Historians rank Trump among worst presidents in US history

ok doser

ok doser

lifeguard at the cement pond
Lon said:
Is that how you remember history? There was no president for Republicans. They had marginal options in Romney and McCain: both already doing partisan work with democrats. It means the paint is about the color you want it to be with those brush strokes.

I didn't like Trump or Obama, but I truly believed Obama taxed the middle-class against families in many ways and he is literally, fully, the cause of this huge rift in the U.S. It had nothing to do with his color. It had everything to do with 'if you don't like it, beat us!' from his own mouth. If you liked partisan and minority politics (again not talking black), then he was your man. At LEAST half of the nation disagreed/s with you.
Click to expand...
Obama may have poured a bucket of gasoline on that fire but it was smoldering all through the Bush II administration mostly because of the Iraq war.
 
Derf

Derf

Well-known member
User Name said:
  • Historians ranked Donald Trump lower than any president in 150 years in a new C-SPAN survey.
  • Trump landed at No. 41 overall out of 44 presidents.
Out of 44 presidents reviewed for the survey by 142 historians and professional observers of the presidency, Trump landed at 41 - the lowest ranking of any president in the past 150 years. The only presidents who ranked lower than Trump were Franklin Pierce, Andrew Johnson, and James Buchanan.

According to the 142 historians who responded to the survey, Andrew Johnson (43rd) and James Buchanan (44th) weren’t just worse than Trump, they were A LOT worse. Trump enjoys nearly a 100 point lead over the pair.

Top 10 presidential rankings by historians for 2021:

View attachment 1288

Click to expand...
Trump rates today’s historians as worst in US history.
 
Lon

Lon

Well-known member
ok doser said:
Obama may have poured a bucket of gasoline on that fire but it was smoldering all through the Bush II administration mostly because of the Iraq war.
Click to expand...
I agree on that point strongly: Reagan joined the nation, despite his faults, Bush senior was able to ride that wave. The rest, I agree, were all the dreams of less than half the country and their partisan agenda widened the rift. We haven't had any president of solidarity for a half century now. That president will be 'one of the top ten' not the ones that further divided the country. Regan and Lincoln are remembered at the top specifically because they didn't fuel the crisis, but met it and healed instead of further caused the divide. These others as you rightly observe, have unapologetically championed partisan agendas.
 
ok doser

ok doser

lifeguard at the cement pond
User Name said:
Trump is no historian so I'm not surprised he's pontificating about something of which he knows very little. He's like you in that regard.
Click to expand...
🤔

Historians are not Presidents and yet you are comfortable with them pontificating about something of which they know very little.

I believe that makes you a hypocrite. Or retarded. Or both.
 
Derf

Derf

Well-known member
User Name said:
Trump is no historian so I'm not surprised he's pontificating about something of which he knows very little. He's like you in that regard.
Click to expand...
Historians are not presidents, either, so your logic tells me they should not be pontificating about what they know little--or that they are biased about. They're like you in that regard.

Oops. I see that @ok doser beat me to the punch on this one. But since you think repetition solidifies opinion into facts, I'll leave it to sink in.
 
User Name

User Name

Greatest poster ever
Banned
Derf said:
Historians are not presidents, either, so your logic tells me they should not be pontificating about what they know little--or that they are biased about. They're like you in that regard.
Click to expand...
Presidential historians are historians of presidencies, so actually they do know quite a lot about it, unlike you.
 
Derf

Derf

Well-known member
Lon said:
I agree on that point strongly: Reagan joined the nation, despite his faults, Bush senior was able to ride that wave. The rest, I agree, were all the dreams of less than half the country and their partisan agenda widened the rift. We haven't had any president of solidarity for a half century now. That president will be 'one of the top ten' not the ones that further divided the country. Regan and Lincoln are remembered at the top specifically because they didn't fuel the crisis, but met it and healed instead of further caused the divide. These others as you rightly observe, have unapologetically championed partisan agendas.
Click to expand...
I think it is debatable whether Lincoln fueled the crisis or not--going to war against the southern states is hardly a bi-partisan act. Whether that was a good thing or bad is certainly a valid question.
 
Lon

Lon

Well-known member
Derf said:
I think it is debatable whether Lincoln fueled the crisis or not--going to war against the southern states is hardly a bi-partisan act. Whether that was a good thing or bad is certainly a valid question.
Click to expand...
Agree, but the result was a unification, albeit forced as it may have been. I didn't say I agree with historians about 'greatest' but I do indeed agree with them that it is why he is remembered.
 
Lon

Lon

Well-known member
User Name said:
Trump is no historian so I'm not surprised he's pontificating about something of which he knows very little. He's like you in that regard.
Click to expand...
1625254364223.png
Sometimes you guys just talked past each other (and pontificate absurdly). If you'd have read the link... There is a lot of that happening on TOL lately. It only takes a couple of seconds. Illiteracy hurts!
 
User Name

User Name

Greatest poster ever
Banned
Derf said:
I think it is debatable whether Lincoln fueled the crisis or not--going to war against the southern states is hardly a bi-partisan act.
Click to expand...
It was the South that seceded from the Union (not the other way around), and it was the South that attacked Fort Sumter, which ignited the Civil War.
Derf said:
Whether that was a good thing or bad is certainly a valid question.
Click to expand...
Translation: 'Whether the Confederacy was a good thing or a bad thing is certainly a valid question."
 
Last edited:
Lon

Lon

Well-known member
User Name said:
It was the South that seceded from the Union (not the other way around), and it was the South that attacked Fort Sumter, which ignited the Civil War.

Translation: 'Whether the Confederacy was a good thing or a bad thing is certainly a valid question."
Click to expand...
All good talking points. At least Lincoln had talking points that were very important. No president since Reagan comes to mind to historically remember anything with one single most exception that doesn't affect presidency, just something to be remembered as a hallmark.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top