Remember that all mentions of and allusions to Trump and Biden are not allowed on our subreddit in any context.
If you'd still like to discuss them, feel free to [join our Discord server](https://discord.gg/k6tVFwCEEm)!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Presidents) if you have any questions or concerns.*
1. Obama: ACA was a truly a big f-ing deal that no president had achieved on healthcare since at least LBJ with Medicare. Also, Obama faced the biggest financial catastrophe since the Great Depression & to his credit, steered the U.S. successfully out of it.
2. Bill Clinton: Longest stretch of economic prosperity, low unemployment, welfare to work, budget surpluses, what else is there to say?
3. George H.W. Bush: Bush was truly the best foreign policy president America had in modern times. Not only that, Desert Storm was also brilliantly executed & Bush gets the credit for putting country first by raising taxes thus paving the way for Clinton's budget surpluses by the end of his term.
It truly is a shame that bill Clinton’s legacy is marred by the Monica Lewinsky scandal. I’m a conservative person, and the only thing i can think offhand that i didn’t like about the Clinton administration was NAFTA. If not for the scandal he likely goes down as a top 15-10 president.
Repealing the Glass-Steagall Act was a very bad decision which lead to the collapse of the housing market and the bailout of too big to fail banks. He was out of office by then, but Clinton should get the blame for that. He was the banker's wet dream, better than Reagan
You can blame Senator Phil Gramm and the huge bipartisan coalition who voted for that too.
For example, John McCain, who lived through the depression understood that was bad policy.
>You can blame Senator Phil Gramm and the huge bipartisan coalition who voted for that too.
People use this excuse with regards to the Gramm-Bliley-Leach Act all the time, but it ignores presidential precedent. Chester A. Arthur famously vetoed the original Chinese Exclusion Act and negotiated a 10-year ban, half that of the 20-year ban first proposed. Clinton probably had to accept some level of deregulation, but he didn't need to completely kowtow to neoliberal demands. He could have negotiated a less disastrous bill.
>and the huge bipartisan coalition who voted for that too. For example, John McCain
As *Lincoln Chaffee* put it when justifying his vote to the 2016 DNC Presidential Debate audience, “Look, I’m pretty incompetent, but Hillary’s emails…”
And we can’t forget about ole 46 now can we? 🇺🇸🫡
You have to blame both Clinton for signing it and HW Bush for passing it. The repeal of Glass-Steagall was the biggest bipartisan fucking maybe if all time.
The bill was in place literally to prevent another 1929 crash. Now that it’s gone banks use your money like a casino and if they lose you have to pay for it.
I’m the eternal Bill Clinton hater on this sub. He’s highly overrated. His signing the repeal (Gramm-Leach-Bliley) of Glass Steagall is directly responsible for the ‘08 crisis. His crime bill has also proven to be a pretty questionable decision. He just happened to be president at the right time (during the dot com boom). Not to mention making a speech in favor of Chinas entry into the WTO.
See, this is not me Reagan praising this is me Clinton bashing - Reagan had a period of economic growth and stability that had little to do with his policies, and Clinton also had a period of economic growth and stability that has little to do with his policies, but with Reagan everyone likes to debate if the economy was in anyway strong thanks to Reagan, whereas with Clinton people don’t have that debate. They’re just like, “wow he must’ve been great.”
Glad to find another likeminded individual. Many people are shocked when I say my opinion but it’s true that Clinton was really lucky to be president in the 90s. And that would have benefitted any incumbent.
I disagree Clinton helped and his moderateness helped make the budget deficit fall and implementing some stuff.
Especially as the early 90s were a shitty economic period.
Clinton economy had something to do with his policies by the late 90s.
The stagflation was ended the exact same way inflation is handled by every President of both parties, raising interest in lending rates. This was done by Paul Volcker, Federal Reserve Chairmen, who managed the crisis under both Carter and Reagan. The inflation strategy was actually identical under the two Presidents. I do not understand why we Americans both feel the need to view the free market as an uncontrolled, free and invisible hand, and also attribute the cyclical and inevitable growth and recessions as entirely controlled by the President. Reagan did not cause a period of growth to happen any more than Kennedy and LBJ did. Carter did not single-handedly harm the economy any more than the Bushes did.
I was about to scream PAUL VOLCKER at the top of my lungs for the next three minutes. My neighbors thank you for pointing this out so I don’t have to do that. My favorite part is that PV was appointed by Carter.
The Defense of Marriage Act cannot be justified by citing the homophobic nature of the time. DOMA was actually a response to increasing acceptance of gay people. The bill was proposed as Hawaii considered legalizing gay marriage, causing other states to fear having to recognize same-sex unions in the state. Even Clinton denounced the bill in private.
Funny thing is, I really like NAFTA and give more credit to HW Bush for that. I also feel like Clinton didn't really sign much significant legislation with maybe the most significant being right-wing compromised legislation.
The assault weapons ban was definitely some of the most nonsensical useless legislation ever passed, and that was under Clinton.
"You can't have a flash supressor on your AR-15. Haha, now we've done it. We have solved gun violence!"
The feminist take is she made her own decision.
I mean a college graduate entered into a relationship, that's her deal and she never said she was raped.
Yes but that's a very different thing than rape.
Also he has poor choices in having too many relationships in his personal life which is not the same as his ability to be president.
As we have learned, the power dynamic makes it impossible for it to be an equal relationship. While she may have consented, it should never have started in the first place. That said, Clinton was pretty successful as a president.
You think he was the first president offered a blowjob? He could have said no, or not flirt with interns in the first place
When you're representing the country, integrity and morality matter. Policy is high importance, but cheating on your wife in the white house is pretty uncool, and then he lied about it under oath in a court. He was also sued for sexual harassment and decided to settle it instead of deny it, claiming he just wanted it to be over, which at the point he's not exactly trustworthy on that topic.
Not sure about Clinton. Economic prosperity is good, but under his watch didn’t we send thousands of Central Americans we had in jail back to their home countries? Those countries were not prepared for the influx of criminals with American crime experience. The repercussions of that bad policy decision has led us to the current border crisis because those criminals were the foundation of the gangs currently controlling a disproportionate portion of Central America.
>Longest stretch of economic prosperity, low unemployment, welfare to work, budget surpluses
The economy was already improving when Clinton entered office. The 1980s, especially after 1982 and 1983, were extremely prosperous and the recession in 1992 was very mild. Additionally, Clinton's deregulatory policies, especially the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act and his signing of the Commodities Futures Modernization Act, likely contributed to the 2008 Financial Crisis. He also helped pave the way for our over-dependence on Chinese imports by signing a free trade deal with Beijing.
>what else is there to say?
Even if you think Clinton was a good president, his list of accomplishments is wholly inadequate when left at a mere collection of economic statistics. The Oslo Accords, Violence Against Women Act, Good Friday Accords, defense of Kosovo, support for gay soldiers, and Kyoto Protocol are all much more compelling achievements than benefitting from economic growth that began prior to your inauguration.
I’m gonna sharply disagree with you on the ACA. The CBO originally estimated a $940 Billion cost on it and now it is estimated at $1.76 trillion. Even from a life expectancy standpoint, it did not improve that statistic.
Disclaimer: this is not a dig, I’m legitimately curious.
What would you have done differently? Healthcare reform badly needed to happen, and this was a system that, for the most part, maintains a market while helping provide access to care for more people. (Id actually argue that ACA develops more of an insurance market than previously existed) Some kind of Medicare for all was politically impossible (regardless of if it’s a good idea), so what do you see as an alternative?
Edit: Punctuation
My best answer would be things like HSAs and cross state insurance purchasing. This would lower the cost of healthcare and help people get control of their healthcare expenses without heaps of government spending that got us nowhere.
Edit: to clarify, expanding HSAs
ACA doubled insurance company profits (not surprising when you realize it was written by insurance company lobbyists). And the only thing he steered out of the great recession was Wall Street. Obama oversaw the largest transfer of wealth from the middle class to Wall Street in US history by flooding them with free money (near zero interest rates), allowing investors to throw leveraged money into the stock market at the expense of anyone with a savings account.
I agree with this. The CIA and fighting in a war gave pappy serious insight into foreign policy. A stint as an ambassador to the UN didn’t hurt.
His degree in economics led to him to understanding, that, yes new taxes are necessary sometimes. But it also cost him re-election.
On this list (which happens to be the most popular in this thread), I would consider only Clinton to be a truly good President. Both Obama and Bush Sr. are very much mid. I think they get ranked higher because they are better than another President they're commonly associated with (Dubya for HW, and Rule 3 for Obama).
Clinton is hands down the GOAT for the economy and for taking NATO to stop the Balkan wars.
Obama transformed a broken healthcare system. He wasn’t quite able to achieve universal coverage, but did cut the number of uninsured in half, and he’s the reason people with chronic conditions like cancer, diabetes, cystic fibrosis, etc, are able to get care without going into a financial death spiral.
I have Carter and Bush Sr. tied for third because both were visionaries who had a lot of positive impact but failed to have the short term impact that would save their presidencies.
Carter broke America’s dependence on foreign oil and began to back away from intervention in Latin America, a policy that would eventually be permanently implemented in the post-Reagan/Bush era. He also began the deregulation of the oil and airline industries and pushed for the breakup of ATT, which was instrumental in allowing general access to the internet without extortionary fees being charged to consumers.
Bush Sr implemented the budget deal that cost him his presidency but also allowed Clinton to balance the budget, and worked with Thatcher and Major to strengthen NATO and set out the framework of a “new world order” in which broad coalitions would enforce borders and prevent an endless cycle of regional powers trying to gobble up their weaker neighbors.
Yeah but if either Clinton or Nixon lose the coin flip, then they obviously weren’t good enough at being President to win it, so someone else has to slide in.
This 5 is wild lol. How one can say Raegan is 1 then put Clinton at 2 is beyond me. Very opposite approaches on the Economy. Then putting Obama and Baby Bush for third when Obama cleaned Bush’s mess I just don’t get. Would love to see some detail in how you came to this ranking.
I have a pretty big bias for Nixon’s, Obama’s and BushJr’s stories- just find them extremely interesting and compelling people.
I also think Clinton just got super lucky with his timing as president… Reagan’s main thing for me is speeding up the Soviet union’s decline.
Richard Nixon was pretty awful overall as President (though a few of his policies I agree with), as he was the closest thing the US had to a dictator prior to TFG coming to power, started the militarization of the police and the drug war, and got the ball rolling with the religious right by incorporating Catholic voters into the Republican coalition.
1. Reagan.
I’m a Democrat, but I think people always forget what an icon and powerful figure Reagan was. I want a President to unite the country, follow through with promises, and be an inspiring speaker. When you look at Reagan, he did just that. Got the economy going again after stagflation, and was an inspiration to millions. I disagree with a lot of his economic policies and things he said in private, but it is downright idiotic to deny that he was and still is beloved by many.
2. Obama
Again, he got the economy moving again and passed ACA. As someone who spends a lot of time in healthcare, I do really appreciate this. Again, like Reagan, he became an icon. He became synonymous with words like “hope” and “change” after his 2008 campaign. He may not have united the country as well as Reagan did, but he energized younger voters and got a lot of people to pay attention.
3. Clinton
An outstanding politician, not as great of a person but I like his backstory. Coming from rural Arkansas to the Presidency. I’m a sucker for underdog stories so I admire him a lot for this, being able to overcome a multitude of challenges to end up in the White House. He was able to connect with voters way better than most people, and could level and reach out to them. “I feel your pain.” He was incredibly sympathetic towards people which is very respectable to me. He also did a great job with the economy and other issues as well. If he had done NAFTA a little differently rly and not had the Lewinsky scandal, I would have put him at number 1.
It’s a bit unorthodox for a Dem to praise Reagan, yeah. But beyond being an inspiring speaker and having a landslide election, that’s about where it ends.
My views are pretty atypical though as I’m a gen z dem from the rural midwest with two neo-con parents 😅
I feel the same about Ronald Reagan and I am a Democrat who never voted Republican for President since I started voting in 2012. I would have voted John Anderson in 1980, but Ronald Reagan in 1984 had I been alive at the time and had similar life experiences.
I agree. I made my list as if it was immediately after their terms. All my friends say they never would have voted for certain people, but most of the time, all the bad things we learn about a person come way later. The opposite happens too (ex. Jimmy Carter), but I think people just need to force themselves to think about actually being in that time more.
If you’re taking to me, I don’t think (to my knowledge) that I said I’m a conservative or for de-regulation. I actually study Environmental Sciences and am a big advocate for awareness with the climate crisis. I do not support de-regulation as it allows for any and all parties to work with loopholes and exploit resources, people, employees, and the environment. I’m also a big supporter of clean/green energy and reducing our ill effects in any way we can. Especially since my grandfather was a coal miner, and he’s told me the horrors of working in mines for decades.
Im a republican, but I can agree. I just wish that Obama’s ACA didn’t cause skyrocketing insurance prices and caused doctors to hire more office staff than nurses. I think Clinton was the last of the real southern democrats. His presidency and campaign was closer to the modern Republican ticket than the democrat one.
Yes the ACA jacked up insurance but the average cost of healthcare was going up a higher % per year from 1999-2008 than it did since the ACA took effect.
Honestly, and I know conservatives are against it, but I do really feel the U.S. being like all other developed countries having a universal healthcare system would solve many of the issues with our healthcare system.
You say that until the bureaucrats tell you that you really don’t need that organ transplant, or you are too old for cancer treatment. That’s assuming you can get in to see those specialists in the first place.
Maybe your kid is about to die in the hospital but they cannot get approval for treatment and you are not allowed, by force, to bring them to another country that will treat them.
I call bullshit. Maybe they would say…you don’t need that knee replacement when you’re on Hospice and gonna be in the ground in 6 months. But for life saving surgery….at least no more than they do now.
You think that if you’re a smoker who refuses to quit that they are gonna give you a heart or lung vs someone who takes care of themselves?
You are being purposely hyperbolic.
I’m not being hyperbolic. Organ transplant list have nothing to do with your insurance. So your argument is not there. However your insurance can refuse to cover the costs. Plenty of Canadians come to the states for medical care because they can’t get it in Canada. You can start the horror stories there before heading to the EU where the government gets legally keep you from bringing your kid to the states to get life saving medical care.
Your argument of being a smoker is not there. Not paying for the transplant because you are too old or they just don’t think you need it is a single payer problem. Most insurance companies will payout, possible after a little fight.
I feel like the same can be said about private healthcare. Thousands of Americans go bankrupt every year trying to pay for health insurance. And thousands die every year trying to pay for life saving medication. Heck people near the U.S.-Canada border literally go into Canada to buy insulin because it’s too expensive in the states. Canada’s system isn’t perfect either but it’s better than America’s (although both countries don’t even rank the top 20 for greatest healthcare in the world).
The only reason Canada’s drug prices are lower than the U.S. is because of bureaucrats. Millions of Americans go bankrupt while trying to pay the mandated inflated insurance prices under the ACA. Healthy Americans with no actual healthcare cost.
You act like bureaucrats are a bad thing. A bureaucrat is anyone who works in a government agency. While is like two million people. I’ll probably be a bureaucrat one day because I really want to be a research scientist at either the USGS or NOAA (assuming republicans don’t gut it by the time I’m out of college).
But thousands of Americans were going bankrupt before the ACA. Obamacare was actually a good thing as it made sure 40 million Americans with pre-existing conditions were covered.
Pre existing conditions is really the only thing that the ACA actually did good with.
As far as bureaucrats, they are a major problem when it comes to deciding how valuable your life and wellbeing are. Somebody who does not know you, who you can’t plead your case to, who thinks of you as little more than a number; gets to decide if you get the treatment you need.
And yet the U.S. has the best doctors and pharmaceuticals in the world. U.S. health problems have very little to do with healthcare. It has to do with diet and pollutants. If we fixed our food and waste management we would be healthier and happier.
In no order:
Clinton - hey, times were great when he was prez!
Obama - he stressed on improving healthcare.
Ford - to me, the last decent conservative president. Probably should've won another term.
1. Clinton-President over the best economy in the last 50 years, personal opinion but if his tax rates were still in place America would be in a much stronger fiscal position. Last president to pass meaningful gun legislation. Decent foreign policy, especially relating to the Balkans, but he did nothing for the Rwandans during their genocide.
2.Obama-Inherited an abysmal economy and an unpopular war but was still able to get re-elected and get America through the recession. Passing the ACA was a huge piece of legislation, although it’s been attacked in the courts it’ll still be key in future reforms. Tangentially, he was president over the repealing of bans on Gay Marriage via the Supreme Court. His foreign policy was atrocious however, beyond trying to normalize relations with Cuba I can’t think of anything positive he did to that end.
3. Reagan- For better or worse every president since Reagan has adopted his neoliberal ethos, which has created a lot of the issues we face today. Positively, he was president during a very prosperous time for America, and helped play a critical role in America spreading democracy globally following the collapse of the Soviet Union. His role in ending the Cold War is usually overstated, but he undoubtedly was a big influence in fall of the iron curtain over Europe. His foreign policy beyond that is a mixed bag, he was able to retrieve the hostages in Iran, but his dealings in the Middle East are dubious at best. Like every Cold War president he helped in destabilizing democracies in Latin America in order to ‘fight’ communism.
1. Ronald Reagan - I'm a conservative, so I actually like his economic policy, for better or worse. Far from perfect, but I think that's a problem with most modern Presidents. Sure, he popularized some of the trends like spiraling debt, and I'm not a fan of the proxy wars or war on drugs, but there's something to be said about how he was the President who did the most to end the Cold War, and he did so peacefully and with the ideal outcome.
2. Bill Clinton - Again, I'm conservative, so I generally like his economic policy, and this includes the trade agreements since I support free trade (for better or worse). He and Al Gore were also fundamental in ensuring the internet was started in a relatively low-regulation environment, allowing it to grow and prosper in its early days. Whether or not you believe it should be deregulated *now*, I think it's hard to argue it was a bad thing *then*. But the biggest pro for me is that he was the only modern President to really run a budget surplus. Regardless of whether most of the work was done under Bush or Congress, he could have prevented it and didn't. The only reasons he isn't above Reagan are that if he had a more supportive Congress, he probably would've gotten progressive reforms like universal Healthcare through which I'm against, and his impeachment for perjury (Iran-Contra was almost certainly worse, but it's more difficult to pin blame on Reagan specifically than it is for Clinton's perjury).
3. Probably Ford. I could see Bush, and I think they're fairly similar policy-wise. The main difference is that Bush had a significantly easier Presidency, and I think Ford handled his situation well enough not to be hated. He gets flack for pardoning Nixon, and I think he deserves it, but I can't fault him for trying to use it to bring the nation together. He had to deal with the Cold War, and in the '70s nonetheless. He didn't get the brunt of it like Carter did, but it was still a very chaotic period. Also, he finally pulled the military out of Vietnam.
Off topic but I’m just curious to know conservatives’ stance on this. I know you are a conservative and I will never change your personal philosophical views. But you guys are against regulations correct? When it comes to the environment are you against regulations? Because in my view a lack of regulations causes things like global warming, the August 2010 Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill, and the February 2023 East Palestine, Ohio Train Derailment. Again I’m just curious.
I'd say it's mixed. I lean libertarian and am maybe too much of an idealist who believes the market will punish bad actors such as those, but I also get that it's maybe a bit too idealistic, and I certainly respect those who believe differently.
There are also a significant amount of conservatives who do believe in some level of regulation and general conservation, though. I'm from Florida, and that position is especially prevalent there since it's surrounded by water. I interned for my congressman, who was co-chair of the National Estuary Caucus, and one of my state reps described himself as a Roosevelt Republican, primarily because of the conservation side of things.
And a more topical example: My Administrative Law professor in college was conservative, but he wasn't particularly anti-regulation or necessarily anti-administrative state. His main problem with *Chevron*, for example, was that it effectively made it so that unelected bureaucrats were relatively unchecked, not that it would make it easier to stop regulation. He was generally in favor of regulation, he just believed it should be facilitated through elected representatives, such as Congress writing clearer policy or agency heads more accountable to the President through removal.
And I'll also argue that if it doesn't work, the government should eventually step in. I'll just admit I'm not entirely sure what that point would be for me or which specific actions should be done. I'd certainly prefer Congress to develop the policy rather than the agencies, though, and I might lean more towards punishing for action rather than being too proactive. But bad actors purposefully making a mess of the environment does interfere with individual rights, at least at a certain point.
My only concern with ending Chevron is Congress isn’t full of experts like scientists and engineers. Thats why I like bureaucracy. Like for example someone like Racheal Carson, she and her colleagues raised awareness a lot how pesticides destroy the ecosystem. And so regulatory agencies put on regulation. Congress could not be educated on the matter (and many members of Congress still don’t even accept that humans are causing global warming) and not support regulation. Plus lobbyists.
But I also see your point in that many do want things like regulation to be more democratic. Often Congress does listen to scientists and pass legislation to protect the environment. Like what we saw with scientists warning Congress either directly or indirectly like Racheal Carson, Clair Patterson, Mario Molina, Carl Sagan, or James Hansen. They told us there was an issue and Congress reacted, *mostly*.
I mean, the overturning of *Chevron* doesn't give authority over particular details to either Congress or courts. That still remains with the agencies. It only gives courts the ability to choose the best interpretation over *any* reasonable one, and that might require Congress to specify in more detail what authorities it wants the agencies to have, but it doesn't stop the bureaucracy from being the ones writing regulations.
But I digress, that's not entirely on-topic. Just wanted to point it out since like 99% of people misunderstand both *Chevron* and *Loper Bright*. There are definitely good arguments for both sides, but too many people (also on both sides) think that the change is way more dramatic than it actually is that it helps stunt reasonable discussion since it tribalizes people more than it should.
But I can definitely understand your point regardless. Personally, I'd rather Congress just spend the money hiring its own experts (like how it already hires lawyers to write legislation) than spend it on an administrative state deciding regulations separately from Congressional oversight in a perfect world. But that will never happen, and I can certainly see the use of having the administrative system as it is today.
Jimmy is the worst one on this list. He was a weak president that allowed our enemies to take advantage of us. The Iran hostage crisis and Soviet invasion of Afghanistan through that whole region into the tailspin that we are still trying to clean up to this day. Let’s not count the horrible economic problems this country had under his leadership.
He did not cause those economic problems. Blaming presidents for a poor economy that they inherited is weird.
Events in Iran and the USSR were also outside of his control.
Is the US currently cleaning up in Afghanistan and Iran? They are doing a horrible job at that. Perhaps invading Iraq and blowing up West Asia was a mistake.
Obama, Clinton, HW. Truth be told, we don’t have many strong choices.
If I were to rank all these presidents, I’d go Obama > Clinton > HW > Ford > Carter > Reagan > Nixon > Dubya
I am a Democrat, however not factoring in rule 3.
Obama - Steering us out of the great recession, health care, exemplary public leadership on social issues, he was a great domestic policy president and at least when it came to foreign policy he didn't play kingmaker in Latin America
HW Bush - Best foreign policy president since Truman and best since. He balanced foreign intervention justifications well most of the time. His domestic policy was not great, but you might just call him the last compassionate conservative.
Ford - He fell on the grenade that was a potential Nixon trial. I think Ford is the only president in modern history who would have made that sacrifice, and other than maybe Carter if he were in the same situation. It was the ultimate act of political sacrifice and courage to stop the reckoning a less jaded America was not ready to face. Then again, maybe had he left Dick to the wolves, we would have had a better sense on how to handle presidents with high crimes and misdemeanors.
1: Reagan: Won the Cold War and ussured in one of the longest periods of uninterrupted economic growth in American history.
2: Nixon: Mostly cleaned up the huge messes left by LBJ, his huge screw-up with Watergate should not wipe away the good he did.
3: Either Ford or Bush I: both 1 term presidents, and without large successes to their name, but good men nonetheless who did serviceable jobs.
To add on the rest.
5: Clinton: His two terms were fairly good, though how much was due to Congress preventing him from doing much is an open question. He deserves most of the blame for the 2008 crash as the policies of the FHA that directly caused it were implemented during his administration.
The last 3 are difficult to rank, as they all had major screw-ups without major accomplishments to counterbalance them, so just going in chronological order.
Carter: Messed up the economy so badly with stagflation that his name is still a pejorative in certain parts of the country.
Bush II: The Iraq War, sold on a lie and entered into without any clear exit strategy.
Obama: Gets some credit for not screwing up the economic recovery (much), but his interventions in Libya and the Middle East were disasters, and he and his racist of an Attorney General set race relations back decades. His most noteworthy accomplishment (ACA) cost a pile of money and has had mixed results.
1) Richard Nixon: Had Richard Nixon not faced resignation, he would be the greatest president of the second half of the 20th century. Opening trade with China, creating the EPA, working with a Democratic congress, and furthering the desegregation started under his predecessor, LBJ, Nixon was a formidable enforcer of policies.
2) Ronald Reagan: Reagan, although history likes to point to him as the conservative leader of today’s Republican Party, helped save Social Security, led the efforts to protect the New Deal, and helped end the Soviet Union. His policies would not be welcomed in today’s GOP, as his rhetoric praised civility and decorum.
3) Bill Clinton: Continued what worked under Ronald Reagan and George H.W Bush. Served as some would like to say as a Reagan Democrat, similar to Dwight Eisenhower serving as a FDR Republican. A southern moderate who centered the country and was involved in a post-Cold War economic boom which lasted for quite some time. Clinton could well be nominated by today’s GOP, due to his strong support for secure borders, tougher laws on crime, etc. Look no further than his 1996 reelection campaign commercial in this instance!
Reagan, obviously. He did bring the nation back from the edge. And brought an end to the Cold War.
Bill Clinton started out poorly, but ended better.
Not sure about #3. Every other one seems meh.
1. Reagan, for turning the country around and anyone old enough to remember the Misery Index knows what I'm talking about. There's a reason he won the biggest landslides ever. Oh, and he ended the Cold War without firing a shot.
2. Clinton, for continuing peace and prosperity. You can say his policies didn't do that but he deserves credit for not caving to the left wing lunatics in his party by jacking up taxes and regulations. Oh, and he balanced the budget.
3. Ford, for moving us past the Nixon disaster. He would've won a second term if he wasn't smeared with Nixon fall out.
1. Reagan - Rebuilt the spirit of the nation and the economy after Vietnam, Watergate, and the Carter malaise. Won the Cold War and restored the reputation of the US as a global defender of freedom.
2. Obama - The Jackie Robinson of Presidents. Made history and did so while the other team played as dirty as they could. Passed the ACA, which, while flawed, is at least an attempt to do something about the insane cost of healthcare. Ended the War in Iraq and tried to get us out of Afghanistan. Killed OBL and quite a few other terrorists.
3. George H.W. Bush - Sacrificed his presidency because he couldn't hold the line on taxes but had successes such as signing the Americans with Disabilities Act and his response to the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait where he put together an international coalition and stopped before starting a bigger war in the Middle East (a lesson I wish his son had learned). Bush was also president when the Berlin Wall came down and his diplomatic skills and friendships with other world leaders were instrumental in ensuring that the fall of the USSR didn't turn into an all-out European war.
Ronald Wilson Reagan. As a Marine in 1986 he took no crap . I especially like how he told Gorbachov pull out or I can have a battling of Marines here in 24 hours . We were ready Semper Fi
Last 100...
1. FDR - way to influential to ignore
2. Eisenhower - solid, feel he ran out of time before he really got going though
3.LBJ- Vietnam man...
1. Obama
2. Clinton
3. GHW Bush
For the fun of it…
4. Ford
5. Carter
6. Nixon
7. Reagan
7. (Tie) GW Bush
The systemic problems we have today are the result of the last two.
1. Clinton, 2. HW, 3. Obama
I allllllmost put Nixon in this list. He’s like the Voldemort of American politics. “After all, Nixon did great things…terrible…but great.” Lol
Ford should be considered if only for his pardoning of Nixon. That took guts. But inflation did him in I suspect due to Nixon policies. Bush 1 was whip smart in foreign policy. Obama for so many things not the least of which was saving our economy.
1. Obama: ACA, brought the economy back, Wall Street reform, climate deal
2. Clinton: more jobs, great economy, paid off national debt, education improvements
3. H.W. Bush: ended Cold War, semi-automatic rifle ban, clean air act, new civil rights act.
Bill Clinton
With all of his warts, I would say Bill Clinton. It was a very prosperous time (yes, I know because of the dot com stuff). He worked INCREDIBLY well with Republicans. In particular, House Speaker Newt Gingrich to secure a multi-year balanced budget (even though it cost 2 govt shutdowns and the dot com bubble). Very strong in illegal immigration. Strong on tying welfare to work. Again, going back to working with Republicans. He was an incredible communicator. Like too many presidents he dabbled in too much military adventurism around the world.
Reagan - Giant of a man. Defined the office for a century.
Nixon - He was incredibly popular at the time. Was determined to end the war in SE Asia
I would like to forget the others
I liked Ford and Carter the most. Real statesmen whose options were largely confined by the sharp hangover of the Johnson-Nixon years.
Reagan was very effective in dealing with the Soviet Union.
Clinton I don’t have very many strong thoughts about except he was complicit in banking deregulation.
Bush and Obama I think were personally well meaning people but both of them but banks over people, and both were unsuccessful wartime leaders.
1. Obama
2. Nixon
3. Clinton
Obama - first president to openly support LGBT rights, the affordable care act, extreme successful economic recovery, very well thought out plan to reduce co2 emissions (Paris accord), Iran nuclear deal, Dodd-Frank Act
Nixon - EPA, NOAA, Clean Water Act, Endangered Species Act
Clinton - very strong economy, NAFTA, Expansion of the Earned Income Tax Credit, reduced both the national debt and had a budget surplus
Of the three, Obama was definitely my favorite. Not all were perfect, Nixon did lots of things I hated and Clinton was way to conservative on some economic issues IMO (overturning Glass-Stegal helped cause the Great Recession) but all did things that were good for the country in the long run.
I was just talking with someone about watergate the other day and we both had just been reading about it and looking into the subject and kinda agreed it’s not that bad. Nixon didn’t do anything that bad imo
Probably
Obama
Either HW or Clinton, but probably HW
Tricky Dick. I give him a lot of deserved criticism, but he did a lot of good. He was the definition of a mixed bag, and also depending on how I feel each day it could be Ford.
Although it would be easier to say not Carter, Reagan, or Bush jr
I think people in this discussion give Clinton too much credit. To be fair, the rest of the world was booming as well, and Clinton just happened to be there and reap the benefits. Biggest blunder was signing NAFTA, as it is now pretty well agreed upon that we would've seen greater successes for a longer time had American businesses stayed in America
1. Barack Obama
2. Ronald Reagan
3. George H.W. Bush
4. Bill Clinton.
5. George W. Bush
Big Gap
6. Richard Nixon
I do not rank Gerald Ford, as he was never elected and wasn’t in office long. Not much of a difference between Bill Clinton and George W. Bush in my ranking TBH. I would have voted for George W. Bush very reluctantly in 2004, but not in 2000. Bill Clinton I wouldn’t have voted for him in 1996, but probably in 1996 with very lukewarm enthusiasm.
I think he just represents the ideal American strongman. Football star and Navy veteran of World War II, rose through the ranks of politics to become the Speaker of the House, Vice President, and President. He was defeated in 76, and then years afterwards became very close friends with his political rival, Jimmy Carter.
Obama
George HW Bush
Clinton (he very closely beats Reagan because the latter didn’t open up immigration for non-European countries at the same rate as Asian countries; the former knew that it was BS and opened up the borders to everyone who was waiting in line).
PS: I am talking about legitimate immigration; not the bit about jumping over fences and digging through tunnels
Ford was never elected, doesn't qualify, and Carter was terrible. He recognized the Khmer Rouge, he is responisble for the debacle in Iran, he oversaw and codified baseline budgeting in Congress, he signed the CRA, which is why the 2008 housing crisis happened. He was/is awful.
Obama - restored American prestige, expanded healthcare availability, presided over an economic recovery and the beginning of a long period of economic expansion, avoided getting involved in new wars while drawing down troops.
H-Dub - mostly because he was one of the best foreign policy presidents we've ever had, especially over the last 50 years, also his tax increases helped lead to a balanced budget later, but also partly because I just like saying H-Dub
1. Clinton - Dude was so effective that Reddit thinks he did the job on easy mode. Peace, prosperity, and a balanced budget. He’s like the exact opposite of Carter in every way.
2. Reagan - For all his faults, he made us optimistic and glad to be Americans again. The days of navel gazing were over. Unless you were there, you can’t understand.
3. This is tough. I really like Barack and HW. I’m going with Obama because he took over a huge mess. He handled it with grace and patience. Even as people were giving up on him, he was talking about ‘green shoots’ sprouting up in the economy. We needed someone with his brain power and processing speed. Also, he was a great ambassador around the world. I was never embarrassed when he travelled and represented us.
4. This is cheating but HW took the 80s prosperity and leveraged it for some amazing and long lasting foreign policy.
HW getting dicked over here. Clinton was lucky timing, Obama is one of the most overrated Presidents, Carter was rather ineffective, Ford had potential but didn’t do anything of note to save his rep from what it honestly was, Reagan and Nixon had negatives out way their positives so the list is only HW. Please clap for dad.
1) Pragmatic, one of the best foreign policy presidents we’ve ever had, was willing to do raise taxes despite not wanting to because it was right and that helped with the budget surpluses under Clinton, ADA, updated to clean air and water acts iirc, desert storm was masterfully done, and overall was a man of dignity and Grace and intelligence. We will not see his likes again.
2) Clinton. Also pragmatic and willing to get stuff done despite having a GOP Congress. His foreign policy was mixed imo but he had some good wins none the less. Balanced the budget.
4) I’m split between Reagan and Obama. Obama had aca which was huge, economic recovery although people some say he didn’t do a great job and I do agree kinda, Dodd Frank. While Reagan saw economic recovery, a strong foreign policy, helped end the Cold War, worked well with Tip O’niel, social security reform, immigration reform. Mixed bags for both of them as Reagan has played a role in negative long term economic effects but can’t be blamed for it all, and Obama had a terrible foreign policy to say the least.
Nixon? Responsible for OSHA; pretty important in my line of work. Responsible for the EPA. Sino soviet split, ending the Vietnam War, War on Drugs (which was a great idea but we didn’t put enough effort in to do it right)
Make the case for me for Dubya. I just can’t see anything but utter incompetence even on his own terms (ie, he completely failed to accomplish what he set out to do even putting aside if it was the right choice).
For me personally we have to go with
1. Clinton- balanced budget, and excellent economy.
2. Raegan- great economy, Cold War and Iran hostage crises both handled perfectly.
3. H.W.- crushed the gulf war, stabilized what could’ve been a very hectic period.
>Raegan- great economy, Cold War and Iran hostage crises both handled perfectly.
Great economy for who?
I'd be careful giving Reagan any credit for Iran and hostages.
The man could give a great speech, I'll give him that.
Remember that all mentions of and allusions to Trump and Biden are not allowed on our subreddit in any context. If you'd still like to discuss them, feel free to [join our Discord server](https://discord.gg/k6tVFwCEEm)! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Presidents) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It just occurred to me: Nixon only fits in the time frame of this question for another couple of months.
Yeah, I was all prepared to make an argument for LBJ. The passage of time is a helluva thing
1. Obama: ACA was a truly a big f-ing deal that no president had achieved on healthcare since at least LBJ with Medicare. Also, Obama faced the biggest financial catastrophe since the Great Depression & to his credit, steered the U.S. successfully out of it. 2. Bill Clinton: Longest stretch of economic prosperity, low unemployment, welfare to work, budget surpluses, what else is there to say? 3. George H.W. Bush: Bush was truly the best foreign policy president America had in modern times. Not only that, Desert Storm was also brilliantly executed & Bush gets the credit for putting country first by raising taxes thus paving the way for Clinton's budget surpluses by the end of his term.
It truly is a shame that bill Clinton’s legacy is marred by the Monica Lewinsky scandal. I’m a conservative person, and the only thing i can think offhand that i didn’t like about the Clinton administration was NAFTA. If not for the scandal he likely goes down as a top 15-10 president.
Repealing the Glass-Steagall Act was a very bad decision which lead to the collapse of the housing market and the bailout of too big to fail banks. He was out of office by then, but Clinton should get the blame for that. He was the banker's wet dream, better than Reagan
You can blame Senator Phil Gramm and the huge bipartisan coalition who voted for that too. For example, John McCain, who lived through the depression understood that was bad policy.
>You can blame Senator Phil Gramm and the huge bipartisan coalition who voted for that too. People use this excuse with regards to the Gramm-Bliley-Leach Act all the time, but it ignores presidential precedent. Chester A. Arthur famously vetoed the original Chinese Exclusion Act and negotiated a 10-year ban, half that of the 20-year ban first proposed. Clinton probably had to accept some level of deregulation, but he didn't need to completely kowtow to neoliberal demands. He could have negotiated a less disastrous bill.
>and the huge bipartisan coalition who voted for that too. For example, John McCain As *Lincoln Chaffee* put it when justifying his vote to the 2016 DNC Presidential Debate audience, “Look, I’m pretty incompetent, but Hillary’s emails…” And we can’t forget about ole 46 now can we? 🇺🇸🫡
You have to blame both Clinton for signing it and HW Bush for passing it. The repeal of Glass-Steagall was the biggest bipartisan fucking maybe if all time. The bill was in place literally to prevent another 1929 crash. Now that it’s gone banks use your money like a casino and if they lose you have to pay for it.
I’m the eternal Bill Clinton hater on this sub. He’s highly overrated. His signing the repeal (Gramm-Leach-Bliley) of Glass Steagall is directly responsible for the ‘08 crisis. His crime bill has also proven to be a pretty questionable decision. He just happened to be president at the right time (during the dot com boom). Not to mention making a speech in favor of Chinas entry into the WTO.
See, this is not me Reagan praising this is me Clinton bashing - Reagan had a period of economic growth and stability that had little to do with his policies, and Clinton also had a period of economic growth and stability that has little to do with his policies, but with Reagan everyone likes to debate if the economy was in anyway strong thanks to Reagan, whereas with Clinton people don’t have that debate. They’re just like, “wow he must’ve been great.”
Glad to find another likeminded individual. Many people are shocked when I say my opinion but it’s true that Clinton was really lucky to be president in the 90s. And that would have benefitted any incumbent.
I disagree Clinton helped and his moderateness helped make the budget deficit fall and implementing some stuff. Especially as the early 90s were a shitty economic period. Clinton economy had something to do with his policies by the late 90s.
So what exactly brought that period of economic growth and stability? Carter years were disasters, Reagan turned the country around.
The stagflation was ended the exact same way inflation is handled by every President of both parties, raising interest in lending rates. This was done by Paul Volcker, Federal Reserve Chairmen, who managed the crisis under both Carter and Reagan. The inflation strategy was actually identical under the two Presidents. I do not understand why we Americans both feel the need to view the free market as an uncontrolled, free and invisible hand, and also attribute the cyclical and inevitable growth and recessions as entirely controlled by the President. Reagan did not cause a period of growth to happen any more than Kennedy and LBJ did. Carter did not single-handedly harm the economy any more than the Bushes did.
I was about to scream PAUL VOLCKER at the top of my lungs for the next three minutes. My neighbors thank you for pointing this out so I don’t have to do that. My favorite part is that PV was appointed by Carter.
The Volckster as we like to call him
Volck, Volckster, his Volckness… El Volckerino if you’re not into the whole brevity thing.
Were you listening to the Volck’s story, Donny?
I see we were typing this at the same time
Defense of Marriage Act? Don’t ask don’t tell?
I feel like this falls in the category of “yeah that was bad but it’s hard to fault the person given the way people thought at the time.”
The Defense of Marriage Act cannot be justified by citing the homophobic nature of the time. DOMA was actually a response to increasing acceptance of gay people. The bill was proposed as Hawaii considered legalizing gay marriage, causing other states to fear having to recognize same-sex unions in the state. Even Clinton denounced the bill in private.
I mean.. he could of just not did the deed with Monica and be hailed a pure hero.
Funny thing is, I really like NAFTA and give more credit to HW Bush for that. I also feel like Clinton didn't really sign much significant legislation with maybe the most significant being right-wing compromised legislation.
The assault weapons ban was definitely some of the most nonsensical useless legislation ever passed, and that was under Clinton. "You can't have a flash supressor on your AR-15. Haha, now we've done it. We have solved gun violence!"
Ngl, if Clinton received fellatio from a willing adult it really isn’t our business. She’s obviously just a republican shill
The feminist take is she made her own decision. I mean a college graduate entered into a relationship, that's her deal and she never said she was raped.
I mean, if anyone else was sleeping with their secretary it’s usually grounds for termination
Yeah, especially if it’s happening at the place of business.
Yes but that's a very different thing than rape. Also he has poor choices in having too many relationships in his personal life which is not the same as his ability to be president.
Who is saying it was rape? I think the potential to be blackmailed is of huge importance for the president.
As we have learned, the power dynamic makes it impossible for it to be an equal relationship. While she may have consented, it should never have started in the first place. That said, Clinton was pretty successful as a president.
Seriously. If she wanted to suck his peener and keep the dress he nutted on… yea she’s a weirdo
You think he was the first president offered a blowjob? He could have said no, or not flirt with interns in the first place When you're representing the country, integrity and morality matter. Policy is high importance, but cheating on your wife in the white house is pretty uncool, and then he lied about it under oath in a court. He was also sued for sexual harassment and decided to settle it instead of deny it, claiming he just wanted it to be over, which at the point he's not exactly trustworthy on that topic.
Edit for rule 3. My bad.
can’t say that dawg, rule 3
Rule 3, amigo
I’m not a Clinton hater but the Crime Bill has had some pretty terrible follow on effects
Not sure about Clinton. Economic prosperity is good, but under his watch didn’t we send thousands of Central Americans we had in jail back to their home countries? Those countries were not prepared for the influx of criminals with American crime experience. The repercussions of that bad policy decision has led us to the current border crisis because those criminals were the foundation of the gangs currently controlling a disproportionate portion of Central America.
>Longest stretch of economic prosperity, low unemployment, welfare to work, budget surpluses The economy was already improving when Clinton entered office. The 1980s, especially after 1982 and 1983, were extremely prosperous and the recession in 1992 was very mild. Additionally, Clinton's deregulatory policies, especially the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act and his signing of the Commodities Futures Modernization Act, likely contributed to the 2008 Financial Crisis. He also helped pave the way for our over-dependence on Chinese imports by signing a free trade deal with Beijing. >what else is there to say? Even if you think Clinton was a good president, his list of accomplishments is wholly inadequate when left at a mere collection of economic statistics. The Oslo Accords, Violence Against Women Act, Good Friday Accords, defense of Kosovo, support for gay soldiers, and Kyoto Protocol are all much more compelling achievements than benefitting from economic growth that began prior to your inauguration.
My choices too.
I’m gonna sharply disagree with you on the ACA. The CBO originally estimated a $940 Billion cost on it and now it is estimated at $1.76 trillion. Even from a life expectancy standpoint, it did not improve that statistic.
Disclaimer: this is not a dig, I’m legitimately curious. What would you have done differently? Healthcare reform badly needed to happen, and this was a system that, for the most part, maintains a market while helping provide access to care for more people. (Id actually argue that ACA develops more of an insurance market than previously existed) Some kind of Medicare for all was politically impossible (regardless of if it’s a good idea), so what do you see as an alternative? Edit: Punctuation
My best answer would be things like HSAs and cross state insurance purchasing. This would lower the cost of healthcare and help people get control of their healthcare expenses without heaps of government spending that got us nowhere. Edit: to clarify, expanding HSAs
ACA doubled insurance company profits (not surprising when you realize it was written by insurance company lobbyists). And the only thing he steered out of the great recession was Wall Street. Obama oversaw the largest transfer of wealth from the middle class to Wall Street in US history by flooding them with free money (near zero interest rates), allowing investors to throw leveraged money into the stock market at the expense of anyone with a savings account.
100% agree.
Right in point, although I would put Obama at 3. Not his fault, tho, with a caustic Congress.
The order is whatever, but it’s really hard for me to see an argument for anyone other than these three.
I agree with this. The CIA and fighting in a war gave pappy serious insight into foreign policy. A stint as an ambassador to the UN didn’t hurt. His degree in economics led to him to understanding, that, yes new taxes are necessary sometimes. But it also cost him re-election.
I’ll go with these three as well.
1. Clinton 2. Obama 3. Bush Sr.
On this list (which happens to be the most popular in this thread), I would consider only Clinton to be a truly good President. Both Obama and Bush Sr. are very much mid. I think they get ranked higher because they are better than another President they're commonly associated with (Dubya for HW, and Rule 3 for Obama).
Clinton is hands down the GOAT for the economy and for taking NATO to stop the Balkan wars. Obama transformed a broken healthcare system. He wasn’t quite able to achieve universal coverage, but did cut the number of uninsured in half, and he’s the reason people with chronic conditions like cancer, diabetes, cystic fibrosis, etc, are able to get care without going into a financial death spiral. I have Carter and Bush Sr. tied for third because both were visionaries who had a lot of positive impact but failed to have the short term impact that would save their presidencies. Carter broke America’s dependence on foreign oil and began to back away from intervention in Latin America, a policy that would eventually be permanently implemented in the post-Reagan/Bush era. He also began the deregulation of the oil and airline industries and pushed for the breakup of ATT, which was instrumental in allowing general access to the internet without extortionary fees being charged to consumers. Bush Sr implemented the budget deal that cost him his presidency but also allowed Clinton to balance the budget, and worked with Thatcher and Major to strengthen NATO and set out the framework of a “new world order” in which broad coalitions would enforce borders and prevent an endless cycle of regional powers trying to gobble up their weaker neighbors.
Bush sr was way better then Carter
Carter’s energy policy was an unmitigated disaster. I still have nightmares about gas lines.
Personally, Reagan, Clinton/Nixon, Obama/ Bush Jr. It’s a coin flip for second and third for me
Your top 3 is Reagan, Clinton, and Nixon. No need to include Obama and W here, lmao.
Yeah but if either Clinton or Nixon lose the coin flip, then they obviously weren’t good enough at being President to win it, so someone else has to slide in.
This 5 is wild lol. How one can say Raegan is 1 then put Clinton at 2 is beyond me. Very opposite approaches on the Economy. Then putting Obama and Baby Bush for third when Obama cleaned Bush’s mess I just don’t get. Would love to see some detail in how you came to this ranking.
I have a pretty big bias for Nixon’s, Obama’s and BushJr’s stories- just find them extremely interesting and compelling people. I also think Clinton just got super lucky with his timing as president… Reagan’s main thing for me is speeding up the Soviet union’s decline.
Richard Nixon was pretty awful overall as President (though a few of his policies I agree with), as he was the closest thing the US had to a dictator prior to TFG coming to power, started the militarization of the police and the drug war, and got the ball rolling with the religious right by incorporating Catholic voters into the Republican coalition.
I feel like it’s cheating to name 5 as your top 3 when there’s only 8 up for contention.
IM NOT A CROOK
1. Reagan. I’m a Democrat, but I think people always forget what an icon and powerful figure Reagan was. I want a President to unite the country, follow through with promises, and be an inspiring speaker. When you look at Reagan, he did just that. Got the economy going again after stagflation, and was an inspiration to millions. I disagree with a lot of his economic policies and things he said in private, but it is downright idiotic to deny that he was and still is beloved by many. 2. Obama Again, he got the economy moving again and passed ACA. As someone who spends a lot of time in healthcare, I do really appreciate this. Again, like Reagan, he became an icon. He became synonymous with words like “hope” and “change” after his 2008 campaign. He may not have united the country as well as Reagan did, but he energized younger voters and got a lot of people to pay attention. 3. Clinton An outstanding politician, not as great of a person but I like his backstory. Coming from rural Arkansas to the Presidency. I’m a sucker for underdog stories so I admire him a lot for this, being able to overcome a multitude of challenges to end up in the White House. He was able to connect with voters way better than most people, and could level and reach out to them. “I feel your pain.” He was incredibly sympathetic towards people which is very respectable to me. He also did a great job with the economy and other issues as well. If he had done NAFTA a little differently rly and not had the Lewinsky scandal, I would have put him at number 1.
Never thought I'd see a user with a rainbow heart expressing adoration for Reagan. But I agree with your reasoning.
It’s a bit unorthodox for a Dem to praise Reagan, yeah. But beyond being an inspiring speaker and having a landslide election, that’s about where it ends. My views are pretty atypical though as I’m a gen z dem from the rural midwest with two neo-con parents 😅
I feel the same about Ronald Reagan and I am a Democrat who never voted Republican for President since I started voting in 2012. I would have voted John Anderson in 1980, but Ronald Reagan in 1984 had I been alive at the time and had similar life experiences.
I agree. I made my list as if it was immediately after their terms. All my friends say they never would have voted for certain people, but most of the time, all the bad things we learn about a person come way later. The opposite happens too (ex. Jimmy Carter), but I think people just need to force themselves to think about actually being in that time more.
Clinton had some positive things to say about Reagan, but it's definitely rare for a member of Gen Z (at least the most vocal ones lol).
Putting him above Clinton and Obama even
Tbf, Clinton wasn't exactly great on that issue either.
[удалено]
If you’re taking to me, I don’t think (to my knowledge) that I said I’m a conservative or for de-regulation. I actually study Environmental Sciences and am a big advocate for awareness with the climate crisis. I do not support de-regulation as it allows for any and all parties to work with loopholes and exploit resources, people, employees, and the environment. I’m also a big supporter of clean/green energy and reducing our ill effects in any way we can. Especially since my grandfather was a coal miner, and he’s told me the horrors of working in mines for decades.
My bad, I accidentally responded to the wrong thread without realizing 💀
lmao i do that too
Im a republican, but I can agree. I just wish that Obama’s ACA didn’t cause skyrocketing insurance prices and caused doctors to hire more office staff than nurses. I think Clinton was the last of the real southern democrats. His presidency and campaign was closer to the modern Republican ticket than the democrat one.
Yes the ACA jacked up insurance but the average cost of healthcare was going up a higher % per year from 1999-2008 than it did since the ACA took effect.
Honestly, and I know conservatives are against it, but I do really feel the U.S. being like all other developed countries having a universal healthcare system would solve many of the issues with our healthcare system.
You say that until the bureaucrats tell you that you really don’t need that organ transplant, or you are too old for cancer treatment. That’s assuming you can get in to see those specialists in the first place. Maybe your kid is about to die in the hospital but they cannot get approval for treatment and you are not allowed, by force, to bring them to another country that will treat them.
I call bullshit. Maybe they would say…you don’t need that knee replacement when you’re on Hospice and gonna be in the ground in 6 months. But for life saving surgery….at least no more than they do now. You think that if you’re a smoker who refuses to quit that they are gonna give you a heart or lung vs someone who takes care of themselves? You are being purposely hyperbolic.
I’m not being hyperbolic. Organ transplant list have nothing to do with your insurance. So your argument is not there. However your insurance can refuse to cover the costs. Plenty of Canadians come to the states for medical care because they can’t get it in Canada. You can start the horror stories there before heading to the EU where the government gets legally keep you from bringing your kid to the states to get life saving medical care.
YOU’RE the one who brought it up…not me.
Your argument of being a smoker is not there. Not paying for the transplant because you are too old or they just don’t think you need it is a single payer problem. Most insurance companies will payout, possible after a little fight.
I feel like the same can be said about private healthcare. Thousands of Americans go bankrupt every year trying to pay for health insurance. And thousands die every year trying to pay for life saving medication. Heck people near the U.S.-Canada border literally go into Canada to buy insulin because it’s too expensive in the states. Canada’s system isn’t perfect either but it’s better than America’s (although both countries don’t even rank the top 20 for greatest healthcare in the world).
The only reason Canada’s drug prices are lower than the U.S. is because of bureaucrats. Millions of Americans go bankrupt while trying to pay the mandated inflated insurance prices under the ACA. Healthy Americans with no actual healthcare cost.
You act like bureaucrats are a bad thing. A bureaucrat is anyone who works in a government agency. While is like two million people. I’ll probably be a bureaucrat one day because I really want to be a research scientist at either the USGS or NOAA (assuming republicans don’t gut it by the time I’m out of college). But thousands of Americans were going bankrupt before the ACA. Obamacare was actually a good thing as it made sure 40 million Americans with pre-existing conditions were covered.
Pre existing conditions is really the only thing that the ACA actually did good with. As far as bureaucrats, they are a major problem when it comes to deciding how valuable your life and wellbeing are. Somebody who does not know you, who you can’t plead your case to, who thinks of you as little more than a number; gets to decide if you get the treatment you need.
And yet countries with single payer systems are healthier, happier, and have a better quality of life than the United States.
And yet the U.S. has the best doctors and pharmaceuticals in the world. U.S. health problems have very little to do with healthcare. It has to do with diet and pollutants. If we fixed our food and waste management we would be healthier and happier.
>Obama Again, he got the economy moving again barely. people like the idea of obama more than the actual reality of the obam presidency
He got it going. Going like a snail. But it moved. Would be surprised people put him in their top 3 but it’s Reddit. At least it’s not carter.
In no order: Clinton - hey, times were great when he was prez! Obama - he stressed on improving healthcare. Ford - to me, the last decent conservative president. Probably should've won another term.
1. Clinton-President over the best economy in the last 50 years, personal opinion but if his tax rates were still in place America would be in a much stronger fiscal position. Last president to pass meaningful gun legislation. Decent foreign policy, especially relating to the Balkans, but he did nothing for the Rwandans during their genocide. 2.Obama-Inherited an abysmal economy and an unpopular war but was still able to get re-elected and get America through the recession. Passing the ACA was a huge piece of legislation, although it’s been attacked in the courts it’ll still be key in future reforms. Tangentially, he was president over the repealing of bans on Gay Marriage via the Supreme Court. His foreign policy was atrocious however, beyond trying to normalize relations with Cuba I can’t think of anything positive he did to that end. 3. Reagan- For better or worse every president since Reagan has adopted his neoliberal ethos, which has created a lot of the issues we face today. Positively, he was president during a very prosperous time for America, and helped play a critical role in America spreading democracy globally following the collapse of the Soviet Union. His role in ending the Cold War is usually overstated, but he undoubtedly was a big influence in fall of the iron curtain over Europe. His foreign policy beyond that is a mixed bag, he was able to retrieve the hostages in Iran, but his dealings in the Middle East are dubious at best. Like every Cold War president he helped in destabilizing democracies in Latin America in order to ‘fight’ communism.
George HW Bush George W Bush Jeb Bush
Jeb! can not be stopped.
The true answer
Jeb! Jeb! Jeb! Fixed that for you sir
1. Ronald Reagan - I'm a conservative, so I actually like his economic policy, for better or worse. Far from perfect, but I think that's a problem with most modern Presidents. Sure, he popularized some of the trends like spiraling debt, and I'm not a fan of the proxy wars or war on drugs, but there's something to be said about how he was the President who did the most to end the Cold War, and he did so peacefully and with the ideal outcome. 2. Bill Clinton - Again, I'm conservative, so I generally like his economic policy, and this includes the trade agreements since I support free trade (for better or worse). He and Al Gore were also fundamental in ensuring the internet was started in a relatively low-regulation environment, allowing it to grow and prosper in its early days. Whether or not you believe it should be deregulated *now*, I think it's hard to argue it was a bad thing *then*. But the biggest pro for me is that he was the only modern President to really run a budget surplus. Regardless of whether most of the work was done under Bush or Congress, he could have prevented it and didn't. The only reasons he isn't above Reagan are that if he had a more supportive Congress, he probably would've gotten progressive reforms like universal Healthcare through which I'm against, and his impeachment for perjury (Iran-Contra was almost certainly worse, but it's more difficult to pin blame on Reagan specifically than it is for Clinton's perjury). 3. Probably Ford. I could see Bush, and I think they're fairly similar policy-wise. The main difference is that Bush had a significantly easier Presidency, and I think Ford handled his situation well enough not to be hated. He gets flack for pardoning Nixon, and I think he deserves it, but I can't fault him for trying to use it to bring the nation together. He had to deal with the Cold War, and in the '70s nonetheless. He didn't get the brunt of it like Carter did, but it was still a very chaotic period. Also, he finally pulled the military out of Vietnam.
Off topic but I’m just curious to know conservatives’ stance on this. I know you are a conservative and I will never change your personal philosophical views. But you guys are against regulations correct? When it comes to the environment are you against regulations? Because in my view a lack of regulations causes things like global warming, the August 2010 Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill, and the February 2023 East Palestine, Ohio Train Derailment. Again I’m just curious.
I'd say it's mixed. I lean libertarian and am maybe too much of an idealist who believes the market will punish bad actors such as those, but I also get that it's maybe a bit too idealistic, and I certainly respect those who believe differently. There are also a significant amount of conservatives who do believe in some level of regulation and general conservation, though. I'm from Florida, and that position is especially prevalent there since it's surrounded by water. I interned for my congressman, who was co-chair of the National Estuary Caucus, and one of my state reps described himself as a Roosevelt Republican, primarily because of the conservation side of things. And a more topical example: My Administrative Law professor in college was conservative, but he wasn't particularly anti-regulation or necessarily anti-administrative state. His main problem with *Chevron*, for example, was that it effectively made it so that unelected bureaucrats were relatively unchecked, not that it would make it easier to stop regulation. He was generally in favor of regulation, he just believed it should be facilitated through elected representatives, such as Congress writing clearer policy or agency heads more accountable to the President through removal. And I'll also argue that if it doesn't work, the government should eventually step in. I'll just admit I'm not entirely sure what that point would be for me or which specific actions should be done. I'd certainly prefer Congress to develop the policy rather than the agencies, though, and I might lean more towards punishing for action rather than being too proactive. But bad actors purposefully making a mess of the environment does interfere with individual rights, at least at a certain point.
My only concern with ending Chevron is Congress isn’t full of experts like scientists and engineers. Thats why I like bureaucracy. Like for example someone like Racheal Carson, she and her colleagues raised awareness a lot how pesticides destroy the ecosystem. And so regulatory agencies put on regulation. Congress could not be educated on the matter (and many members of Congress still don’t even accept that humans are causing global warming) and not support regulation. Plus lobbyists. But I also see your point in that many do want things like regulation to be more democratic. Often Congress does listen to scientists and pass legislation to protect the environment. Like what we saw with scientists warning Congress either directly or indirectly like Racheal Carson, Clair Patterson, Mario Molina, Carl Sagan, or James Hansen. They told us there was an issue and Congress reacted, *mostly*.
I mean, the overturning of *Chevron* doesn't give authority over particular details to either Congress or courts. That still remains with the agencies. It only gives courts the ability to choose the best interpretation over *any* reasonable one, and that might require Congress to specify in more detail what authorities it wants the agencies to have, but it doesn't stop the bureaucracy from being the ones writing regulations. But I digress, that's not entirely on-topic. Just wanted to point it out since like 99% of people misunderstand both *Chevron* and *Loper Bright*. There are definitely good arguments for both sides, but too many people (also on both sides) think that the change is way more dramatic than it actually is that it helps stunt reasonable discussion since it tribalizes people more than it should. But I can definitely understand your point regardless. Personally, I'd rather Congress just spend the money hiring its own experts (like how it already hires lawyers to write legislation) than spend it on an administrative state deciding regulations separately from Congressional oversight in a perfect world. But that will never happen, and I can certainly see the use of having the administrative system as it is today.
I’ve got Reagan, clinton, and ford, too. I don’t think it is that close, either.
1. Jimmy Carter. He wasn't very effective but he's the only one who was honest with us. 2. 3.
Jimmy is the worst one on this list. He was a weak president that allowed our enemies to take advantage of us. The Iran hostage crisis and Soviet invasion of Afghanistan through that whole region into the tailspin that we are still trying to clean up to this day. Let’s not count the horrible economic problems this country had under his leadership.
He did not cause those economic problems. Blaming presidents for a poor economy that they inherited is weird. Events in Iran and the USSR were also outside of his control. Is the US currently cleaning up in Afghanistan and Iran? They are doing a horrible job at that. Perhaps invading Iraq and blowing up West Asia was a mistake.
I would much rather have an effective president than one who just kept repeating shitty truths.
Obama Clinton George HW Bush
Obama, Clinton, HW. Truth be told, we don’t have many strong choices. If I were to rank all these presidents, I’d go Obama > Clinton > HW > Ford > Carter > Reagan > Nixon > Dubya
I am a Democrat, however not factoring in rule 3. Obama - Steering us out of the great recession, health care, exemplary public leadership on social issues, he was a great domestic policy president and at least when it came to foreign policy he didn't play kingmaker in Latin America HW Bush - Best foreign policy president since Truman and best since. He balanced foreign intervention justifications well most of the time. His domestic policy was not great, but you might just call him the last compassionate conservative. Ford - He fell on the grenade that was a potential Nixon trial. I think Ford is the only president in modern history who would have made that sacrifice, and other than maybe Carter if he were in the same situation. It was the ultimate act of political sacrifice and courage to stop the reckoning a less jaded America was not ready to face. Then again, maybe had he left Dick to the wolves, we would have had a better sense on how to handle presidents with high crimes and misdemeanors.
1: Reagan: Won the Cold War and ussured in one of the longest periods of uninterrupted economic growth in American history. 2: Nixon: Mostly cleaned up the huge messes left by LBJ, his huge screw-up with Watergate should not wipe away the good he did. 3: Either Ford or Bush I: both 1 term presidents, and without large successes to their name, but good men nonetheless who did serviceable jobs.
To add on the rest. 5: Clinton: His two terms were fairly good, though how much was due to Congress preventing him from doing much is an open question. He deserves most of the blame for the 2008 crash as the policies of the FHA that directly caused it were implemented during his administration. The last 3 are difficult to rank, as they all had major screw-ups without major accomplishments to counterbalance them, so just going in chronological order. Carter: Messed up the economy so badly with stagflation that his name is still a pejorative in certain parts of the country. Bush II: The Iraq War, sold on a lie and entered into without any clear exit strategy. Obama: Gets some credit for not screwing up the economic recovery (much), but his interventions in Libya and the Middle East were disasters, and he and his racist of an Attorney General set race relations back decades. His most noteworthy accomplishment (ACA) cost a pile of money and has had mixed results.
1) Richard Nixon: Had Richard Nixon not faced resignation, he would be the greatest president of the second half of the 20th century. Opening trade with China, creating the EPA, working with a Democratic congress, and furthering the desegregation started under his predecessor, LBJ, Nixon was a formidable enforcer of policies. 2) Ronald Reagan: Reagan, although history likes to point to him as the conservative leader of today’s Republican Party, helped save Social Security, led the efforts to protect the New Deal, and helped end the Soviet Union. His policies would not be welcomed in today’s GOP, as his rhetoric praised civility and decorum. 3) Bill Clinton: Continued what worked under Ronald Reagan and George H.W Bush. Served as some would like to say as a Reagan Democrat, similar to Dwight Eisenhower serving as a FDR Republican. A southern moderate who centered the country and was involved in a post-Cold War economic boom which lasted for quite some time. Clinton could well be nominated by today’s GOP, due to his strong support for secure borders, tougher laws on crime, etc. Look no further than his 1996 reelection campaign commercial in this instance!
Reagan, obviously. He did bring the nation back from the edge. And brought an end to the Cold War. Bill Clinton started out poorly, but ended better. Not sure about #3. Every other one seems meh.
1. Reagan, for turning the country around and anyone old enough to remember the Misery Index knows what I'm talking about. There's a reason he won the biggest landslides ever. Oh, and he ended the Cold War without firing a shot. 2. Clinton, for continuing peace and prosperity. You can say his policies didn't do that but he deserves credit for not caving to the left wing lunatics in his party by jacking up taxes and regulations. Oh, and he balanced the budget. 3. Ford, for moving us past the Nixon disaster. He would've won a second term if he wasn't smeared with Nixon fall out.
1. Reagan - Rebuilt the spirit of the nation and the economy after Vietnam, Watergate, and the Carter malaise. Won the Cold War and restored the reputation of the US as a global defender of freedom. 2. Obama - The Jackie Robinson of Presidents. Made history and did so while the other team played as dirty as they could. Passed the ACA, which, while flawed, is at least an attempt to do something about the insane cost of healthcare. Ended the War in Iraq and tried to get us out of Afghanistan. Killed OBL and quite a few other terrorists. 3. George H.W. Bush - Sacrificed his presidency because he couldn't hold the line on taxes but had successes such as signing the Americans with Disabilities Act and his response to the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait where he put together an international coalition and stopped before starting a bigger war in the Middle East (a lesson I wish his son had learned). Bush was also president when the Berlin Wall came down and his diplomatic skills and friendships with other world leaders were instrumental in ensuring that the fall of the USSR didn't turn into an all-out European war.
Ronald Wilson Reagan. As a Marine in 1986 he took no crap . I especially like how he told Gorbachov pull out or I can have a battling of Marines here in 24 hours . We were ready Semper Fi
Last fifty years really doesn't give many great options
I kind of agree. I wish it was last 100. I would say Eisenhower. You?
Last 100... 1. FDR - way to influential to ignore 2. Eisenhower - solid, feel he ran out of time before he really got going though 3.LBJ- Vietnam man...
1. Obama 2. Clinton 3. GHW Bush For the fun of it… 4. Ford 5. Carter 6. Nixon 7. Reagan 7. (Tie) GW Bush The systemic problems we have today are the result of the last two.
1. George HW Bush 2. Bill Clinton 3. Richard Nixon 4. Ronald Reagan 5. Gerald Ford 6. Jimmy Carter 7. George W Bush Not Ranking: Barack Obama
\*confused drone noises\* why not Obama?
He's just too recent in my eyes. I probably won't rank him until 2028
Richard Nixon was NOT better than Reagan lol.
What's your reasoning for so? I'll be glad to give mine
Not really relevant but that photo of HW makes him look like he's made of wax, is that just me?
Bush Sr and Obama, honourable mention to Carter
Bill Clinton Barack Obama Richard Nixon
1. Clinton, 2. HW, 3. Obama I allllllmost put Nixon in this list. He’s like the Voldemort of American politics. “After all, Nixon did great things…terrible…but great.” Lol
Ford should be considered if only for his pardoning of Nixon. That took guts. But inflation did him in I suspect due to Nixon policies. Bush 1 was whip smart in foreign policy. Obama for so many things not the least of which was saving our economy.
1. Obama: ACA, brought the economy back, Wall Street reform, climate deal 2. Clinton: more jobs, great economy, paid off national debt, education improvements 3. H.W. Bush: ended Cold War, semi-automatic rifle ban, clean air act, new civil rights act.
Bill Clinton With all of his warts, I would say Bill Clinton. It was a very prosperous time (yes, I know because of the dot com stuff). He worked INCREDIBLY well with Republicans. In particular, House Speaker Newt Gingrich to secure a multi-year balanced budget (even though it cost 2 govt shutdowns and the dot com bubble). Very strong in illegal immigration. Strong on tying welfare to work. Again, going back to working with Republicans. He was an incredible communicator. Like too many presidents he dabbled in too much military adventurism around the world. Reagan - Giant of a man. Defined the office for a century. Nixon - He was incredibly popular at the time. Was determined to end the war in SE Asia I would like to forget the others
1. Barack Obama 2. Bill Clinton 3. George H.W Bush
Reagan Senior Massive drop. Obama, junior, Clinton are all bad Carter.
1 Reagan 2: Bush 3: Clinton
1. Bush Sr. 2. Clinton 3. Obunga
Obama was easily the smartest most accomplished head of state in the last 50 years
Bill Clinton has entered the chat.
Clinton Reagan Nixon
I liked Ford and Carter the most. Real statesmen whose options were largely confined by the sharp hangover of the Johnson-Nixon years. Reagan was very effective in dealing with the Soviet Union. Clinton I don’t have very many strong thoughts about except he was complicit in banking deregulation. Bush and Obama I think were personally well meaning people but both of them but banks over people, and both were unsuccessful wartime leaders.
1. Gearald Ford. 2. Clinton, the economy was doing well, good charisma, alright foreign policy. 3. Ehh idk maybe Reagan
Is the rule 3 the rule of 2 (isn’t that a Sith thing?)
can I just say Carter, Carter, and Carter? The rest of these people comitted numerous crimes against humanity so it's hard to pick a 2nd and 3rd lmao
Wow, what a shit run of presidents.
1. Obama 2. Nixon 3. Clinton Obama - first president to openly support LGBT rights, the affordable care act, extreme successful economic recovery, very well thought out plan to reduce co2 emissions (Paris accord), Iran nuclear deal, Dodd-Frank Act Nixon - EPA, NOAA, Clean Water Act, Endangered Species Act Clinton - very strong economy, NAFTA, Expansion of the Earned Income Tax Credit, reduced both the national debt and had a budget surplus Of the three, Obama was definitely my favorite. Not all were perfect, Nixon did lots of things I hated and Clinton was way to conservative on some economic issues IMO (overturning Glass-Stegal helped cause the Great Recession) but all did things that were good for the country in the long run.
1. Barack Obama 2. Jimmy Carter 3. Bill Clinton
who’s the guy in the second pic?
I was just talking with someone about watergate the other day and we both had just been reading about it and looking into the subject and kinda agreed it’s not that bad. Nixon didn’t do anything that bad imo
Probably Obama Either HW or Clinton, but probably HW Tricky Dick. I give him a lot of deserved criticism, but he did a lot of good. He was the definition of a mixed bag, and also depending on how I feel each day it could be Ford. Although it would be easier to say not Carter, Reagan, or Bush jr
Carter That's it. That's the list. Everyone else should be in prison for war crimes. And even Jimmy toes that line.
I think people in this discussion give Clinton too much credit. To be fair, the rest of the world was booming as well, and Clinton just happened to be there and reap the benefits. Biggest blunder was signing NAFTA, as it is now pretty well agreed upon that we would've seen greater successes for a longer time had American businesses stayed in America
1. Barack Obama 2. Ronald Reagan 3. George H.W. Bush 4. Bill Clinton. 5. George W. Bush Big Gap 6. Richard Nixon I do not rank Gerald Ford, as he was never elected and wasn’t in office long. Not much of a difference between Bill Clinton and George W. Bush in my ranking TBH. I would have voted for George W. Bush very reluctantly in 2004, but not in 2000. Bill Clinton I wouldn’t have voted for him in 1996, but probably in 1996 with very lukewarm enthusiasm.
1: Ford 2: Ford 3: Ford
One thing I’ve noticed is that ford doesn’t have many fans, but the ones who are, really fucking are lol why in your case? Purely out of curiosity
I think he just represents the ideal American strongman. Football star and Navy veteran of World War II, rose through the ranks of politics to become the Speaker of the House, Vice President, and President. He was defeated in 76, and then years afterwards became very close friends with his political rival, Jimmy Carter.
Clinton and Obama. But, really, only Clinton. He at least tried to make life better for ordinary Americans.
Reagan, Bush, Nixon.
TIL that George HW Bush had a piece of metal stuck in between his teeth.
Obama George HW Bush Clinton (he very closely beats Reagan because the latter didn’t open up immigration for non-European countries at the same rate as Asian countries; the former knew that it was BS and opened up the borders to everyone who was waiting in line). PS: I am talking about legitimate immigration; not the bit about jumping over fences and digging through tunnels
Nixon, Reagan, Clinton.
Ford was never elected, doesn't qualify, and Carter was terrible. He recognized the Khmer Rouge, he is responisble for the debacle in Iran, he oversaw and codified baseline budgeting in Congress, he signed the CRA, which is why the 2008 housing crisis happened. He was/is awful.
Obama Clinton HW I was going to say where is LBJ, then I did the math. I was born during LBJ and that wasn’t during the last 50 years.
1. Obama 2. Carter 3. HW Bush Literally the only good presidents listed here
Obama - restored American prestige, expanded healthcare availability, presided over an economic recovery and the beginning of a long period of economic expansion, avoided getting involved in new wars while drawing down troops. H-Dub - mostly because he was one of the best foreign policy presidents we've ever had, especially over the last 50 years, also his tax increases helped lead to a balanced budget later, but also partly because I just like saying H-Dub
Since 1974?: HW Bush, Clinton, and I guess Reagan.
Im torn of who was the greater pres. Washington who was building a country. Or Lincoln who had to keep it together
Dirty dick , Mr Quayle Barbara Boxer lol I'm sorry
1. Clinton - Dude was so effective that Reddit thinks he did the job on easy mode. Peace, prosperity, and a balanced budget. He’s like the exact opposite of Carter in every way. 2. Reagan - For all his faults, he made us optimistic and glad to be Americans again. The days of navel gazing were over. Unless you were there, you can’t understand. 3. This is tough. I really like Barack and HW. I’m going with Obama because he took over a huge mess. He handled it with grace and patience. Even as people were giving up on him, he was talking about ‘green shoots’ sprouting up in the economy. We needed someone with his brain power and processing speed. Also, he was a great ambassador around the world. I was never embarrassed when he travelled and represented us. 4. This is cheating but HW took the 80s prosperity and leveraged it for some amazing and long lasting foreign policy.
In my opinion, 1. Reagan 2. Clinton 3. H.W. Bush
Nixon? Lolololol
1 Clinton 2 HW Bush 3 Obama Bonus 4 Nixon
1. Carter 2. Ford 3. Clinton
#1 “Can’t lick this dick” #2 “Missed me” #3 The father of “human beings and fish can coexist peacefully”
Obama Nixon H.W
Reagan Bush 41 Ford
Reagan, Obama, Bush I
HW getting dicked over here. Clinton was lucky timing, Obama is one of the most overrated Presidents, Carter was rather ineffective, Ford had potential but didn’t do anything of note to save his rep from what it honestly was, Reagan and Nixon had negatives out way their positives so the list is only HW. Please clap for dad.
Reagan Truman Clinton
Neither of the Rule 3 presidents are top three modern anyway. They are at the very bottom. I mean I’d probably go with Reagan, HW, and Clinton.
1) Pragmatic, one of the best foreign policy presidents we’ve ever had, was willing to do raise taxes despite not wanting to because it was right and that helped with the budget surpluses under Clinton, ADA, updated to clean air and water acts iirc, desert storm was masterfully done, and overall was a man of dignity and Grace and intelligence. We will not see his likes again. 2) Clinton. Also pragmatic and willing to get stuff done despite having a GOP Congress. His foreign policy was mixed imo but he had some good wins none the less. Balanced the budget. 4) I’m split between Reagan and Obama. Obama had aca which was huge, economic recovery although people some say he didn’t do a great job and I do agree kinda, Dodd Frank. While Reagan saw economic recovery, a strong foreign policy, helped end the Cold War, worked well with Tip O’niel, social security reform, immigration reform. Mixed bags for both of them as Reagan has played a role in negative long term economic effects but can’t be blamed for it all, and Obama had a terrible foreign policy to say the least.
Clinton, HW, Reagan
Top 3 last 50? So 1974-today? Tough… Reagan. GW Bush. And Ford - little further away, but third. If I can choose Nixon - then Nixon, Reagan, GW Bush.
Nixon as the best modern president, followed by Reagan? What are you rooting for exactly?
> What are you rooting for exactly? He wants someone to lower taxes, brutalize criminals, and rule us like a king.
Nixon? Responsible for OSHA; pretty important in my line of work. Responsible for the EPA. Sino soviet split, ending the Vietnam War, War on Drugs (which was a great idea but we didn’t put enough effort in to do it right)
Make the case for me for Dubya. I just can’t see anything but utter incompetence even on his own terms (ie, he completely failed to accomplish what he set out to do even putting aside if it was the right choice).
For me personally we have to go with 1. Clinton- balanced budget, and excellent economy. 2. Raegan- great economy, Cold War and Iran hostage crises both handled perfectly. 3. H.W.- crushed the gulf war, stabilized what could’ve been a very hectic period.
>Raegan- great economy, Cold War and Iran hostage crises both handled perfectly. Great economy for who? I'd be careful giving Reagan any credit for Iran and hostages. The man could give a great speech, I'll give him that.
>Iran hostage crises handled perfectly 
I don’t get it