Often ranked #1 by "scholars" and plebs.
He was a tyrant.

of course hes overrated. easily so.
Why the charade?

This post was edited by cambovenzi on Apr 8 2017 02:18pm

You're delusional.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/07/us/politics/neil-gorsuch-supreme-court.html?_r=0

THen again, when were you ever sane?



I aggree with this statement.

Theft of a SCOTUS seat by the GOP. Plain and simple.

I'm judging by objective consequentalist standards not the dogmatic "whatever happens to agree with my libertarian ideology the most is best" standards that I presume you are using.



You are referring to how history will look on the Trump presidency?

What does the constitution say, you invalid?

I'll TD;DR for you

Senate approval

The 'dont be a tyrant who betrays your oath of office and gets over half of a million Americans killed' standard seems to work pretty well too.

Its almost like I think someone should be judged by their actions? How fucking crazy and fringe is that right?

He was objectively a poor president even by the standard of doing his job.

Somehow numerous massive abuses of authority, mass death and destruction, and setting the stage for a century of war and expansion of government and federal power oppressing and impoverishing people is a good outcome and makes him a great president.

Was locking up dissenters good?
Was conscripting Americans good?
Was setting up massive protectionist tariffs good? Do you know what tariffs do?
Is suspending habeas corpus and abolishing freedom of the press good?

You pretend your standard is better and not dogmatic, but it also requires subjective judgments as to what your criteria of good and bad outcomes would be.

Someone should be judged by the consequences of their actions.



The only objective evaluation is how the actions of the leader affects the life and well-being and suffering of the citizens of the country (and the world).

And yes as I expected half of your criticisms are only seen as negative through a specific ideological lens.

That is a subjective ideological opinion.

I think it should be a combination.

The actions are a part of the consequence. The means are a part of the ends.

Doing all sorts of terrible things to innocent people in order to potentially achieve something you think is good makes someone the good guy?

If someone tries to kill you but fails is he not really a bad guy?
Or if he succeeds in killing you, but the town rallies together and becomes a safer place, does that make him a hero?
Or was he scum?


Widespread death, destruction and impoverishment seems to be pretty bad for the citizenry. (But those are lolbertarian fringe ideologue values to be dismissed right?)
Far worse than anything Reagan or your misconceptions of him did.



A regular Nostradamus this one is.

This post was edited by cambovenzi on Apr 8 2017 03:33pm

Did he do those things, or was he elected in shitty circumstances?

False dichotomy.
Both.