Toggle navigation
Toggle navigation
Home
DCUM Forums
Nanny Forums
Events
About DCUM
Advertising
Search
Recent Topics
Hottest Topics
FAQs and Guidelines
Privacy Policy
Your current identity is: Anonymous
Login
Preview
Subject:
Forum Index
»
Political Discussion
Reply to "Jimmy Carter’s 100th birthday "
Subject:
Emoticons
More smilies
Text Color:
Default
Dark Red
Red
Orange
Brown
Yellow
Green
Olive
Cyan
Blue
Dark Blue
Violet
White
Black
Font:
Very Small
Small
Normal
Big
Giant
Close Marks
[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]Carter is still one of the worst Presidents, but Biden finally beat him for the bottom of the barrel.[/quote] Presidential scholars disagree with you. [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_rankings_of_presidents_of_the_United_States[/url] Trump is the ONLY president who only has ratings 41 and lower out of 46 presidents. He is categorically the worst president in history based on presidential scholar ratings. Biden has not done that badly, ranked 14th and 19th, but typically the ratings are not given until the President has left office. Carter ranked between 18th and 32nd and is considered about middle of the pack of Presidents. The other weak Presidents were Harrison - ranked between 35th and 41st FIllmore - ranked between 33rd and 39th Pierce - ranked between 38th and 42nd Buchanan - ranked between 40th and 44th (closest to Trump) Johnson - ranked between 24th and Harding - ranked between 37gth and 42nd It's arguable whether Buchanan or Trump was the worst President in history. Buchanan is typically blamed for the start of the Civil War. He didn't stop the South from seceding and he didn't give in to their demands. He basically frustrated both sides into the Civil War. He also championed states rights in deciding on Slavery. There are actually a lot of historic parallels between Trump and Buchanan, and they both made many of the same mistakes while in office. Not surprising that they are both rated at the bottom of the barrel for Presidents.[/quote] Had to go to the source for that Andrew Johnson *24* ranking. I thought it was a typo, but somehow that's where the Times 2008 survey has him listed. Most of the others have him in the 40s. He was terrible. [/quote]
Options
Disable HTML in this message
Disable BB Code in this message
Disable smilies in this message
Review message
Search
Recent Topics
Hottest Topics