i think "empathy" is a made-up, new age term, that does a lot of damage

paul:  yes, vemax is ~90% asia.  it is 1% europe, 2% north america, etc.  ~a paul:  i do feel that the "US government / economy /monetary supply" are all three pretty divorced from the stock market value.  to some measurable degree, anyways.  the US is pretty shitty at a lot of things, but retaining value to the share holders is one thing we've consistently done pretty well (with 2025 as a notable exception).  ~a a: I believe VEMAX doesn't contain Europe, right? Or a least most of Western Europe? I remember way back when I wanted exposure to the rest of the world but not Europe. -Paul a: Honestly, watching VTIAX / VGTSX / VXUS consistently underperform VTSAX for decades no matter how messed up the US government / economy /monetary supply got.... it really opened my eyes to how screwed up the rest of the world was (as well). -Paul yeah, vtiax == vgtsx == vxus.  you can convert them (with a lot of exceptions) without it being a taxable event.  yes, i agree it has drastically underperformed before 2025.  ~a a: I've got VEMAX and VTIAX instead but I've had them for probably 20 years of underperformance vs VTSAX. I guess I'm glad to see things turn around a bit, even if temporarily? Except my VTSAX holdings are still larger so.... maybe not? -Paul for the first time, maybe ever, vxus is beating vti (year to date).  i always felt like a dummy investing in vxus (and vtiax), and maybe i was, but finally we're here, it's finally happening.  ~a mig:  all four judges signed on that the finding was supported by the record?  ~a They also didn't all agree that the conviction should have stood.  2 judges wanted a new trial, and 1 was in favor of tossing the case entirely.  That's a majority wanting at minimum  to retry the case, but the impracticalities of bringing a civil case against a sitting president meant though those two judges ultimately decided to punt the issue to a higher court. - mig a:  it doesn't sound like there will be a new fine.  The fine was completely tossed unanimously. - mig mig:  hmmm fun.  seems like a split decision, and that they all agree the conviction stands.  I hope the new fine accounts for the loss of the defendants:  I assume the defendants are maybe just the citizens of new york?  ~a https://www.pbs.org/newshour/amp/show/new-york-appeals-court-throws-out-500m-fraud-penalty-against-trump we talked about this a fair amount at the time, seems like a pretty strong rebuke of the NY ag even if the conviction technically stands (for now). - mig Maybe, top three per four year term, otherwise it is unfair to FDR, dude did a lot, but he had most of 4 terms. Paul:Honestly, a "top three" list of accomplishments per President (while in office, and as a political action) and a similar "top three" of other facts about the guy, would probably help with a lot of historical education in general, and probably stop some of the mythologizing we're continuing to experience. -- Xpovos a: So that way I can at least understand their rationale, even if I disagree that creating a lot of government programs was a good thing. -Paul a: So maybe for FDR it's: + Saw us through WW2. + Created a lot of government programs. - Imprisoned a lot of American citizens based solely on their race. -Paul I feel like instead of just vague categories with simple number ratings it would be more helpful to have a few bullet points for each president explaining the factors/accomplishments considered for ranking them so high (or low). -Paul a: "biden rated high on "ability to compromise" and "court appointments"" I'm genuinely confused on this. I know it's more a product of the era than a ding on Biden, but where exactly did he compromise? I assume court appointments go beyond KBJ? -Paul FDR: Paul hit important highlights, but I'll reiterate that probably the single most important was the executive power grab.  It's been increasing all along, but certain Presidents were the most responsible for the ratcheting. Jackson, Lincoln and FDR get most of my ire for it. Lincoln at least had a constitutional crisis he was trying to solve. Jackson and FDR just created their own. -- Xpovos Grant: Before Trump's first term, the most corrupt presidency.  Even worse than Harding.  All of the hate that Johnson got for Reconstruction mostly belongs here. -- Xpovos Johnson: He's particularly hated because he was seen as ineffectual in his Reconstruction efforts, but they were actually pretty good.  There's a lot of Southern smear there, and the Northerners hated him because it cost a lot of money.  But it was probably the closest thing to a genuinely effective solution to the Civil War. -- Xpovos Jackson: War hero turned president. Probably personally committed war crimes.  My guess is with a smile on his face. It's a good song, though. Absolutely atrocious (beyond atrocious) handling of the native population. Disasterous relationship with the courts.  Probably the first president to set in motion the wheels of oppressively increasing executive power.  That first bit of inertial push is infinitely important. -- Xpovos (also if you have any animosity towards fdr that isn't covered below, i'd be interested in that too)  ~a xpovos:  hi, it's me:  i don't know any history.  i know some of the details of jackson being violent and reckless in his personal life, but what's your other basis for johnson, grant, and jackson?  ~a Those rankings are hugely upsetting. I get that no one likes Andrew Johnson, but that’s ridiculous. Grant and Jackson in particular being middle of the pack shows how little history these historians know. I have tremendous animosity towards FDR, so obviously Forrest is upsetting. I’d maybe see him in 10th, where his intelligence is ranked. — Xpovos biden rated high on "ability to compromise" and "court appointments"  ~a nixon rated high on "willing to take risks" and "foreign policy accomplishments".  reagan had a high rating in "party leadership" "speaking ability" "leadership ability" "luck" and "relationship with congress".  what drug reagan down was an even combination of everything else.  ~a paul:  historians also think fdr should go on mount rushmore (search for "rushmore" on that pdf).  also that historians hate the electoral college and that donald trump (ci 2022!) weakened the presidency more than any other president.  ~a paul: i don't think they're rating the most "impactful President" or the presidencies "during a pretty important time".  if you look at the columns on "this one where fdr got number one" you can see their rating system.  "luck" was a column (and lincoln was unlucky).  read the whole thing, the future-prediction at the end was pretty interesting.  ~a But I would hope historians would have a more nuanced take and might appreciate Presidents who presided over peaceful times and, through no "fault" of their own, didn't preside over a huge war. -Paul Like, I can understand the average Joe who maybe can only name 5 Presidents and most of those are the ones who presided over major wars (FDR, Woodrow Wilson, Lincoln, etc) and why they might choose them. -Paul a: Love him or hate him, though, I think it's kind of hard to dispute he was an impactful President during a pretty important time. Biden was.... not so much? I guess I can't figure out what the metrics are that are being used. -Paul paul: my dad always hated reagan:  so I have a lifetime of arguments built up on why reagan sucked.    I'm sure he could also argue biden was great, but I won't try to do that.  ~a paul: "Trump was popular enough to get elected twice" I agree that's the wrong metric.  especially if you look at the electorial numbers it's pretty obvious that fdr was much much more popular with voters.  98% isn't even in the same ballpark.  ~a a: Biden over Reagan!? Again, you can disagree strongly with Reagan's policies but it seems uncontroversial that the President during the fall of communism (who was also super popular) was probably more historically significant than the guy who got booted by his own party for being too senile. -Paul a: Same things for Lincoln and Washington. But at the same time I just can't figure out the historical reason for ranking Biden at 14 and Trump at 45. I hate Trump as much as the next guy, but I feel like he's probably had a bigger historical impact than Biden's presidency so far. -Paul a: I think historians just have a bias towards Presidents who do "great things" and it almost doesn't matter what those things are? No matter how much I dislike FDR, I can't deny he dramatically altered the course of the US government. -Paul a: "mostly that if you talk to people of that time they didn't consider it that bad" Yeah, I just have a hard time getting there (especially if those same people are throwing a fit about immigration actions now). Locking up US citizens for no reason seems pretty bad no matter how I try to slice it. -Paul a: He WAS popular, though. You don't win that many elections by being unpopular. I honestly am not sure why (don't understand what the populace was feeling at the time). At the same time... Trump was popular enough to get elected twice so I'm not sure how great a metric that is... -Paul a: And I'll fully admit I'm probably in the minority of doubting that his policies helped (in fact, I think they largely hurt) and that he did anything special to help us win the war. -Paul a: And if you don't worry about the details, you could definitely argue that there was a depression before his administration, and after his administration we were an economic superpower... -Paul a: Yeah, I guess my best steelman for why people would like FDR (especially historians) would be that (1) WW2 is one of the biggest world events in recent history (2) FDR left the US for basically the entirety and (3) The US came out on top in a big way. -Paul paul:  his best point, maybe that i didn't know, is that fdr was wildly popular among voters: 98% of the e-c in his second election (1936).  85% of the e-c in his third election (1940).  but, like fuck the electoral college (so those two numbers are 61% and 55% for the popular vote).  trump has MUCH lower percentages here.  (he argued fdr should not have run a fourth time and that the 2-term-max amendment was good).  ~a paul:  the other thing he emphasized that fdr got us out of the great depression (i had a lot of issue with this, because by some accounts the depression was over before he became president).  he emphasized winning ww2 (though recognized that he died before the end of the war).  ~a paul:  he obviously didn't downplay the internment too badly, but honestly, he did downplay it some in ways that seemed pretty gross to me.  mostly that if you talk to people of that time they didn't consider it that bad.  (i had a lot of issue with this line of argument)  also he was adamant that the loss of businesses and homes was not fdr's responsibility:  specifically that fdr only approved the internment, not the other loss.    ~a paul:  i was right.  try as i might, i wasn't able to push him off of "fdr is in my top five" position (not "top 1" or "top 2" like the historians link).  i know you would have done better than me arguing your side, but i tried really hard and basically had all day to do it with a lot of down time to think and strategize.  ~a paul:  i should see my dad tomorrow, i'll ask him.  my dad loves history and i'm sure he'll have a bunch of good things to say about fdr.  ~a paul:  according to google's ai, it's three-fold:  1.  the new deal (i think we covered this a bit already).  2.  leadership during wwii (we covered this, but maybe we understated it?  maybe it was closer to him "winning" wwii single-handedly ). 3.  "restoring confidence and hope" (we didn't cover this at all:  not just getting us out of the great depression, but doing it in a way that made people happy.  fireside chats, and whatnot)  ~a paul:  i agree, but apparently the historians do not.  imo nothing could make up for the internment, but apparently there's some huge stuff we are missing?  ~a a: Even if I thought the FDIC and SEC were great programs, though, I'm not sure it makes up for the Japanese internment, bullying the Supreme Court, and running 4 times. -Paul a: Yeah, maybe I am underrating the popularity of the social programs that he put into place. Is that a great measure, though? I mean, social security is a huge driver of our fiscal problems and is likely very popular because it pays out a bunch more than it takes in. -Paul paul:  it seems weird that you didn't even mention social security or fdic or the sec when giving him lip service.  ~a paul:  love it or hate it, most americans like social security (9 out of 10).  but also they love the sec and fdic.  tons of these programs that are universally beloved (read that democratic and republican voters both like them:  i know you seem to hate everything that the average american likes).  the tennessee valley authority?  ~a paul:  i guess the good in terms of everything?  there's probably a reason a majority of historians think he's the second best president?  in the 2022 ranking they even put him at literally in first place.  better than all presidents.  i think he probably helped get us out of the great depression?  though you can also thank ww2 for that:  but, like, he did good things in ww2 too i assume?  ~a a: "can we at least do lip service to some of the good he did?" The good in terms of winning the war? I guess I wonder what masterstroke of strategy he had that helped win the war for us. Honestly, the war kind of went as poorly as possible with us still on the winning side. We sat by and let Europe fall to the Nazis. We kind of got caught with our pants down at Pearl Harbor. How did FDR help? -Paul paul:  otoh, can we at least do lip service to some of the good he did?  i'd have a much harder time doing any lip service to anything good that trump has done so far.  ~a paul:  i reaaaaly don't know much about history, sorry paul.  but, if japanese internment is the only thing we look at (an executive order) it does make me question any historical ranking that puts fdr near the top.  2nd place?  wow.  ~a