Opinion of Ronald Reagan?
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 10:30:46 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  Individual Politics (Moderator: The Dowager Mod)
  Opinion of Ronald Reagan?
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9
Poll
Question: ?
#1
FF
 
#2
HP
 
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results

Total Voters: 158

Author Topic: Opinion of Ronald Reagan?  (Read 8892 times)
TheReckoning
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,653
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #150 on: January 12, 2021, 06:53:10 PM »

The fact that the Democrats on this board are calling the 7th best president ever (according to independent analysts) a HP show they aren’t as objective as they think.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/02/19/opinion/how-does-trump-stack-up-against-the-best-and-worst-presidents.html


Woodrow Wilson is also ranked in the top 10 presidents by """historical experts.""" Shows what they know.

Independents rank him lower. The reason why he’s high on that list is because of how Democrats (who make up a majority of Political scientists) love his graduated income tax.
Logged
John Dule
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,319
United States


Political Matrix
E: 6.57, S: -7.50

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #151 on: January 12, 2021, 06:56:33 PM »

The fact that the Democrats on this board are calling the 7th best president ever (according to independent analysts) a HP show they aren’t as objective as they think.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/02/19/opinion/how-does-trump-stack-up-against-the-best-and-worst-presidents.html


Woodrow Wilson is also ranked in the top 10 presidents by """historical experts.""" Shows what they know.

Independents rank him lower. The reason why he’s high on that list is because of how Democrats (who make up a majority of Political scientists) love his graduated income tax.


I see. So if a Republican is ranked as a "great president" and Democrats disagree, it is because the Democrats are biased. But if a Democrat is ranked as a "great president" and Republicans disagree, it is also because the Democrats are biased. Your airtight logic is unimpeachable.
Logged
TheReckoning
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,653
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #152 on: January 12, 2021, 06:59:35 PM »

The fact that the Democrats on this board are calling the 7th best president ever (according to independent analysts) a HP show they aren’t as objective as they think.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/02/19/opinion/how-does-trump-stack-up-against-the-best-and-worst-presidents.html


Woodrow Wilson is also ranked in the top 10 presidents by """historical experts.""" Shows what they know.

Independents rank him lower. The reason why he’s high on that list is because of how Democrats (who make up a majority of Political scientists) love his graduated income tax.


I see. So if a Republican is ranked as a "great president" and Democrats disagree, it is because the Democrats are biased. But if a Democrat is ranked as a "great president" and Republicans disagree, it is also because the Democrats are biased. Your airtight logic is unimpeachable.

Both Republicans and Democrats are biased in favor of their own party, and against the other party. That’s why I only take the rankings by independents that seriously.

Independents also rank Wilson the lowest out of all in terms of relative to other presidents. But Republicans give him a lower “score” out of 100.
Logged
Oregon Eagle Politics
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,198
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #153 on: January 12, 2021, 07:45:59 PM »


Didn’t the guy in your signature send 120,000 people to prison for the crime of being a certain ethnicity?

That definitely sounds like a HP to me.
And? This thread is about Reagan, not FDR. I don't like everything about FDR, but I think he was a net positive.
Logged
TheReckoning
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,653
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #154 on: January 12, 2021, 07:48:29 PM »


Didn’t the guy in your signature send 120,000 people to prison for the crime of being a certain ethnicity?

That definitely sounds like a HP to me.
And? This thread is about Reagan, not FDR. I don't like everything about FDR, but I think he was a net positive.

And I think the same of Reagan. And political scientists agree with me.
Logged
OSR stands with Israel
Computer89
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 44,349


Political Matrix
E: 3.42, S: 2.61

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #155 on: January 12, 2021, 08:15:00 PM »

The fact that the Democrats on this board are calling the 7th best president ever (according to independent analysts) a HP show they aren’t as objective as they think.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/02/19/opinion/how-does-trump-stack-up-against-the-best-and-worst-presidents.html


Woodrow Wilson is also ranked in the top 10 presidents by """historical experts.""" Shows what they know.


Not anymore

https://www.c-span.org/presidentsurvey2017/?page=overall
Logged
KaiserDave
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,587
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.81, S: -5.39

P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #156 on: January 12, 2021, 08:16:49 PM »

The fact that the Democrats on this board are calling the 7th best president ever (according to independent analysts) a HP show they aren’t as objective as they think.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/02/19/opinion/how-does-trump-stack-up-against-the-best-and-worst-presidents.html


Of course we're not objective. How do you think opinions work?
Logged
KaiserDave
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,587
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.81, S: -5.39

P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #157 on: January 12, 2021, 08:18:12 PM »

HP. He ushered in the neoliberal era that we are in today.

Lmao what???

LBJ was the first Neolib president, no question.

What do you think neoliberalism is
Logged
Crane
Atlas Politician
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,080


Political Matrix
E: -8.16, S: 3.22

P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #158 on: January 12, 2021, 08:20:34 PM »

Get you someone who will defend you the way TheReckoning defends the most senile and morally bankrupt carcass of a B-list actor to ever be president.
Logged
Oregon Eagle Politics
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,198
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #159 on: January 12, 2021, 08:25:55 PM »


Didn’t the guy in your signature send 120,000 people to prison for the crime of being a certain ethnicity?

That definitely sounds like a HP to me.
And? This thread is about Reagan, not FDR. I don't like everything about FDR, but I think he was a net positive.

And I think the same of Reagan. And political scientists agree with me.
OK, this is just my opinion. feel free to have your own.
Logged
TheReckoning
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,653
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #160 on: January 12, 2021, 08:43:05 PM »

Get you someone who will defend you the way TheReckoning defends the most senile and morally bankrupt carcass of a B-list actor to ever be president.

I can’t believe you are calling Reagan the most morally bankrupt president after the last 4 years.
Logged
TheReckoning
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,653
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #161 on: January 12, 2021, 08:44:49 PM »

The fact that the Democrats on this board are calling the 7th best president ever (according to independent analysts) a HP show they aren’t as objective as they think.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/02/19/opinion/how-does-trump-stack-up-against-the-best-and-worst-presidents.html


Of course we're not objective. How do you think opinions work?

Saying that Reagan was a horrible president is like calling Trump an amazing president. If you want to say that’s simply an opinion and not objectively wrong, then go ahead.
Logged
KaiserDave
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,587
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.81, S: -5.39

P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #162 on: January 12, 2021, 08:58:16 PM »

The fact that the Democrats on this board are calling the 7th best president ever (according to independent analysts) a HP show they aren’t as objective as they think.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/02/19/opinion/how-does-trump-stack-up-against-the-best-and-worst-presidents.html


Of course we're not objective. How do you think opinions work?

Saying that Reagan was a horrible president is like calling Trump an amazing president. If you want to say that’s simply an opinion and not objectively wrong, then go ahead.

Political opinions can't be "objectively" anything. Ranking Presidents is an opinion no matter how you slice it. I believe Reagan and Trump were both very bad Presidents (although Trump has certainly proved himself to be worse) and my ratings would reflect that.
Logged
TheReckoning
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,653
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #163 on: January 12, 2021, 08:59:53 PM »

The fact that the Democrats on this board are calling the 7th best president ever (according to independent analysts) a HP show they aren’t as objective as they think.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/02/19/opinion/how-does-trump-stack-up-against-the-best-and-worst-presidents.html


Of course we're not objective. How do you think opinions work?

Saying that Reagan was a horrible president is like calling Trump an amazing president. If you want to say that’s simply an opinion and not objectively wrong, then go ahead.

Political opinions can't be "objectively" anything. Ranking Presidents is an opinion no matter how you slice it. I believe Reagan and Trump were both very bad Presidents (although Trump has certainly proved himself to be worse) and my ratings would reflect that.

I think the question then becomes: why is your opinion so out of line with effectively all political scientists, including Democrats? Why do you believe you know better than them?
Logged
Crane
Atlas Politician
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,080


Political Matrix
E: -8.16, S: 3.22

P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #164 on: January 12, 2021, 09:04:12 PM »

Get you someone who will defend you the way TheReckoning defends the most senile and morally bankrupt carcass of a B-list actor to ever be president.

I can’t believe you are calling Reagan the most morally bankrupt president after the last 4 years.

Recency bias. Trump was awful but Reagan caused more permanent damage.

If there's a hell he's cooking in it, if there's not, it's better than what he deserved. F*** Reagan.
Logged
KaiserDave
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,587
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.81, S: -5.39

P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #165 on: January 12, 2021, 09:04:30 PM »

The fact that the Democrats on this board are calling the 7th best president ever (according to independent analysts) a HP show they aren’t as objective as they think.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/02/19/opinion/how-does-trump-stack-up-against-the-best-and-worst-presidents.html


Of course we're not objective. How do you think opinions work?

Saying that Reagan was a horrible president is like calling Trump an amazing president. If you want to say that’s simply an opinion and not objectively wrong, then go ahead.

Political opinions can't be "objectively" anything. Ranking Presidents is an opinion no matter how you slice it. I believe Reagan and Trump were both very bad Presidents (although Trump has certainly proved himself to be worse) and my ratings would reflect that.

I think the question then becomes: why is your opinion so out of line with effectively all political scientists, including Democrats? Why do you believe you know better than them?


Usually most rankings by political scientists and historians of recent Presidents judge them without prejudice to their accomplishments, and rather just the amount of accomplishment they had or effect on the country, although I believe Reagan's effect on the country was terrible, there's no doubt he had a massive effect on it. Although I suspect this attempt at objectivity of recent Presidents will not apply to Trump, as his "administration" was so obviously and egregiously terrible.
Logged
TheReckoning
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,653
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #166 on: January 12, 2021, 09:07:09 PM »

The fact that the Democrats on this board are calling the 7th best president ever (according to independent analysts) a HP show they aren’t as objective as they think.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/02/19/opinion/how-does-trump-stack-up-against-the-best-and-worst-presidents.html


Of course we're not objective. How do you think opinions work?

Saying that Reagan was a horrible president is like calling Trump an amazing president. If you want to say that’s simply an opinion and not objectively wrong, then go ahead.

Political opinions can't be "objectively" anything. Ranking Presidents is an opinion no matter how you slice it. I believe Reagan and Trump were both very bad Presidents (although Trump has certainly proved himself to be worse) and my ratings would reflect that.

I think the question then becomes: why is your opinion so out of line with effectively all political scientists, including Democrats? Why do you believe you know better than them?


Usually most rankings by political scientists and historians of recent Presidents judge them without prejudice to their accomplishments, and rather just the amount of accomplishment they had or effect on the country

Yeah that’s... not true. George W Bush definitely had a larger on the county than his father, but one of them is ranked higher than the other.
Logged
KaiserDave
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,587
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.81, S: -5.39

P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #167 on: January 12, 2021, 09:10:06 PM »

The fact that the Democrats on this board are calling the 7th best president ever (according to independent analysts) a HP show they aren’t as objective as they think.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/02/19/opinion/how-does-trump-stack-up-against-the-best-and-worst-presidents.html


Of course we're not objective. How do you think opinions work?

Saying that Reagan was a horrible president is like calling Trump an amazing president. If you want to say that’s simply an opinion and not objectively wrong, then go ahead.

Political opinions can't be "objectively" anything. Ranking Presidents is an opinion no matter how you slice it. I believe Reagan and Trump were both very bad Presidents (although Trump has certainly proved himself to be worse) and my ratings would reflect that.

I think the question then becomes: why is your opinion so out of line with effectively all political scientists, including Democrats? Why do you believe you know better than them?


Usually most rankings by political scientists and historians of recent Presidents judge them without prejudice to their accomplishments, and rather just the amount of accomplishment they had or effect on the country

Yeah that’s... not true. George W Bush definitely had a larger on the county than his father, but one of them is ranked higher than the other.

Well Bush again, obviously egregious and horrible. The full scope of the disasters of Reaganism are less subtle than Bush's, who left office with the economy obviously on fire.
Logged
TheReckoning
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,653
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #168 on: January 12, 2021, 09:13:53 PM »

The fact that the Democrats on this board are calling the 7th best president ever (according to independent analysts) a HP show they aren’t as objective as they think.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/02/19/opinion/how-does-trump-stack-up-against-the-best-and-worst-presidents.html


Of course we're not objective. How do you think opinions work?

Saying that Reagan was a horrible president is like calling Trump an amazing president. If you want to say that’s simply an opinion and not objectively wrong, then go ahead.

Political opinions can't be "objectively" anything. Ranking Presidents is an opinion no matter how you slice it. I believe Reagan and Trump were both very bad Presidents (although Trump has certainly proved himself to be worse) and my ratings would reflect that.

I think the question then becomes: why is your opinion so out of line with effectively all political scientists, including Democrats? Why do you believe you know better than them?


Usually most rankings by political scientists and historians of recent Presidents judge them without prejudice to their accomplishments, and rather just the amount of accomplishment they had or effect on the country

Yeah that’s... not true. George W Bush definitely had a larger on the county than his father, but one of them is ranked higher than the other.

Well Bush again, obviously egregious and horrible. The full scope of the disasters of Reaganism are less subtle than Bush's, who left office with the economy obviously on fire.

What?

Most people ranking Bush don’t even put him in the bottom 10 of presidents.

It sounds like you’re letting your personal biases get in the way of objective analysis.

Bush also saves countless lives in Africa with his anti-AIDS program.
Logged
TheReckoning
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,653
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #169 on: January 12, 2021, 09:21:04 PM »

Get you someone who will defend you the way TheReckoning defends the most senile and morally bankrupt carcass of a B-list actor to ever be president.

I can’t believe you are calling Reagan the most morally bankrupt president after the last 4 years.

Reagan caused more permanent damage.


How can you say that if Trump isn’t even out of office yet?
Logged
KaiserDave
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,587
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.81, S: -5.39

P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #170 on: January 12, 2021, 09:23:38 PM »

The fact that the Democrats on this board are calling the 7th best president ever (according to independent analysts) a HP show they aren’t as objective as they think.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/02/19/opinion/how-does-trump-stack-up-against-the-best-and-worst-presidents.html


Of course we're not objective. How do you think opinions work?

Saying that Reagan was a horrible president is like calling Trump an amazing president. If you want to say that’s simply an opinion and not objectively wrong, then go ahead.

Political opinions can't be "objectively" anything. Ranking Presidents is an opinion no matter how you slice it. I believe Reagan and Trump were both very bad Presidents (although Trump has certainly proved himself to be worse) and my ratings would reflect that.

I think the question then becomes: why is your opinion so out of line with effectively all political scientists, including Democrats? Why do you believe you know better than them?


Usually most rankings by political scientists and historians of recent Presidents judge them without prejudice to their accomplishments, and rather just the amount of accomplishment they had or effect on the country

Yeah that’s... not true. George W Bush definitely had a larger on the county than his father, but one of them is ranked higher than the other.

Well Bush again, obviously egregious and horrible. The full scope of the disasters of Reaganism are less subtle than Bush's, who left office with the economy obviously on fire.

What?

Most people ranking Bush don’t even put him in the bottom 10 of presidents.

It sounds like you’re letting your personal biases get in the way of objective analysis.

Bush also saves countless lives in Africa with his anti-AIDS program.


Oh, I guess I remember those rankings poorly then. Well, then they're even worse than I had imagined if they can't recognize obvious reality. I suppose in that case they really do grade on simply how much a President accomplished and how much effect they had rather than the outcomes of those actions.

Yes that's exactly what I'm doing. What's the point of a presidential ranking if it's not your opinion? Objective analysis is not something that exists. All analysis is opinion. How do you think political discussion works?

All things considered George W. Bush was in the bottom 10, or 5 Presidents we've ever had (in my opinion, obviously, that's how this works).
Logged
TheReckoning
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,653
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #171 on: January 12, 2021, 09:30:09 PM »

The fact that the Democrats on this board are calling the 7th best president ever (according to independent analysts) a HP show they aren’t as objective as they think.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/02/19/opinion/how-does-trump-stack-up-against-the-best-and-worst-presidents.html


Of course we're not objective. How do you think opinions work?

Saying that Reagan was a horrible president is like calling Trump an amazing president. If you want to say that’s simply an opinion and not objectively wrong, then go ahead.

Political opinions can't be "objectively" anything. Ranking Presidents is an opinion no matter how you slice it. I believe Reagan and Trump were both very bad Presidents (although Trump has certainly proved himself to be worse) and my ratings would reflect that.

I think the question then becomes: why is your opinion so out of line with effectively all political scientists, including Democrats? Why do you believe you know better than them?


Usually most rankings by political scientists and historians of recent Presidents judge them without prejudice to their accomplishments, and rather just the amount of accomplishment they had or effect on the country

Yeah that’s... not true. George W Bush definitely had a larger on the county than his father, but one of them is ranked higher than the other.

Well Bush again, obviously egregious and horrible. The full scope of the disasters of Reaganism are less subtle than Bush's, who left office with the economy obviously on fire.

What?

Most people ranking Bush don’t even put him in the bottom 10 of presidents.

It sounds like you’re letting your personal biases get in the way of objective analysis.

Bush also saves countless lives in Africa with his anti-AIDS program.


Oh, I guess I remember those rankings poorly then. Well, then they're even worse than I had imagined if they can't recognize obvious reality. I suppose in that case they really do grade on simply how much a President accomplished and how much effect they had rather than the outcomes of those actions.

Yes that's exactly what I'm doing. What's the point of a presidential ranking if it's not your opinion? Objective analysis is not something that exists. All analysis is opinion. How do you think political discussion works?

All things considered George W. Bush was in the bottom 10, or 5 Presidents we've ever had (in my opinion, obviously, that's how this works).

I’m confused. You say that ranking presidents is subjective, and then go on to say it’s an “obvious reality” that Reagan was a horrible president? And that you’ve figured this out, but entire associations of political scientists haven’t? You claim Bush Sr. accomplished more than Bush Jr in his presidency?

I find this a bit harder to believe than maybe your biases are clouding your judgement, and you should, too.

Logged
KaiserDave
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,587
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.81, S: -5.39

P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #172 on: January 12, 2021, 09:33:39 PM »
« Edited: January 12, 2021, 09:37:39 PM by KaiserDave »

The fact that the Democrats on this board are calling the 7th best president ever (according to independent analysts) a HP show they aren’t as objective as they think.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/02/19/opinion/how-does-trump-stack-up-against-the-best-and-worst-presidents.html


Of course we're not objective. How do you think opinions work?

Saying that Reagan was a horrible president is like calling Trump an amazing president. If you want to say that’s simply an opinion and not objectively wrong, then go ahead.

Political opinions can't be "objectively" anything. Ranking Presidents is an opinion no matter how you slice it. I believe Reagan and Trump were both very bad Presidents (although Trump has certainly proved himself to be worse) and my ratings would reflect that.

I think the question then becomes: why is your opinion so out of line with effectively all political scientists, including Democrats? Why do you believe you know better than them?


Usually most rankings by political scientists and historians of recent Presidents judge them without prejudice to their accomplishments, and rather just the amount of accomplishment they had or effect on the country

Yeah that’s... not true. George W Bush definitely had a larger on the county than his father, but one of them is ranked higher than the other.

Well Bush again, obviously egregious and horrible. The full scope of the disasters of Reaganism are less subtle than Bush's, who left office with the economy obviously on fire.

What?

Most people ranking Bush don’t even put him in the bottom 10 of presidents.

It sounds like you’re letting your personal biases get in the way of objective analysis.

Bush also saves countless lives in Africa with his anti-AIDS program.


Oh, I guess I remember those rankings poorly then. Well, then they're even worse than I had imagined if they can't recognize obvious reality. I suppose in that case they really do grade on simply how much a President accomplished and how much effect they had rather than the outcomes of those actions.

Yes that's exactly what I'm doing. What's the point of a presidential ranking if it's not your opinion? Objective analysis is not something that exists. All analysis is opinion. How do you think political discussion works?

All things considered George W. Bush was in the bottom 10, or 5 Presidents we've ever had (in my opinion, obviously, that's how this works).

I’m confused. You say that ranking presidents is subjective, and then go on to say it’s an “obvious reality” that Reagan was a horrible president? And that you’ve figured this out, but entire associations of political scientists haven’t? You claim Bush Sr. accomplished more than Bush Jr in his presidency?

I find this a bit harder to believe than maybe your biases are clouding your judgement, and you should, too.

It's my opinion that it's obvious reality, and I thought my opinion, given that I believe it's very clear, would be better reflected in the rankings. I guess not. You misunderstand me, perhaps I was confusing, but that's because I remain confused and bewildered at the nature of these rankings, which never seem to explain themselves coherently. I don't claim Bush Sr. accomplished more than Bush Jr. Bush Jr. has a much longer list of much more terrible things.

"I find this a bit harder to believe than maybe your biases are clouding your judgement, and you should, too."

Yes, I am. I have said this several times. This is how opinions work. I have an opinion.
Logged
TheReckoning
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,653
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #173 on: January 12, 2021, 09:39:59 PM »

The fact that the Democrats on this board are calling the 7th best president ever (according to independent analysts) a HP show they aren’t as objective as they think.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/02/19/opinion/how-does-trump-stack-up-against-the-best-and-worst-presidents.html


Of course we're not objective. How do you think opinions work?

Saying that Reagan was a horrible president is like calling Trump an amazing president. If you want to say that’s simply an opinion and not objectively wrong, then go ahead.

Political opinions can't be "objectively" anything. Ranking Presidents is an opinion no matter how you slice it. I believe Reagan and Trump were both very bad Presidents (although Trump has certainly proved himself to be worse) and my ratings would reflect that.

I think the question then becomes: why is your opinion so out of line with effectively all political scientists, including Democrats? Why do you believe you know better than them?


Usually most rankings by political scientists and historians of recent Presidents judge them without prejudice to their accomplishments, and rather just the amount of accomplishment they had or effect on the country

Yeah that’s... not true. George W Bush definitely had a larger on the county than his father, but one of them is ranked higher than the other.

Well Bush again, obviously egregious and horrible. The full scope of the disasters of Reaganism are less subtle than Bush's, who left office with the economy obviously on fire.

What?

Most people ranking Bush don’t even put him in the bottom 10 of presidents.

It sounds like you’re letting your personal biases get in the way of objective analysis.

Bush also saves countless lives in Africa with his anti-AIDS program.


Oh, I guess I remember those rankings poorly then. Well, then they're even worse than I had imagined if they can't recognize obvious reality. I suppose in that case they really do grade on simply how much a President accomplished and how much effect they had rather than the outcomes of those actions.

Yes that's exactly what I'm doing. What's the point of a presidential ranking if it's not your opinion? Objective analysis is not something that exists. All analysis is opinion. How do you think political discussion works?

All things considered George W. Bush was in the bottom 10, or 5 Presidents we've ever had (in my opinion, obviously, that's how this works).

I’m confused. You say that ranking presidents is subjective, and then go on to say it’s an “obvious reality” that Reagan was a horrible president? And that you’ve figured this out, but entire associations of political scientists haven’t? You claim Bush Sr. accomplished more than Bush Jr in his presidency?

I find this a bit harder to believe than maybe your biases are clouding your judgement, and you should, too.

It's my opinion that it's obvious reality, and I thought my opinion, given that I believe it's very clear, would be better reflected in the rankings. I guess not. You misunderstand me, perhaps I was confusing, but that's because I remain confused and bewildered at the nature of these rankings, which never seem to explain themselves coherently. I don't claim Bush Sr. accomplished more than Bush Jr. Bush Jr. has a much longer list of much more terrible things.

"I find this a bit harder to believe than maybe your biases are clouding your judgement, and you should, too."

Yes, I am. I have said this several times. This is how opinions work. I have an opinion.

Well, you can have an opinion all you want. But I’m still gonna stick with what the scientists say. Thanks for the conversation!
Logged
Anti Democrat Democrat Club
SawxDem
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,093
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #174 on: January 12, 2021, 10:03:21 PM »

The fact that the Democrats on this board are calling the 7th best president ever (according to independent analysts) a HP show they aren’t as objective as they think.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/02/19/opinion/how-does-trump-stack-up-against-the-best-and-worst-presidents.html


ok simp
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.085 seconds with 14 queries.