Obama ranked 7th greatest president

Trump will permanently be the worst President in US history.

Among the American Marxists of the filthy democrat party.

Obiden has done more damage to the Constitutional Republic than any - or all presidents before him. Why not rate him #1? The goal of the NY Times is to end and then erase America - no one has done more to make that a reality than Obiden.

Standard Disclaimer: Obama squatted and took a steaming Biden on America....
 
Among the American Marxists of the filthy democrat party.

Obiden has done more damage to the Constitutional Republic than any - or all presidents before him. Why not rate him #1? The goal of the NY Times is to end and then erase America - no one has done more to make that a reality than Obiden.

Standard Disclaimer: Obama squatted and took a steaming Biden on America....

Please use English.
 
They say the source was 154 professional historians, some self identified as Democrats, some as Republicans, and the Republicans also ranked Trump low on the list - imagine that.

List the source. I've seen a number of those lists over the years from various "academics" and it's pretty easy to see they put little thought into them, making them pretty much worthless other than being their opinion as they clearly didn't base their evaluations on any sort of ranking criteria.
 
Why are those ‘expert scholars’ shrouded in secrecy? Hm?

First, explain why you claimed no source was provided in the article, when anyone who looked at the article clearly saw the source was highlighted and hyperlinked.

Why did you assert so confidently the article wouldn't provide a source?
 
Presidential Greatness Project, a poll of presidential experts sponsored by the LA Times.

I don't have an NYT subscription, but can read the whole article. I think NYT gives you a certain amount of free reads, and you might have to clear your cache or something to reset the free reads

Thanks for that. I looked up the survey. It's nothing but an opinion poll.

http://www.brandonrottinghaus.com/u...1/presidential_greatness_white_paper_2024.pdf

This was the polling base:

Respondents included current and recent members of the Presidents & Executive Politics Section of the American Political Science Association, which is the foremost organization of social science experts in presidential politics, as well as scholars who had recently published peer-reviewed academic research in key related scholarly journals or academic presses. 525 respondents were invited to participate, and 154 usable responses were received, yielding a 29.3% response rate.1

The respondents did not have to use any set of criteria, and each was free to use any method they chose. That makes it an opinion poll, not some statistical measure. That pretty much makes the whole thing rubbish.
 
First, explain why you claimed no source was provided in the article, when anyone who looked at the article clearly saw the source was highlighted and hyperlinked.

Why did you assert so confidently the article wouldn't provide a source?
The source may as well be Skull and Bones. You can call that a source if it pleases you.
Did you see how to become a member?
 
Thanks for that. I looked up the survey. It's nothing but an opinion poll.

http://www.brandonrottinghaus.com/u...1/presidential_greatness_white_paper_2024.pdf

This was the polling base:

Respondents included current and recent members of the Presidents & Executive Politics Section of the American Political Science Association, which is the foremost organization of social science experts in presidential politics, as well as scholars who had recently published peer-reviewed academic research in key related scholarly journals or academic presses. 525 respondents were invited to participate, and 154 usable responses were received, yielding a 29.3% response rate.1

The respondents did not have to use any set of criteria, and each was free to use any method they chose. That makes it an opinion poll, not some statistical measure. That pretty much makes the whole thing rubbish.

These ”presidential rankings” are like comparing athletes of different eras. Useless.
 
I once had a lot of respect for historians, but currently finding one that both understands history and tries to tell the truth is almost like finding a Unicorn.

VDH is one.

Translation = he doesn’t like what the historians say, it doesn’t conform to his illusionary reality, keep in mind, he is a big proponent of Russian propaganda, so he can rewrite his own history
 
These ”presidential rankings” are like comparing athletes of different eras. Useless.

You can still rank them using criteria and even weighting things for different eras. That wasn't done in the poll being discussed here. Participants were asked to rate presidents on a scale of 0 to 100 thus:

The primary purpose of this survey was to create a ranking of presidential greatness that covered all presidents from George Washington to Joe Biden. To do this, we asked respondents to rate each president on a scale of 0-100 for their overall greatness, with 0=failure, 50=average, and 100=great. We then averaged the ratings for each president and ranked them from highest average to lowest.

There was no ranking criteria beyond the participant's own opinion. That the survey used supposed "experts" is just an irrelevant appeal to authority in this case. Just because you are some academic somewhere doesn't make your opinion--on its own--more or less valuable than anyone else's. If they had some ranking system and were justifying their responses based on factual evidence, it would have some actual value.

As it is, this is nothing but a worthless opinion survey taken by 154 people.
 
Thanks for that. I looked up the survey. It's nothing but an opinion poll.

http://www.brandonrottinghaus.com/u...1/presidential_greatness_white_paper_2024.pdf

This was the polling base:

Respondents included current and recent members of the Presidents & Executive Politics Section of the American Political Science Association, which is the foremost organization of social science experts in presidential politics, as well as scholars who had recently published peer-reviewed academic research in key related scholarly journals or academic presses. 525 respondents were invited to participate, and 154 usable responses were received, yielding a 29.3% response rate.1

The respondents did not have to use any set of criteria, and each was free to use any method they chose. That makes it an opinion poll, not some statistical measure. That pretty much makes the whole thing rubbish.

Not true, they were asked to rank the Presidents in several different areas, to use their expertise and knowledge to base their order, not like these individuals are average Joe’s on the street taking a poll, would you question mechanical engineers on their ranking of the best engine if they didn’t include all their statistical measurements
 
One of your former FB friends sent me your profile pic. Hope you don't mind if I share it here like you did with mine. You don't mind, right? :laugh:

FQg4oee.jpg
The guy in blue that is just behind you in your white lacy skirt. No wonder he is turning his back to you .:laugh: He is getting ready to puke.
 
Not true, they were asked to rank the Presidents in several different areas, to use their expertise and knowledge to base their order, not like these individuals are average Joe’s on the street taking a poll, would you question mechanical engineers on their ranking of the best engine if they didn’t include all their statistical measurements

What I stated is exactly true. There was no standardized criteria. The FACT that the responses were sorted by political affiliation even goes further to show it was opinion based.

If I wanted to ask mechanical engineers about the best engine, I'd expect them to rank them on various component performance and the presence or absence of various things making the engine work. For example, they might rate them on horsepower to weight, horsepower to volume, complexity, or other measurable qualities. The same could be done of presidents.

You could use things like, treaties enacted (not just started but ratified by Congress), or how much did they add to the national debt? Maybe, polling numbers (538 makes that easy for modern presidents). Handling of crises. Major legislation enacted. National economic performance while in office. There's lots of measurable criteria that can be used here. But, for the survey in question, none of that was used as each participant was allowed to choose their own criteria.
 
The source may as well be Skull and Bones. You can call that a source if it pleases you.
Did you see how to become a member?

So you can't admit you made a mistake and/or lied on an obscure message board to someone you will never meet?

Is your ego really that fragile?
 
Your suspicions are justified since he often complains about American autocrats and oligarchs, often an oblique way of criticizing one's own oppressive leadership.


I've offered to give him and others guerrilla warfare tips via email. I've had a few responses but couldn't tell you who was asking. Mostly standard stuff; how to set up operations, ambush patrols to obtain weapons and hostages, blowing up police stations, etc.

For all I know, it was a sock of the Royal Thai Police. LOL

Probably some of the most effective organizers of civil disobedience in police states are those who keep their opinions about pedo kings on the down low
 
What I stated is exactly true. There was no standardized criteria. The FACT that the responses were sorted by political affiliation even goes further to show it was opinion based.

If I wanted to ask mechanical engineers about the best engine, I'd expect them to rank them on various component performance and the presence or absence of various things making the engine work. For example, they might rate them on horsepower to weight, horsepower to volume, complexity, or other measurable qualities. The same could be done of presidents.

You could use things like, treaties enacted (not just started but ratified by Congress), or how much did they add to the national debt? Maybe, polling numbers (538 makes that easy for modern presidents). Handling of crises. Major legislation enacted. National economic performance while in office. There's lots of measurable criteria that can be used here. But, for the survey in question, none of that was used as each participant was allowed to choose their own criteria.

Right, if Popular Mechanics had a story on what auto engines recognized mechanical engineers thought were the best you would discard it unless they also included all their statistical measurements in the narrative

They asked noted Presidential historians, individuals recognized in their fields, based upon their expertise, to give them their ranking of Presidents and you are telling us it is rubbish because those historians didn’t include their entire rationale along with their ranking
 
Right, if Popular Mechanics had a story on what auto engines recognized mechanical engineers thought were the best you would discard it unless they also included all their statistical measurements in the narrative.

Yes.

They asked noted Presidential historians, individuals recognized in their fields, based upon their expertise, to give them their ranking of Presidents and you are telling us it is rubbish because those historians didn’t include their entire rationale along with their ranking

Appeal to authority, a logical fallacy. They need to justify their answers.
 
Back
Top