A Comparison

Preside by Side

Choose a president — Compare their faults

Sources

What severity would you give this?

Notes on Method

What this comparison is.

Preside by Side is, at a high level, an interesting way to look at presidents through the lens of their negatives, mistakes, and well-documented low points. Underneath that, it's also quietly curious about how people perceive public, divisive, well-documented events when they're laid out next to each other across parties and eras. The page pulls from primary government sources, court records, inspector general reports, and established journalism, but it is not a full accounting of any presidency. Every president featured here also holds a record of legislative achievements, policy successes, and historical contributions that this project deliberately sets aside.

On the framing of this project.

Readers will undoubtedly notice that Preside by Side is presented in an intentionally charged, instigative frame. Its setup is certainly incendiary by design, but the project isn't using that frame to assert a political judgment underneath; the documented facts and sources in each bar are what's important. Each bar covers the significant negative actions of presidents regardless of party affiliation or personal philosophy, and the charged packaging does not lower the standard the underlying evidence is held to.

How events are selected.

Events are included when they are supported by credible primary or institutional sources (congressional findings, federal court rulings, agency inspector general reports, or established reporting from recognized outlets). Divisive events are welcome and are part of the point; what gets excluded is events whose underlying facts are themselves in dispute or unsupported by the record. An event can be politically charged, hotly interpreted, or uncomfortable to read and still belong here, as long as the facts under it are solid. Each bar links to its primary sources so readers can evaluate the evidence directly rather than taking this project's framing on faith.

How severity is rated.

By default, it isn't — not until you weigh in. The page opens with every event as an unrated track: hover one, click where you think it lands, and confirm to set your own 1–10 severity. Your ratings are kept on your device for about a week, so they're waiting if you come back. The "Others' ratings" toggle shows how readers as a group have scored each event — a plain average of every vote, alongside how many votes it rests on. Early on those averages sit on a handful of votes and will swing easily; that's expected, and the count is shown so you can judge the weight yourself. The "AI ratings" toggle reveals scores assigned with AI assistance, weighing each event's scale of harm, legal significance, and lasting consequence by present-day standards (an act like slaveholding drew little controversy in its era, yet is rated severely here because the rights it violated are now held as absolute). Those are a best-faith estimate, not an authoritative judgment: AI tools carry biases, scores can reasonably be disputed, and the linked sources are there for you to weigh things differently.

A work in progress.

Preside by Side is an active work in progress. Source links may be out of date or broken, entries may be incomplete, and the page itself may have bugs, layout quirks, or rough edges that haven't been caught yet. Reports, suggestions, and tips of any kind — broken sources, bugs, design feedback, wording, framing, anything you notice — are genuinely appreciated and help shape where the project goes next.

Sources and corrections.

All source links point to publicly available primary documents or institutional reporting as of the dates cited. If you believe a source is mischaracterized, a severity score is clearly indefensible, or a significant documented event has been omitted, this project welcomes that feedback.

What's planned next.

Preside by Side is an evolving project. Reader ratings are now the front door — the page opens unscored so your read on each event comes before anyone else's — and the suggestion box below collects what the project has overlooked. Planned additions include a community view comparing reader averages against the AI-assisted scores, more presidents, and deeper sourcing on existing entries. The goal is to keep the comparison accountable to the evidence and open to correction, rather than fixed on any one reading of the record.

What did we miss?

meme entries welcome but not considered

Leave this field empty

Built by Key