OpenStars

Well... I like it at least:-).

The perfect one to share too! But since you already did, here is also the Wednesday Finale.:-)

I dunno, I want to believe in a future where both can scare a cop. :-)

For the same reason people wear pants inside the house - it's cold, gets you ready to go out at a moment's notice, etc. - plus shoes add padding. Also... not everyone does, wink:-).

Lol, well *I* thought it was funny:-P. You might get fewer fake internet point reductions if you threw in a /s.

Well, now you know.

(Yes, that's HYDRA, the enemy of SHIELD:-P)

Yeah I don't know that much about WWI, I just recall getting very depressed when I first started learning about the reasons why we were there in college. Basically to make rich people richer, as always:-(.

At which point it has become the height of irony that the USA now is considering joining the neo-Nazis, in the next Presidential election:-(.

Okay so you got me curious so I took a look at the actual survey results, linked to from the article, and two things are somewhat noticable about Wilson to me.

One is that he is, as expected, on the list of the most Over-Rated Presidents. Kennedy, Reagan, Jackson, then Wilson, followed by Jefferson, T. Roosevelt, etc. So they do seem aware of these concerns, though ofc this doesn't explain why the ranking is so high, even though consistently falling over time.

The second is what is NOT as directly noticable: he is very much kinda average, neither thought of all that highly across the different categories (Republican rankings are originally separated from Democrat ones before everything gets combined) nor all that lowly either. I wonder if he is kinda just at an inflection point, where there are truly shitty ones and truly good ones (in the eyes of their detractors and proponents respectively ofc), but nobody seemed to have quite as strong opinions about him in particular (unlike e.g. Reagan or Kennedy), so he just kinda floats around in-between the others?

Even in terms of the Over-Rated listing (Table 7), the difference between Reagan (83) vs. Jefferson (40) is that twice as many respondents considered the former to be overrated compared to half that number saying so for the latter. While Wilson (60) was directly in between, average to the core just like in every other category he appears in.

Unsurprisingly, Wilson also made the list of the Most Polarizing Presidents (Table 4), but true to form, was at the very bottom of that list, and yet with a higher polarizing score than Clinton who was identified by a higher number of people as being polarizing, but apparently lesser in magnitude than Wilson. i.e. fewer people know as much about the bad things he did, but those who know are more highly motivated to think ill of him as a result.:-)

So like, to Republicans, they considered Wilson (13) to be just below Jackson (12) and above Kennedy (14, but he's of the opposite party affiliation!), while to Democrats Wilson (16) was just below Adams (15) yet above Monroe (17). So anyway, maybe Wilson is number 15 on the final list not bc he earned that place by being good, so much as being less offensive (somehow?) to all parties concerned than others who were considered much worse? i.e. he didn't "earn" that spot so much as he needed to go somewhere within the listing, and that ended up being it?

It's a possibility at any rate.

It's a political thing, I guess?

That billionaire took a private jet on a 13-minute trip, causing even conservatives to point out how wasteful that was for the environment - but not bc they care about the environment ofc, and rather that conspiracy theory about her boyfriend in the Kansas City Chiefs Superbowl game.

So there were a bunch of pics of planes on Lemmy, although I guess it's all old now, being a whole week in the past. But it was really popular there for awhile... among those of us who enjoy shit posts (and/or couldn't get outside this past week bc of the weather:-|).

I thought about adding more context to my reply - like yeah, to the slave OWNERS it's not so bad, while to the SLAVES it's not so great... (even though they were given sammiches sometimes, I presume you know the history of that little gem of a comment:-)

I was not privy to their deliberations but I could guess that they (1) might take into account what was known at the time, and (2) even for something as bad as slavery, if they helped prop up a democracy that would one day lead to their freedom, it still isn't nothing in that regard, even if it is insufficient on its own?

Similarly, the League of Nations did not work out directly, but even serving as a model of failure, did set the stage for the United Nations?

Hrm, maybe they assigned things to separate categories, so that like once someone already earned the absolute minimum score on something like on a scale of 1-5, he gets a score of 0 on civil liberties, but then other categories are still allowed to raise it up.

And I dunno about not entering the war. People could debate how and why, but "appeasement never works", and watching as all our allies became conquered nations and knowing that they'd later come back as enemies... even if only decades later, I am not so sure that the question as to whether or not to go to war is as simple as "war = bad, always". While it is true that there is no "winning" a war, only differing degrees of losing, the worst-case scenario of losing all your allies and then eventually yourself is fairly bad.

It is indeed a LOT, and I respect that. :-D

FYI, the person who made fun of you got their comment removed by a mod. I hope this helps restore a tiny bit of faith in how Lemmy makes social media work.:-)

C'mon, we all know what would happen... Trump would call them up on the phone and throw a hissy fit, threatening to drop out of the race or something ridiculous and then they would award it to him.