Survey of 154 scholars places 45th president behind even ‘historically calamitous chief executives’ linked to civil war

Donald Trump finished 45th and rock bottom of a list ranking US presidents by greatness, trailing even “historically calamitous chief executives” who failed to stop the civil war or botched its aftermath.

Worse for the likely Republican nominee this year, his probable opponent, Joe Biden, debuted at No 14.

“Biden’s most important achievements may be that he rescued the presidency from Trump, resumed a more traditional style of presidential leadership and is gearing up to keep the office out of his predecessor’s hands this fall,” Justin Vaughn and Brandon Rottinghaus, the political scientists behind the survey, wrote in the Los Angeles Times.

  • frezik
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    10 months ago

    OK. Now we get directly involved and Russia goes nuclear, or we don’t get involved at all and Russia takes over Ukraine.

      • frezik
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        10 months ago

        You offering something better? Because I’m not seeing it.

        • FontMasterFlex@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          10 months ago

          FIght your own fight. This war by proxy shit is bunk. If he’s bad enough to stop, then let’s go fucking stop him. If he’s not then why waste our money and their lives? It could be over tomorrow if we really wanted it to be, but we’ll just string it along, drag it out. Fuel the war machine.

          • frezik
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            10 months ago

            Because they’d go nuclear. We covered this.

            • FontMasterFlex@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              10 months ago

              you don’t know that. and by being the first country to “go nuclear” they’d be putting a HUGE target on their backs. no way that would happen.

              • frezik
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                10 months ago

                Ok, it makes things more likely to go nuclear. Now that’s that settled, this is a bad idea, right?

                  • frezik
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    ·
                    10 months ago

                    Prove you’re not a sealion first.

                    Or how about this: I would love to see NATO go gloves off. We tell Poland “Hulk? Smash.” and they rush across the border and reinforce Ukrainian positions. A US carrier group rolls up and sinks what remains of the Black Sea Fleet before the Admiral can get a second cup of coffee. Marines start landing in Sevastopol and the obligatory McDonalds is setup within 36 hours. F-22s body the Russian air force without even being seen. The Kerch Strait Bridge isn’t just bombed, but completely taken out from end to end. What remains of Russian ground positions west of Mariupol is full of soldiers who hear rumors that NATO POW camps will give you hot food and a warm blanket, and that’s sounding like a damn good deal by the end of the week.

                    Do you know why I don’t advocate for that? Because I’m not a goddam fucking moron who thinks Putin would just accept this loss and run away.