Who actually was the Worst President of the United States? (Let's rank them)

RolloRollo Operative 6081, MiniTrueAirstrip Three, OceaniaPosts: 1,889 ✭✭✭
Who are your top ten? I'm thinking that we could adopt  Eurovision style points, being 1-8, 10 and 12 for the very worst. That way we could statistically put this question to the vote.

From tenth worst to the very worst, I award the following points:

1 - Herbert Hoover
2 - Richard Nixon
3 - Calvin Coolidge
4 - Ulysses S. Grant
5 - Franklin Pierce
6 - James Garfield
7 - Millard Fillmore
8 - Andrew Johnson

10 points - Warren G. Harding

Apart from the Veterans Bureau, the United States Shipping Board, the Office of Alien Property and fraud cases within the Department of the Interior and the Justice Department, Harding not only oversaw a hideously corrupt administration but as the President who brought in Prohibition, he hypocritically went on booze cruises to avoid the law which he oversaw. Clinton may have almost been impeached due to sexual relations with "that woman" but Harding had mistresses and even was paying child support for one of the children which came as a result.

Douze Point! - James Buchanan

Probably not a bad president if it wasn't for one giant glaring hole... secession.
In theory he could have brought the various factions together for a series of talks but he proceeded to do nothing. Even when his generals like Scott advised that troops be sent to protect government property, he did nothing. 
I would think that usually the actions of a president usually determine how good or bad they are. Buchanan wins my list through inaction.
"I speak an infinite deal of nothing and I am not bound to please thee with my answers."

I've written four books - you might like to buy them: Linky - Doobly Doo

Comments

  • BH622BH622 BaltimorePosts: 128 ✭✭
    You have to really specify how you want to determine quality. For example, your winner wins by inaction, yet William Henry Harrison literally couldn't do anything, serving for a single month (while ill) and dying in office. Technically, that is the least effective presidential term.
    “This is how you do it: you sit down at the keyboard and you put one word after another until its done. It's that easy, and that hard.” - Neil Gaiman on writing

    Like martial arts? Like reading blogs about it? Not sure? Check out my brand new blog, A Warrior's Journey.
  • McEstebanMcEsteban Posts: 773 ✭✭✭
    I think the measure should be by potential to solve conflict and not rising to the occasion.  The more serious and numerous the conflicts unresolved, the worse the President.  Though you also have to consider that the President is not all powerful.  Johnson would have likely seen far greater success if not for Vietnam, which was set in motion long before he showed up and was complicated in ways that no one could control.  Harding didn't cause the Depression, and seeing as how that kind of failure in the economy had never been seen before it is hard to blame him for his failed ideology not measuring up to the task.

    Having said that, John Adams certainly fouled up in office despite his previous political and ideological successes, of you know, founding America.  James Buchanan did little to prevent the Civil War, and Andrew Johnson's Reconstruction policies were so atrocious that they have continued to have lasting effect on geographic, political, and racial divides nearly 150 years after the Civil War.
  • SANTA_ATE_CHICAGOSANTA_ATE_CHICAGO PennsylvaniaPosts: 2,637 ✭✭✭
    edited March 2014
    BH622 said:
    You have to really specify how you want to determine quality. For example, your winner wins by inaction, yet William Henry Harrison literally couldn't do anything, serving for a single month (while ill) and dying in office. Technically, that is the least effective presidential term.

    I'd say then it's more about voluntary inaction
    by SANTA_ATE_CHICAGO
    When is a door not a door? When someone steals the hinges.
  • Luke_Earl_MolleLuke_Earl_Molle Earl of Peace Jefferson, IaPosts: 3,007 ✭✭✭✭
    I think that it is impossible to say which ones are better, because you can't compare Obama to George Washington. They each had different struggles while in office, and the each had different resources to take care of the problems they had. Saying that one president is better than another is really a hard thing to do, well except for some that were complete crapsters. I mean you wouldn't try to compare citizens from one time period to another because with each year there are new things making it so that we can do more. As the world changes the way we deal with stuff and the stuff we have to deal with change, so how can we say that Hoover is better than say Lincoln, or vise versa. Lincoln had to face things that Hoover didn't, and he had different technologies available to take care of them, and it is the same with Hoover, he had different problems and different methods and resources to use to get through them. I think saying that certain presidents are significantly better is wrong(as long as you only count the actual presidenty parts) because each year we get new problems and new solutions.
    I am the Duke of Earl, and I also am Earl For To and Of Peace
  • McEstebanMcEsteban Posts: 773 ✭✭✭
    But the question was about the bad ones.  Do you have an opinion on that?
  • ArkantosArkantos Atlanta, GeorgiaPosts: 14
    The worst thing a President can be, in my opinion, is corrupt. By that measure, Grant was the worst President ever.
  • Luke_Earl_MolleLuke_Earl_Molle Earl of Peace Jefferson, IaPosts: 3,007 ✭✭✭✭
    McEsteban said:
    But the question was about the bad ones.  Do you have an opinion on that?
    Well, there are many presidents that may have been a lot worse if they were in the time of some of the bad ones. I was saying you can't compare them because it is different times with different tech, that applies to good and bad stuff. 
    I am the Duke of Earl, and I also am Earl For To and Of Peace
  • SANTA_ATE_CHICAGOSANTA_ATE_CHICAGO PennsylvaniaPosts: 2,637 ✭✭✭
    I don't have an official list, but generally I say Buchanan because he was the single human who had the most to do with the (not a civil war) Civil War.
    When is a door not a door? When someone steals the hinges.
  • Wait, what does everyone have against Grant? I thought he had something to do with the reconstruction?
  • sdirstinesdirstine Posts: 3
    I am surprised you don't have Andrew Jackson on the list. His 'Indian Policy' was practically genocidal. He advocated the killing of women and children. It is embarrassing that he is on our $20 bill.
  • RialVestroRialVestro Posts: 6,223 ✭✭✭
    Trump is easily the worst. With most politicians you don't know if they're lying until they actually get elected and start to see that the things they said they would do don't get done. They get elected because they promise to do things people actually want but then they don't make good on those promises.

    With Trump, he's a terrible liar because he tells us his real plans then back peddles with a lie that we know is a lie because it contradicts a previous statement, and some how people are falling for it. For the first time in history we have someone who we can clearly see is a liar because he's not even a good liar and we could of avoided him but instead he was elected with the full knowledge of his racist, sexist, bigoted, criminal background. There's no way we can possibly do worse than this.

    It's one thing to elect someone we think is good and then after the fact discover that we elected the wrong person but to elect someone who's so blatantly lying that you can fact check him as he's talking, that's never happened before.

    I just saw him on TV a few days ago and he said something about this being the greatest electoral win since Regan which is wrong. Someone corrected him and asked where he got that information and then he gave TWO different answers. "I was given that information." and "I read it some where." Which is it? Either someone on your staff gave you the wrong information or you read is some where and can't remember. He obviously just backpedaled his original answer so as not to incriminate his own staff who gave him the wrong information. And this happens all the time in his speeches. He said that all Mexicans were criminals then backpedaled on that claim trying to cover it up with "some of them are probably good people" you can't say some of them are probably good right after you've already made a claim that all of them are criminals.

    He said he's going to make Mexico pay for the wall. That's freaking impossible and if you just look at history you can see that the wall is a terrible idea that is going to waste tax payers money. In order for the U.S. to build Trump's wall our taxes have to be increased because we're the ones who are going to pay for it. We can't make anyone else pay for it, if we want a wall we have to pay for it. But why would we want a wall? Have we learned nothing from history. China built the great wall to keep out the Mongols and they still got in. The wall did absolutely nothing but waste time, money, and resources for the Chinese government. Sure years later it became a tourist attraction and they were able to make back their money over time but this is going to make our economy worse and it'll take years to build and then recover from. Your grand kids will have grand kids before we can even start to recover from the damage that Trump is doing to our country.
    Ni, peng, nee-wom! Ecky, ecky, ecky, pakang, zoom-ping! Baa weep grahna weep ninny bong!
  • RolloRollo Operative 6081, MiniTrue Airstrip Three, OceaniaPosts: 1,889 ✭✭✭

    Your grand kids will have grand kids before we can even start to recover from the damage that Trump is doing to our country.

    Trump is awful and a sociopath but I have my doubts as to whether he is actually the worst.

    Nixon's disastrous policies on health care still has effects 40 years later and Reagan's labour policy probably accounts for a lot of the widening of socio-economic status we see today but the fact remains that despite the fact that Trump would be unelectable in possibly every other country on earth, he can't even assemble a cabinet; much less enact policy.
    "I speak an infinite deal of nothing and I am not bound to please thee with my answers."

    I've written four books - you might like to buy them: Linky - Doobly Doo
  • Luke_Earl_MolleLuke_Earl_Molle Earl of Peace Jefferson, IaPosts: 3,007 ✭✭✭✭
    Rollo said:

    Your grand kids will have grand kids before we can even start to recover from the damage that Trump is doing to our country.

    Trump is awful and a sociopath but I have my doubts as to whether he is actually the worst.

    Nixon's disastrous policies on health care still has effects 40 years later and Reagan's labour policy probably accounts for a lot of the widening of socio-economic status we see today but the fact remains that despite the fact that Trump would be unelectable in possibly every other country on earth, he can't even assemble a cabinet; much less enact policy.
    Trump is going to expand the worst policies that Reagan instituted. Reagan decreased taxes and regulations, which is exactly what Trump plans to do. The Republicans are ruining the economy by doing the exact opposite of what needs to be done. At least Reagan didn't have ties to the Russians.

    Oh the plans the administration have put forward on health care will make things worse than they were before Obamacare, which contrary to popular stupidity brought health care prices down in our nation.

    He is also going to destroy the environment to bring back jobs that we shouldn't be bringing back. Seriously there are jobs in new energy just like there were in old energy, we need people to maintain solar and wind energy, nuclear plants need employees. The only good thing I can see happening is if the regulations go down on nuclear and it is finally able to move past the propaganda against it. He is pushing us into the past and it is going to get us left behind.

    He also fails to see the real things taking our jobs. Automation and company mergers are responsible for a grand majority of job loss in the U.S. and that is only going to progress. We need to focus on job retraining not blaming the immigrants that stimulate our economy for problems that are being caused by industrial progression to new technology.

    Lets not forget that he encourages discrimination across the board. Lets remember the racist Atourney General that fought against civil rights and spoke with Russians before trying to stop us from looking into Russian ties. Oh and he wants to waist billions on a wall when most illegal immigrants came on a plane with visa's and over stayed their welcome.

    There was also that immigration ban that sounded way too much like the stuff we did to that Japanese during WW2. Said immigration ban just happened to not ban people from the country that the most terrorists actually come from, Saudi Arabia.

    Regardless it seems that he may end up being impeached before he has a chance to become the worst president.
    I am the Duke of Earl, and I also am Earl For To and Of Peace
  • RialVestroRialVestro Posts: 6,223 ✭✭✭
    Luke, two things.

    1. Automation doesn't actually remove jobs. We still have cashiers despite the existence of self check out. Plus they need people to maintain those machines as half the time even in self check out people still need customer assistance when they don't work properly. It just makes existing jobs easier not completely replacing them.

    2. If he gets impeached from office that would still make him the worst. He was already elected into office so he still counts no matter how quickly his term lasts. Plus he would be only the second presendent to be impeached. The first was Nixon. Bill Clinton almost was be he was so close to the end of his second term it was easier just to wait him out.

    That's also why I didn't like Hillary either. You have to wander about the motivations of a woman who is still married to a man that cheated on her and was one of the worst presidents we ever had. I see that as a conflict of interest that should disqualify her from even running in the first place. If they were divorced I wouldn't mind but I don't think the wife of a former president should be able to run.

    I do want to see a woman president eventually. And the same concerns would apply if her husband were to run after her two terms are up. They could be taking advantage of a loop hole because when the rule was written that no one can serve more than two terms they didn't have the idea that women would ever run in mind. That really needs an amendment to prevent anyone from moving back into the white house after 8 years. That way it removes the possibly of any conflict of interest with the marital partner of a former president.

    All that being said the potetial for a conflict of interest with the former president Clinton is still preferable to the bigot we have now.
    Ni, peng, nee-wom! Ecky, ecky, ecky, pakang, zoom-ping! Baa weep grahna weep ninny bong!
  • RolloRollo Operative 6081, MiniTrue Airstrip Three, OceaniaPosts: 1,889 ✭✭✭

    Luke, two things.

    1. Automation doesn't actually remove jobs. We still have cashiers despite the existence of self check out. Plus they need people to maintain those machines as half the time even in self check out people still need customer assistance when they don't work properly. It just makes existing jobs easier not completely replacing them.

    At my local supermarket, there are 16 cashier posts. Ten years ago on a Thursday night, all 16 would be operated by people. Now, there are usually only 3 open, plus the self-serve machines.
    Automation does remove jobs, that's the point. Machines are cheaper to employ, they don't take holidays, they can be running 24 hours a day. If businesses can find a way to reduce input costs they will and labour is an input cost.


    "I speak an infinite deal of nothing and I am not bound to please thee with my answers."

    I've written four books - you might like to buy them: Linky - Doobly Doo
  • Luke_Earl_MolleLuke_Earl_Molle Earl of Peace Jefferson, IaPosts: 3,007 ✭✭✭✭

    Luke, two things.

    1. Automation doesn't actually remove jobs. We still have cashiers despite the existence of self check out. Plus they need people to maintain those machines as half the time even in self check out people still need customer assistance when they don't work properly. It just makes existing jobs easier not completely replacing them.

    2. If he gets impeached from office that would still make him the worst. He was already elected into office so he still counts no matter how quickly his term lasts. Plus he would be only the second presendent to be impeached. The first was Nixon. Bill Clinton almost was be he was so close to the end of his second term it was easier just to wait him out.

    That's also why I didn't like Hillary either. You have to wander about the motivations of a woman who is still married to a man that cheated on her and was one of the worst presidents we ever had. I see that as a conflict of interest that should disqualify her from even running in the first place. If they were divorced I wouldn't mind but I don't think the wife of a former president should be able to run.

    I do want to see a woman president eventually. And the same concerns would apply if her husband were to run after her two terms are up. They could be taking advantage of a loop hole because when the rule was written that no one can serve more than two terms they didn't have the idea that women would ever run in mind. That really needs an amendment to prevent anyone from moving back into the white house after 8 years. That way it removes the possibly of any conflict of interest with the marital partner of a former president.

    All that being said the potetial for a conflict of interest with the former president Clinton is still preferable to the bigot we have now.

    1. Automation is currently removing a lot of jobs. There was a factor in China that employed around 600 people, if I remember correctly, the fired all 600 of those people after hiring 60 robotics millwrights who replaced those 600 people with robots. That factory currently has 60 employees and plans to cut back to 20 once they get the kinks worked out.

    I am getting ready to go to college to be a robotics millwright, I know it will take jobs from people but I believe that it is the path we should go down, we shouldn't pause technological advancements when we could keep moving forward under a different system.

    2. I can't argue that it wouldn't make him the worst, it would just insure he wasn't his worst.

    Does every marriage end after somebody cheats? It isn't uncommon for women to stay with people who cheat on them, not that I think they should or anything that is their choice. I also don't think Bill Clinton was really one of our worst presidents either. I mean he did some stupid stuff don't get me wrong, but there was a surplus when he left office not a deficit. If you look at everything he did then you can see that he wasn't even close to being as bad as somebody like Reagan.

    I can see how the marriage is a conflict of interest though, but she wasn't president, and he wasn't going to be president again, I don't really see how that is a loop hole. I don't like that it is completely possible but an amendment that prevents somebody from moving back into the white house after 8 years would eliminate the children of many past presidents and that isn't fair to do. It is okay for somebody to want to follow in their parents foot steps and their should never be laws preventing them from doing that unless their father was a criminal of course.
    I am the Duke of Earl, and I also am Earl For To and Of Peace
  • RialVestroRialVestro Posts: 6,223 ✭✭✭
    1. You seem to have a very narrow view on this. Automated check out means less cashiers end of discussion a far as your concerned. However there's more to it than that. Sure there is going to be less cashiers but that doesn't mean they lose jobs it just means they move into different jobs. It's not like a person who gets replaced by a machine can never work again. Whenever one job gets phased out new jobs open to replace it.

    2. The problem with the conflict of interest is that married couples typically discuss things and make decisions together which means Hillary practically was in office already. Who knows how many of Bill's decisions were influenced by his wife. And with her as president married to him it would be the same damn thing all over again where her decisions could easily be influenced by him.

    Children of presidents is a completely different thing as no one ever talks to their kids about anything important. It's a completely different situation than a spouce. Husband and wife are generally united on important issues, kids and parents aren't.

    Granted this is all hypothetical but the only other option is to institute a new rule that basically treats the president like a jury member where they can't communicate with anyone about the presidency until after their term has ended. Which would basically mean any phone calls made home would be monitored and the spouse wouldn't be allowed to move in with the president. The couple would have no privacy for four to eight years and no ones going to agree to that. There's no other way to ensure there won't be any conflict of interest it's either spouses of former presidents can't run or while in office the couple can't live together or speak to each other in private to ensure they don't discuss presidential issues.
    Ni, peng, nee-wom! Ecky, ecky, ecky, pakang, zoom-ping! Baa weep grahna weep ninny bong!
  • Luke_Earl_MolleLuke_Earl_Molle Earl of Peace Jefferson, IaPosts: 3,007 ✭✭✭✭
    No I understand that people move into different fields and new fields open up. I was trying to give scale with the factory example. It is the same problem faced throughout the Rustbelt already though, the exact people who Trump pandered to in those areas where people who lost their jobs do to factories closing, it was common for the factories being the biggest jobs supplier for the area by a long shot and most of the people who worked in the factories couldn't find jobs, and the jobs they could find tend to be in the service industry where they make less money. When you phase 500 jobs out of a small town with a population of a few thousand it it hard on the community. Many small towns rely one a single factory for a good portion of their jobs, when those jobs go away the town slowly starts disappearing. Granted with robots taking the jobs towns disappearing because of the job loss will be less prevalent, but none the less it won't be an easy transition in many rural areas.
    I am the Duke of Earl, and I also am Earl For To and Of Peace
  • RialVestroRialVestro Posts: 6,223 ✭✭✭
    That is the real problem. Like I said the issue is far more complicated than just people loseing jobs. Over simplifying it like that makes it sound like if a job gets phased out that it happens all at once and the people in those jobs can never work again which is not a real thing that could ever happen.

    Many of the "cashiers" in my local stores still work for the same stores just in different positions. No one is just a cashier, they're trained to pretty much run any department in the store so if self check out ever does phase out the cashier position completely they still have jobs. Plus Wall Mart recently expanded the store here which is creating more jobs that weren't needed five years ago...

    And because Trump likes to take credit for things he had nothing to do with I just wanted to clarify that plans for this expansion has been in the works for the last five years. The community signed a petition saying we wanted this expansion and then wall mart had to get the building permits. And construction started last year so Trump can't take credit for any of this.
    Ni, peng, nee-wom! Ecky, ecky, ecky, pakang, zoom-ping! Baa weep grahna weep ninny bong!
Sign In or Register to comment.