Opinion of Ronald Reagan?

[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?

[KaiserDave]

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

[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.

[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, 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.

[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.

[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).

[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.