Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
IrrelevantI voted for:
John Adams (Sedition Act and XYZ Affair)
Pierce (civil war)
Bush Jr.
Obama
It's ironic that our last two president both make this list.
John Adams? No.
John Adams had a man arrested for calling him fat "His rotundancy" under the Sedition Acts. John Adams nearly succeeded in destroying the United States Constitution while the nation was still in its infancy.
ANd Truman wont get many votes, if any, except from people who didn't like Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
And it's nearly impossible to judge Lincoln and Andrew Johnson due to the Civil War. Those were periods of martial law and habeus corpus suspended and Reconstruction after.
Our Federalist system remained intact after the Civil War as well. It was the 16th and 17th Amendments under Wilson that destroyed State power (17th amendment) and grossly inflated federal power (16th amendment).
Bush Sr. was pretty average and wont be remembered a 100 years from now.
Do you know your views are in the minority...
Historical rankings of presidents of the United States - Wikipedia
These are Notable scholar surveys not Fox news lemmings...
Interesting to note that these notable scholars rank Reagan and Eisenhower as top ten. Shows they are not partisan
I think you really need to know whether the Presidential Historians/Political Scientist are registered Republicans, Democrats, or Independent/Other. Political bias and partisanship will have the greatest impact on the most recent Presidents. So siting a President ranking high from decades ago is not really a way to determine if the list was skewed because of partisanship.
You should probably have 3 different list:
A. One done by 100 registered Republican Presidential Historians/Political Scientist
B. One done by 100 registered Democratic Presidential Historians/Political Scientist
C. One done by 100 registered Independents/other smaller political parties Presidential Historians/Political Scientist
You then average the results of each of the three list into one list. While not perfect, you get a list that is far more free of political bias and partisanship than the ones shown on Wikipedia.
I think if you could see the party registration status of those contributing to the list on Wikipedia, you find that most would have strong majorities of registered Democrats.
John Adams? No.
John Adams had a man arrested for calling him fat "His rotundancy" under the Sedition Acts. John Adams nearly succeeded in destroying the United States Constitution while the nation was still in its infancy.
ANd Truman wont get many votes, if any, except from people who didn't like Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
And it's nearly impossible to judge Lincoln and Andrew Johnson due to the Civil War. Those were periods of martial law and habeus corpus suspended and Reconstruction after.
Our Federalist system remained intact after the Civil War as well. It was the 16th and 17th Amendments under Wilson that destroyed State power (17th amendment) and grossly inflated federal power (16th amendment).
Bush Sr. was pretty average and wont be remembered a 100 years from now.
Do you know your views are in the minority...
Historical rankings of presidents of the United States - Wikipedia
These are Notable scholar surveys not Fox news lemmings...
Interesting to note that these notable scholars rank Reagan and Eisenhower as top ten. Shows they are not partisan
I think you really need to know whether the Presidential Historians/Political Scientist are registered Republicans, Democrats, or Independent/Other. Political bias and partisanship will have the greatest impact on the most recent Presidents. So siting a President ranking high from decades ago is not really a way to determine if the list was skewed because of partisanship.
You should probably have 3 different list:
A. One done by 100 registered Republican Presidential Historians/Political Scientist
B. One done by 100 registered Democratic Presidential Historians/Political Scientist
C. One done by 100 registered Independents/other smaller political parties Presidential Historians/Political Scientist
You then average the results of each of the three list into one list. While not perfect, you get a list that is far more free of political bias and partisanship than the ones shown on Wikipedia.
I think if you could see the party registration status of those contributing to the list on Wikipedia, you find that most would have strong majorities of registered Democrats.
That was done. Granted it doesn't include newer presidents since it was done in the 80s.
But what it shows is over time as the initial political division fades we see the stances become very similar.
In the end harding Grant Johnson and Pierce and Buchanan are the 5 which both sides had agreed. And the top 8 were a consensus of both sides, with Lincoln a consensus number one and Washington/FDR number two and three
View attachment 258597
I think while that shows that statements and beliefs of a president soon after office remain strongly divisive, over time you can judge the impact of those. So while Lincoln was arguably the least liked president at the time, his positive impact is what he is measured on. Whereas soon after Jimmy Carter's presidency, his dislike was high, but decades later his impact for good/bad of the US was minimal in comparison to others. LBJ/Eisenhower were the only top 10 and difference between groups, which were also the only two presidents to make up the most recent ones in that top 10.
John Adams had a man arrested for calling him fat "His rotundancy" under the Sedition Acts. John Adams nearly succeeded in destroying the United States Constitution while the nation was still in its infancy.
ANd Truman wont get many votes, if any, except from people who didn't like Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
And it's nearly impossible to judge Lincoln and Andrew Johnson due to the Civil War. Those were periods of martial law and habeus corpus suspended and Reconstruction after.
Our Federalist system remained intact after the Civil War as well. It was the 16th and 17th Amendments under Wilson that destroyed State power (17th amendment) and grossly inflated federal power (16th amendment).
Bush Sr. was pretty average and wont be remembered a 100 years from now.
Do you know your views are in the minority...
Historical rankings of presidents of the United States - Wikipedia
These are Notable scholar surveys not Fox news lemmings...
Interesting to note that these notable scholars rank Reagan and Eisenhower as top ten. Shows they are not partisan
I think you really need to know whether the Presidential Historians/Political Scientist are registered Republicans, Democrats, or Independent/Other. Political bias and partisanship will have the greatest impact on the most recent Presidents. So siting a President ranking high from decades ago is not really a way to determine if the list was skewed because of partisanship.
You should probably have 3 different list:
A. One done by 100 registered Republican Presidential Historians/Political Scientist
B. One done by 100 registered Democratic Presidential Historians/Political Scientist
C. One done by 100 registered Independents/other smaller political parties Presidential Historians/Political Scientist
You then average the results of each of the three list into one list. While not perfect, you get a list that is far more free of political bias and partisanship than the ones shown on Wikipedia.
I think if you could see the party registration status of those contributing to the list on Wikipedia, you find that most would have strong majorities of registered Democrats.
That was done. Granted it doesn't include newer presidents since it was done in the 80s.
But what it shows is over time as the initial political division fades we see the stances become very similar.
In the end harding Grant Johnson and Pierce and Buchanan are the 5 which both sides had agreed. And the top 8 were a consensus of both sides, with Lincoln a consensus number one and Washington/FDR number two and three
View attachment 258597
I think while that shows that statements and beliefs of a president soon after office remain strongly divisive, over time you can judge the impact of those. So while Lincoln was arguably the least liked president at the time, his positive impact is what he is measured on. Whereas soon after Jimmy Carter's presidency, his dislike was high, but decades later his impact for good/bad of the US was minimal in comparison to others. LBJ/Eisenhower were the only top 10 and difference between groups, which were also the only two presidents to make up the most recent ones in that top 10.
LBJ is a good case
I hated him when he was President. He was hounded out of office
But he did remarkable work on Civil Rights and anti poverty programs.
But then there was Vietnam, how stupid was that?
I look at LBJ filling JFKs second term. Given the political climate of the time, I think JFK would have made the exact same decisions. So would Nixon and Goldwater. I doubt there were any politicians of that era who would have turned their back on a Communist takeover of Vietnam
The invasion of Afghanistan had popular supportDo you know your views are in the minority...
Historical rankings of presidents of the United States - Wikipedia
These are Notable scholar surveys not Fox news lemmings...
Interesting to note that these notable scholars rank Reagan and Eisenhower as top ten. Shows they are not partisan
I think you really need to know whether the Presidential Historians/Political Scientist are registered Republicans, Democrats, or Independent/Other. Political bias and partisanship will have the greatest impact on the most recent Presidents. So siting a President ranking high from decades ago is not really a way to determine if the list was skewed because of partisanship.
You should probably have 3 different list:
A. One done by 100 registered Republican Presidential Historians/Political Scientist
B. One done by 100 registered Democratic Presidential Historians/Political Scientist
C. One done by 100 registered Independents/other smaller political parties Presidential Historians/Political Scientist
You then average the results of each of the three list into one list. While not perfect, you get a list that is far more free of political bias and partisanship than the ones shown on Wikipedia.
I think if you could see the party registration status of those contributing to the list on Wikipedia, you find that most would have strong majorities of registered Democrats.
That was done. Granted it doesn't include newer presidents since it was done in the 80s.
But what it shows is over time as the initial political division fades we see the stances become very similar.
In the end harding Grant Johnson and Pierce and Buchanan are the 5 which both sides had agreed. And the top 8 were a consensus of both sides, with Lincoln a consensus number one and Washington/FDR number two and three
View attachment 258597
I think while that shows that statements and beliefs of a president soon after office remain strongly divisive, over time you can judge the impact of those. So while Lincoln was arguably the least liked president at the time, his positive impact is what he is measured on. Whereas soon after Jimmy Carter's presidency, his dislike was high, but decades later his impact for good/bad of the US was minimal in comparison to others. LBJ/Eisenhower were the only top 10 and difference between groups, which were also the only two presidents to make up the most recent ones in that top 10.
LBJ is a good case
I hated him when he was President. He was hounded out of office
But he did remarkable work on Civil Rights and anti poverty programs.
But then there was Vietnam, how stupid was that?
I look at LBJ filling JFKs second term. Given the political climate of the time, I think JFK would have made the exact same decisions. So would Nixon and Goldwater. I doubt there were any politicians of that era who would have turned their back on a Communist takeover of Vietnam
I agree. The Domino theory (let one country fall to communism and their neighbors are the next target) was commonly supported at the time, and I would say with good reason (see Eastern Europe).
While in hindsight, much like how many view Operation Iraqi Freedom, it was not a popular war, at the time (much like OIF), it was supported by most.
ISIS is the result of Islam... same diff. It has always been there.History will judge 43 favorably.
No way. The mess that he made the Middle East into will forever weigh against him.
History will never forget the total fuck up that invading Iraq was
Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com
Just wait, you’ll see.
Nope. History will not whitewash the invasion of Iraq
Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com
No need to “white wash.” History will look at the period in question dispassionately.
And they will see an invasion of a sovereign nation for no valid reason. They will see the entire region turned upside down by the removal of Saddam. They will see the damage done by ISIS, and will know ISIS existed because of our invasion of Iraq.
Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com
An overwhelming majority of Muslims despise ISISISIS is the result of Islam... same diff. It has always been there.No way. The mess that he made the Middle East into will forever weigh against him.
History will never forget the total fuck up that invading Iraq was
Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com
Just wait, you’ll see.
Nope. History will not whitewash the invasion of Iraq
Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com
No need to “white wash.” History will look at the period in question dispassionately.
And they will see an invasion of a sovereign nation for no valid reason. They will see the entire region turned upside down by the removal of Saddam. They will see the damage done by ISIS, and will know ISIS existed because of our invasion of Iraq.
Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com
20 Commandments of Mohammad the founder of Islam
1. Thou shall Rape, Marry, and Divorce Pre-pubescent Girls. Koran 65:4
2. Thou shall have Sex Slaves and Work Slaves. Koran 4:3, 4:24, 5:89, 33:50, 58:3, 70:30
3. Thou shall Beat Sex Slaves, Work Slaves, and Wives. Koran 4:34
4. Thou shall have 4 Muslim male witnesses to prove rape. Koran 24:13
5. Thou shall Kill those who insult Islam or Mohammed. Koran 33:57
6. Thou shall Crucify and Amputate non-Muslims. Koran 8:12, 47:4
7. Thou shall Kill non-Muslims to guarantee receiving 72 virgins in heaven. Koran 9:111
8. Thou shall Kill anyone who leaves Islam. Koran 2:217, 4:89
9. Thou shall Behead non-Muslims. Koran 8:12, 47:4
10. Thou shall Kill AND be Killed for Islamic Allah. Koran 9:5
11. Thou shall Terrorize non-Muslims. Koran 8:12, 8:60
12. Thou shall Steal and Rob from non-Muslims. Koran Chapter 8 (Booty/Spoils of War)
13. Thou shall Lie to Strengthen Islam. Koran 3:28, 16:106
14. Thou shall Fight non-Muslim even if you don't want to. Koran 2:216
15. Thou shall not take non-Muslims as friends. Koran 5:51
16. Thou shall Call non-Muslims Pigs and Apes. Koran 5:60, 7:166, 16:106
17. Thou shall Treat non-Muslims as the vilest creatures deserving no mercy. Koran 98:6
18. Thou shall Treat non-Muslims as sworn enemies. Koran 4:101
19. Thou shall Kill non-Muslims for not converting to Islam. Koran 9:29
20. Thou shall Extort non-Muslims to keep Islam strong. Koran 9:29.
The invasion of Afghanistan had popular supportInteresting to note that these notable scholars rank Reagan and Eisenhower as top ten. Shows they are not partisan
I think you really need to know whether the Presidential Historians/Political Scientist are registered Republicans, Democrats, or Independent/Other. Political bias and partisanship will have the greatest impact on the most recent Presidents. So siting a President ranking high from decades ago is not really a way to determine if the list was skewed because of partisanship.
You should probably have 3 different list:
A. One done by 100 registered Republican Presidential Historians/Political Scientist
B. One done by 100 registered Democratic Presidential Historians/Political Scientist
C. One done by 100 registered Independents/other smaller political parties Presidential Historians/Political Scientist
You then average the results of each of the three list into one list. While not perfect, you get a list that is far more free of political bias and partisanship than the ones shown on Wikipedia.
I think if you could see the party registration status of those contributing to the list on Wikipedia, you find that most would have strong majorities of registered Democrats.
That was done. Granted it doesn't include newer presidents since it was done in the 80s.
But what it shows is over time as the initial political division fades we see the stances become very similar.
In the end harding Grant Johnson and Pierce and Buchanan are the 5 which both sides had agreed. And the top 8 were a consensus of both sides, with Lincoln a consensus number one and Washington/FDR number two and three
View attachment 258597
I think while that shows that statements and beliefs of a president soon after office remain strongly divisive, over time you can judge the impact of those. So while Lincoln was arguably the least liked president at the time, his positive impact is what he is measured on. Whereas soon after Jimmy Carter's presidency, his dislike was high, but decades later his impact for good/bad of the US was minimal in comparison to others. LBJ/Eisenhower were the only top 10 and difference between groups, which were also the only two presidents to make up the most recent ones in that top 10.
LBJ is a good case
I hated him when he was President. He was hounded out of office
But he did remarkable work on Civil Rights and anti poverty programs.
But then there was Vietnam, how stupid was that?
I look at LBJ filling JFKs second term. Given the political climate of the time, I think JFK would have made the exact same decisions. So would Nixon and Goldwater. I doubt there were any politicians of that era who would have turned their back on a Communist takeover of Vietnam
I agree. The Domino theory (let one country fall to communism and their neighbors are the next target) was commonly supported at the time, and I would say with good reason (see Eastern Europe).
While in hindsight, much like how many view Operation Iraqi Freedom, it was not a popular war, at the time (much like OIF), it was supported by most.
Iraq had tepid support. Most Democrats opposed it
Those who did support the invasion of Iraq feared being labeled soft on terrorism much like being labeled soft on communism a generation before
ISIS is the result of Islam... same diff. It has always been there.No way. The mess that he made the Middle East into will forever weigh against him.
History will never forget the total fuck up that invading Iraq was
Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com
Just wait, you’ll see.
Nope. History will not whitewash the invasion of Iraq
Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com
No need to “white wash.” History will look at the period in question dispassionately.
And they will see an invasion of a sovereign nation for no valid reason. They will see the entire region turned upside down by the removal of Saddam. They will see the damage done by ISIS, and will know ISIS existed because of our invasion of Iraq.
Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com
20 Commandments of Mohammad the founder of Islam
1. Thou shall Rape, Marry, and Divorce Pre-pubescent Girls. Koran 65:4
2. Thou shall have Sex Slaves and Work Slaves. Koran 4:3, 4:24, 5:89, 33:50, 58:3, 70:30
3. Thou shall Beat Sex Slaves, Work Slaves, and Wives. Koran 4:34
4. Thou shall have 4 Muslim male witnesses to prove rape. Koran 24:13
5. Thou shall Kill those who insult Islam or Mohammed. Koran 33:57
6. Thou shall Crucify and Amputate non-Muslims. Koran 8:12, 47:4
7. Thou shall Kill non-Muslims to guarantee receiving 72 virgins in heaven. Koran 9:111
8. Thou shall Kill anyone who leaves Islam. Koran 2:217, 4:89
9. Thou shall Behead non-Muslims. Koran 8:12, 47:4
10. Thou shall Kill AND be Killed for Islamic Allah. Koran 9:5
11. Thou shall Terrorize non-Muslims. Koran 8:12, 8:60
12. Thou shall Steal and Rob from non-Muslims. Koran Chapter 8 (Booty/Spoils of War)
13. Thou shall Lie to Strengthen Islam. Koran 3:28, 16:106
14. Thou shall Fight non-Muslim even if you don't want to. Koran 2:216
15. Thou shall not take non-Muslims as friends. Koran 5:51
16. Thou shall Call non-Muslims Pigs and Apes. Koran 5:60, 7:166, 16:106
17. Thou shall Treat non-Muslims as the vilest creatures deserving no mercy. Koran 98:6
18. Thou shall Treat non-Muslims as sworn enemies. Koran 4:101
19. Thou shall Kill non-Muslims for not converting to Islam. Koran 9:29
20. Thou shall Extort non-Muslims to keep Islam strong. Koran 9:29.
Where does Jesus believe in such things?ISIS is the result of Islam... same diff. It has always been there.Just wait, you’ll see.
Nope. History will not whitewash the invasion of Iraq
Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com
No need to “white wash.” History will look at the period in question dispassionately.
And they will see an invasion of a sovereign nation for no valid reason. They will see the entire region turned upside down by the removal of Saddam. They will see the damage done by ISIS, and will know ISIS existed because of our invasion of Iraq.
Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com
20 Commandments of Mohammad the founder of Islam
1. Thou shall Rape, Marry, and Divorce Pre-pubescent Girls. Koran 65:4
2. Thou shall have Sex Slaves and Work Slaves. Koran 4:3, 4:24, 5:89, 33:50, 58:3, 70:30
3. Thou shall Beat Sex Slaves, Work Slaves, and Wives. Koran 4:34
4. Thou shall have 4 Muslim male witnesses to prove rape. Koran 24:13
5. Thou shall Kill those who insult Islam or Mohammed. Koran 33:57
6. Thou shall Crucify and Amputate non-Muslims. Koran 8:12, 47:4
7. Thou shall Kill non-Muslims to guarantee receiving 72 virgins in heaven. Koran 9:111
8. Thou shall Kill anyone who leaves Islam. Koran 2:217, 4:89
9. Thou shall Behead non-Muslims. Koran 8:12, 47:4
10. Thou shall Kill AND be Killed for Islamic Allah. Koran 9:5
11. Thou shall Terrorize non-Muslims. Koran 8:12, 8:60
12. Thou shall Steal and Rob from non-Muslims. Koran Chapter 8 (Booty/Spoils of War)
13. Thou shall Lie to Strengthen Islam. Koran 3:28, 16:106
14. Thou shall Fight non-Muslim even if you don't want to. Koran 2:216
15. Thou shall not take non-Muslims as friends. Koran 5:51
16. Thou shall Call non-Muslims Pigs and Apes. Koran 5:60, 7:166, 16:106
17. Thou shall Treat non-Muslims as the vilest creatures deserving no mercy. Koran 98:6
18. Thou shall Treat non-Muslims as sworn enemies. Koran 4:101
19. Thou shall Kill non-Muslims for not converting to Islam. Koran 9:29
20. Thou shall Extort non-Muslims to keep Islam strong. Koran 9:29.
When Christianity brings up the laws of selling slaves and sexual slavery being allowed and the genocide of non believers, do you feel the same way?
Bush sold the Iraq War as an extension of the war on terrorThe invasion of Afghanistan had popular supportI think you really need to know whether the Presidential Historians/Political Scientist are registered Republicans, Democrats, or Independent/Other. Political bias and partisanship will have the greatest impact on the most recent Presidents. So siting a President ranking high from decades ago is not really a way to determine if the list was skewed because of partisanship.
You should probably have 3 different list:
A. One done by 100 registered Republican Presidential Historians/Political Scientist
B. One done by 100 registered Democratic Presidential Historians/Political Scientist
C. One done by 100 registered Independents/other smaller political parties Presidential Historians/Political Scientist
You then average the results of each of the three list into one list. While not perfect, you get a list that is far more free of political bias and partisanship than the ones shown on Wikipedia.
I think if you could see the party registration status of those contributing to the list on Wikipedia, you find that most would have strong majorities of registered Democrats.
That was done. Granted it doesn't include newer presidents since it was done in the 80s.
But what it shows is over time as the initial political division fades we see the stances become very similar.
In the end harding Grant Johnson and Pierce and Buchanan are the 5 which both sides had agreed. And the top 8 were a consensus of both sides, with Lincoln a consensus number one and Washington/FDR number two and three
View attachment 258597
I think while that shows that statements and beliefs of a president soon after office remain strongly divisive, over time you can judge the impact of those. So while Lincoln was arguably the least liked president at the time, his positive impact is what he is measured on. Whereas soon after Jimmy Carter's presidency, his dislike was high, but decades later his impact for good/bad of the US was minimal in comparison to others. LBJ/Eisenhower were the only top 10 and difference between groups, which were also the only two presidents to make up the most recent ones in that top 10.
LBJ is a good case
I hated him when he was President. He was hounded out of office
But he did remarkable work on Civil Rights and anti poverty programs.
But then there was Vietnam, how stupid was that?
I look at LBJ filling JFKs second term. Given the political climate of the time, I think JFK would have made the exact same decisions. So would Nixon and Goldwater. I doubt there were any politicians of that era who would have turned their back on a Communist takeover of Vietnam
I agree. The Domino theory (let one country fall to communism and their neighbors are the next target) was commonly supported at the time, and I would say with good reason (see Eastern Europe).
While in hindsight, much like how many view Operation Iraqi Freedom, it was not a popular war, at the time (much like OIF), it was supported by most.
Iraq had tepid support. Most Democrats opposed it
Those who did support the invasion of Iraq feared being labeled soft on terrorism much like being labeled soft on communism a generation before
Overall the support was pretty strong. House Democrats didn't support it overall, but in the senate it was 29-21 in favor among Democrats.
In both chambers it was sponsored by a bipartisan effort. And most of the opposition and amendments proposed against it were about gaining UN support first. And at the outset 75% of Americans in a Gallup poll supported it which would be the popular support.
Bush sold the Iraq War as an extension of the war on terrorThe invasion of Afghanistan had popular supportThat was done. Granted it doesn't include newer presidents since it was done in the 80s.
But what it shows is over time as the initial political division fades we see the stances become very similar.
In the end harding Grant Johnson and Pierce and Buchanan are the 5 which both sides had agreed. And the top 8 were a consensus of both sides, with Lincoln a consensus number one and Washington/FDR number two and three
View attachment 258597
I think while that shows that statements and beliefs of a president soon after office remain strongly divisive, over time you can judge the impact of those. So while Lincoln was arguably the least liked president at the time, his positive impact is what he is measured on. Whereas soon after Jimmy Carter's presidency, his dislike was high, but decades later his impact for good/bad of the US was minimal in comparison to others. LBJ/Eisenhower were the only top 10 and difference between groups, which were also the only two presidents to make up the most recent ones in that top 10.
LBJ is a good case
I hated him when he was President. He was hounded out of office
But he did remarkable work on Civil Rights and anti poverty programs.
But then there was Vietnam, how stupid was that?
I look at LBJ filling JFKs second term. Given the political climate of the time, I think JFK would have made the exact same decisions. So would Nixon and Goldwater. I doubt there were any politicians of that era who would have turned their back on a Communist takeover of Vietnam
I agree. The Domino theory (let one country fall to communism and their neighbors are the next target) was commonly supported at the time, and I would say with good reason (see Eastern Europe).
While in hindsight, much like how many view Operation Iraqi Freedom, it was not a popular war, at the time (much like OIF), it was supported by most.
Iraq had tepid support. Most Democrats opposed it
Those who did support the invasion of Iraq feared being labeled soft on terrorism much like being labeled soft on communism a generation before
Overall the support was pretty strong. House Democrats didn't support it overall, but in the senate it was 29-21 in favor among Democrats.
In both chambers it was sponsored by a bipartisan effort. And most of the opposition and amendments proposed against it were about gaining UN support first. And at the outset 75% of Americans in a Gallup poll supported it which would be the popular support.
He fabricated stories based on questionable evidence that Iraq had WMDs and were prepared to use them
In post 9-11 America, few in Congress or even the press were willing to challenge him
Still not nearly as popular as the decision to invade AfghanistanBush sold the Iraq War as an extension of the war on terrorThe invasion of Afghanistan had popular supportLBJ is a good case
I hated him when he was President. He was hounded out of office
But he did remarkable work on Civil Rights and anti poverty programs.
But then there was Vietnam, how stupid was that?
I look at LBJ filling JFKs second term. Given the political climate of the time, I think JFK would have made the exact same decisions. So would Nixon and Goldwater. I doubt there were any politicians of that era who would have turned their back on a Communist takeover of Vietnam
I agree. The Domino theory (let one country fall to communism and their neighbors are the next target) was commonly supported at the time, and I would say with good reason (see Eastern Europe).
While in hindsight, much like how many view Operation Iraqi Freedom, it was not a popular war, at the time (much like OIF), it was supported by most.
Iraq had tepid support. Most Democrats opposed it
Those who did support the invasion of Iraq feared being labeled soft on terrorism much like being labeled soft on communism a generation before
Overall the support was pretty strong. House Democrats didn't support it overall, but in the senate it was 29-21 in favor among Democrats.
In both chambers it was sponsored by a bipartisan effort. And most of the opposition and amendments proposed against it were about gaining UN support first. And at the outset 75% of Americans in a Gallup poll supported it which would be the popular support.
He fabricated stories based on questionable evidence that Iraq had WMDs and were prepared to use them
In post 9-11 America, few in Congress or even the press were willing to challenge him
Agree. Just saying at the time it was a popular choice.
Iraq had WMD's and if we hadn't allowed Collin Powell to delay us we would've invaded in time to find them. Saddam stashed them in Syria.Bush sold the Iraq War as an extension of the war on terrorThe invasion of Afghanistan had popular supportThat was done. Granted it doesn't include newer presidents since it was done in the 80s.
But what it shows is over time as the initial political division fades we see the stances become very similar.
In the end harding Grant Johnson and Pierce and Buchanan are the 5 which both sides had agreed. And the top 8 were a consensus of both sides, with Lincoln a consensus number one and Washington/FDR number two and three
View attachment 258597
I think while that shows that statements and beliefs of a president soon after office remain strongly divisive, over time you can judge the impact of those. So while Lincoln was arguably the least liked president at the time, his positive impact is what he is measured on. Whereas soon after Jimmy Carter's presidency, his dislike was high, but decades later his impact for good/bad of the US was minimal in comparison to others. LBJ/Eisenhower were the only top 10 and difference between groups, which were also the only two presidents to make up the most recent ones in that top 10.
LBJ is a good case
I hated him when he was President. He was hounded out of office
But he did remarkable work on Civil Rights and anti poverty programs.
But then there was Vietnam, how stupid was that?
I look at LBJ filling JFKs second term. Given the political climate of the time, I think JFK would have made the exact same decisions. So would Nixon and Goldwater. I doubt there were any politicians of that era who would have turned their back on a Communist takeover of Vietnam
I agree. The Domino theory (let one country fall to communism and their neighbors are the next target) was commonly supported at the time, and I would say with good reason (see Eastern Europe).
While in hindsight, much like how many view Operation Iraqi Freedom, it was not a popular war, at the time (much like OIF), it was supported by most.
Iraq had tepid support. Most Democrats opposed it
Those who did support the invasion of Iraq feared being labeled soft on terrorism much like being labeled soft on communism a generation before
Overall the support was pretty strong. House Democrats didn't support it overall, but in the senate it was 29-21 in favor among Democrats.
In both chambers it was sponsored by a bipartisan effort. And most of the opposition and amendments proposed against it were about gaining UN support first. And at the outset 75% of Americans in a Gallup poll supported it which would be the popular support.
He fabricated stories based on questionable evidence that Iraq had WMDs and were prepared to use them
In post 9-11 America, few in Congress or even the press were willing to challenge him
Napalm the Poppy fields.Still not nearly as popular as the decision to invade AfghanistanBush sold the Iraq War as an extension of the war on terrorThe invasion of Afghanistan had popular supportI agree. The Domino theory (let one country fall to communism and their neighbors are the next target) was commonly supported at the time, and I would say with good reason (see Eastern Europe).
While in hindsight, much like how many view Operation Iraqi Freedom, it was not a popular war, at the time (much like OIF), it was supported by most.
Iraq had tepid support. Most Democrats opposed it
Those who did support the invasion of Iraq feared being labeled soft on terrorism much like being labeled soft on communism a generation before
Overall the support was pretty strong. House Democrats didn't support it overall, but in the senate it was 29-21 in favor among Democrats.
In both chambers it was sponsored by a bipartisan effort. And most of the opposition and amendments proposed against it were about gaining UN support first. And at the outset 75% of Americans in a Gallup poll supported it which would be the popular support.
He fabricated stories based on questionable evidence that Iraq had WMDs and were prepared to use them
In post 9-11 America, few in Congress or even the press were willing to challenge him
Agree. Just saying at the time it was a popular choice.
Both decisions were wrong
Iraq had WMD's and if we hadn't allowed Collin Powell to delay us we would've invaded in time to find them. Saddam stashed them in Syria.Bush sold the Iraq War as an extension of the war on terrorThe invasion of Afghanistan had popular supportLBJ is a good case
I hated him when he was President. He was hounded out of office
But he did remarkable work on Civil Rights and anti poverty programs.
But then there was Vietnam, how stupid was that?
I look at LBJ filling JFKs second term. Given the political climate of the time, I think JFK would have made the exact same decisions. So would Nixon and Goldwater. I doubt there were any politicians of that era who would have turned their back on a Communist takeover of Vietnam
I agree. The Domino theory (let one country fall to communism and their neighbors are the next target) was commonly supported at the time, and I would say with good reason (see Eastern Europe).
While in hindsight, much like how many view Operation Iraqi Freedom, it was not a popular war, at the time (much like OIF), it was supported by most.
Iraq had tepid support. Most Democrats opposed it
Those who did support the invasion of Iraq feared being labeled soft on terrorism much like being labeled soft on communism a generation before
Overall the support was pretty strong. House Democrats didn't support it overall, but in the senate it was 29-21 in favor among Democrats.
In both chambers it was sponsored by a bipartisan effort. And most of the opposition and amendments proposed against it were about gaining UN support first. And at the outset 75% of Americans in a Gallup poll supported it which would be the popular support.
He fabricated stories based on questionable evidence that Iraq had WMDs and were prepared to use them
In post 9-11 America, few in Congress or even the press were willing to challenge him
The only reason we didn't win in Vietnam is because we allowed the politicians to choose our targets and our strategy instead of allowing the Generals free hand to win the damn war.Iraq had WMD's and if we hadn't allowed Collin Powell to delay us we would've invaded in time to find them. Saddam stashed them in Syria.Bush sold the Iraq War as an extension of the war on terrorThe invasion of Afghanistan had popular supportI agree. The Domino theory (let one country fall to communism and their neighbors are the next target) was commonly supported at the time, and I would say with good reason (see Eastern Europe).
While in hindsight, much like how many view Operation Iraqi Freedom, it was not a popular war, at the time (much like OIF), it was supported by most.
Iraq had tepid support. Most Democrats opposed it
Those who did support the invasion of Iraq feared being labeled soft on terrorism much like being labeled soft on communism a generation before
Overall the support was pretty strong. House Democrats didn't support it overall, but in the senate it was 29-21 in favor among Democrats.
In both chambers it was sponsored by a bipartisan effort. And most of the opposition and amendments proposed against it were about gaining UN support first. And at the outset 75% of Americans in a Gallup poll supported it which would be the popular support.
He fabricated stories based on questionable evidence that Iraq had WMDs and were prepared to use them
In post 9-11 America, few in Congress or even the press were willing to challenge him
Sure he did
And we were weeks away from winning in Vietnam
1) TRUMP
2) W.
3) NIXON
No way Trump is ahead of W. or Nixon on the worst President list...
We gave them a free hand with millions of soldiers and 60,000 deadThe only reason we didn't win in Vietnam is because we allowed the politicians to choose our targets and our strategy instead of allowing the Generals free hand to win the damn war.Iraq had WMD's and if we hadn't allowed Collin Powell to delay us we would've invaded in time to find them. Saddam stashed them in Syria.Bush sold the Iraq War as an extension of the war on terrorThe invasion of Afghanistan had popular support
Iraq had tepid support. Most Democrats opposed it
Those who did support the invasion of Iraq feared being labeled soft on terrorism much like being labeled soft on communism a generation before
Overall the support was pretty strong. House Democrats didn't support it overall, but in the senate it was 29-21 in favor among Democrats.
In both chambers it was sponsored by a bipartisan effort. And most of the opposition and amendments proposed against it were about gaining UN support first. And at the outset 75% of Americans in a Gallup poll supported it which would be the popular support.
He fabricated stories based on questionable evidence that Iraq had WMDs and were prepared to use them
In post 9-11 America, few in Congress or even the press were willing to challenge him
Sure he did
And we were weeks away from winning in Vietnam
