Most Underrated President

[Mr. Smith]

By whom:

Historians: Herbert Hoover

Pop Culture: Richard Nixon

Atlas: Andrew Jackson

[Sirius_]

By Atlas: Bill Clinton. God does Atlas seem to love to hate him.

[TDAS04]

By Atlas: Bill Clinton. God does Atlas seem to love to hate him.

So true.  If you listen to either the left or the right on Atlas, you’d think Bill and Hillary are Bonnie and Clyde.

[Burke Bro]

LBJ. It's unfortunate that the Great Society was largely overshadowed by the Vietnam War.

Honorable mentions: Richard Nixon, Jimmy Carter, George H.W. Bush

[gottsu]

LBJ. It's unfortunate that the Great Society was largely overshadowed by the Vietnam War.

Honorable mentions: Richard Nixon, Jimmy Carter, George H.W. Bush

If it would be no Vietnam, Johnson would be considered as a 20th century Andrew Jackson, the best Democratic (besides FDR of course) president of the age.

I wouldn't be original: Tricky Dick (for ending Vietnam, EPA, trying to reform healthcare)

[dw93]

By Atlas: Bill Clinton. God does Atlas seem to love to hate him.

I agree with this. People on Atlas seem to not understand the context of the times Bill was governing in. Obama seems to get much more of a pass for his attempts at Rockefeller Republicanism (grand bargain) than Bill Clinton, and Obama governed in a much more liberal time than Clinton.

[Rookie Yinzer]

By Atlas: Bill Clinton. God does Atlas seem to love to hate him.

I agree with this. People on Atlas seem to not understand the context of the times Bill was governing in. Obama seems to get much more of a pass for his attempts at Rockefeller Republicanism (grand bargain) than Bill Clinton, and Obama governed in a much more liberal time than Clinton.

Bill Clinton literally worked with Republicans to pass legislation that actively hurt people that voted for him.

[Sirius_]

By Atlas: Bill Clinton. God does Atlas seem to love to hate him.

I agree with this. People on Atlas seem to not understand the context of the times Bill was governing in. Obama seems to get much more of a pass for his attempts at Rockefeller Republicanism (grand bargain) than Bill Clinton, and Obama governed in a much more liberal time than Clinton.

Bill Clinton literally worked with Republicans to pass legislation that actively hurt people that voted for him.

[citation needed]

[dw93]

By Atlas: Bill Clinton. God does Atlas seem to love to hate him.

I agree with this. People on Atlas seem to not understand the context of the times Bill was governing in. Obama seems to get much more of a pass for his attempts at Rockefeller Republicanism (grand bargain) than Bill Clinton, and Obama governed in a much more liberal time than Clinton.

Bill Clinton literally worked with Republicans to pass legislation that actively hurt people that voted for him.

America in the 1990s was almost as Conservative as it was in the '80's and the 2000's. After Bill's first two years in Office, which were very liberal by the standards of that time, and still left of Center by today's, were overwhelmingly rejected (wrongfully IMHO, despite a rocky start) at the ballot box in 1994, his only options were to tag toward the center or get a Republican President with Newt Gingrich as Speaker of the House in 1996 and if that were to happen, it may have very well been worse than George W. Bush's blunder of a Presidency.

While Bill Clinton did pass bad legislation with a GOP Congress that he could've prevented, such as Glass Steagal Repeal, the Telecommunications Act,  and Deregulating Derivative Swaps, the rest of the criticized legislation of his term wasn't avoidable. The public, even leaders in the Black Community, wanted a Crime Bill in 1994 because inner city crime was through the roof in the 80's and early 90's due to the Crack epidemic, and as flawed as it is, they got it. They wanted Welfare Reform, and while Bill vetoed it many times before signing it, they unfortunately got a bad piece of reform. Most of the public wanted DOMA or a Constitutional Amendment defining marriage, and they got DOMA.  NAFTA was a done deal before he took office and would've happened whether he won in 1992 or not.  Good things also came out Clinton's two terms as well, such as the Family Medical Leave Law, the Brady Bill, the Assault Weapons Ban of 1994, CHIP, DADT, while I'm happy it was repealed in 2010, was seen as a step at the time, and he stopped Newt Gingrich from cutting Medicare, Education, and Environmental Spending.

[OSR stands with Israel]

By Atlas: Bill Clinton. God does Atlas seem to love to hate him.

I agree with this. People on Atlas seem to not understand the context of the times Bill was governing in. Obama seems to get much more of a pass for his attempts at Rockefeller Republicanism (grand bargain) than Bill Clinton, and Obama governed in a much more liberal time than Clinton.

Bill Clinton literally worked with Republicans to pass legislation that actively hurt people that voted for him.

This was one of his ads from 1992:

https://youtu.be/R1rS9R-uNiY

[OSR stands with Israel]

Yes Carter is an FF as a person and his post presidency was amazing as well , but his presidency isn’t underrated

Under his presidency:

- he left office with the country in the worst economic shape since the late 30s
- Inherited a growing economy which was turned into a double dip recession  
- Almost No Domestic Policy achievements
- Did nothing to help stop the Iranian Revolution and keep the Shah in power which led to Islamic Fundementlists taking over the county and the Iran hostage crises
- Beleived the US had an inordinate  fear of communism and then under his administration the communists went totally on the offensive and overthrew many US allies and the USSR invading Afghanistan

 There is almost no criteria in which Carter be considered a good president

[Badger]

Yes Carter is an FF as a person and his post presidency was amazing as well , but his presidency isn’t underrated

Under his presidency:

- he left office with the country in the worst economic shape since the late 30s
- Inherited a growing economy which was turned into a double dip recession  
- Almost No Domestic Policy achievements
- Did nothing to help stop the Iranian Revolution and keep the Shah in power which led to Islamic Fundementlists taking over the county and the Iran hostage crises
- Beleived the US had an inordinate  fear of communism and then under his administration the communists went totally on the offensive and overthrew many US allies and the USSR invading Afghanistan

 There is almost no criteria in which Carter be considered a good president

So we should have invaded Iran to stop the Islamic Revolution? Or declared war on Russia over Afghanistan? Or let's not forget that his unemployment rate when he left office with several points lower than what Reagan rose up to. But you are so wrapped up in Reagan worship you constantly forget that and just flat-out ignore the facts under the latter's administration.

No, Carter was not a good president, but let's not disregard the facts that he, not Reagan, got the hostages freed, though it was the one year anniversary falling election day that helped to give him such a landslide defeat. And yeah, the Camp David Accords are greater foreign policies a success than anything the Reagan Administration ever accomplished. Unless you count fighting communism by funding murderous drug-dealing death squads called contras which even the Democratic opposition in Nicaragua pose, or maybe supporting the apartheid government in South Africa while opposing the ANC and Nelson Mandela.

[Badger]

James K. Polk

[OSR stands with Israel]

Yes Carter is an FF as a person and his post presidency was amazing as well , but his presidency isn’t underrated

Under his presidency:

- he left office with the country in the worst economic shape since the late 30s
- Inherited a growing economy which was turned into a double dip recession  
- Almost No Domestic Policy achievements
- Did nothing to help stop the Iranian Revolution and keep the Shah in power which led to Islamic Fundementlists taking over the county and the Iran hostage crises
- Beleived the US had an inordinate  fear of communism and then under his administration the communists went totally on the offensive and overthrew many US allies and the USSR invading Afghanistan

 There is almost no criteria in which Carter be considered a good president

So we should have invaded Iran to stop the Islamic Revolution? Or declared war on Russia over Afghanistan? Or let's not forget that his unemployment rate when he left office with several points lower than what Reagan rose up to. But you are so wrapped up in Reagan worship you constantly forget that and just flat-out ignore the facts under the latter's administration.

No, Carter was not a good president, but let's not disregard the facts that he, not Reagan, got the hostages freed, though it was the one year anniversary falling election day that helped to give him such a landslide defeat. And yeah, the Camp David Accords are greater foreign policies a success than anything the Reagan Administration ever accomplished. Unless you count fighting communism by funding murderous drug-dealing death squads called contras which even the Democratic opposition in Nicaragua pose, or maybe supporting the apartheid government in South Africa while opposing the ANC and Nelson Mandela.

- The US could have fully supplied the Shah with weapons required to defeat the rebels

- Yes Carter got the hostages freed but his decision not to fully back the Shah caused the hostage crises in the first place

- Maybe Carter should never have said things like the US fear of Communism was Inordinate and allowed the Nicaraguan Government to fall to the commies in 1979. If he showed strength against the Commies the Soviets may not invade as weakness invites aggression from the enemy.

- Reagan policies of directly confronting the USSR and communism greatly hastened the Soviet's Fall. No that doesnt mean he single handily defeated them but he did hasten their fall. Reason for this is simple, for the first time since the IKE years the USSR was put on the defensive and by the 1980s their economy couldn't handle being on the defensive like it was in the 1950s and that caused it to fall.

- Um No Unemployment was Lower when Reagan left office than when he came into office. By the way the Recession of the early 80s was something Reagan inherited from Carter(That recession started before ANY of Reagan policies took into affect and unemployment started to rise in 1979 not in 1981).


- Lastly, Badger was the economy better in 1988(or even 1992) or 1980

[Rookie Yinzer]

By Atlas: Bill Clinton. God does Atlas seem to love to hate him.

I agree with this. People on Atlas seem to not understand the context of the times Bill was governing in. Obama seems to get much more of a pass for his attempts at Rockefeller Republicanism (grand bargain) than Bill Clinton, and Obama governed in a much more liberal time than Clinton.

Bill Clinton literally worked with Republicans to pass legislation that actively hurt people that voted for him.

This was one of his ads from 1992:

https://youtu.be/R1rS9R-uNiY

That doesn’t change the facts of what I said. He has not been underrated. The media and the public adored him up until Hillary ran for president in 2016, and his presidency and his sexual misdeeds were put under the microscope of social media and the “wokeness” of today’s generation. I think his presidency is accurately depicted at this point and he got off easy before. He wasn’t terrible but he wasn’t amazing either, and he did make some problematic decisions rooted in satisfying a certain type of voter while throwing people under the bus who had no logical choice but to vote Democrat.

[brucejoel99]

Gerald Ford ofc

[here2view]

William Henry Harrison, most Presidents would have wussed out and cut that speech short.

[Badger]

Yes Carter is an FF as a person and his post presidency was amazing as well , but his presidency isn’t underrated

Under his presidency:

- he left office with the country in the worst economic shape since the late 30s
- Inherited a growing economy which was turned into a double dip recession  
- Almost No Domestic Policy achievements
- Did nothing to help stop the Iranian Revolution and keep the Shah in power which led to Islamic Fundementlists taking over the county and the Iran hostage crises
- Beleived the US had an inordinate  fear of communism and then under his administration the communists went totally on the offensive and overthrew many US allies and the USSR invading Afghanistan

 There is almost no criteria in which Carter be considered a good president

So we should have invaded Iran to stop the Islamic Revolution? Or declared war on Russia over Afghanistan? Or let's not forget that his unemployment rate when he left office with several points lower than what Reagan rose up to. But you are so wrapped up in Reagan worship you constantly forget that and just flat-out ignore the facts under the latter's administration.

No, Carter was not a good president, but let's not disregard the facts that he, not Reagan, got the hostages freed, though it was the one year anniversary falling election day that helped to give him such a landslide defeat. And yeah, the Camp David Accords are greater foreign policies a success than anything the Reagan Administration ever accomplished. Unless you count fighting communism by funding murderous drug-dealing death squads called contras which even the Democratic opposition in Nicaragua pose, or maybe supporting the apartheid government in South Africa while opposing the ANC and Nelson Mandela.

- The US could have fully supplied the Shah with weapons required to defeat the rebels

- Yes Carter got the hostages freed but his decision not to fully back the Shah caused the hostage crises in the first place

- Maybe Carter should never have said things like the US fear of Communism was Inordinate and allowed the Nicaraguan Government to fall to the commies in 1979. If he showed strength against the Commies the Soviets may not invade as weakness invites aggression from the enemy.

- Reagan policies of directly confronting the USSR and communism greatly hastened the Soviet's Fall. No that doesnt mean he single handily defeated them but he did hasten their fall. Reason for this is simple, for the first time since the IKE years the USSR was put on the defensive and by the 1980s their economy couldn't handle being on the defensive like it was in the 1950s and that caused it to fall.

- Um No Unemployment was Lower when Reagan left office than when he came into office. By the way the Recession of the early 80s was something Reagan inherited from Carter(That recession started before ANY of Reagan policies took into affect and unemployment started to rise in 1979 not in 1981).


- Lastly, Badger was the economy better in 1988(or even 1992) or 1980

Good God. Where to begin? First off, any post that starts to talk about the word commie already chose you to be some immature kid who watched Red Dawn too many times.

You have a complete misunderstanding of how the Iran revolution took place. This was not some military venture like the Revolutions in Cuba or Nicaragua where Rebels took military control over increasing parts of the country until the capital fell. That was not a military situation in Iran. The government collapse from the inside due to the complete collapse of popular support and tidal wave of popular opposition. All the guns and tanks and Baum in the world, dude, would not have made an ounce of difference in stopping the student protest. The shot had all the guns and tanks he needed, he just rightfully understood that massacring even more protesters on the street wasn't going to prolong his rain for 1 day. When even the Army turned against him, what would have happened to all those guns and bombs you say would have supposedly preserve the Shah? The Carter Administration did all I could to support the Shah, and your observations somehow Carter's lack of resolve in anyway contributing to the Shaws downfall is factually ludicrous.

 not much different with Nicaragua either, Chum. Yes, there was a military Guerrilla war that the sandinistas one, but again it was the complete collapse of popular support, not that there was much to begin with, for the Somoza regime that led to the downfall. That in his utter brutality towards his own people and intransigence towards any steps of Reform, which Carter's other great claim as a present was in training emphasis on human rights as a fundamental part of American diplomacy, understanding that that's what led to support for communism, not some evil string pulling cabal in the Kremlin. Again, trying to pin some Moses downfall on the Carter Administration is beyond stupid and ill-informed.

Like most Reagan cultist, you use namby-pamby weasel phrases like " directly confronting communism" which mean absolutely nothing. I can never get your type to come up with any specific examples of what Reagan did that actually hastened the Cold War anymore or any less than any other president, Carter included, since the start of the Cold War. That includes the rampant unnecessary buildup in defense spending because, as previously mentioned, post Soviet collapse Declassified documents showed that Russian military spending remain on a steady course throughout Reagan's Administration. The whole idea is forced the Soviets into reform by creating an arms race they couldn't economically keep up with turns out to be something of a myth regarding the 80s, but true in the overall 40 year long cold war. That sort of containment, incidentally, was antithetical towards the John Foster Dulles and Ronald Reagan view of direct confrontation, incidentally.

I've heard you've demonstrated that you were fundamentally Starstruck in your eyes rather than able to base anything on facts about Reagan, I'm not even going to bother debating economics with you because it's a waste of time. I will simply point out for other readers that, it is fundamentally incorrect and almost cowardly to somehow claim the early 80s recession was somehow " inherited" from Carter. That recession was a direct and unquestionable result of the monetary policy instituted by Paul volcker which is explicitly why Reagan nominated him as the new fed chief. Yes, it ground inflation out of the system, but only at the cost of basically destroying America's Industrial Workforce in a manner that still has repercussions today 35 years later. Then yes we had a nice boom of economic growth in the mid-to-late 80s, and all Reagan had to do was double the national debt in 4 years to do so. Ironically, his economic policies are perhaps the greatest Vindicator of Kenzie in Theory.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

By Atlas: Bill Clinton. God does Atlas seem to love to hate him.

I agree with this. People on Atlas seem to not understand the context of the times Bill was governing in.

In his first term yes, however in his second term he just went too far with things like Glass-Steagall repeal. Almost as if he genuinely fell in love with being a bit of "me-too-but-more-moderate-Republican"

[OSR stands with Israel]

Yes Carter is an FF as a person and his post presidency was amazing as well , but his presidency isn’t underrated

Under his presidency:

- he left office with the country in the worst economic shape since the late 30s
- Inherited a growing economy which was turned into a double dip recession  
- Almost No Domestic Policy achievements
- Did nothing to help stop the Iranian Revolution and keep the Shah in power which led to Islamic Fundementlists taking over the county and the Iran hostage crises
- Beleived the US had an inordinate  fear of communism and then under his administration the communists went totally on the offensive and overthrew many US allies and the USSR invading Afghanistan

 There is almost no criteria in which Carter be considered a good president

So we should have invaded Iran to stop the Islamic Revolution? Or declared war on Russia over Afghanistan? Or let's not forget that his unemployment rate when he left office with several points lower than what Reagan rose up to. But you are so wrapped up in Reagan worship you constantly forget that and just flat-out ignore the facts under the latter's administration.

No, Carter was not a good president, but let's not disregard the facts that he, not Reagan, got the hostages freed, though it was the one year anniversary falling election day that helped to give him such a landslide defeat. And yeah, the Camp David Accords are greater foreign policies a success than anything the Reagan Administration ever accomplished. Unless you count fighting communism by funding murderous drug-dealing death squads called contras which even the Democratic opposition in Nicaragua pose, or maybe supporting the apartheid government in South Africa while opposing the ANC and Nelson Mandela.

- The US could have fully supplied the Shah with weapons required to defeat the rebels

- Yes Carter got the hostages freed but his decision not to fully back the Shah caused the hostage crises in the first place

- Maybe Carter should never have said things like the US fear of Communism was Inordinate and allowed the Nicaraguan Government to fall to the commies in 1979. If he showed strength against the Commies the Soviets may not invade as weakness invites aggression from the enemy.

- Reagan policies of directly confronting the USSR and communism greatly hastened the Soviet's Fall. No that doesnt mean he single handily defeated them but he did hasten their fall. Reason for this is simple, for the first time since the IKE years the USSR was put on the defensive and by the 1980s their economy couldn't handle being on the defensive like it was in the 1950s and that caused it to fall.

- Um No Unemployment was Lower when Reagan left office than when he came into office. By the way the Recession of the early 80s was something Reagan inherited from Carter(That recession started before ANY of Reagan policies took into affect and unemployment started to rise in 1979 not in 1981).


- Lastly, Badger was the economy better in 1988(or even 1992) or 1980

Good God. Where to begin? First off, any post that starts to talk about the word commie already chose you to be some immature kid who watched Red Dawn too many times.

You have a complete misunderstanding of how the Iran revolution took place. This was not some military venture like the Revolutions in Cuba or Nicaragua where Rebels took military control over increasing parts of the country until the capital fell. That was not a military situation in Iran. The government collapse from the inside due to the complete collapse of popular support and tidal wave of popular opposition. All the guns and tanks and Baum in the world, dude, would not have made an ounce of difference in stopping the student protest. The shot had all the guns and tanks he needed, he just rightfully understood that massacring even more protesters on the street wasn't going to prolong his rain for 1 day. When even the Army turned against him, what would have happened to all those guns and bombs you say would have supposedly preserve the Shah? The Carter Administration did all I could to support the Shah, and your observations somehow Carter's lack of resolve in anyway contributing to the Shaws downfall is factually ludicrous.

 not much different with Nicaragua either, Chum. Yes, there was a military Guerrilla war that the sandinistas one, but again it was the complete collapse of popular support, not that there was much to begin with, for the Somoza regime that led to the downfall. That in his utter brutality towards his own people and intransigence towards any steps of Reform, which Carter's other great claim as a present was in training emphasis on human rights as a fundamental part of American diplomacy, understanding that that's what led to support for communism, not some evil string pulling cabal in the Kremlin. Again, trying to pin some Moses downfall on the Carter Administration is beyond stupid and ill-informed.

Like most Reagan cultist, you use namby-pamby weasel phrases like " directly confronting communism" which mean absolutely nothing. I can never get your type to come up with any specific examples of what Reagan did that actually hastened the Cold War anymore or any less than any other president, Carter included, since the start of the Cold War. That includes the rampant unnecessary buildup in defense spending because, as previously mentioned, post Soviet collapse Declassified documents showed that Russian military spending remain on a steady course throughout Reagan's Administration. The whole idea is forced the Soviets into reform by creating an arms race they couldn't economically keep up with turns out to be something of a myth regarding the 80s, but true in the overall 40 year long cold war. That sort of containment, incidentally, was antithetical towards the John Foster Dulles and Ronald Reagan view of direct confrontation, incidentally.

I've heard you've demonstrated that you were fundamentally Starstruck in your eyes rather than able to base anything on facts about Reagan, I'm not even going to bother debating economics with you because it's a waste of time. I will simply point out for other readers that, it is fundamentally incorrect and almost cowardly to somehow claim the early 80s recession was somehow " inherited" from Carter. That recession was a direct and unquestionable result of the monetary policy instituted by Paul volcker which is explicitly why Reagan nominated him as the new fed chief. Yes, it ground inflation out of the system, but only at the cost of basically destroying America's Industrial Workforce in a manner that still has repercussions today 35 years later. Then yes we had a nice boom of economic growth in the mid-to-late 80s, and all Reagan had to do was double the national debt in 4 years to do so. Ironically, his economic policies are perhaps the greatest Vindicator of Kenzie in Theory.

Good thing historians agree with my assessment of Reagan more than they do of yours

[OSR stands with Israel]

Anyway my full list:


By Historians: HW Bush , McKinley , Nixon
General Public : Any Pre 1932 Great President not named Washington, Jefferson and Lincoln . For Post 1932 I would say Nixon
Atlas : Reagan, Clinton

[SWE]

JQA is the right answer here. Surprised I'm the first to mention it.

[President Johnson]

LBJ obviously. Ford is also heavily underrated. Also, call me crazy, but I think that Richard Nixon deserves more credit for the positive things he accomplished and his intellect.

[Meclazine for Israel]

Hoover only because he came to Western Australia and ran a gold mine.

[Badger]

Yes Carter is an FF as a person and his post presidency was amazing as well , but his presidency isn’t underrated

Under his presidency:

- he left office with the country in the worst economic shape since the late 30s
- Inherited a growing economy which was turned into a double dip recession  
- Almost No Domestic Policy achievements
- Did nothing to help stop the Iranian Revolution and keep the Shah in power which led to Islamic Fundementlists taking over the county and the Iran hostage crises
- Beleived the US had an inordinate  fear of communism and then under his administration the communists went totally on the offensive and overthrew many US allies and the USSR invading Afghanistan

 There is almost no criteria in which Carter be considered a good president

So we should have invaded Iran to stop the Islamic Revolution? Or declared war on Russia over Afghanistan? Or let's not forget that his unemployment rate when he left office with several points lower than what Reagan rose up to. But you are so wrapped up in Reagan worship you constantly forget that and just flat-out ignore the facts under the latter's administration.

No, Carter was not a good president, but let's not disregard the facts that he, not Reagan, got the hostages freed, though it was the one year anniversary falling election day that helped to give him such a landslide defeat. And yeah, the Camp David Accords are greater foreign policies a success than anything the Reagan Administration ever accomplished. Unless you count fighting communism by funding murderous drug-dealing death squads called contras which even the Democratic opposition in Nicaragua pose, or maybe supporting the apartheid government in South Africa while opposing the ANC and Nelson Mandela.

- The US could have fully supplied the Shah with weapons required to defeat the rebels

- Yes Carter got the hostages freed but his decision not to fully back the Shah caused the hostage crises in the first place

- Maybe Carter should never have said things like the US fear of Communism was Inordinate and allowed the Nicaraguan Government to fall to the commies in 1979. If he showed strength against the Commies the Soviets may not invade as weakness invites aggression from the enemy.

- Reagan policies of directly confronting the USSR and communism greatly hastened the Soviet's Fall. No that doesnt mean he single handily defeated them but he did hasten their fall. Reason for this is simple, for the first time since the IKE years the USSR was put on the defensive and by the 1980s their economy couldn't handle being on the defensive like it was in the 1950s and that caused it to fall.

- Um No Unemployment was Lower when Reagan left office than when he came into office. By the way the Recession of the early 80s was something Reagan inherited from Carter(That recession started before ANY of Reagan policies took into affect and unemployment started to rise in 1979 not in 1981).


- Lastly, Badger was the economy better in 1988(or even 1992) or 1980

Good God. Where to begin? First off, any post that starts to talk about the word commie already chose you to be some immature kid who watched Red Dawn too many times.

You have a complete misunderstanding of how the Iran revolution took place. This was not some military venture like the Revolutions in Cuba or Nicaragua where Rebels took military control over increasing parts of the country until the capital fell. That was not a military situation in Iran. The government collapse from the inside due to the complete collapse of popular support and tidal wave of popular opposition. All the guns and tanks and Baum in the world, dude, would not have made an ounce of difference in stopping the student protest. The shot had all the guns and tanks he needed, he just rightfully understood that massacring even more protesters on the street wasn't going to prolong his rain for 1 day. When even the Army turned against him, what would have happened to all those guns and bombs you say would have supposedly preserve the Shah? The Carter Administration did all I could to support the Shah, and your observations somehow Carter's lack of resolve in anyway contributing to the Shaws downfall is factually ludicrous.

 not much different with Nicaragua either, Chum. Yes, there was a military Guerrilla war that the sandinistas one, but again it was the complete collapse of popular support, not that there was much to begin with, for the Somoza regime that led to the downfall. That in his utter brutality towards his own people and intransigence towards any steps of Reform, which Carter's other great claim as a present was in training emphasis on human rights as a fundamental part of American diplomacy, understanding that that's what led to support for communism, not some evil string pulling cabal in the Kremlin. Again, trying to pin some Moses downfall on the Carter Administration is beyond stupid and ill-informed.

Like most Reagan cultist, you use namby-pamby weasel phrases like " directly confronting communism" which mean absolutely nothing. I can never get your type to come up with any specific examples of what Reagan did that actually hastened the Cold War anymore or any less than any other president, Carter included, since the start of the Cold War. That includes the rampant unnecessary buildup in defense spending because, as previously mentioned, post Soviet collapse Declassified documents showed that Russian military spending remain on a steady course throughout Reagan's Administration. The whole idea is forced the Soviets into reform by creating an arms race they couldn't economically keep up with turns out to be something of a myth regarding the 80s, but true in the overall 40 year long cold war. That sort of containment, incidentally, was antithetical towards the John Foster Dulles and Ronald Reagan view of direct confrontation, incidentally.

I've heard you've demonstrated that you were fundamentally Starstruck in your eyes rather than able to base anything on facts about Reagan, I'm not even going to bother debating economics with you because it's a waste of time. I will simply point out for other readers that, it is fundamentally incorrect and almost cowardly to somehow claim the early 80s recession was somehow " inherited" from Carter. That recession was a direct and unquestionable result of the monetary policy instituted by Paul volcker which is explicitly why Reagan nominated him as the new fed chief. Yes, it ground inflation out of the system, but only at the cost of basically destroying America's Industrial Workforce in a manner that still has repercussions today 35 years later. Then yes we had a nice boom of economic growth in the mid-to-late 80s, and all Reagan had to do was double the national debt in 4 years to do so. Ironically, his economic policies are perhaps the greatest Vindicator of Kenzie in Theory.

Good thing historians agree with my assessment of Reagan more than they do of yours

True, the most recent assessments of historians place him around 11th out of 42-43 (WH Harrison and Garfield aren't usually rated due to their short administrations, and some don't rate Trump yet).

I'm frankly not sure why, and have tried to find some assessments based on historical facts to place him above average. Care to offer yours, or are you satisfied to simply offer rote slogans like "confronting Communism"? Serious offer.