Best president in last 40 years.

Quote: Gandler

I went with Nixon, great President. One of the most underrated. His personality defects sully people from thinking about him reasonably and what he accomplished.

I'm quick to acknowledge some of the amazing things Nixon accomplished in his tenure like forming the EPA or opening relations with China but it was more then just personality defects that kept him from being a great president. For instance unnecessarily prolonging the Vietnam war for political gain http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/nixon-prolonged-vietnam-war-for-political-gainand-johnson-knew-about-it-newly-unclassified-tapes-suggest-3595441/?no-ist . The truth is it is incredibly difficult to gauge how good a president Nixon was given he did some incredibly good things both domestically and foreign but he also had incredible faults that its hard to just excuse. So does he belong as low on the list as some historians place him no probably not does he deserve a spot anywhere near the top is also a no.

Honestly I find it incredibly difficult to say who the best president of the last 40 years is because they all had some faults that real mar the legacy. Nixon had problems I talked about. Carter and Bush Jr were well Carter and Bush Jr. Don't find it appropriate to try and rank current presidents so would take Obama out of the running. Clinton repealed Glass-Steagall. Ford is forever darkened by pardoning Nixon and didn't really do too much. As for Regan I personally despise him as a president for any number of reasons including a massive increase and militarization of the war on drugs, the Iran-Contra affair, popularizing the silly notion of welfare queens, voodoo economics, and a whole host of other things. Given that I'd probably give it to Clinton but eh could be argued but really doubt I would give it to Nixon.

Quote: Twirdman

I'm quick to acknowledge some of the amazing things Nixon accomplished in his tenure like forming the EPA or opening relations with China but it was more then just personality defects that kept him from being a great president. For instance unnecessarily prolonging the Vietnam war for political gain http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/nixon-prolonged-vietnam-war-for-political-gainand-johnson-knew-about-it-newly-unclassified-tapes-suggest-3595441/?no-ist . The truth is it is incredibly difficult to gauge how good a president Nixon was given he did some incredibly good things both domestically and foreign but he also had incredible faults that its hard to just excuse. So does he belong as low on the list as some historians place him no probably not does he deserve a spot anywhere near the top is also a no.

Honestly I find it incredibly difficult to say who the best president of the last 40 years is because they all had some faults that real mar the legacy. Nixon had problems I talked about. Carter and Bush Jr were well Carter and Bush Jr. Don't find it appropriate to try and rank current presidents so would take Obama out of the running. Clinton repealed Glass-Steagall. Ford is forever darkened by pardoning Nixon and didn't really do too much. As for Regan I personally despise him as a president for any number of reasons including a massive increase and militarization of the war on drugs, the Iran-Contra affair, popularizing the silly notion of welfare queens, voodoo economics, and a whole host of other things. Given that I'd probably give it to Clinton but eh could be argued but really doubt I would give it to Nixon.

He did prolonge, but he was also the first to actively try to end it. And it could be argued that would not even be an issue in the first place if Johnson didn't get so involved.

Ford You made an interesting point, might be one of the better simply because he did not do much, often the less you do the less you have a chance to mess up, the fact that most people don't talk much of him may be a point In his favor. And, I don't hold it against him pardoning his friend, I am sure anyone would do the same, and it's not like it was a significant crime.

Quote: Gandler

He did prolonge, but he was also the first to actively try to end it. And it could be argued that would not even be an issue in the first place if Johnson didn't get so involved.

Do you have any idea how nonsensical this sounds? Nixon sabotaged peace talks that were underway to eventually end the war specifically peace talks being done by Johnson. This would mean that Johnson was actively trying to end it. And you are right it wouldn't be a problem if Johnson didn't increase involvement though will mention we were fairly invested even before Johnson started upping troops, that does not suddenly make Nixons fault any less severe. If you start a fire and I pour gas on it I'm still at least partially to blame for how out of control the fire got. If you want to go that also prevents Johnson from being one of the top presidents sure but he was out of the running anyways since he was significantly more then 40 years ago.

Quote: Twirdman

Do you have any idea how nonsensical this sounds? Nixon sabotaged peace talks that were underway to eventually end the war specifically peace talks being done by Johnson. This would mean that Johnson was actively trying to end it.

Anyone can "end" a war by just agreeing to the enemy's terms. Nixon saw that we were getting nowhere so he reduced troops on the ground from almost the day he took office but started bombing the North back to the peace table. It worked.

Quote: AZDuffman

Anyone can "end" a war by just agreeing to the enemy's terms. Nixon saw that we were getting nowhere so he reduced troops on the ground from almost the day he took office but started bombing the North back to the peace table. It worked.

Yeah you know how that war ended right. I wouldn't give much credit to Nixon being strong and getting the enemy to bow to his will with bombings. Even after the Paris Peace accord the North Vietnamese rarely followed it and Saigon was captured less then 3 years later. So I guess its better to be tough and get nothing accomplished then to actually have a working deal.

I mean really for all the good that bombing did to get a deal couldn't we just have immediately pulled out troops when he took office ended bombings and let North Vietnam take Saigon. Would have been cheaper, less deadly, and just as effective.

Quote: Twirdman

You are right it wouldn't be a problem if Johnson didn't increase involvement though will mention we were fairly invested even before Johnson started upping troops, that does not suddenly make Nixons fault any less severe. If you start a fire and I pour gas on it I'm still at least partially to blame for how out of control the fire got.

That would also seem to be applicable to the Iraq and Afghanistan operations. But it is highly doubtful that we will see much written along those lines.

Quote: Twirdman

Yeah you know how that war ended right. I wouldn't give much credit to Nixon being strong and getting the enemy to bow to his will with bombings. Even after the Paris Peace accord the North Vietnamese rarely followed it and Saigon was captured less then 3 years later. So I guess its better to be tough and get nothing accomplished then to actually have a working deal.

I mean really for all the good that bombing did to get a deal couldn't we just have immediately pulled out troops when he took office ended bombings and let North Vietnam take Saigon. Would have been cheaper, less deadly, and just as effective.

Yes, Saigon was captured 3 years later after all military aid was cut off and they could no longer defend themselves. So yes, better to be tough and get nothing accomplished. If your enemy is not going to abide by a deal then the deal is useless. Somebody please tell the current WH who seems to think the deal signed or bill passed means all is unicorns and rainbows.

Quote: pacomartin

In 2011, through the agency of its United States Presidency Centre [USPC], the Institute for the Study of the Americas (located in the University of London’s School of Advanced Study) released the first ever U.K. academic survey to rate U.S. presidents. This polled the opinion of U.K. specialists in U.S. history and political studies to assess presidential performance and produced an overall rating on the basis of the responses.

Ronald Reagan Republican
Jimmy Carter Democratic
Bill Clinton Democratic
George H. W. Bush Republican
Richard Nixon Republican
Gerald Ford Republican
George W. Bush Republican

They also gave an interim assessment of Barack Obama, but his unfinished presidency was not included in the survey.
Had he been included, he would have been #1 of this group.

Of the 4256 things I just don't give a shit about, the opinion of UK academics on presidential performance is number 8.

Where is Trump?? I want to vote for him

Quote: cezar

Where is Trump?? I want to vote for him

Tr**p scares alot of people on this site. The mere mention of his name sends some into a mental freefall. Free speech is no longer permitted on this site. Kind of funny to see this thread pop up. Imagine it will be locked soon enough.

The best republican president was Reagan, hands down. The best Democratic was Clinton, hands down. Both presidents were able to work with opposition parties who desperately wanted to see the president fail, compromised, and passed legislation.

Ronald Reagan is certainly one of the most controversial and controversial figures of the 20th century. How can you not like him when his style of interaction with the people was remarkably exemplary! And when he brought economic prosperity back to the country!