Politics Who is the best Republican president between Donald Trump and Abraham Lincoln?

[CupWizier]

Me and you are TWO groups, smart guy. “Republicans” is ONE group. There are nuances to the term based on the context it’s used in and who or what you’re referring to.

It’s over your head clearly.

Nothing is over my head as it has been clearly explained to you as well as the definition shown and you want to make up your own definition to fit your benefit. The only one that doesn't seem to grasp basic math is you. Good luck with that as pointing out a typo only makes your argument even weaker than it really is.

Let me try this one more time using your analogy. I am one group with 3 people in it and you are one group with 2 people in it. Which of us has the MOST in their group? Give yourself lots of time to figure it out and even use the internet to search for the answer.

 

[Stevenson]

Okay, that might have been 1% of the reason but let there be no doubt that the overwhelming reason was to eliminate slavery.

No, not true. I need not go into why, but I know quite a bit about this. Here is a PBS segment on the causes of the war: "A common explanation is that the Civil War was fought over the moral issue of slavery. In fact it was the economics of slavery and political control of that system that was central to the conflict."

 

[Lanny]

Abraham Lincoln....REAL AMERICAN
Donald Trump......WORST PRESIDENT EVER ELECTED

How can anyone with half a brain argue this?

Me and you are TWO groups, smart guy. “Republicans” is ONE group. There are nuances to the term based on the context it’s used in and who or what you’re referring to.

It’s over your head clearly.

Let's put this in words that I hope you can understand. If 53% of Republican respondents support Lincoln and if 47% of the Republican respondents support Trump, which President has the most support? Hint: using a calculator is cheating.

 

[jonnyboy]

Nothing is over my head as it has been clearly explained to you as well as the definition shown and you want to make up your own definition to fit your benefit. The only one that doesn't seem to grasp basic math is you. Good luck with that as pointing out a typo only makes your argument even weaker than it really is.

Let me try this one more time using your analogy. I am one group with 3 people in it and you are one group with 2 people in it. Which of us has the MOST in their group? Give yourself lots of time to figure it out and even use the internet to search for the answer.

Like I said, you don’t understand the fact that a word can have more than one meaning. That’s ok. Proceed with angrily typing up first grade math problems to try and prove how smart you are.

 

[CupWizier]

Like I said, you don’t understand the fact that a word can have more than one meaning. That’s ok. Proceed with angrily typing up first grade math problems to try and prove how smart you are.

ah, so it's now becoming clear and you are really Rudy Giulliani and "the truth isn't always the truth." Do you really not see how foolish your thinking is?

 

[yankeesince59]

lmao

 

[yankeesince59]

The Union won the war due to it's industrial base and the port blockades of the south....the south was never ahead of the game....Union had 2.5 million soldiers...South had 1 million..the only reason it was long and bloody was the stubbornness of the Confederacy in face of impossible odds....they also had a large population of African americans that wanted freedom watching their farms and kids. Lincoln was a great president and not a healthy man throughout the war...plagued with a bum liver from what I've read..Union had 20 states, 5 border slave holding states and the South had 11. Gorilla warfare stretched it out but the South should have surrendered within a few months of the start of the war. Would've saved a lot of lives

^^^This !

The North won the Civil War with one arm tied behind their back. The only thing that my Southern forefathers had going for them was arrogance and poorly thought out rationale.

 

[barfo]

Like I said, you don’t understand the fact that a word can have more than one meaning. That’s ok. Proceed with angrily typing up first grade math problems to try and prove how smart you are.

You are correct that "most" can mean either 'almost all' or 'a majority'.

However... you don't get to pick which meaning the headline writer had in mind. You could claim it's a poor word choice because it can be interpreted two different ways, but you can't claim that the writer got it wrong, unless you have evidence that he or she thought that 53% was 'almost all'.

It's perfectly correct to describe 53% as 'most'.

Edit: I remembered this as being the headline of the story, but it looks like actually 'most' was used in the (now deleted) thread title instead? Thread titles are sort of like headlines, I guess? Or maybe I'm just losing my marbles (most of which are grey, by the way, although 47% are black).

barfo

 

[CupWizier]

You are correct that "most" can mean either 'almost all' or 'a majority'.

However... you don't get to pick which meaning the headline writer had in mind. You could claim it's a poor word choice because it can be interpreted two different ways, but you can't claim that the writer got it wrong, unless you have evidence that he or she thought that 53% was 'almost all'.

It's perfectly correct to describe 53% as 'most'.

Edit: I remembered this as being the headline of the story, but it looks like actually 'most' was used in the (now deleted) thread title instead? Thread titles are sort of like headlines, I guess? Or maybe I'm just losing my marbles (most of which are grey, by the way, although 47% are black).

barfo

Fletch thought it was about ball bearing when it is really about the context.

 

[yankeesince59]

It's perfectly correct to describe 53% as 'most'.

Edit: I remembered this as being the headline of the story, but it looks like actually 'most' was used in the (now deleted) thread title instead? Thread titles are sort of like headlines, I guess? Or maybe I'm just losing my marbles (most of which are grey, by the way, although 47% are black).

barfo

... Spit out my vino when I read that.

 

[MARIS61]

Uh, it's from Mirriam-Webster. You might have heard of it?

You are correct that I have never heard of Mirriam-Webster.

Must be, as I suspected, a bogus knock-off of Merriam-Webster.

 

[MARIS61]

If you have 100 apples and you give me 51 of them, then who has the most?

If you've got either 49% or 51 %, you've got about half.

Apples vary in size and weight, so it's a moot point.

 

[MARIS61]

I am wondering why Ike scored so low, when he is generally accepted by Republicans as the greatest President in history in nearly every poll or list compiled over the last 60 years.

Guess they polled an outlier of odd thinkers in their tiny group of carefully selected 1500 respondents.

 

[MARIS61]

most
/mōst/

Learn to pronounce

determiner · pronoun
determiner: most; pronoun: most

1. greatest in amount or degree.
   "they've had the most success"
   h
   Similar:
   nearly all
   almost all
   the majority
   the bulk
   the lion's share
   the mass
   the preponderance
   h
   Opposite:
   little
   few
   • the majority of; nearly all of.
     "most oranges are sweeter than these"
     h
     Similar:
     nearly all
     almost all
     the majority
     the bulk
     the lion's share
     the mass
     the preponderance
     h
     Opposite:
     little
     few

adverb
adverb: most

1. 1.
   forming the superlative of adjectives and adverbs, especially those of more than one syllable.
   "the most important event of my life"
2. 2.
   to the greatest extent.
   "the things he most enjoyed"

 

[MARIS61]

Few people would use most to describe 53%.

Most people would describe 53% as a slight majority.

 

[yankeesince59]

Few people would use most to describe 53%.

Most people would describe 53% as a slight majority.

Luckily, you don't speak for "most" people.

That Merriam-Webster thing has really got you up nights, eh?

 

[CupWizier]

If you've got either 49% or 51 %, you've got about half.

Apples vary in size and weight, so it's a moot point.

That is true, but it's also true that the one that has 51% has most of them. Most isn't defined by how many more as that's what some people do to words on their own. They change the meaning to fit their narrative. No need to respond as I am done with this but by your other post you didn't read the old posts. It would probably do you good and read them as this has been discussed well past its usefulness.

 

[jonnyboy]

You are correct that "most" can mean either 'almost all' or 'a majority'.

This is literally all I’ve been trying to say. No, I don’t get decide what the writer had in mind, but I can sure guess. I think he chose sensationalism, and it worked. The title didn’t exactly scream ‘slight majority’.

 

[yankeesince59]

lol...what title?...whatever it was, it certainly seems to have had the desired effect.

 

[jonnyboy]

lol...what title?...whatever it was, it certainly seems to have had the desired effect.

The misleading title of your thread. Wonder why it got changed? Lol.

 

[yankeesince59]

Because it had the desired effect.

 

[MarAzul]

Thought they could start their own country and play war

Wow! Where in the Constitution do you go to find support for preventing by force any state leaving the Union?
History books say the war was started by the South Carolina firing on Fort Sumter. Well hell, that is an island in Charleston bay that Lincoln had US troop invade in South Carolina territory long after they had succeeded.

Lincoln stands today as the worst leader in US history. The only President to crap all over the Constitution and lead the nation into civil war. I suppose the current Speaker of the house is trying her damnedest to go down in history with big marks in the book,
but no one will top Lincoln's bloody mark. Not only the leading the nation into civil war, but the bloodiest war in US history by a wide margin.

 

[MarAzul]

The only thing that my Southern forefathers had going for them was arrogance

True.
They had the war won, but lost strategical. After getting Lincoln and his failing Generals on the ropes, the Northern Population disgruntled, they should have held their ground in the South rather than expend their forces in the North.
I am afraid it was Robert E. Lees blunder, but I don't know, perhaps fools were pushing him. They could have beaten the North, just has Washington did the British, out last them. Lincoln was in trouble when he issued the Emancipation Proclamation,
and Lee should have recognized the moment, by avoiding combat, offering no opportunity for victories.

 

[barfo]

Wow! Where in the Constitution do you go to find support for preventing by force any state leaving the Union?
History books say the war was started by the South Carolina firing on Fort Sumter. Well hell, that is an island in Charleston bay that Lincoln had US troop invade in South Carolina territory long they had succeeded.

Lincoln stands today as the worst leader in US history. The only President to crap all over the Constitution and lead the nation into civil war. I suppose the current Speaker of the house is trying her damnedest to go down in history with big marks in the book,
but no one will top Lincoln's bloody mark. Not only the leading the nation into civil war, but the bloodiest war in US history by a wide margin.

I suspect if Lincoln had done what you wanted, let the south secede, then you'd be here today saying he was the worst leader in US history, he lost half the country!

barfo

 

[MARIS61]

The North won the Civil War with one arm tied behind their back.

Missed US History class every year you attended school?

620,000 Americans, men, women and children, were slaughtered, raped and tortured by their fellow Americans over the 4 long years of open warfare between the states. A full 2% of the entire population at the time (including slaves). For years afterward, they were robbed, raped, and burned in their homes or hung in their orchards by looters from the North.

The American Civil War was fought because the North's corrupt politicians wanted to crush the South's economy to ensure their Deep State hold on power over the American populace. They couldn't do it through our balanced government with checks and balances, so they did it by using propaganda, lies, abuse of office, and finally force, much as the Deep State Dems are doing now. Lincoln (for his donors) wanted to decimate the South, and he did.

A wiser, kinder, more creative President would have negotiated a peaceful transition, economically benefiting the Southern States by strengthening/modernizing their plantations while phasing out slavery, without slaughtering his political opponents and nearly everyone who voted against him. Trump would have averted the war, certainly.

To this day, Americans in the South are less shackled than their Northern countrymen and continue to be happier, politer, friendlier and more genuine than the phony, arrogant, unhappy and rude assholes to the North.

 

[MARIS61]

I suspect if Lincoln had done what you wanted, let the south secede, then you'd be here today saying he was the worst leader in US history, he lost half the country!

barfo

Those were not the only choices available to him, had he been intelligent enough to recognize it.

 

[yankeesince59]

True.
They had the war won, but lost strategical. After getting Lincoln and his failing Generals on the ropes, the Northern Population disgruntled, they should have held their ground in the South rather than expend their forces in the North.
I am afraid it was Robert E. Lees blunder, but I don't know, perhaps fools were pushing him. They could have beaten the North, just has Washington did the British, out last them. Lincoln was in trouble when he issued the Emancipation Proclamation,
and Lee should have recognized the moment, by avoiding combat, offering no opportunity for victories.

I dunno, the North had all the factories and had the South's backup supply lines from Europe cut off..the North also had far superior numbers as far as troops and they could have easily gotten more if they needed them...near the end, the South consisted of a whole lot of youngsters in their ranks.

I think that if it came down to it, the North would have simply taken the other "arm from behind their back".
Even though the South won some battles early in the war, the deck was grossly stacked against them from the beginning. Personally, I think the mistake the South made was boldly trying to invade the North instead of making "them damn Yankees" come to them and if that had happened it would have turned into guerrilla warfare, which might have given the South the advantage.

 

[barfo]

Missed US History class every year you attended school?

620,000 Americans, men, women and children, were slaughtered, raped and tortured by their fellow Americans over the 4 long years of open warfare between the states. A full 2% of the entire population at the time (including slaves). For years afterward, they were robbed, raped, and burned in their homes or hung in their orchards by looters from the North.

The American Civil War was fought because the North's corrupt politicians wanted to crush the South's economy to ensure their Deep State hold on power over the American populace. They couldn't do it through our balanced government with checks and balances, so they did it by using propaganda, lies, abuse of office, and finally force, much as the Deep State Dems are doing now. Lincoln (for his donors) wanted to decimate the South, and he did.

A wiser, kinder, more creative President would have negotiated a peaceful transition, economically benefiting the Southern States by strengthening/modernizing their plantations while phasing out slavery, without slaughtering his political opponents and nearly everyone who voted against him. Trump would have averted the war, certainly.

To this day, Americans in the South are less shackled than their Northern countrymen and continue to be happier, politer, friendlier and more genuine than the phony, arrogant, unhappy and rude assholes to the North.

You are on your game tonight! This post has it all, anti-history, bigotry, Trump idolatry, conspiracy theories... Color me impressed.

barfo

 

[yankeesince59]

Missed US History class every year you attended school?

.

No, I was there, and unlike you, I didn't have to use crayons.

I'm quite The Civil War buff...pay attention, you might even learn something and who knows, it may even help you to formulate your own opinion so that you can post your own words here instead of copy and pasting someone else's.

 

[MARIS61]

Check this out.

https://www.battlefields.org/learn/maps/civil-war-animated-map