Okay, Obi's right this time. If we weed out all the joking and fun-making, even when we consider Andrew Jackson's ethnic cleansing campaign against Native Americans, no American president deserved straight-faced comparison to the likes of Adolph Hitler.

Oh, almost forgot his avid fight against communism, killing millions of dirty commies in the name of patriotism.

Definitely best ever.

History has revised Hoover, easily the most meddlesome peacetime president before FDR, into a laissez-faire reactionary. The New Deal – a disastrous example of everything not to do during downturns became beneficial, only it supposedly wasn’t aggressive enough.

Hoover tinkered with the economy throughout his term. The Smoot-Hawley Act of 1929 launched the trade war many believe precipitated the stock-market crash and the Depression. Then, fearing falling prices, he signed Norris-LaGuardia, Davis-Bacon and other acts, formed business cartels and farming associations all striving to arrest falling prices. Hoover also authored massive public works as he increased federal spending by 50%.

After campaigning on fiscal discipline, FDR promptly accelerated Hoover’s initiatives, devising new economic experiments almost daily. As FDR’s economist Rexford Tugwell conceded, “We didn’t admit it at the time, but practically the whole New Deal was extrapolated from programs that Hoover started.” Despite ridiculing Hoover’s “extravagance,” FDR increased spending another 83% in his first three years.

Hoover and FDR were complete failures as Presidents, and deserve to be put so far down on the list.

As for this list, everyone above Truman were good presidents, Ford was an ok president and everyone else was were terrible. I was essentially debating which kind of shit smelled better and put them in a near random order, making sure Carter was last because every republic says so and that Obama was below Bush to troll the liberals here.

*every republican says so...

And yet you say Hitler turned around the German economy, when his meddling in the economy was even greater than that of FDR. That's about as inconsistent as it gets.

"Definitely best ever."

It's funny how conservatives despise Socialists and Communists so much, yet can't stomach a Hitler reference, who hated those political groups just as much as any Fox News talking head.

As for Hitler on economics:
http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/nazis_and_the_german_economy.htm

I am not a big fan of FDR (I lean politically libertarianish) so it is strange to find myself disagreeing with so much of this FDR bashing.

No, the New Deal didn't work in the sense of fixing the Depression. It may have made things worse. But this ignores two important points. First, it's easy to talk about this and that in hindsight, but we must recall that lots of people thought that the Depression was an indication that market capitalism simply did not work, or could not work any more -- the crushing blow to the western democracies, in contrast to the apparently resurgent fascist powers and the mysterious communist Russia seemingly unfazed by the economic downturn, made people wonder if markets, even democracy, was a good idea any more. FDR freely admitted that he was experimenting, and there was always a sense of urgency that this (like the Civil War before it) was a test of the American system of government. FDR did the most important thing, which was to maintain popular confidence in the market, the government, etc etc. I don't agree with how he did it, but FDR held the country together without lapsing into authoritarianism, militarism, or any of the other similar dangers. That's a pretty big accomplishment.

Second (and, again, I don't necessarily agree with how he did it), FDR did a lot to reduce suffering in this country. The works programs, social security, and so on helped people in need. This closely relates to the first point.

Finally, FDR was an excellent wartime president. Lots of mistakes and missteps, but nobody bats 1.000 in fighting a world war. I can only think of a couple of presidents who would be an even trade in terms of capacity for overseeing such a gigantic enterprise.

This thread is hilarious. Well done, 2WL, and thanks to OP for being such an obviously biased wank.

Fasces, I thought your link would provide arguments as for why was Hitler economic policy a success, not why it was a failure.

As for John F. Kennedy, he wasn't all bad, and wasn't all good. He averted war in Cuba, but he failed in the Bay of Pigs. Unfortunately, he didnt get to finish up his term, and his selection of LBJ (worst VP descison ever) changed the course of our country.

LBJ: Weird acronym, or really bad president? Both. Lyndon Johnson expanded the debt greatly with medicaid, and he kept us in war in Vietnam. Also, his "Great Society" was a stupid and delusional idea. (How's that war on poverty working out for you?). The fact is, it couldn't possibly work. One could never completely get rid of poverty, no matter how hard you try. He was so unpopular that he couldn't even get his own party's nomination in 1968.

100 years is an arbitrary and unhelpful cut-off. You can't talk at all about Wilson without talking about the Progressive Movement, which, while it had a long history before he was president, pretty much died in 1920. The New Deal and World War II were so tranformative that any president before them (including FDR himself) has much more in common with the 19th century Chief Clerk presidents than the post-war Leaders of the Free World. You gotta compare like with like.

It was easier to limit it at a certain point, rather than drag it out. Besides, we're dealing with the 1960's now.

"LBJ: Weird acronym, or really bad president? Both."

Bad joke, or worst joke of this whole thread? Both!

"his selection of LBJ (worst VP descison ever)"

To put it mildly:
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/08/08/jacqueline-kennedy-reportedly-believed-lyndon-b-johnson-behind-husbands/

Now with Nixon, everyone knows he was a corrupt and terrible president.

Gerald Ford only did one thing of note: He pardoned Nixon. Personally, I think Nixon should have gone to jail, since no one is above the law. Ford was nothing special anyway.

My favourite presidents in the last 100 years would be...
1. Dwight D. Eisenhower
2. Woodrow Wilson
3. George W. Bush

@Airborne: Why do you hate Eisenhower? I am assuming that is a troll post given 2 of the 3 names on that list.

My favorite are:
Coolidge
Eisenhower
Reagan

@airborne:

I'm sorry, but I DO have to ask, as this really intrigues me...

Ike, Woodrow, and Dubya as your Top 3 of the last century?
All three are rather wildly dissimilar and all over the map...
A PhD-holding Democrat, a General, heralded the world over and...erm...Dubya...
It's not as if the three are very similar, at least not in most respects...

So why those three?

The most obvious one to question there is Dubya as, well, let's be honest, give most people a Top TEN list for presidents in the last century and he'd either be scratching around #9 or #10 if lucky or else more likely not make the cut...

Over Coolidge, FDR, Truman, JFK, Carter, Nixon, Reagan, Daddy Bush, Clinton and Obama...you take Dubya?

Not to say all those were great presidents (far from it) but most people would likely be able to find AT LEAST one or two from that list they'd take over Dubya, if not more...

And that's not even factoring in people who'd choose the lesser of two evils in regards to "the other party;" that is, I'm a Democrat, and I question *A LOT* of what Reagan did, and disagree with nearly as much...

But while I'd rather take at least half of those names (to say nothing of previous presidents) before Reagan, I'd also have to take Reagan before Dubya Bush if pressed...I mean, there's a lot I dislike about both men and their policies, but AT LEAST from, for lack of a better term, an aesthetic perspective, AT LEAST Reagan knew how to give a pretty damn good speech, the man was articulate, no question he's one of our best oratory presidents...

Dubya Bush had me wondering if he'd written things to say in crayon down beforehand...and STILL cocked things up! ;)

So yeah--

First, why each of those three, when they're so very disparate and largely unalike...
Given the 100 Years rule I'd go FDR/JFK/and then a toss-up between Wilson or TR if I can cheat and go just over 100 Years...and there's at least SOME similarity there...

Second, why Bush over...well, again, most of the above? Hell, why Dubya over his often much-better-regarded father...Dubya wasn't even the best in his own family to be President! ;)

@Sbyvl:

"Now with Nixon, everyone knows he was a corrupt and terrible president."

To be fair, while I wouldn't call him a good president, despite his disgusting actions and rampant corruption, I wouldn't call him a terrible one, either...

He DID go to China and negotiate there, after all, and DID largely get us out of Vietnam...

Before he was, well, found out to be a lying miserable bucket of sleeze and pent up rage, he had a comparatively-decent rating, and likely would have been remembered decently if not for, well, Watergate and, well, all the stuff we learned afterwards and as a consequence.

But in terms of actually getting things done, he wasn't terrible at all:

Jimmy Carter could've taken lessons.

(Actually, that's sort of a fun thought--Carter had all the morals and Nixon all the political savvy and talent...combine the two and you have a Democrat/Republican fusion of a candidate from both California AND the South with an admirable moral compass as well as a Machiavellian side that allows things to actually get done...my God, that's it, that's how we can finally have a good President--quick, someone splice these DNA strands together Sci-Fi style! President Jimmy Nixon in 2016!)

;)

@Fasces349 It's my favourite president not who I think is the worse. I think you read it wrong...

I respect Eisenhower for his part in WWII and the Korean War. He also built our highway system that lasted to this day...unforunately, without much repairs. His warning about the Miltary-Industrial Complex is one of the best speeches in American History. He was a modern day Cincinnatus in my opinion.

Wilson, I read Paris, 1919 by Margaret MacMillan and studied the WWI period quite a bit. I liked his League of Nations and he was a good ol' Southern boy.

Bush was just for personal reasons, he was the first president I got to know when I was a kid playing Civ2 on the Windows 00'.

Ok, I admit I picked two Texans and a Virginian.

Wilson took international institutions from the classroom into the world. The entire world owes him thanks for that.

Jimmy Carter (1977-1981) was one of the worst presidents in history. He managed to turn a thriving economy into a recession, get Americans held hostage (it took 444 days to get them back, after he was out of office), have inflation and interest rates soar, and pile on the debt, in just four years. Not to mention the oil shortage. People around the world viewed him as weak, and our standing in the world was diminished. In 1980, he was thrown out of office in a landslide. And now he offers his opinion when no one wants it (Kind of like me, but at least I'm not a socialist).

I am measuring the presidents by their legacies, not by who they were or what they seemed to be as men. On that basis Wilson ranks #1.

Unless you prefer the days when whole countries conquered each other and no one had anything to say about it.

Are we talking about the Administration at the time of presidency or the individual himself ? I dont think you can compare the presidency of the 1900s to the present day.

Yeah, now countries destroy themselves and all we do is say things about it.

Ronald Reagan (1981-1989) was one of the greatest presidents in history. He pulled us out of Carter's recession by the end of his first term, brought an end to the cold war, and didnt expand the size of government. He worked with congress to fix our problems, and cut back regulation and spending. I have to say this is our most recent "Great" president

#1 At least we do that

#2 sometimes we do more than that.

Kuwait
East Timor
Mali
Libya
Kosovo
Congo (kind of)
Darfur
Somalia

Say what you want, but it is inconceivable that much of what has happened militarily in the third world would have without Wilson's legacy.

Somalia would be run by al-Shabaab. Mali would be run by MUJAO. Libya would be run by Qaddafi. Kuwait would be a province of Saddam Hussein. East Timor would be part of Indonesia. Apartheid would continue in South Africa, Congo would already be fractured into multiple states. So would Nigeria.

That is, assuming those places ever became independent in the first place.

I am not trying to say Woodrow Wilson the man would have agreed with me about most things, I am however trying to say that his influence has made the world a better place.

We probably would not even be talking about human rights much, at least internationally, without him.

Yeah, Wilsonian foreign policy has been so effective. It's imperialism only with feel-good delusions, which is dishonest and therefore ineffective--and actually worse for those on the receiving end.
I'm sorry, but your view is just naivete, Thucy.