Group Project: Let's Rank The Presidents and Summarize Their Presidencies

Keep it up guys, really enjoying this thread so far. Great summaries in the op, Op.

Thanks. It's been alot of fun so far and very educational. There's so much I didn't know about the presidents before starting this thread.
 
Last edited:
That's not enough?

Drug warrior to the point of invading Panama and kidnapping Noriega.

Ruby Ridge happened on his watch.

He did some things that would be considered minor by today's standards like banning some types of imported guns.

Thanks, I added these. I now have the summaries for President Reagan through President Obama written out. I just need to type them into the OP tomorrow. Any others in the OP that are blank, feel free to help out :)
 
Thanks, I added these. I now have the summaries for President Reagan through President Obama written out. I just need to type them into the OP tomorrow. Any others in the OP that are blank, feel free to help out :)

I'm going to bed, but I'll write out my list tomorrow for y'all.
 
I am VERY interested to hear thoughts on William Howard Taft. From the little research I have done I get the impression that he was a good president besides the 16th Amendment. But it doesn't seem like he did much.
 
A shout out to an overlooked bad president, Gerald Ford!

Our Short National Nightmare
How President Ford managed to go soft on Iraqi Baathists, Indonesian fascists, Soviet Communists, and the shah … in just two years.


A few tidbits:





http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...rds/2006/12/our_short_national_nightmare.html
I'd fogotten that Gerry refused to meet Solzhenitsyn. Not only a stupid political move, but the waste of an opportunity that comes at most once in a lifetime if you're lucky. I would love to meet Solzhenitsyn! He's probably got a lot of stories and insight to share. Amazing writer, too.
 
The Indians, a warlike barbaric people, had been scalping Americans for almost 200 years. They also got the white man hooked on tobacco and gave them syphilis. Not only that, Indians were wealthy landowners hogging vast tracts of land while poor people in Europe were starving to death.

That is a so messed up statement... if Native Americans were so "barbaric" there would be no such thing as Thanksgiving. Look at what savage and subhuman acts Hernan Cortes did to thousands of Natives, Ivan the Terrible, Vlad the Impaler, Louis the XVI, and other "barbaric" white people.; and it was white people who started most of the major wars throughout history. There are lots of peaceful Indians and they were sacked out of their homes. If you go to Indian Reservations (created by white people) today they have high poverty and crime rates and only 1% of them are the rich casino owners you see on tv. White people also introduced alcohol, a "dangerous drug" according to Dr. Paul himself.
 
I don't understand how LBJ can be at the bottom of the list when he signed the 1964 Civil Rights bill that allowed every person of any ethnicity liberty.
 
The Indians, a warlike barbaric people, had been scalping Americans for almost 200 years. They also got the white man hooked on tobacco and gave them syphilis. Not only that, Indians were wealthy landowners hogging vast tracts of land while poor people in Europe were starving to death.

Uh...no.

The greatest scalpers in the world were the British.

They brought the tradition of scalping with them and scalped Indians- paid $$ for the scalps of Indian men, women and children. Scalping by Indians was at first a tradition of honor only done by a few tribes for religious reasons- it was the Brits and the French that brought wholesale scalping to the Americas.

Also- original tobacco, without tampering by big bucks, was not particularly dangerous and was also a healer of wounds and bruises.

As for Indians being wealthy "landowners", that statement is just plain silly. Even if true, what Constitutionalist would think someone was evil for owning property in his own country while people in far off places were hungry?
 
I always hate the hate for Reaganomics. It gave us one of the most prosperous eras in the 20th century as the deregulated businesses boomed in the 90s as a direct result of Reaganomics. His tightening of the money supply to increase the worth of the dollar was also very admirable and highly beneficial in the worth of money. The idea that Reaganomics was "horrible" is a liberal-Democrat idea that has to do more with hating a Republican than an evaluation of the facts.

For John Adams, well I am torn about him. I LOVE Adams personally. During the Revolution if Jefferson was the hands, and Franklin the brain, then Adams was the heart. He was pushing, pushing, pushing for independence long before many others were. And he was so stubborn he never gave in, even when to his political advantage. His Presidency has one great thing and one horrible thing. The good is that Adams knew the limits of the US and did everything he could to keep us out of war with France and also honest during the XYZ Affair. It cost him his political career to do so in the long run as it turned his own party (who were eager to go to war) against him, but he did it anyway. I wish more politicians today were willing to sacrifice their careers to do what is right.

On the other hand you have the Alien and Sedition Acts, a set of bills that gave the President the power to limit speech and deport foreigners. These were heavy violations of the Constitution. Adams deserves the scorn he gets for passing them. He should have vetoed them from the beginning but he did not. Though I think it should be mentioned that Ron Chernow has shown in his book "Alexander Hamilton" (on page 668) that Adams wasn't the last President to use the powers granted in the Alien and Sedition Acts. Jefferson's Democratic-Republicans did as well, against powerful Federalists after the election of 1800. My point being that while Adams has the black mark of having passed the Acts, he isn't the only President who deserves a mark against him for using them.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top