teddy Roosevelt
>2 results
For shame. It's like you don't want America to be a superpower

>National banks are an absolute necessity
No they aren't. National banks do more harm than good by over manipulating the economy and "Smoothing Out" the business cycle with the equivalent of a baseball bat, and forcibly stopping market corrections before their completion keeping hidden risks to the economy flying under the radar, until they finally blow up in a catastrophic disaster.

That aspect of interests rates is self regulating. If a country is stupid with money and taking loans, interest rates will rise. Remember that National banks still have to sell bonds like the T-note to raise money in a controlled manner. Once interest rates rise, reckless spending on debt will become self-prohibitive in cost (unless the government doesn't care).

The exception is when the government is able to hide the amount it is in debt borrowed ala Mefo bills, or there is a severe economic distortion like Greece after it entered the Euro Zone.

>Your assertion that Trump "will probably be better" is puzzling considering he has done very little (by virtue of only being in office for a 5 months) other than make the healthcare situation worse

He's done very little using legislation, but he has managed to plunge illegal border crossing down by 70%, pulled out of the TPP, buoyed the stock market, and according the polls has actually injected confidence economy.

He has it in him to be a Polk, a divisive president for his time, but able to accomplish his major goals during his tenure.

That's not how history works though.