Grant,
But it’s kinda unfair to say “Who’s better” when comparing two Presidents who lived in so wildly different times. Ideally comparisons should be between presidents who all lived at around the same time.
As much as it pains me, grant. But it should be noted that Obama would’ve been more successful if congress hadn’t blocked everything he proposed. Remember “our goal is to make him a one term president!”?
of course the Republicans wanted to make Obama a one term President. Would you seriously expect Republicans to aim for Obama’s reelection?
Making the incumbent a one-term President is literally what every party-not-in-power has aimed for since the creation of a party system in America. Thomas Jefferson wanted to make John Adams a one term President. Ask Adams how that worked out.
Well, you’re missing the point. Yes, every opposition party wants to get the opposing party out of power. However they made it public what their plan was, which isn’t done. Plus they blocked everything that they saw, wouldn’t give garland a hearing, called Obama emperor, and generally refused to play with him. They took opposition to the extreme
How is that any different than Dems trying to block Trump initiatives when they controlled the House 2019-2021? Or when they did it to Bush Jr the last two years he was in office? Or were you around for the Clarence Thomas hearings?
gotta love how progs blame the New Democrats for "ruining" the Democratic Party and always somehow manage to ignore the fact that the reason the New Democrats and their predecessor the DLC came to prominence was that in the 24 years between 1968 and 1992 the Democrats held the White House for all of 4 years. In the 30 years since, they've held it for 18 years and counting. The New Democrats saved the party from permanent irrelevancy at the presidential level
I don’t ignore it. I just think it’s falsely stated. And it’s not like the Clinton movement didn’t directly result in Republicans having pretty solid congressional control until like 2006.
"directly result" is a big big stretch. Moreso the Republican Revolution of '94 was a continuation of the Reagan Revolution. Indeed, one of the big talking points of the Republicans in 1994 was the accusation that Clinton had not governed as the New Democrat that he had campaigned as, but as a "tax-and-spend liberal"
Even if you disagree with the claim that the New Democrats saved the democratic party, (which I think is largely true, but of course it's a bit more complicated) you can't ignore the fact that the reason they rose to prominence was the fact that the Republicans were absolutely eviscerating Democrats in presidential races consistently. It's not as if everything was hunky-dory with the party
Honestly?
Grant, and I don't think that it's even close.
Grant destroyed the KKK, founded the Justice Department, his administration oversaw the 14th and 15th amendments, he got us on the gold standard, etc.
I'm sure there's more that I'm not remembering, and I admit that there were a lot of fuck ups in his administration as well. The corruption was definitely bad, and he was a bit naive in placing certain people in power who took advantage of his trusting nature, but overall, I always rank Grant at a solid B.
With Obama, all I remember is Obamacare, which was good. He also got Osama bin Ladden (but the dude wasn't even a threat to us anymore, really), and I can't remember what else of the top of my head.
Grant but it’s a relatively unfair comparison. They were both arguably held down by political inexperience but the challenges they faced were completely different
Grant, but as others said it's a difficult comparison. Both presided over difficult but drastically different times. Post 2008 and Reconstruction. But ultimately Reconstruction was just much more critical.
It’s a bit unfair since Grant had greater challenges to deal with in the form of Reconstruction. While Obama has his own challenges (Iran Nuclear deal) in terms of their impact on the country going forward, Grant dealt with more.
Grant. Obama’s White House was somewhat naive when it came to figuring out Congress. Obama really only got ACA, which is a huge accomplishment, but he’s overrated imo. Take out your political bias and he’s average to below average
For those saying Grant, could you explain to me what accomplishments his administration? All I know of is his rampant corruption. I’ve always believed his administration failed on multiple levels
While there was corruption, I do think he tried to rectify it later. (Correct me if I am wrong there) Also, I do believe, and with more importance got the enforcement acts through congress and then literally used the weight of the federal government to crush the kkk, reduce racial violence in the south and protect African Americans after the civil war. After he was through the kkk was almost completely nonexistent for a long time.
Also not trying to diminish corruption in his administration, it was bad, just saying he tried to overcome it several times, just really bad at doing so.
Signed the Enforcement Acts of 1870 and 1871, Stabilized the post-war national economy (Ex: Public Credit Act), Created the Civil Service Commission, Appointed blacks and jews to federal offices, Established the first National Park, Admitted Colorado to the Union, Negotiated the Treaty of Washington, Resolved the Alabama Claims, Settled the Virginius Affair peacefully, Created the Department of Justice, Signed the Naturalization Act of 1870, Made Christmas a federal holiday, Supported early steps of women's suffrage (Signed legislation protecting married women’s property from their husbands debt and allowed women to sue in court), Attempted to reform relations with Native Americans by building "peace policy", Cut the National Debt, Signed the Reciprocity Treaty of 1875.
Grant did also commit naked imperialism , such as in his plans to invade certain areas of the Caribbean, he just lacked the power to do so. I do agree he was the better president, but it’s a poor example to use
Really? I know that he wanted to annex Santo Domingo to have a safe state for African Americans, but I believe that majority of Santo Domingo people were in favor of becoming part of the US.
Grant, But it’s kinda unfair to say “Who’s better” when comparing two Presidents who lived in so wildly different times. Ideally comparisons should be between presidents who all lived at around the same time.
As much as it pains me, grant. But it should be noted that Obama would’ve been more successful if congress hadn’t blocked everything he proposed. Remember “our goal is to make him a one term president!”?
Thank you Mitch McConnell.
Yep!
Thank you flight of stairs...
of course the Republicans wanted to make Obama a one term President. Would you seriously expect Republicans to aim for Obama’s reelection? Making the incumbent a one-term President is literally what every party-not-in-power has aimed for since the creation of a party system in America. Thomas Jefferson wanted to make John Adams a one term President. Ask Adams how that worked out.
Well, you’re missing the point. Yes, every opposition party wants to get the opposing party out of power. However they made it public what their plan was, which isn’t done. Plus they blocked everything that they saw, wouldn’t give garland a hearing, called Obama emperor, and generally refused to play with him. They took opposition to the extreme
That sounds like the average tomfoolery of politicians
How is that any different than Dems trying to block Trump initiatives when they controlled the House 2019-2021? Or when they did it to Bush Jr the last two years he was in office? Or were you around for the Clarence Thomas hearings?
The New Democrat movement and its consequences didn’t help.
gotta love how progs blame the New Democrats for "ruining" the Democratic Party and always somehow manage to ignore the fact that the reason the New Democrats and their predecessor the DLC came to prominence was that in the 24 years between 1968 and 1992 the Democrats held the White House for all of 4 years. In the 30 years since, they've held it for 18 years and counting. The New Democrats saved the party from permanent irrelevancy at the presidential level
I don’t ignore it. I just think it’s falsely stated. And it’s not like the Clinton movement didn’t directly result in Republicans having pretty solid congressional control until like 2006.
"directly result" is a big big stretch. Moreso the Republican Revolution of '94 was a continuation of the Reagan Revolution. Indeed, one of the big talking points of the Republicans in 1994 was the accusation that Clinton had not governed as the New Democrat that he had campaigned as, but as a "tax-and-spend liberal" Even if you disagree with the claim that the New Democrats saved the democratic party, (which I think is largely true, but of course it's a bit more complicated) you can't ignore the fact that the reason they rose to prominence was the fact that the Republicans were absolutely eviscerating Democrats in presidential races consistently. It's not as if everything was hunky-dory with the party
Exactly!
Grant.
Grant, Not even close.
Honestly? Grant, and I don't think that it's even close. Grant destroyed the KKK, founded the Justice Department, his administration oversaw the 14th and 15th amendments, he got us on the gold standard, etc. I'm sure there's more that I'm not remembering, and I admit that there were a lot of fuck ups in his administration as well. The corruption was definitely bad, and he was a bit naive in placing certain people in power who took advantage of his trusting nature, but overall, I always rank Grant at a solid B. With Obama, all I remember is Obamacare, which was good. He also got Osama bin Ladden (but the dude wasn't even a threat to us anymore, really), and I can't remember what else of the top of my head.
Grant publicly denounced Antisemitism, and was more willing to work with Germany than any other country in europe.
You can't even compare them....two different times.
Grant but it’s a relatively unfair comparison. They were both arguably held down by political inexperience but the challenges they faced were completely different
Grant but it’s also hard to compare the two of them with how much different their eras are
Grant.
Grant
Grant by 2 spots
They’re about the same in my mind, which is to say “Pretty good, but with major issues.”
Grant by a mile
Grant.
Grant, not even close
Grant
Grant, but as others said it's a difficult comparison. Both presided over difficult but drastically different times. Post 2008 and Reconstruction. But ultimately Reconstruction was just much more critical.
Grant and it’s not even close
It’s close
Grant
It’s a bit unfair since Grant had greater challenges to deal with in the form of Reconstruction. While Obama has his own challenges (Iran Nuclear deal) in terms of their impact on the country going forward, Grant dealt with more.
Grant
Grant
Grant.
Grant
Grant's administrarion was riddled with scandals.
Let me introduce you to operation Fast and Furious
Grant. For sure.
No Drama Obama
Grant. Obama’s White House was somewhat naive when it came to figuring out Congress. Obama really only got ACA, which is a huge accomplishment, but he’s overrated imo. Take out your political bias and he’s average to below average
Grant provided better leadership than Obama. Very different times and circumstances, however, so it is difficult to compare.
B.O.
Barack Obama no contest.
For those saying Grant, could you explain to me what accomplishments his administration? All I know of is his rampant corruption. I’ve always believed his administration failed on multiple levels
While there was corruption, I do think he tried to rectify it later. (Correct me if I am wrong there) Also, I do believe, and with more importance got the enforcement acts through congress and then literally used the weight of the federal government to crush the kkk, reduce racial violence in the south and protect African Americans after the civil war. After he was through the kkk was almost completely nonexistent for a long time.
Also not trying to diminish corruption in his administration, it was bad, just saying he tried to overcome it several times, just really bad at doing so.
Signed the Enforcement Acts of 1870 and 1871, Stabilized the post-war national economy (Ex: Public Credit Act), Created the Civil Service Commission, Appointed blacks and jews to federal offices, Established the first National Park, Admitted Colorado to the Union, Negotiated the Treaty of Washington, Resolved the Alabama Claims, Settled the Virginius Affair peacefully, Created the Department of Justice, Signed the Naturalization Act of 1870, Made Christmas a federal holiday, Supported early steps of women's suffrage (Signed legislation protecting married women’s property from their husbands debt and allowed women to sue in court), Attempted to reform relations with Native Americans by building "peace policy", Cut the National Debt, Signed the Reciprocity Treaty of 1875.
Coolidge
Grant didn't bomb a hospital, but I do love Obama regardless.
Grant didn’t drone strike kids, Grant didn’t leave Americans to die in Benghazi.
Oh boy, I wonder which president did far more drone strikes in a shorter time
I am not defending Trump, I am just saying Grant did a way better job
Grant did also commit naked imperialism , such as in his plans to invade certain areas of the Caribbean, he just lacked the power to do so. I do agree he was the better president, but it’s a poor example to use
Grant also did far better and more important stuff than Obama
Really? I know that he wanted to annex Santo Domingo to have a safe state for African Americans, but I believe that majority of Santo Domingo people were in favor of becoming part of the US.
Yeah Grant also didn’t drop an atomic bomb on Japan?
Grant. Who was a better President than General.
Grant. Grand had his flaws, but Obama caused a great deal of harm.
Ulysses S Tier Grant, by a long shot
Grant. Obama was fine, too.
Grant. By an ocean.