"most historians" is obvious hyperbole, and what would they be judging it on? One would have to look at what and why they, each because there's no way the are saying it collectively when they can't agree on anything collectively, are saying specifically about why they make such an absurd statement. And it is absurd.

Trump pushed for and passed a criminal justice reform that everyone agrees was surprisingly progressive. Compare that to Bill Clinton who Michelle Alexander details how bad his presidency was on criminal justice. Trump has not invaded any new countries, making his presidency better of foreign policy than both Clinton-- who invented "humanitarian bombing"-- and Bush who literally lied us into a war in Iraq which: destabilized the entire region, created a refugee crisis that is still reverberating in Europe and the middle east, destroyed historical treasures directly and indirectly, and sent oil prices through the roof for like a year where some people couldn't afford to even drive to work. Like it or not Trump's presidency is better than Bush's and Clinton's already both on criminal justice and on war. Obama expanded Bush's wars, and all credible evidence points to his funding of ISIS and ISIS-renamed groups to over-throw Syria and wage a war along with Turkey to stomp out Rojava. Trump had an early bombing campaign which was applauded by the media, where they literally called it being "presidential", but critics ie war-mongers complained it was intentionally ineffective and too limited to serve their purposes-- which are clearly centered around creating one specific pipeline through Syria that profits our oil companies while blocking another specific one that would profit Russia. If you want to cheer for our oil companies there, that's on you just be sure to enlist.

Trump was pushed to invade Iran, which would be a disaster, but instead he played stupid games with false-flag operations and let it all peter out into nothing, for now. Both Hillary and McCain talked about bombing Iran and Hillary even said she's willing to nuke them. We, as in the world, seriously dodged a bullet in 2016. Trump's overthrow of Bolivia most be compared to Obama's overthrow of Honduras, which Hillary took credit for. Honduras is still run by a military dictatorship and was a major source of the so-called caravan of immigrants or refugees walking through Mexico to bum-rush the border. Thanks, Obama. Bolivia by comparison just had a peaceful election where the CIA's puppet just congratulated the former finance minister who served under Evo Morales and who apparently was the mastermind of Bolivia's peaceful take over of their own natural resources. It remains to be seen if he will honor the contracts signed by the CIA's temporary president. On "monroe doctrine" related issues, Trump is clearly better than Obama.

On trade it is obvious: Trump is vastly superior to every president since perhaps Johnson, not because he's been great but because so many have been disasters. TPP and TTIP were both stopped dead in their tracks by his win. He is the first to even try to renegotiate NAFTA, something Clinton promised as he signed it even though all critics of NAFTA pointed out that he could just NEGOTIATE it better before pusing it through congress and signing it. He just simply lied to his party base about his intentions in the hopes they would not fight against it so hard.

Clinton was horrible on trade, but he was on different on it than GHW Bush would have been. GHW Bush tried to get "MFN" for China which the Democrats opposed and stopped. Senator Bill Bradley (D-NJ) went on PBS explaining how you don't reward human rights violators with trade deals. Then a year later and barely into Clinton's presidency he went back on PBS to explain how trade would lead to a more democratized China with better human rights. I think that was after Tienanmen Square. But the crack down on Hong Kong and the Uhygar enslavement and harvesting of organs has shown that was a bunch of lies meant to put money in the pockets of Wall St while killing our unions and allowing companies to just opt out of our environmental and labor protections by moving production. NAFTA created the mess in Juarez and the enviromental distruction along the boarder there. The damage done to Mexico by NAFTA is well documented. The Bushes and the Clintons and both party establishments share the blame for that.

GATT and WTO has also been a disaster. Country of origin labelings have been ruled in violation of the treaty, not by our courts but by a court created and maintained by corporations specifically to shoot down a country's attempt to regulate commerce in their own country. That you do not have a right any more to know what country your meat comes from, and thus what drugs kept the critter alive while he was living in probably piles of its own feces with no hope of an inspector even fining the operation, or that it is profitable to raise chickens here but ship them to China for "processing" and ship them back for sale, are just a couple of the absurdities of trade deals given to us by Clinton and proposed by Bush. Obama and GW Bush also passed similarly bad trade deals, but for our economy and for our industry and for our communities that need a tax base to pay for infrastructure upgrades, it was just kicking a dead man. Obama was pushing for TPP and TTIP, and Hillary would have passed them, and Biden will likely resurrect them. Trump is much better on trade than any of them.

Finally, the Equality Act will do, as I said above and you didn't counter at all, to women and girls what exploitative trade deals did to our manufacturing and to the global enviroment and to worker's rights.

Four more years is very little to pay to protect us from more of the same or any return to the "normalcy", described above, the Dems on the upper east or west side of Manhattan want to go back to. If Biden wins, you can see AOC, Jamal Bowman, and all the "squad" primaried and replaced well-behaved Wall St servants. If Biden wins you will never see a fair primary run by the Dems, which anyone fairly looking at the last two will admit is already a concept buried in the dust-bin of history. And you will elevate Harris, who might be worse than Joe much like Hillary's choosing Tim Kaine was meant to elevate yet another Wall St (in Virginia of all places) Dem who was against women's reproductive rights.

So, your idea that Trump is the worst in history is just silly. Russiagate? Aaron Mate showed it all to be lies. Crowd Strike themselves who pointed the finger at Russia had to admit that they had no actual evidence or reason to suspect Russia did anything to the DNC's servers. The tax returns just showed a charlatan like every rich bastard when we were promised it would show he was firmly in some unnamed Russian's pocket. Trump has done horrible things. That the Dems focus on none of them and make up lies shows you more about them than him.

The only sane choice is to vote Green or vote Trump and make the Dems come back in four years. The only reason we got to debate the Dems love for wars (thanks Tulsi), or their love for locking up pot-heads, or trade, or M4All is because the Dems lost. That's the big lesson from 2016: hand dems defeats and make them quit their addition to Wall St and war cold turkey. Four more years and a chance to do it all again is much better than handing Biden a win and perhaps never getting a chance fight for what is important. We already know what Biden will fight for, and it will make the song "Dude looks like a Lady" transphobic because under the law it will be "Bearded Lady looks like a Lady"