Are you suggesting those rankings should NOT be made by historians? That they should be done by people who mostly have no knowledge of what went on the presidencies of anything that happened before 1980 or later?
I am getting tired of our current rejection of expertise.
Couldn't find a conservative comment on the rank survey i used, which was not a result of only university professors, and which is linked in here ..
Disquisition, Trump, 1st U.S. president to not pass the baton peacefully after losing an election. 1st president to encourage supporters to force his vice-president to overturn an indisputably fair election result. 1st U.S. president to label the press as "fake news." 1st president to put a guy, Stephen Miller, with clear connections to white supremacy groups in charge of his immigration policies: https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=174781860
You guys have covered your 'it depends' comment. People who worked with Trump should be a decent guide even for dedicated Trumpists as you, that's pretty well covered here .
Thank you for providing yet more information from Kelly, who is a Republican. But I have no idea what your point is. Kelly told the truth. You know, like Tillerson, McMaster, Mattis, Esper, Milley, and many more who ended up despising him, and considering him dangerous. https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=174813393 .
Bottom line is, you are promoting a guy who has proven to be ranked by an assortment of people always near the bottom of all American presidents, or dead last. That doesn't make sense.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
