Worst Democratic President of the 20th Century

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Wilson has much lower lows than the other Democratic presidents, but I give him a lot of credit for the domestic legislation that he passed. While his racial views were odious, I think both his actual impact on race relations, and his racism as compared to contemporaries, is often overstated on the internet (Wilson was probably the worst of his era, but the only decent president of his era on race was Harding, imo).

Coolidge was also acceptable-ish for the time (he did sign the Johnson-Reed Act, but it passed 308-62 in the House and 69-9 in the Senate so there was little he could have done about it); however, both Harding and Coolidge were so terrible on almost everything else that that's not much of a defense.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

On a purely instinctive and unideological level, I'm very annoyed by how trendy it's become to consider Wilson absolutely bottom tier. I'm not much of a fan of him at all, but the idea of him being bottom of the barrel is an online libertarian bro meme that's somehow metastasized. And he went to Johns Hopkins, so as a fellow Blue Jay I have to be defensive. Mike Bloomberg at least paid off a semester's worth of student loans for me!

Funny Peanut Man and Bubba are the only options, and between them I'd probably go longue durée and pick the former, since he was responsible for the latter and also history's greatest monster. Props to him for discovering the hidden secret of human sexuality (Poles being the hottest people alive) tho.

"MALAISE FOREVER" is a theologically, politically, and probably even scientifically sound eschatology, though.

[If my soul was made of stone]

On a purely instinctive and unideological level, I'm very annoyed by how trendy it's become to consider Wilson absolutely bottom tier. I'm not much of a fan of him at all, but the idea of him being bottom of the barrel is an online libertarian bro meme that's somehow metastasized. And he went to Johns Hopkins, so as a fellow Blue Jay I have to be defensive. Mike Bloomberg at least paid off a semester's worth of student loans for me!

Funny Peanut Man and Bubba are the only options, and between them I'd probably go longue durée and pick the former, since he was responsible for the latter and also history's greatest monster. Props to him for discovering the hidden secret of human sexuality (Poles being the hottest people alive) tho.

"MALAISE FOREVER" is a theologically, politically, and probably even scientifically sound eschatology, though.

Malaise isnt inevitable anymore, line go up are living longer and now 65 is the age of brandonflation,  not the age of recession. Thays why the White house have Carter at nearly 100 and not incapacitated

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

On a purely instinctive and unideological level, I'm very annoyed by how trendy it's become to consider Wilson absolutely bottom tier. I'm not much of a fan of him at all, but the idea of him being bottom of the barrel is an online libertarian bro meme that's somehow metastasized. And he went to Johns Hopkins, so as a fellow Blue Jay I have to be defensive. Mike Bloomberg at least paid off a semester's worth of student loans for me!

Funny Peanut Man and Bubba are the only options, and between them I'd probably go longue durée and pick the former, since he was responsible for the latter and also history's greatest monster. Props to him for discovering the hidden secret of human sexuality (Poles being the hottest people alive) tho.

"MALAISE FOREVER" is a theologically, politically, and probably even scientifically sound eschatology, though.

Malaise isnt inevitable anymore, line go up are living longer and now 65 is the age of brandonflation,  not the age of recession. Thays why the White house have Carter at nearly 100 and not incapacitated

Every process occurring in nature proceeds in the sense in which the sum of the malaise of all bodies taking part in the process is increased. In the limit, i.e. for reversible processes, the sum of the malaise remains unchanged.

[If my soul was made of stone]

On a purely instinctive and unideological level, I'm very annoyed by how trendy it's become to consider Wilson absolutely bottom tier. I'm not much of a fan of him at all, but the idea of him being bottom of the barrel is an online libertarian bro meme that's somehow metastasized. And he went to Johns Hopkins, so as a fellow Blue Jay I have to be defensive. Mike Bloomberg at least paid off a semester's worth of student loans for me!

Funny Peanut Man and Bubba are the only options, and between them I'd probably go longue durée and pick the former, since he was responsible for the latter and also history's greatest monster. Props to him for discovering the hidden secret of human sexuality (Poles being the hottest people alive) tho.

"MALAISE FOREVER" is a theologically, politically, and probably even scientifically sound eschatology, though.

Malaise isnt inevitable anymore, line go up are living longer and now 65 is the age of brandonflation,  not the age of recession. Thays why the White house have Carter at nearly 100 and not incapacitated

Every process occurring in nature proceeds in the sense in which the sum of the malaise of all bodies taking part in the process is increased. In the limit, i.e. for reversible processes, the sum of the malaise remains unchanged.

[GoTfan]

I want people to answer me on this: what was Wilson supposed to do after the Zimmerman Telegram? "No worries, Germany, doesn't matter."?

The actions he took as President, while authoritarian, are not out of the norm. Lincoln ran a pretty authoritarian administration, among which included suspension of habeas corpus. FDR imprisoned Japanese-Americans for no real reason. Hell, if you want a chat about authoritarianism from Democrats, Obama's support of the surveillance state and his killing of Anwar Al-Awlaki could be described as authoritarian as well.

Not a defence. Just keep all this in mind.

And TR was not this uber-progressive on race his worshippers claim he was.
 

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

As previously stated Woodrow Wilson he was a DIXIECRAT not a Secularist he was just as racist as Jefferson but in today's standards he would be a Pragmatic D like Bill Clinton the DIXIECRATS evolved during Clinton and LBJ era due to Kennedy but back in the day they were against Judicial Review because it made Federal rights supreme over states rights which means end to Apartheid, Apartheid was a states rights issue

Jefferson quoted by Vinson before he died before Brown decision was made said if Blks we're meant to be free he would of wrote it in the First 10 Amendments the rest is enumerated to states despite the 13 th Amendment, that's racism, and that existed even during Truman era, so DIXIECRAT weren't Bill Clinton they were Robert C Byrd but they had liberal leanings in economics they were for unions DIXIECRAT Grover Cleveland despite appointment of DIXIECRAT Melville Fuller AFFIRMATIVE OF PLESSY V FERGUSON ofSCOTUS established Labor Day

[Orser67]

Wilson has much lower lows than the other Democratic presidents, but I give him a lot of credit for the domestic legislation that he passed. While his racial views were odious, I think both his actual impact on race relations, and his racism as compared to contemporaries, is often overstated on the internet (Wilson was probably the worst of his era, but the only decent president of his era on race was Harding, imo).

Coolidge was also acceptable-ish for the time (he did sign the Johnson-Reed Act, but it passed 308-62 in the House and 69-9 in the Senate so there was little he could have done about it); however, both Harding and Coolidge were so terrible on almost everything else that that's not much of a defense.

Yeah, "acceptable-ish" might be a fair description, although I'm not sure how far off he was from McKinley, T. Roosevelt, and Taft. I don't think he really cared about civil rights, but he didn't actively get in the way either. His administration has received some criticism for its handling of the 1927 Mississippi River flood, but a lot of the blame for that usually falls on Hoover. With Harding, though, I get the impression that he may have actually cared based on his speeches and his endorsement of the Dyer anti-lynching bill.

[LabourJersey]

This is a tangent, but Carter is an odd case when you actually examine his Presidency. He had by far the worst and least competent staff/inner circle that a modern President had, before Trump.

The "Georgia Mafia," were, to put it mildly, a bunch of inexperienced, arrogant good ol' boys who knew nothing about Washington or really about politics, and just by happenstance and luck joined Carter's run for Governor. Carter relying on them, and them as a whole (he didn't even have a chief of staff for two years!) was an absolutely horrendous decision that crippled his presidency. The Georgia mafia was also quite weird for being more conservative than Carter himself, which is an unusual dynamic for the staff of a Democratic president versus the President himself. Pat Caddell (A Trump guy at the end of his life) was the main advocate of the malaise speech. I personally think if Carter has somehow who wasn't a 27 year old neophyte advising him, that speech would have been a lot more polished and remembered less harshly.

Long story short, I contend that had Carter recognized the shortcomings of his inner circle from the get-go, he would have been a much more effective President.

[OSR stands with Israel]

This is a tangent, but Carter is an odd case when you actually examine his Presidency. He had by far the worst and least competent staff/inner circle that a modern President had, before Trump.

The "Georgia Mafia," were, to put it mildly, a bunch of inexperienced, arrogant good ol' boys who knew nothing about Washington or really about politics, and just by happenstance and luck joined Carter's run for Governor. Carter relying on them, and them as a whole (he didn't even have a chief of staff for two years!) was an absolutely horrendous decision that crippled his presidency. The Georgia mafia was also quite weird for being more conservative than Carter himself, which is an unusual dynamic for the staff of a Democratic president versus the President himself. Pat Caddell (A Trump guy at the end of his life) was the main advocate of the malaise speech. I personally think if Carter has somehow who wasn't a 27 year old neophyte advising him, that speech would have been a lot more polished and remembered less harshly.

Long story short, I contend that had Carter recognized the shortcomings of his inner circle from the get-go, he would have been a much more effective President.

Clinton’s first two years were a disaster too and he didn’t really turn things around until the republicans took congress. I just think that the democratic congress by the mid to late 70s were way to entrenched with power that they had sort of become their own entity of itself and it was very hard for a democratic president to control .

[John Dule]

On a purely instinctive and unideological level, I'm very annoyed by how trendy it's become to consider Wilson absolutely bottom tier. I'm not much of a fan of him at all, but the idea of him being bottom of the barrel is an online libertarian bro meme that's somehow metastasized. And he went to Johns Hopkins, so as a fellow Blue Jay I have to be defensive. Mike Bloomberg at least paid off a semester's worth of student loans for me!

yes i mean he curtailed free speech and rejected the idea of natural human rights and openly criticized the separation of powers and created a foreign policy situation that led to the rise of hitler and was a massive racist who resegregated government departments, but liking him makes teh libertarians mad

[dw93]

This is a tangent, but Carter is an odd case when you actually examine his Presidency. He had by far the worst and least competent staff/inner circle that a modern President had, before Trump.

The "Georgia Mafia," were, to put it mildly, a bunch of inexperienced, arrogant good ol' boys who knew nothing about Washington or really about politics, and just by happenstance and luck joined Carter's run for Governor. Carter relying on them, and them as a whole (he didn't even have a chief of staff for two years!) was an absolutely horrendous decision that crippled his presidency. The Georgia mafia was also quite weird for being more conservative than Carter himself, which is an unusual dynamic for the staff of a Democratic president versus the President himself. Pat Caddell (A Trump guy at the end of his life) was the main advocate of the malaise speech. I personally think if Carter has somehow who wasn't a 27 year old neophyte advising him, that speech would have been a lot more polished and remembered less harshly.

Long story short, I contend that had Carter recognized the shortcomings of his inner circle from the get-go, he would have been a much more effective President.

Clinton’s first two years were a disaster too and he didn’t really turn things around until the republicans took congress. I just think that the democratic congress by the mid to late 70s were way to entrenched with power that they had sort of become their own entity of itself and it was very hard for a democratic president to control .

Clinton still had pretty meaningful accomplishments in his first two years (FMLA, the Brady Bill, the Assault Weapons Ban, the 1993 Budget Bill) he arguably accomplished more domestic accomplishments in this time than Carter did through his entire term, and Clinton, in the House, arguably had the same entrenched Congress that Carter did. With that in mind, I think if a more politically astute Democrat won in 1976 and had more competent advisors, they would've accomplished a lot more and might've even abet very narrowly held on in 1980.

[LabourJersey]

This is a tangent, but Carter is an odd case when you actually examine his Presidency. He had by far the worst and least competent staff/inner circle that a modern President had, before Trump.

The "Georgia Mafia," were, to put it mildly, a bunch of inexperienced, arrogant good ol' boys who knew nothing about Washington or really about politics, and just by happenstance and luck joined Carter's run for Governor. Carter relying on them, and them as a whole (he didn't even have a chief of staff for two years!) was an absolutely horrendous decision that crippled his presidency. The Georgia mafia was also quite weird for being more conservative than Carter himself, which is an unusual dynamic for the staff of a Democratic president versus the President himself. Pat Caddell (A Trump guy at the end of his life) was the main advocate of the malaise speech. I personally think if Carter has somehow who wasn't a 27 year old neophyte advising him, that speech would have been a lot more polished and remembered less harshly.

Long story short, I contend that had Carter recognized the shortcomings of his inner circle from the get-go, he would have been a much more effective President.

Clinton’s first two years were a disaster too and he didn’t really turn things around until the republicans took congress. I just think that the democratic congress by the mid to late 70s were way to entrenched with power that they had sort of become their own entity of itself and it was very hard for a democratic president to control .

Clinton still had pretty meaningful accomplishments in his first two years (FMLA, the Brady Bill, the Assault Weapons Ban, the 1993 Budget Bill) he arguably accomplished more domestic accomplishments in this time than Carter did through his entire term, and Clinton, in the House, arguably had the same entrenched Congress that Carter did. With that in mind, I think if a more politically astute Democrat won in 1976 and had more competent advisors, they would've accomplished a lot more and might've even abet very narrowly held on in 1980.

Yeah I'd totally agree with this. 1977 to 1981 was a period where we really needed a more political astute President, or at least a better advised President, than the Carter that we got.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Clinton had the least principles but maybe Wilson narrowly edges him out for being an authoritarian racist warmonger. You could try to give Wilson some credit for not wanting to overly punish Germany, but he didn't get his way.

[Vice President Christian Man]

WW