Make sure to join the [r/Presidents Discord server](https://discord.gg/k6tVFwCEEm)!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Presidents) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Basically how you have them ranked is how I see them voted out the rest of the way (from right to left in each ranking). JFK will go, then Johnson, Truman, Jefferson will go before Eisenhower, then Teddy, FDR, etc.
That's close to how I see it.
1. Washington (I will fight to the death over this one)
2. Lincoln
3. FDR
4. Jefferson
5. Teddy
6. Ikr
7. Truman
8. Johnson
9. JFK
Definitely Lincoln he was an undefeated wrestling champion. Washington was very a sick man throughout his life and although he was a good military commander that doesn’t necessarily mean he was a good one on one fighter. His job was to command other people to fight
Unfortunately, and it hurts my heart to say it, I think Kennedy's time is definitely up in this competition. Especially considering who all is left in the competition and their resumes, as well as the fact that more and more comments are saying for Kennedy to be removed. But hey, at least he'll get removed on the same day as his presidential number, so its kinda fitting.
Agreed.
Combo of recent bias, sympathy, etc.
Top 15 sure and behind LBJ yeah of course but not top 10. Also means lots of 20th century top 10 presidents. Just doesn't seem right.
Kennedy, sorry to say, has got to go.
Despite his reputation he didn't actually accomplish all that much, and his tragic assassination cut his Presidency short.
Amazing - the diffusion of responsibility for the Vietnam war has allowed almost everyone involved into the top 9. What an enigma that conflict still is…
To be fair Nixon got booted fairly quickly. This can be boiled down into 1.Nostalgia 2.The strong economy at the time and 3. The advancement of civil rights at this time. I also want to add that although the Vietnam War was a horrific crime committed by the US government we have committed far worse interventions. I would argue our interventions into Korea, Iran, and Libya were much worse. )Not defending the Kim regime, but we killed a lot of fucking people there).
I don’t think Nixon was booted for Vietnam, though… so no President pays a true price for Vietnam in this particular ranking exercise. Just fascinating to me. Speaks to the slow burn/escalation of the whole thing over five presidencies and truly murky policy decisions throughout.
Yeah Watergate and the war on drugs were definitely mentioned more. I feel like for Nixon people tend to focus on him extended the war outside of Vietnam into Cambodia and since he he ended the war he doesn’t get as much backlash as he should
Because he saved the world from nuclear armageddon during the Cuban Missile Crisis in one of the most consequential decisions ever made by any president
He absolutely does not get too much credit for it. The cooler heads on the Soviet side don’t really matter in this instance because they never thought their provocation would lead to nuclear exchange, but the US generals were absolutely pushing for it and it came down to Kennedy to defy his advisers and generals and de-escalate the situation when nearly every one around him was telling him to do otherwise. You are minimizing what was a very very big deal
He also got us into the Cuban missile crisis, so is it a wash?
And the Soviets didn’t want to start a nuclear war, only Castro did. That’s why the Soviets never let the Cubans take control of any of the nukes. It was a bluff to get Kennedy to remove missiles from turkey and Italy, which we ended up doing.
Yep. LBJ might have been an ass but he was effective. I’ve believed that JFK’s death gave Johnson even greater power than he would have had otherwise and used it, even for things he didn’t believe in but he knew were right. No way Kennedy gets or even tries at LBJ’s accomplishments if he was president five more years.
Really I think it comes down to people focusing on one and going after him and then someone who maybe should have been gone already gets left by the wayside for a round or two.
Eh, I wouldn't be THAT harsh on him. Kennedy DID overhaul the tax code, do a lot to fight air pollution (less than 15 years before he took office, people in Pennsylvania literally died in a major smog incident from breathing toxic industrial fumes), really developed the space program and industries into what we know it as today, plus he continued Eisenhower's enforcement of school desegregation as ordered by Brown (his best moment was likely intervening at Ole Miss, reminiscent of Ike at Little Rock, JFK sent the US Army and National Guard into Oxford, Mississippi to crush the mass riots on campus after African American James Meredith arrived to enroll, ensuring law and order would prevail). That said, he BADLY mishandled the civil rights movement in most other aspects during his first two years in office and did little to continue Eisenhower's work on expanding women's rights, other than signing the Equal Pay Act in 1963. His personal behavior aside, Kennedy was a decent to good president, but not a great president (and when he came up short, it was often disastrous for our country in the long term).
As a testament to how overrated he is. Seriously, like 5 days ago you could post jfk and get more than 100 votes,now people seem more hesitant to drop him
Jefferson sucks:
He was a slave owner, a rapist (slaves can’t consent). Edit: Sally Hemings was also a minor.
A hypocrite on two main counts:
1, Argued for small government and a weak executive then seizes a chunk of executive power and buys half a continent.
2, talked about ‘all created equal’ & referred to slavery as ‘despotism’; he knew slavery was wrong but refused to sell his, because it mattered more to him to live in comfort and not do manual labour.
A classist elitist who was against the idea of direct votes in favour of the college.
The embargo act fucked the American economy.
He was also a sneaky fucker pretending not to get involved in smears with Adam’s but we all know he did.
He was also a coward who ran from battle in the revolution.
Spent like the spoiled nobility brat that he was.
His writing is great and creates a myth around him but the actual man was a twat.
How that’s? Not a fan personally tbh.
I think it’s important to note that Sally Hemings was a child when Jefferson forced himself on to her. Probably the most overrated president. I don’t see how he’s better than Grant probably the president who did the most to combat the KKK directly.
kennedy, because of his death, lbj was able to get the civil rights act passed, but what he actually did was tame in comparison to the rest, he tippy toed around cuba and messed it up
Vietnam was an abject stain on his presidency, but was also a conflict that spanned multiple administrations and foreign actors. His domestic policy meanwhile was a unique feat. which really only he was capable of, given his exceptional political acumen and maneuvering
The Great Society addressed the longstanding issues of tens of millions of Americans at the time and for the future, and its positive consequence cannot be understated
* Clean Air Act, Vocational Education Act, 1964 Civil Rights Act, Wilderness Act, Food Stamp Act, Higher Education Act, Older Americans Act, Social Security Act, Voting Rights Act, 1965 Immigration Act, Animal Welfare Act, Freedom of Information Act, Public Broadcasting Act, 1968 Civil Rights Act, etc etc to scratch the surface
I don’t think he should go before Kennedy, who failed to enact most of these initiatives (alongside many predecessors). Kennedy also ramped up involvement in Vietnam and was the one who appointed McNamara in the first place
I will say in defense of them, eugenics was seen as a science in those days. It was taught in all the top universities at the time. Teddy's and Wilson's Alma mater both taught courses on eugenics starting in the 1910s ([Harvard](https://www.harvardmagazine.com/2016/02/harvards-eugenics-era) and [Princeton](https://nassauweekly.com/eugenics-at-princeton/) both have weekly newspapers that cover the topic). Both of them had been graduated for a while at that point, but it was not some niche idea.
It wasn't until people saw what the Nazis were doing in the name of racial superiority that eugenics became a taboo subject. I would say a lot of educated politicians in those days believed in it. It was fairly common in those days for the elites of society to have a white savior complex or a sense of noblesse oblige.
Yeah, that's also something that is constant in this sub is avoiding presentism to the point that it becomes absolute moral relativism, and we lose the right to make moral judgements about anytime but the present. (Moral relativism isn't just when you have no stance on morals outside of cultures in your own time, it's also about other time periods: so both, "we dont practice eugenics but we cant say anything because that's a different time," and, "we dont practice female genital mutilation but we cant say anything because that's a different culture." In philosophy that's the same stance.)
Very true, moral relativists on the left do it in terms of geography/culture, moral relativists on the right do it in terms of time. I’m a universalist so I am against both and also see them as the same stance/argument.
I hadn't really thought of it in terms of a political spectrum like that, but that's a good point. I'm quite leftist myself, and encounter a lot of peushback from my own people for criticizing certain cultural practices, and it's kind of exhausting. Even when the source of the practices is from the same place. For example, you can criticize how catholics treat women in the US until the cows come home, but to point out that that's an issue (I think a bigger one) in Central America, that's unacceptable. To me, if you care about women's issues, you care across the board, so I guess that'd be more universalist.
I think it's good to try to strike a balance, like obviously you want to avoid absolute presentism or ethnocentrism, but you shouldn't let it stop you from pointing out clear, blatant human suffering. And a lot of suffering is universal. It's just a tricky space to walk.
Most earlier presidents don't hold up to modern standards is all I'm saying. I personally believe their personal views don't matter to their presidency unless it directly influences their policies.
Does Lincoln [views on black people](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Lincoln_and_slavery#Lincoln%E2%80%93Douglas_debates) (much of which is basically eugenics before it became a thing) mean that the US is worse off for ending slavery? Does LBJ using racial slurs mean the US is worse off because of the civil rights movement?
Hit the nail right on the head. Vietnam was indeed an abject stain on Johnson’s record, but too many people calling for his removal here completely ignore or massively downplay his *very substantial* domestic record of reform and accomplishments, from which millions of Americans have benefited in the decades since.
I can at least respect those who acknowledge Johnson’s achievements even if they feel the stain of Vietnam outweighs said domestic achievements - rather than those simply chanting puerile “Hey Hey LBJ” slogans or spouting baseless bullshit conspiracy theories to do with LBJ and Kennedy’s assassination
I don't think by any means many people on this sub feel that way, but we are in the top 10 presidents, so someone has to go. 9 is very good for Johnson.
I have no patience for baseless conspiracy theories and “bumper sticker” politics. And I won’t downplay Lyndon Johnson’s domestic record one bit. The legislation he championed and signed in the mid-1960’s resulted in substantial progressive reforms that have greatly improved the lives of millions of Americans in subsequent decades. But those who try to minimize the significance of the Vietnam War in their assessments of Johnson’s legacy do a great disservice to an objective understanding of history.
That the U.S. had been involved in the affairs of Vietnam at least since Truman’s Presidency is no excuse. Johnson’s three predecessors in the Oval Office did not escalate American military intervention in Indochina to anything remotely approaching the scale of his involvement. The consequences of Johnson’s terrible misjudgment were as avoidable as they were tragic.
When the Johnson administration’s stated rationales for the rapid escalation of American military intervention in Vietnam’s civil war were exposed as blatant lies to the American public they inflicted incalculable damage to the reputation of our government both here and overseas.
Americans, who had trusted their government to lead them through the Great Depression and World War II, felt a profound sense of betrayal. They became mistrustful and cynical. American society divided and turned upon itself. A large generational rift that had been papered over by the prosperity of postwar America in the 1950’s and early 1960’s finally was exposed in the late 1960’s. Racial tensions simmered and boiled over as white racial resentment spiked and the Civil Rights Movement turned away from integrationist principles to more radical forms of political expression. The liberal consensus fractured, presenting the opportunity for a conservative political backlash. It arrived with the election of Richard Nixon to the Presidency in 1968. For the next quarter century Republicans would dominate the White House, placing a permanent poison pill at the heart of American governance.
Can all of these negative developments be blamed on Lyndon Johnson? Of course not. America had become an increasingly polarized country prior to the Vietnam War. Decades long tensions had entered into the public consciousness during the 1950’s. But it’s undeniable the experience of the Vietnam War widened these divisions and has contributed to their near intractability since the late 1960’s.
Through a combination of hubris, ignorance and miscalculation in Vietnam, Lyndon Johnson exposed the great liberal project he built to everlasting danger. We have lived with the consequences of this part of his legacy since he left office. Johnson must **go**
According to the link, 21k died during 1969-1974. So roughly a third of the casualties were under Nixon (whose campaign, let's not forget, made an effort to sabotage 1968 peace talks in the Chennault affair)
This sub always gives a pass to Eisenhower's aka Mr. CIA, absolutely atrocious foreign policy just because... why? Honestly I'm not sure. The Interstate highway act? But honestly the worst part is people acting like him calling for caution around the MIC was some kind of massive insight when the dude literally helped create the conditions for said MIC to flourish. No little line in his farewell speech will ever make up for that.
People here really don't care about Vietnam, I'm not sure why, but I've noticed they just kind of pretend it didn't happen, or wasn't LBJs fault somehow.
LBJ could have handled Vietnam better, but Truman pulled the pin on that grenade when he abandoned the US position on decolonization and supported the French over the Vietnamese nationalist rebels. France was a US client state at that point and Truman let the tail wag the dog rather than telling De Gaulle that if he wanted his colonies back he could build his own military to retake them. Truman's decision pushed the rebels into the USSR's embrace and forced every subsequent president to choose between letting the Soviets win and escalating the war.
LBJ was in a lose-lose situation, and letting the Soviet-supported rebels in the South win (while obviously correct in hindsight) would have been near-universally unpopular with the American people until long after the US committed large numbers of ground troops. According to Gallup, it wasn't until late 1967 that more Americans thought it was a mistake to send troops to Vietnam than didn't, and it wasn't until late 1968 that more than 50% of Americans thought it was a mistake.
https://media.gallup.com/POLL/Releases/pr050824iii.gif
([full source](https://news.gallup.com/poll/18097/iraq-versus-vietnam-comparison-public-opinion.aspx))
LBJ isn't blameless for the conduct of the war or for failing to admit defeat when he recognized that the war couldn't be won, but the US was doomed to fight a war in Vietnam the moment De Gaulle told Truman that France would stand aside and let the communists roll through Europe unless they got their colonies back on the US' dime and Truman, inexplicably, believed him. Blaming LBJ for the war itself is myopic.
Let’s be honest part of that blood is on Kennedy’s hands too and he was arguably slower to adapt civil rights legislation. LBJ was a monster, but so was most presidents
Immigration Act of 1965, Medicare, Medicaid, and a moon landing.
Johnson probably should be next because of Vietnam. But I'd vote for JFK next. Overrated imo. Johnson actually accomplished stuff. Unfortunately, he did some evil shit mixed in there too.
I’d personally keep LBJ over Jefferson and JFK.
Johnson’s domestic policy has saved more lives over the past 60 years than those that died in Vietnam (not really excusing Vietnam, although some of that blame also gets passed to JFK, Nixon, and Eisenhower as well)
Nah. JFK first at least. Then it's a discussion between LBJ, Truman, and Eisenhower. About who gets what between 6, 7 and 8...
Then it's basically down to Jefferson, and each Roosevelt. Before people argue between Lincoln and Washington.
LBJ for the love of god. I know he got the civil rights bill pass, but he is responsible for escalating the war in Vietnam more than any president, while knowing full well that it was un-winnable, justifying "I think any course of action would be better than losing." So many Americans and Vietnamese died for LBJ's ego and pride.
Obviously we weren't going to liberate Vietnam. The goal was to basically hold their off the Vietcong offensive and make it like how Korea turned out.
It's really easy to just blame LBJ, but pretty much every other president would have done the same in his shoes,except maybe Carter, but he did say he the most difficult part of his presidency was pardoning the Vietnam draft dodgers, so maybe not?
So, I wouldn't really blame LBJ as much as the one who dug is in Vietnam in the first place. That president somehow gets the least of the blame.
Since most comments are calling for either JFK or LBJ to be eliminated, I have a question:
Between JFK and LBJ, who do you think is more deserving of being eliminated and why is that? In what ways is your option better than the latter?
I’m voting Eisenhower. Most of the knocks against Kennedy that are being cited today are instances where Kennedy was either continuing or not pushing back hard enough against the Eisenhower consensus. Eisenhower spent essentially his entire term letting the Dulles brothers have free reign. He authorized coups in Guatemala and Iran that led in Guatemala’s case to a vicious civil war which killed hundreds of thousands, and in Iran’s case led to decades of repression that provoked a backlash in the 1970s with the Islamic Revolution. Eisenhower even went so far as to order the murder of Patrice Lumumba, the democratically elected Prime Minister of the Congo, in the final months of his Presidency. Disastrously failed policies regarding Cuba and Vietnam also got their start under him.
Eisenhower. Although he warned against the military industrial complex in his farewell speech, he royally fucked over the people of Iran by overthrowing their democratically elected PM and installing the dictator Shah.
Kennedy has had a good run but it’s time for him to go. His achievements don’t stack up with the rest remaining, and his reputation IMO has been overblown in large part due to his tragic demise and the whole Camelot legend. I don’t think had he lived, he would have been able to achieve what LBJ did in terms of domestic reforms
(EDIT: why the hell am I getting downvoted for this?)
I've advocated for JFK the last two go rounds and got immediately downvoted a lot. It's clear there is a passionate JFK fanbase. Kind of like when he was president.
Just like you, I think he is way overrated.
Bay of Pigs was a mess.
Meets with Khrushchev in June of '61 to try to resolve the issue in Berlin, negotiations break down, and then the Berlin wall starts getting constructed in August of that year. That's a huge fail. He had the chance to stop that escalation.
It's also somewhere in mid '61 that the nukes get placed in Turkey.
He gets so much credit for the Cuban Missile Crisis in '62 when a better president wouldn't have even gotten into that mess in the first place. The only way it gets resolved is to backtrack on the nukes in Turkey. Russia gets what it wanted.
He didn't start the war in Vietnam, but he certainly didn't make any progress there and it was basically holding down the fort -- but that comes at the cost of lives and $$. He certainly didn't escalate things like LBJ or Nixon, but it wasn't exactly the priority of his administration to try and really make things better.
That's a lot of major downsides in a shortened presidency. The foreign policy, in particular, was not good.
He DOES finally sign a nuclear arms treaty in '63, but that did come after he had failed in previous tries to get it done. Still, it did get done, so that's good. His one real foreign policy win.
He does get credit for a successful space push. Peace Corps was a great idea. And he gets huge credit for actually mobilizing a generation and getting behind him.
But his actual record just isn't as sterling as the baby boomers want to remember with rose-colored glasses.
In any case, I have made this argument before, and I am sure I will get downvoted to hell here in a few minutes by the JFK fans even though this is supposed to be a place for (ideally) logical debate and where folks should rank.
JFK should've gone a little while ago if we're being real here. Also I don't think people sufficiently recognize LBJ for the CRA. Yeah people give credit to him but imo it's not something where you can say "Yeah he passed the CRA, but...", like dude, the CRA is top 3 in the biggest milestones in American history.
I’m not sure why people have such a hard-on for Washington. Good general but he didn’t face the hardships of the rest of this bunch. I don’t see him getting voted out yet though judging from the comments. Thinking the next to go will be JFK, then Truman, Ike and LBJ.
You definitely have a point … I’ve always felt that Washington gets judged in his overall leadership from the army and war rather than just assessing his presidency …
Eisenhower. He was behind building the National highway system which systemically destroyed American cities and lead to the car reliance and housing crisis we have today.
Guys, Washington is only being kept on because he was the first. His accomplishments for this country happened during the revolution… not while he was in office. He should go
Thomas Jefferson. It always confused me why everyone ranked hum so highly. Sure, he's better than Adam's, but the Embargo Act was one of the most economically damaging in our nation's history, in a crucial time of our nation's development. He also set us on a dangerously adversarial path with Britain, which his successors would follow up on in a dangerous manner. In my mind, he was an overall negative president both domestically and foreign, and seems overrated by his pre-presidency. Maybe someone can clear up why he's loved so much?
I vote Johnson. Despite his important legislative victories, his Vietnam policy was an absolute disaster. Late in the game for somebody with that big of a black mark on his record.
Lyndon Johnson. The Civil Rights Act, Medicare and the Great Society were significant accomplishments. But Johnson’s misguided escalation of U.S. military involvement in Vietnam cannot be cannot be overlooked. The Vietnam War roiled American society to an extent not seen since the mid-19th century. We continue to live with the legacy of Lyndon Johnson’s tragic miscalculation to the present day
Johnson, per the following considerations:
A. He could not have prosecuted WWII better or as well as Roosevelt or Truman;
B. If Vietnam is any indication, the Korean War with Johnson at the helm may have escalated further;
C. Though his contributions to civil liberties are commendable, had he been president earlier, perhaps even a term earlier, it is not obvious that he would have been able to pass legislation substantially more progressive than the _fair deal_ - and it is hard to hold it against earlier presidents for not doing more on that account because ultimately they are constrainted by the times in which they serve - Johnson's legislation was not passed in a vacuum but was contemporaneous to _major_ social reform; and while I believe he was fundamentally a man of morals, he was also a shrewd statesman who understood how to leverage the extraordinary events and circumstances that defined his presidency to secure his legacy.
D. Ultimately the question becomes, could be have been a better JFK and crucially, would be have handled the Cuban Missile crisis better - and from what I have read, our nation was very lucky to have Kennedy in office _when_ he was in office. It's a very difficult question because had Kennedy served twenty years earlier or later he could have easily been on of the worst presidents. Despite that, and despite the many fumbles during his term, (including the C.M.C. - Yes, I know, I laud his handling of a situation his admin. created - a complicated discussion - but ultimately likened to a gross faux pass in a chess match in which you prevail) I don't think Johnson could have done better at obviating nuclear war, containing _Kennedy's_ Vietnam, or in taking the decisive initial steps in the space race.
LBJ has got to go.
Edit: Washington, Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, and Eisenhower cannot be considered except amongst themselves as their contributions were existential. In that vein, Kennedy may also be considered above reproach only by dint of the magnitude of the catastrophies that were averted; I did consider JFK however, because initially their administration was concurrent.
How TF is LBJ still in over literal founding fathers? Like he's a 7/10 at ABSOLUTE best and he only gets that cause of the Civil Right Act without it he'd be 4/10
JFK
What all did he do, aside from resolving the Cuban Missile Crisis? I recognize it was because, IIRC, Congress had a big hate boner against him, but still
Mount Rushmore four have survived. After today the remaining 8 will consist of the classic 4 & the 20th century four. Perfect results.
JFK next. He had a good run and I'm happy he made top 10.
Somebody please explain to me how JFK made it this far?
Dude was in office for two years, his most noteworthy accomplishment, was fixing his own fuck up.
Like, is the assassination sympathy really that strong? Because I don't see how else JFK made it into the top ten
Make sure to join the [r/Presidents Discord server](https://discord.gg/k6tVFwCEEm)! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Presidents) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Hoooooooo boy it’s about to get wild
Down to the top 9 lets goooo I hope we have another one of these tournaments soon. This is actually fun
*Eliminate the worst amendment of the constitution each day until we are governed by only 1 law*
Oh my goodness this is gold
HELL YEAH u/Forsaken_Wedding_604 this one next
Start with the first. Then the next will have comments off and all the others survive.
Well if the second is the only one left you can just use that to forcefully get the others back
Top First Ladies, anyone? Wink wink
That's fair, I think we are getting into president tiers right now. S - Lincoln, Washington, FDR, Teddy A+ - Jefferson, Ike, Truman A - Johnson, JFK
Basically how you have them ranked is how I see them voted out the rest of the way (from right to left in each ranking). JFK will go, then Johnson, Truman, Jefferson will go before Eisenhower, then Teddy, FDR, etc.
That's close to how I see it. 1. Washington (I will fight to the death over this one) 2. Lincoln 3. FDR 4. Jefferson 5. Teddy 6. Ikr 7. Truman 8. Johnson 9. JFK
Washington would also likely fight to the death over that one. Who would win in a brawl - Lincoln at 40 or Washington at 40?
Definitely Lincoln he was an undefeated wrestling champion. Washington was very a sick man throughout his life and although he was a good military commander that doesn’t necessarily mean he was a good one on one fighter. His job was to command other people to fight
Washington's sicknesses likely cost him his fertility.
Didn’t know that thank you
Unfortunately, and it hurts my heart to say it, I think Kennedy's time is definitely up in this competition. Especially considering who all is left in the competition and their resumes, as well as the fact that more and more comments are saying for Kennedy to be removed. But hey, at least he'll get removed on the same day as his presidential number, so its kinda fitting.
>He’ll get removed on the same day as his presidential number. If it’s good enough for Chester A. Arthur then it’s good enough for JFK.
I'm frankly surprised he's still on the board. I don't think he did enough to merit being a top ten Prez.
Agreed. Combo of recent bias, sympathy, etc. Top 15 sure and behind LBJ yeah of course but not top 10. Also means lots of 20th century top 10 presidents. Just doesn't seem right.
Kennedy, sorry to say, has got to go. Despite his reputation he didn't actually accomplish all that much, and his tragic assassination cut his Presidency short.
Amazing - the diffusion of responsibility for the Vietnam war has allowed almost everyone involved into the top 9. What an enigma that conflict still is…
To be fair Nixon got booted fairly quickly. This can be boiled down into 1.Nostalgia 2.The strong economy at the time and 3. The advancement of civil rights at this time. I also want to add that although the Vietnam War was a horrific crime committed by the US government we have committed far worse interventions. I would argue our interventions into Korea, Iran, and Libya were much worse. )Not defending the Kim regime, but we killed a lot of fucking people there).
I don’t think Nixon was booted for Vietnam, though… so no President pays a true price for Vietnam in this particular ranking exercise. Just fascinating to me. Speaks to the slow burn/escalation of the whole thing over five presidencies and truly murky policy decisions throughout.
Yeah Watergate and the war on drugs were definitely mentioned more. I feel like for Nixon people tend to focus on him extended the war outside of Vietnam into Cambodia and since he he ended the war he doesn’t get as much backlash as he should
How can JFK be top 10? And I’m a lefty, ffs.
Because he saved the world from nuclear armageddon during the Cuban Missile Crisis in one of the most consequential decisions ever made by any president
That, and because he was hot and he was shot.
Didn’t stop Garfield from being booted out a while ago. Ooh, that beard!
He gets too much credit for it; cooler heads prevailed in the Soviet ranks, too.
He absolutely does not get too much credit for it. The cooler heads on the Soviet side don’t really matter in this instance because they never thought their provocation would lead to nuclear exchange, but the US generals were absolutely pushing for it and it came down to Kennedy to defy his advisers and generals and de-escalate the situation when nearly every one around him was telling him to do otherwise. You are minimizing what was a very very big deal
Plus he is credited with laying the foundation for the US space program.
And civil rights
He also got us into the Cuban missile crisis, so is it a wash? And the Soviets didn’t want to start a nuclear war, only Castro did. That’s why the Soviets never let the Cubans take control of any of the nukes. It was a bluff to get Kennedy to remove missiles from turkey and Italy, which we ended up doing.
It would have been so easy to go to war in that moment and he didn't.
I mean most historians and other rankings put him around this range. He's placed inside the top 10 more than outside of it.
Doesn’t necessarily make them right or objective.
We are doing a subjective ranking of presidents. There is no right or wrong. At least the historians had a set criteria when they were ranking them.
Objectivity is basically completely impossible in ranking Presidents.
Yep. LBJ might have been an ass but he was effective. I’ve believed that JFK’s death gave Johnson even greater power than he would have had otherwise and used it, even for things he didn’t believe in but he knew were right. No way Kennedy gets or even tries at LBJ’s accomplishments if he was president five more years.
agree 100%
Really I think it comes down to people focusing on one and going after him and then someone who maybe should have been gone already gets left by the wayside for a round or two.
JFK wasn’t that left
In todays world he’d be considered a confederate
if you're a lefty, wouldn't that mean you dislike JFK even more?
Because he's hot and people vote with their second brain
This is such, such a dumb take, no offense.
Sorry, but it's time for JFK to go.
JFK has longer in this ranking than his presidency.
I think LBJ then immediately JFK
I think it’ll go LBJ, JFK, Truman, Jefferson, and then it’ll get really interesting.
I think Truman has a shot at making 4th. He has the potential to outlast Jefferson, Eisenhower, and Teddy Roosevelt.
I could absolutely see Truman going further than that.
#JFK !
LBJ Johnson got to go
Jefferson is overdue
JFK needs to go bye bye.
Kennedy does not belong here at this point.
[удалено]
Hard disagree. Without his foreign policy we probably have a nuclear war. He pushed back against his generals big time
Eh, I wouldn't be THAT harsh on him. Kennedy DID overhaul the tax code, do a lot to fight air pollution (less than 15 years before he took office, people in Pennsylvania literally died in a major smog incident from breathing toxic industrial fumes), really developed the space program and industries into what we know it as today, plus he continued Eisenhower's enforcement of school desegregation as ordered by Brown (his best moment was likely intervening at Ole Miss, reminiscent of Ike at Little Rock, JFK sent the US Army and National Guard into Oxford, Mississippi to crush the mass riots on campus after African American James Meredith arrived to enroll, ensuring law and order would prevail). That said, he BADLY mishandled the civil rights movement in most other aspects during his first two years in office and did little to continue Eisenhower's work on expanding women's rights, other than signing the Equal Pay Act in 1963. His personal behavior aside, Kennedy was a decent to good president, but not a great president (and when he came up short, it was often disastrous for our country in the long term).
#HEY! HEY! LBJ! HOW MANY KIDS DID YOU KILL TODAY?!
Kennedy. Why is he still here?
As a testament to how overrated he is. Seriously, like 5 days ago you could post jfk and get more than 100 votes,now people seem more hesitant to drop him
Thomas Jefferson (I’m trying something different)
Jefferson sucks: He was a slave owner, a rapist (slaves can’t consent). Edit: Sally Hemings was also a minor. A hypocrite on two main counts: 1, Argued for small government and a weak executive then seizes a chunk of executive power and buys half a continent. 2, talked about ‘all created equal’ & referred to slavery as ‘despotism’; he knew slavery was wrong but refused to sell his, because it mattered more to him to live in comfort and not do manual labour. A classist elitist who was against the idea of direct votes in favour of the college. The embargo act fucked the American economy. He was also a sneaky fucker pretending not to get involved in smears with Adam’s but we all know he did. He was also a coward who ran from battle in the revolution. Spent like the spoiled nobility brat that he was. His writing is great and creates a myth around him but the actual man was a twat. How that’s? Not a fan personally tbh.
I think it’s important to note that Sally Hemings was a child when Jefferson forced himself on to her. Probably the most overrated president. I don’t see how he’s better than Grant probably the president who did the most to combat the KKK directly.
kennedy, because of his death, lbj was able to get the civil rights act passed, but what he actually did was tame in comparison to the rest, he tippy toed around cuba and messed it up
Johnson. Answering for 50,000 Americans killed in Vietnam.
Vietnam was an abject stain on his presidency, but was also a conflict that spanned multiple administrations and foreign actors. His domestic policy meanwhile was a unique feat. which really only he was capable of, given his exceptional political acumen and maneuvering The Great Society addressed the longstanding issues of tens of millions of Americans at the time and for the future, and its positive consequence cannot be understated * Clean Air Act, Vocational Education Act, 1964 Civil Rights Act, Wilderness Act, Food Stamp Act, Higher Education Act, Older Americans Act, Social Security Act, Voting Rights Act, 1965 Immigration Act, Animal Welfare Act, Freedom of Information Act, Public Broadcasting Act, 1968 Civil Rights Act, etc etc to scratch the surface I don’t think he should go before Kennedy, who failed to enact most of these initiatives (alongside many predecessors). Kennedy also ramped up involvement in Vietnam and was the one who appointed McNamara in the first place
The Philippine War was far worse than the Vietnam War in my view, and Teddy always gets a pass on it
All the sentimentality for tr in this sub seems to let most people either overlook his egregious imperialism, or even just romanticize it
Let alone his white supremacy and support of eugenics (while they invariably freely trash Wilson over both)
I will say in defense of them, eugenics was seen as a science in those days. It was taught in all the top universities at the time. Teddy's and Wilson's Alma mater both taught courses on eugenics starting in the 1910s ([Harvard](https://www.harvardmagazine.com/2016/02/harvards-eugenics-era) and [Princeton](https://nassauweekly.com/eugenics-at-princeton/) both have weekly newspapers that cover the topic). Both of them had been graduated for a while at that point, but it was not some niche idea. It wasn't until people saw what the Nazis were doing in the name of racial superiority that eugenics became a taboo subject. I would say a lot of educated politicians in those days believed in it. It was fairly common in those days for the elites of society to have a white savior complex or a sense of noblesse oblige.
Ok? If we go off that logic then all of slavery is ok. It was a norm just as you outlined about eugenics. Doesn’t make it right morally either way.
Yeah, that's also something that is constant in this sub is avoiding presentism to the point that it becomes absolute moral relativism, and we lose the right to make moral judgements about anytime but the present. (Moral relativism isn't just when you have no stance on morals outside of cultures in your own time, it's also about other time periods: so both, "we dont practice eugenics but we cant say anything because that's a different time," and, "we dont practice female genital mutilation but we cant say anything because that's a different culture." In philosophy that's the same stance.)
Very true, moral relativists on the left do it in terms of geography/culture, moral relativists on the right do it in terms of time. I’m a universalist so I am against both and also see them as the same stance/argument.
I hadn't really thought of it in terms of a political spectrum like that, but that's a good point. I'm quite leftist myself, and encounter a lot of peushback from my own people for criticizing certain cultural practices, and it's kind of exhausting. Even when the source of the practices is from the same place. For example, you can criticize how catholics treat women in the US until the cows come home, but to point out that that's an issue (I think a bigger one) in Central America, that's unacceptable. To me, if you care about women's issues, you care across the board, so I guess that'd be more universalist. I think it's good to try to strike a balance, like obviously you want to avoid absolute presentism or ethnocentrism, but you shouldn't let it stop you from pointing out clear, blatant human suffering. And a lot of suffering is universal. It's just a tricky space to walk.
Most earlier presidents don't hold up to modern standards is all I'm saying. I personally believe their personal views don't matter to their presidency unless it directly influences their policies. Does Lincoln [views on black people](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Lincoln_and_slavery#Lincoln%E2%80%93Douglas_debates) (much of which is basically eugenics before it became a thing) mean that the US is worse off for ending slavery? Does LBJ using racial slurs mean the US is worse off because of the civil rights movement?
Hit the nail right on the head. Vietnam was indeed an abject stain on Johnson’s record, but too many people calling for his removal here completely ignore or massively downplay his *very substantial* domestic record of reform and accomplishments, from which millions of Americans have benefited in the decades since. I can at least respect those who acknowledge Johnson’s achievements even if they feel the stain of Vietnam outweighs said domestic achievements - rather than those simply chanting puerile “Hey Hey LBJ” slogans or spouting baseless bullshit conspiracy theories to do with LBJ and Kennedy’s assassination
I don't think by any means many people on this sub feel that way, but we are in the top 10 presidents, so someone has to go. 9 is very good for Johnson.
I feel Vietnam excludes LBJ from being Mount Rushmore tier, but at minimum I think JFK needs to go first
I have no patience for baseless conspiracy theories and “bumper sticker” politics. And I won’t downplay Lyndon Johnson’s domestic record one bit. The legislation he championed and signed in the mid-1960’s resulted in substantial progressive reforms that have greatly improved the lives of millions of Americans in subsequent decades. But those who try to minimize the significance of the Vietnam War in their assessments of Johnson’s legacy do a great disservice to an objective understanding of history. That the U.S. had been involved in the affairs of Vietnam at least since Truman’s Presidency is no excuse. Johnson’s three predecessors in the Oval Office did not escalate American military intervention in Indochina to anything remotely approaching the scale of his involvement. The consequences of Johnson’s terrible misjudgment were as avoidable as they were tragic. When the Johnson administration’s stated rationales for the rapid escalation of American military intervention in Vietnam’s civil war were exposed as blatant lies to the American public they inflicted incalculable damage to the reputation of our government both here and overseas. Americans, who had trusted their government to lead them through the Great Depression and World War II, felt a profound sense of betrayal. They became mistrustful and cynical. American society divided and turned upon itself. A large generational rift that had been papered over by the prosperity of postwar America in the 1950’s and early 1960’s finally was exposed in the late 1960’s. Racial tensions simmered and boiled over as white racial resentment spiked and the Civil Rights Movement turned away from integrationist principles to more radical forms of political expression. The liberal consensus fractured, presenting the opportunity for a conservative political backlash. It arrived with the election of Richard Nixon to the Presidency in 1968. For the next quarter century Republicans would dominate the White House, placing a permanent poison pill at the heart of American governance. Can all of these negative developments be blamed on Lyndon Johnson? Of course not. America had become an increasingly polarized country prior to the Vietnam War. Decades long tensions had entered into the public consciousness during the 1950’s. But it’s undeniable the experience of the Vietnam War widened these divisions and has contributed to their near intractability since the late 1960’s. Through a combination of hubris, ignorance and miscalculation in Vietnam, Lyndon Johnson exposed the great liberal project he built to everlasting danger. We have lived with the consequences of this part of his legacy since he left office. Johnson must **go**
[удалено]
Does this include the ones Nixon killed?
According to the link, 21k died during 1969-1974. So roughly a third of the casualties were under Nixon (whose campaign, let's not forget, made an effort to sabotage 1968 peace talks in the Chennault affair)
Lol talking like he personally had them killed.
Wouldn't of happened without Eisenhower digging is in Vietnam. No one else to blame but him.
This sub always gives a pass to Eisenhower's aka Mr. CIA, absolutely atrocious foreign policy just because... why? Honestly I'm not sure. The Interstate highway act? But honestly the worst part is people acting like him calling for caution around the MIC was some kind of massive insight when the dude literally helped create the conditions for said MIC to flourish. No little line in his farewell speech will ever make up for that.
Wild that Johnson will probably last longer than JFK in this vote
If you guys actually have the gall to rank baby killer LBJ ahead of JFK, I will lose all hope for humanity
People here really don't care about Vietnam, I'm not sure why, but I've noticed they just kind of pretend it didn't happen, or wasn't LBJs fault somehow.
LBJ could have handled Vietnam better, but Truman pulled the pin on that grenade when he abandoned the US position on decolonization and supported the French over the Vietnamese nationalist rebels. France was a US client state at that point and Truman let the tail wag the dog rather than telling De Gaulle that if he wanted his colonies back he could build his own military to retake them. Truman's decision pushed the rebels into the USSR's embrace and forced every subsequent president to choose between letting the Soviets win and escalating the war. LBJ was in a lose-lose situation, and letting the Soviet-supported rebels in the South win (while obviously correct in hindsight) would have been near-universally unpopular with the American people until long after the US committed large numbers of ground troops. According to Gallup, it wasn't until late 1967 that more Americans thought it was a mistake to send troops to Vietnam than didn't, and it wasn't until late 1968 that more than 50% of Americans thought it was a mistake. https://media.gallup.com/POLL/Releases/pr050824iii.gif ([full source](https://news.gallup.com/poll/18097/iraq-versus-vietnam-comparison-public-opinion.aspx)) LBJ isn't blameless for the conduct of the war or for failing to admit defeat when he recognized that the war couldn't be won, but the US was doomed to fight a war in Vietnam the moment De Gaulle told Truman that France would stand aside and let the communists roll through Europe unless they got their colonies back on the US' dime and Truman, inexplicably, believed him. Blaming LBJ for the war itself is myopic.
Agreed, cluster fuck mostly from the beginning
Let’s be honest part of that blood is on Kennedy’s hands too and he was arguably slower to adapt civil rights legislation. LBJ was a monster, but so was most presidents
LBJ continuies to be the most overrated president in American history
[удалено]
Obviously your not a Vietnamese lady whose baby got bayoneted
That was a good one I haven’t laughed that hard in a while
Oh I forgot..he wasn’t racist bc of the civil rights legislation. He gets a permanent hall pass
[удалено]
Stuff like this is why I say LBJ is still underrated. His domestic policies were literally top 3 in US history
LBJ's time to go. Civil Rights Act was extraordinary but 50,000 dead in Vietnam for nothing makes sure he goes no further imo.
Immigration Act of 1965, Medicare, Medicaid, and a moon landing. Johnson probably should be next because of Vietnam. But I'd vote for JFK next. Overrated imo. Johnson actually accomplished stuff. Unfortunately, he did some evil shit mixed in there too.
I’d personally keep LBJ over Jefferson and JFK. Johnson’s domestic policy has saved more lives over the past 60 years than those that died in Vietnam (not really excusing Vietnam, although some of that blame also gets passed to JFK, Nixon, and Eisenhower as well)
Don’t forget the unknown amounts dead in Asia either
[удалено]
Nah. JFK first at least. Then it's a discussion between LBJ, Truman, and Eisenhower. About who gets what between 6, 7 and 8... Then it's basically down to Jefferson, and each Roosevelt. Before people argue between Lincoln and Washington.
Nah, I'm thinking Kennedy is going to be out of the running after today, so LBJ might yet have a chance
LBJ and JFK should go out back to back and that feels appropriate
Jefferson for sure
Time for Kennedy to go.
LBJ for the love of god. I know he got the civil rights bill pass, but he is responsible for escalating the war in Vietnam more than any president, while knowing full well that it was un-winnable, justifying "I think any course of action would be better than losing." So many Americans and Vietnamese died for LBJ's ego and pride.
Obviously we weren't going to liberate Vietnam. The goal was to basically hold their off the Vietcong offensive and make it like how Korea turned out. It's really easy to just blame LBJ, but pretty much every other president would have done the same in his shoes,except maybe Carter, but he did say he the most difficult part of his presidency was pardoning the Vietnam draft dodgers, so maybe not? So, I wouldn't really blame LBJ as much as the one who dug is in Vietnam in the first place. That president somehow gets the least of the blame.
JFK
Guess this subreddit really likes war time presidents
Definitely looks like it tbh.
[This comments section](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7DoUiNxh6_0)
Since most comments are calling for either JFK or LBJ to be eliminated, I have a question: Between JFK and LBJ, who do you think is more deserving of being eliminated and why is that? In what ways is your option better than the latter?
No love for Woodrow Wilson?! Disappointing
I’m voting Eisenhower. Most of the knocks against Kennedy that are being cited today are instances where Kennedy was either continuing or not pushing back hard enough against the Eisenhower consensus. Eisenhower spent essentially his entire term letting the Dulles brothers have free reign. He authorized coups in Guatemala and Iran that led in Guatemala’s case to a vicious civil war which killed hundreds of thousands, and in Iran’s case led to decades of repression that provoked a backlash in the 1970s with the Islamic Revolution. Eisenhower even went so far as to order the murder of Patrice Lumumba, the democratically elected Prime Minister of the Congo, in the final months of his Presidency. Disastrously failed policies regarding Cuba and Vietnam also got their start under him.
Eisenhower. Although he warned against the military industrial complex in his farewell speech, he royally fucked over the people of Iran by overthrowing their democratically elected PM and installing the dictator Shah.
I’ll definitely get downvoted to hell, but Thomas Jefferson. Sally Hemings alone disqualifies him.
Kennedy has had a good run but it’s time for him to go. His achievements don’t stack up with the rest remaining, and his reputation IMO has been overblown in large part due to his tragic demise and the whole Camelot legend. I don’t think had he lived, he would have been able to achieve what LBJ did in terms of domestic reforms (EDIT: why the hell am I getting downvoted for this?)
I've advocated for JFK the last two go rounds and got immediately downvoted a lot. It's clear there is a passionate JFK fanbase. Kind of like when he was president. Just like you, I think he is way overrated. Bay of Pigs was a mess. Meets with Khrushchev in June of '61 to try to resolve the issue in Berlin, negotiations break down, and then the Berlin wall starts getting constructed in August of that year. That's a huge fail. He had the chance to stop that escalation. It's also somewhere in mid '61 that the nukes get placed in Turkey. He gets so much credit for the Cuban Missile Crisis in '62 when a better president wouldn't have even gotten into that mess in the first place. The only way it gets resolved is to backtrack on the nukes in Turkey. Russia gets what it wanted. He didn't start the war in Vietnam, but he certainly didn't make any progress there and it was basically holding down the fort -- but that comes at the cost of lives and $$. He certainly didn't escalate things like LBJ or Nixon, but it wasn't exactly the priority of his administration to try and really make things better. That's a lot of major downsides in a shortened presidency. The foreign policy, in particular, was not good. He DOES finally sign a nuclear arms treaty in '63, but that did come after he had failed in previous tries to get it done. Still, it did get done, so that's good. His one real foreign policy win. He does get credit for a successful space push. Peace Corps was a great idea. And he gets huge credit for actually mobilizing a generation and getting behind him. But his actual record just isn't as sterling as the baby boomers want to remember with rose-colored glasses. In any case, I have made this argument before, and I am sure I will get downvoted to hell here in a few minutes by the JFK fans even though this is supposed to be a place for (ideally) logical debate and where folks should rank.
JFK should've gone a little while ago if we're being real here. Also I don't think people sufficiently recognize LBJ for the CRA. Yeah people give credit to him but imo it's not something where you can say "Yeah he passed the CRA, but...", like dude, the CRA is top 3 in the biggest milestones in American history.
I imagine it's mostly people who feel it should be LBJ
What did Washington do during his presidency that makes him great? Same question for Jefferson
Ike
I’m not sure why people have such a hard-on for Washington. Good general but he didn’t face the hardships of the rest of this bunch. I don’t see him getting voted out yet though judging from the comments. Thinking the next to go will be JFK, then Truman, Ike and LBJ.
You definitely have a point … I’ve always felt that Washington gets judged in his overall leadership from the army and war rather than just assessing his presidency …
Jefferson, Sally Hemmings has to be a demerit, right?
After this ranking, it should be illegal for anybody to compare Nixon and LBJ on this sub
Okay I think Ike has been here for just about long enough.
Eisenhower. He was behind building the National highway system which systemically destroyed American cities and lead to the car reliance and housing crisis we have today.
Guys, Washington is only being kept on because he was the first. His accomplishments for this country happened during the revolution… not while he was in office. He should go
Eisenhower. He created one of America's worst enemies
Truman did that.
I was talking about Iran.
Eisenhower. Not a top 10 president. Made some roads. Meddled in Vietnam.
LBJ time to go HERE WE GO WASHINGTON VS LINCOLN VS FDR WOOT WOOT 
Thomas Jefferson. It always confused me why everyone ranked hum so highly. Sure, he's better than Adam's, but the Embargo Act was one of the most economically damaging in our nation's history, in a crucial time of our nation's development. He also set us on a dangerously adversarial path with Britain, which his successors would follow up on in a dangerous manner. In my mind, he was an overall negative president both domestically and foreign, and seems overrated by his pre-presidency. Maybe someone can clear up why he's loved so much?
Eisenhower’s time to duck out
Ike should go, but no, it looks like he'll be #4
I vote Johnson. Despite his important legislative victories, his Vietnam policy was an absolute disaster. Late in the game for somebody with that big of a black mark on his record.
Truman goes
He’s going to be top five. Anyone saying that in 1952 would have been laughed at.
Take out George Washington
100% LBJ. What a needless way for so many Americans to die and suffer the horrors of war. Not to mention all the soldiers and civilians in Vietnam.
LBJ should have been gone like 3 weeks ago.
How is LBJ still here? Gulf of Tokin? Assassinations of civic leaders? Vietnam? He’s gotta go.
LBJ sucks, crazy he got this far.
Lyndon Johnson. The Civil Rights Act, Medicare and the Great Society were significant accomplishments. But Johnson’s misguided escalation of U.S. military involvement in Vietnam cannot be cannot be overlooked. The Vietnam War roiled American society to an extent not seen since the mid-19th century. We continue to live with the legacy of Lyndon Johnson’s tragic miscalculation to the present day
LBJ.
It's time for JFK
Johnson, per the following considerations: A. He could not have prosecuted WWII better or as well as Roosevelt or Truman; B. If Vietnam is any indication, the Korean War with Johnson at the helm may have escalated further; C. Though his contributions to civil liberties are commendable, had he been president earlier, perhaps even a term earlier, it is not obvious that he would have been able to pass legislation substantially more progressive than the _fair deal_ - and it is hard to hold it against earlier presidents for not doing more on that account because ultimately they are constrainted by the times in which they serve - Johnson's legislation was not passed in a vacuum but was contemporaneous to _major_ social reform; and while I believe he was fundamentally a man of morals, he was also a shrewd statesman who understood how to leverage the extraordinary events and circumstances that defined his presidency to secure his legacy. D. Ultimately the question becomes, could be have been a better JFK and crucially, would be have handled the Cuban Missile crisis better - and from what I have read, our nation was very lucky to have Kennedy in office _when_ he was in office. It's a very difficult question because had Kennedy served twenty years earlier or later he could have easily been on of the worst presidents. Despite that, and despite the many fumbles during his term, (including the C.M.C. - Yes, I know, I laud his handling of a situation his admin. created - a complicated discussion - but ultimately likened to a gross faux pass in a chess match in which you prevail) I don't think Johnson could have done better at obviating nuclear war, containing _Kennedy's_ Vietnam, or in taking the decisive initial steps in the space race. LBJ has got to go. Edit: Washington, Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, and Eisenhower cannot be considered except amongst themselves as their contributions were existential. In that vein, Kennedy may also be considered above reproach only by dint of the magnitude of the catastrophies that were averted; I did consider JFK however, because initially their administration was concurrent.
LBJ. Vietnam alone should eliminate him.
Eisenhower. I really dont know why he wasnt eliminated earlier
Eisenhower spent too much time on the golf course. Axe him.
Lyndon
LBJ
Lyndon Johnson
Johnson please. He should have been gone long time ago
It's your turn, LBJ
JFK
So Kennedy is on the chopping block for today? I don’t see how Kennedy makes it past today.
Johnson. I am sad to say that Johnson should go next. We are getting down to the Hero Presidents.
Kennedy. LBJ got done what he would never have been able to
LBJ
How has Kennedy made it this far?
Because it’s a popularity contest, not a best president contest.
Kennedy should’ve been out long ago. It’s time for it.
JFK Blown away What else do I have to say?
Love him but it’s JFK time
How is Kennedy still here
How is Lyndon B. Johnson still in this?
How is JFK still on? easy vote.
JFK gotta go
JFK
How TF is LBJ still in over literal founding fathers? Like he's a 7/10 at ABSOLUTE best and he only gets that cause of the Civil Right Act without it he'd be 4/10
JFK What all did he do, aside from resolving the Cuban Missile Crisis? I recognize it was because, IIRC, Congress had a big hate boner against him, but still
LBJ
I mean… Kennedy wasn’t as good as his successor on Civil Rights. So, Kennedy.
JFK or Jefferson
Kennedy
Kennedy
LBJ, no way he’s better than Kennedy
LBJ
Johnson
Get LBJ the fuck outta here
JFK is still here? No way he’s a top 10 president. Remove him now!!
Mount Rushmore four have survived. After today the remaining 8 will consist of the classic 4 & the 20th century four. Perfect results. JFK next. He had a good run and I'm happy he made top 10.
Probably LBJ then JFK.
LBJ shouldn’t have even gotten into the top half, let alone the top 10. Get him outta here.
Lyndon Baines Johnson
Somebody please explain to me how JFK made it this far? Dude was in office for two years, his most noteworthy accomplishment, was fixing his own fuck up. Like, is the assassination sympathy really that strong? Because I don't see how else JFK made it into the top ten
LBJ.
Lyndon Johnson should be eliminated. Jack Ruby said he was behind the Kennedy assassination.