why would a lion keep a stockpile of sheep? this seems suspicious

Because they're disposable when things go wrong.

Even re-election results are worthless. Again that just shows how good the person is at getting re-elected (or how bad the opposition was). It may indicate a bit about what people thought about a president at the time, but that's not a great retrospective measure. Bush Jr. did well on his re-election, but given the recession, much larger US deficit than when he started, and messy international wars left over at the end of his presidency, most would say he did a dismal job.

Considering Bush got 20 less electoral votes than Trump did and barely squeaked into a second term, I don't think you could say he "did well on his re-election".

@slypups:
If you're still interested in ranking the rankers, of course the way to do that is with the trusty Likeability Metric:
wpfieps LM=54%
Randomizer 26%
eturnage 25%
Hellenic_Riot 15%
ND 14%
Fluminator 7%
SamWest 2%
James Yanik 0%
(Which indirectly provides further evidence that Trump is the best of all Presidents.)

Ok, maybe I'll quickly make a full and more detailed ranking if we're judging the veracity of them now.

I had a good laugh about that Trump tweet today. God Emperor tier.

oh snap! Quick people like my posts. I want to be more likable.

Trump: Quick people like my tweets. I want to be more likable.

If Trump keeps up tweeting hallucinations, he might become the first president since Reagan to give up the presidency due to medical incapacitation. Although Reagan came back after surgery.

He should market TrumPeyote.

Donald Trump's tweet about a journalist's face "bleeding" from a face-lift, ND?

That's the kind of crass, gutter shit that makes you laugh?

@wpfieps: And how are you calculating that "Likeability Metric"? Aside from that such a measure has nothing to do with this thread or how good a job people did in this thread providing and explaining their rankings.

Don't be sore that I had you at the bottom - it's not that I disagreed with your rankings, but rather that you provided no explanation other than your rankings are based on your "own memories." Everyone else provided at least some explanation/analysis for their rankings, which makes them better rankings than yours in my book.

@slypups: See http://www.webdiplomacy.net/forum.php?viewthread=1490782

As for what LM has to do with this thread, there is the Transitive Closure of Rankings (TCoR), which states that since I'm listed highest on the "LM Ranking of Rankers", and I listed Trump highest on my ranking of Presidents, then Trump is proven to be the best. This transitivity property is a mathematic fact (which I read on the cover of Time magazine last time I went golfing).

Guys, let's not have this be about trump. I'm more interested in people's opinions of previous presidents lol.

Apparently ND's rankings are based on how much of an a-hole the person is since Trump is at the top and he applauds his nastiness. Coolidge, LBJ, Pierce, and Andrew Jackson should rank highly for him based on this measure.

@wpfieps - ok you want to be ranked the highest because you are the stingiest giving out likes to the posts of others (a whopping 10 by you in 6 years on the site). Nah, not a fan of that measure. Your stinginess in giving likes is irrelevant to the quality of your rankings.

sly, you should talk about stingy. as for ranking, all Republicans, Federalists and Whigs over all Democrats.

Me stingy? 109 likes given out in 9 months isn't bad. You've given out about 50% more likes in that same time CAPT_Brad, but you're also more active on the forums than me with about 5 times the number of posts. wpfieps apparently gives out two likes a year and is pushing a metric favoring that level of stinginess.

I'm super stingy, unlike my favorite Presidents.

Top 5 impactful:
-FDR
-Jefferson
-Lincoln
-Jackson
-Kennedy

Top 5 personal favorites:
-Kennedy
-Teddy
-Clinton
-Reagan
-Monroe

I totally agree with your remarks @JeffKuta regarding the stupidity of Trump in engaging Brezinski. Her audience is miniscule. Trump has 38M followers. He would have been much better to ignore her. Or at least, if he wants to react to her mocking, find a good writer who can say something actually humorous about her. Trump just comes across as wack and helps her gain greater following by attacking her in his crass style. Makes him look like an unsympathetic bully even to people who are still neutral about him on a personal level.

@eturnage: While Trump likes to be in campaign mode to get positive feedback from his fans and supporters, he hasn't seemed to realize that he is damaging his brand among everyone else when he engages small fry on twitter. HE IS PRESIDENT DAMMIT. ACT LIKE IT.

Wp is generous. I give out 1 like a year. It makes getting one that much more special.

@slypups: Andrew Jackson is like second on my list lol. Not LBJ or Pierce though.

@Manwe - but how do people know it's special? They can't tell that one "precious" like came from you or from somebody who is handing them out like breath mints.
@ND - clearly you need to add Pierce and LBJ in there - real bastards in person apparently.

Andrew Jackson had 3 major moments that really each of which conflict with me (even though i definitely believe he was a horrible man):

1. destroying the central bank was a great thing that sadly we lost at when Wilson helped create the FED which is constantly at the heart of every great monetary policy blunder from the restricting the money supply early in the 1930s to the interest rate manipulation that helped make the 2008 financial crash truly devastating.

A+

2. he initiated the IRA, pushing many natives off of their lands without any regard for their noted legal right to be there.

F-

3. during the IRA... he didn't listen to Justice Marshall. this is a WEIRD one, but we all know his famous phrase "John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it!" although the truth of Worcester vs Georgia did not technically stop the Federal government from interfering, but rather that the states had no right to conquest another nation's land. what Jackson did here was stop the courts in their tracks, as they had been growing for decades in power and influence, especially with Marbury v Madison creating the Judicial Review precedent. of course... he solved this by taking the power SOLELY to the executive branch, which obviously isn't a good thing at all.

C-

Hmm, I suppose they would have to PM me and ask.