We weren't supposed to *elect* the Nazis, for Christ's sake

Is thar "greatest prosperity without war" bullet supposed to be mean outside a wartime economy?
Because the comparative boom of the '50s was partly a direct result of WWII's devastation of European industry.
But but … the shareholders
New Deal Coalition was strong, indeed.

He could've run as a democrat but there had been a democrat president for like 15 years at that point so they thought they'd mix it up

That's a weird picture of Theodore Roosevelt.

How do you feel about operation wetback?

I get it, he may seem decent compared to those who came after him… but honestly I’m not sure I’d describe any US president as fundamentally decent.

Grading on a sliding scale, one presumes
Some people wouldn't describe anything as decent.
Spot the politicians keeping us from becoming a warlord state and encourage those people; measuring them against some utopia and criticizing them for missing that mark is just unfair.
- Doing this minimizes the violence and oppression that “moderates” in the US government have caused. If and when we defeat the rise of fascism I don’t want people to think that everything is fine when we go back to “normal”. The US government was a problem long before Trump came on the scene, even if he is making things worse.
  
  I mean, there's also a strong element that Eisenhower ultimately was a man of his era. As General Sherman (himself possessed of some very questionable time-appropriate views) once noted, "Men are creatures of habit, not originality."
  This isn't to say Eisenhower gets a complete pass on his bigotry because the past was bigoted; nor does it mean that Eisenhower, even outside of that, was anything close to perfect - him letting the metaphorical leash off of the CIA is something which we are still paying for today, for example.
  But it is alright to look at a figure of the past and say "They were above-average for their time, and that's good; they had a fundamental humanity that shone through past their flaws, and that's good; I hope that, one day, people will look back at me and the politics I support in a similarly critically positive light".
  People of the past deserve admiration for being stepping stones to a better future, not for being the high-mark of our society. We should never go back to the standards of their era or them themselves, but we should also be able to appreciate where and how they put future generations in position to demand more from our society.
  Eisenhower fought the fucking Nazis - and what's more, unlike cretins like Patton, recognized the horror for what it was, insisting on preserving the memory of the death camps so that future fascist-wannabes would find it harder to deny the atrocities that fascism led to. Eisenhower picked the Republican Party to run for in the hopes (sadly now shown to be vain) that America could have two progressive parties which disagreed on policies, not principles. He was committed to the ideals of democracy, equality, law, and individual liberty, whatever his other faults and deep imperfections in execution, and fuck, I personally know people today I could not say as much of.
  Like I said, I don't mean for this to be pure hagiography - but at the same time, it's okay to break out a little praise for dead old folks sometimes. Especially when it's meant, in part, to shame the present for not being able to live up even to lower, obsolete standards.
  tl;dr; the past IS bad, it's okay to praise the parts where people fought, however imperfectly, for it to get better; the present is ALSO bad, and the present also needs to get better - something which will only happen if we fight for it, even if in an imperfect way
  
  I’m not sure I agree but this is a well-argued and reasonable position.
  I am not saying we should vilify people for being imperfect but I do think it’s important to recognize and speak about the harms that they did. Too often we slip into white-washing our history which can be very dangerous. I know you aren’t doing that but I see it so commonly that it has trained me to push back when I see anything even a little similar.
  
  I am not saying we should vilify people for being imperfect but I do think it’s important to recognize and speak about the harms that they did. Too often we slip into white-washing our history which can be very dangerous. I know you aren’t doing that but I see it so commonly that it has trained me to push back when I see anything even a little similar.
  Oh certainly, I agree with that.

Was it "decent" when he slashed the GI Bill right before Korean War vets came home, telling all those conscripted men to pound sand when they came home with PTSD and no access to healthcare, higher education, or job programs?

Eisenhower reduced veterans' college benefits in favor of expanding college access to low-income demographics in general, and this only after a period of marked abuse of the GI Bill by predatory for-profit colleges - something a bipartisan commission in Congress had been studying for half-a-decade at that point and concurred with the course of action chosen.