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

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Users who are viewing this thread

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

Well, some might, but I don't think it would be me. The rest of the world got through that mess without fighting the bloodiest damn war in their history. Slavery was failing on it's own lack of merit, a very unnatural economic system.
I would venture that it would have come to an end in the Confederacy just as it did in the rest of the Western World. It seems the climate might have then been right for a reunion. Who knows? But we do know that it was the
bloodiest war in US history, costing ten time the the chattel value of the slaves, and one American life for each three slaves freed. History sort of shows that time instead of war, could do far better. It did in all the rest of the western slave world.
The US did not even have the majority of slaves that were freed in say a 30 year period. Just the greatest cost in doing so.
 
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.

Exactly what I was saying. I think they had it within their reach. Leadership failed them.
 
Last edited:
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
Simple logic
A is the most between A and B whenever A > B.
 
"War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength." -- George Orwell, 1984.

Funny thing is he was only off by a factor of two. He published 1984 in 1949.

2019 is 70 years after publication; 1984 was 35 years.

barfo
 
Funny thing is he was only off by a factor of two. He published 1984 in 1949.

2019 is 70 years after publication; 1984 was 35 years.

barfo
This is starkly reminded by by mainland China and Russia.
 
Lincoln stands today as the worst leader in US history.

C'mon Marz...Blaming Lincoln for the Civil War and labeling him as "the worst leader ever" is not only logically unfair, it's also factually untrue. And though the slavery issue was part of the formula, it was by no means the only factor in the start of the Civil War.

The ground work for the beginning of that war began many years before Lincoln was elected so you can't lay it all on him because the problems which had existed well before Lincoln took office were never addressed by earlier Presidents.


The Civil War began in spite of Lincoln, not because of Lincoln.
 
7p6qdd92ad241.jpg
 
C'mon Marz...Blaming Lincoln for the Civil War and labeling him as "the worst leader ever" is not only logically unfair, it's also factually untrue. And though the slavery issue was part of the formula, it was by no means the only factor in the start of the Civil War.

The ground work for the beginning of that war began many years before Lincoln was elected so you can't lay it all on him because the problems which had existed well before Lincoln took office were never addressed by earlier Presidents.


The Civil War began in spite of Lincoln, not because of Lincoln.

Nope, the hive mind has spoken. Lincoln is now the worst president ever.
 
Nope, the hive mind has spoken. Lincoln is now the worst president ever.

Jules, the crux of the OP was to illustrate the state of the GOP and while "53% is a ridiculous number, even if it were say "only" 15% of GOP apologists that believe that Trump is a better POTUS than Lincoln was, it would still be laughable.
 
Jules, the crux of the OP was to illustrate the state of the GOP and while "53% is a ridiculous number, even if it were say "only" 15% of GOP apologists that believe that Trump is a better POTUS than Lincoln was, it would still be laughable.

Agreed. There will always be a few people who lack a contextual grasp of history...but when it's over half of a polled populace? Eesh...
 
I don't know anyone who actually felt that Clinton or Obama were the best President in their life times, let alone all Presidents period. To think Trump is the best Republican President ever is either willful ignorance, racism, or trolling.
But yeah, it is a sad state of affairs.
The more I learn about JFK, the more I think he was probably the last decent president we had.
 
The more I learn about JFK, the more I think he was probably the last decent president we had.

He was definitely a flawed person, but I think as a President, he wasn't bad.

Johnson did the civil rights, but inflated the Vietnam War, Nixon opened China but watergate, Ford was just a goof. Carter was a good president (no wars, etc) but was kind of a wimp (que Maris coming in and crediting Carter with all sorts of bad things), Reagan's basically created the economic situation we're currently in, Bush 1 wasn't bad but also wasn't good. Clinton was a flawed person and did balance the budget but also wasn't great. Bush 2, no need to re-hash his time. Obama wasn't good or bad, but did expand wars and drone attacks (etc).

So over the last 75 years, I think you have a solid point.
 
He was definitely a flawed person, but I think as a President, he wasn't bad.

Johnson did the civil rights, but inflated the Vietnam War, Nixon opened China but watergate, Ford was just a goof. Carter was a good president (no wars, etc) but was kind of a wimp (que Maris coming in and crediting Carter with all sorts of bad things), Reagan's basically created the economic situation we're currently in, Bush 1 wasn't bad but also wasn't good. Clinton was a flawed person and did balance the budget but also wasn't great. Bush 2, no need to re-hash his time. Obama wasn't good or bad, but did expand wars and drone attacks (etc).

So over the last 75 years, I think you have a solid point.

We should just say Cheney instead of Bush 2. Dick was really the president for those 8 years.
 
the hive mind has spoken

Ok, you can explain the meaning now.

But before you do, consider these facts.
Lincoln ordered the invasion of the South when he sent troops to occupy Fort Sumter.
That is an act of war.
He sent ships to Blockade Charleston Harbor.
That is an act of war.

So in starting the Civil war by his ordered acts of war, he began a war that killed more of his countryman than any war in US history.

No other President has cause the death of so many. It is not even close when you count the deaths due to the war, as percentage of the Population of the US at the time of the war.
Which President has done more harm to this Nation?

Look at the plan in today's numbers. Say it were Trump starting a war in this country
over a minority population of less than 4 million people.

No peaceful plan found so we are going to war for a resolution. The cost will be about $1T and
around 11,000,000 of our countrymen will lose their lives.

Who among us would not tell the son of bitch to scrap that plan immediately? It might even warrant impeachment next week.
 
Last edited:
Ok, you can explain the meaning now.

But before you do, consider these facts.
Lincoln ordered the invasion of the South when he sent troops to occupy Fort Sumter.
That is an act of war.
He sent ships to Blockade Charleston Harbor.
That is an act of war.

So in starting the Civil war by his ordered acts of war, he began a war that killed more of his countryman than any war in US history.

No other President has cause the death of so many. It is not even close when you count the deaths due to the war, as percentage of the Population of the US at the time of the war.
Which President has done more harm to this Nation?

Look at the plan in today's numbers. Say it were Trump starting a war in this country
over a minority population of less than 4 million people.

No peaceful plan found so we are going to war for a resolution. The cost will be about $1T and
around 11,000,000 of our countrymen will lose their lives.

Who among us would not tell the son of bitch to scrap that plan immediately? It might even warrant impeachment next week.

I know you were replying to Jules, but once again, Lincoln did not "start" the Civil War...you need to go back several years and look at the events that led up to it.
Sorry, but it seems you are going completely overboard just to suit your narative.
 
Ok, you can explain the meaning now.

But before you do, consider these facts.
Lincoln ordered the invasion of the South when he sent troops to occupy Fort Sumter.
That is an act of war.
He sent ships to Blockade Charleston Harbor.
That is an act of war.

So in starting the Civil war by his ordered acts of war, he began a war that killed more of his countryman than any war in US history.

No other President has cause the death of so many. It is not even close when you count the deaths due to the war, as percentage of the Population of the US at the time of the war.
Which President has done more harm to this Nation?

Look at the plan in today's numbers. Say it were Trump starting a war in this country
over a minority population of less than 4 million people.

No peaceful plan found so we are going to war for a resolution. The cost will be about $1T and
around 11,000,000 of our countrymen will lose their lives.

Who among us would not tell the son of bitch to scrap that plan immediately? It might even warrant impeachment next week.

No Lincoln did not order the occupation of Fort Sumter. Fort Sumter was taken after Lincoln was elected but before he took office. James Buchanan was still the president. Buchanan was pissed at the order for General Robert Anderson to occupy Sumter, which he did not authorize. The secretary of War John Floyd did. Lincoln later sent smaller ships to resupply the fort not to blockade the harbor. He had armed ships follwing a distance behind to protect them as a last resort. Lincoln didn't want a war.

Jefferson Davis started the war after he ordered for an attack on Sumter. His Secretary of State Robert Toombs vehemently was against it and declared that it would mean the confederates would be the initiators of the war, one that they could never win.

"It will lose us every friend at the North. You will only strike a hornet's nest. ... Legions now quiet will swarm out and sting us to death. It is unnecessary. It puts us in the wrong. It is fatal."
 
Teddy Roosevelt because the USA competed with European strength.
 
Lincoln later sent smaller ships to resupply the fort not to blockade the harbor. He had armed ships follwing a distance behind to protect them as a last resort. Lincoln didn't want a war.

Naw.
Fort Sumter had been abandon for years, never completed. The US Army occupied the old fort after South Carolina succeeded from the Union. The fort, on and island in Charleston harbor actually began then as part of an undeclared blockade. Lincoln sent resupply ships to the fort in April 1861 and began the Union Blockade of the South at that time also. All acts of war. Then the South Carolina opened up on Sumter, which historian claim as the start of war, ignoring the original acts of war already committed on Lincoln's orders. Illogical in my view to ignor invading the territory of the south and Blockading it too, both, recognized in international law as acts of war.

Lincoln attempted to say the Southern states were rogue states not a separate country, therefore invasion and Blockades were not an act of war. Well hell, what sort of bullshit is that? If true then where the hell did he get Constitutional authority to do any of the shit he ordered in making war?

The South had been gone from the Union since the prior year before Lincoln started his war!


"
TheUnion blockadein the American Civil War was a naval strategy by the United Statesto prevent the Confederacy from trading.

The blockade was proclaimed by President Abraham Lincoln in April 1861, and required the monitoring of 3,500 miles (5,600 km) of Atlantic and Gulf coastline, including 12 major ports, notably New Orleans andMobile. Those blockade runners fast enough to evade the Union Navy could only carry a small fraction of the supplies needed. They were operated largely byBritishcitizens, making use of neutral ports such asHavana,NassauandBermuda. The Union commissioned around 500 ships, which destroyed or captured about 1,500 blockade runners over the course of the war."


Stop the South from trading!
Lincoln wanted them to pay the super high tariffs the tyrants in the North imposed on the stuff the South used. That is why the bugger went to war.
 
Last edited:
Naw.
Fort Sumter had been abandon for years, never completed. The US Army occupied the old fort after South Carolina succeeded from the Union. The fort, on and island in Charleston harbor actually began then as part of an undeclared blockade. Lincoln sent resupply ships to the fort in April 1861 and began the Union Blockade of the South at that time also. All acts of war. Then the South Carolina opened up on Sumter, which historian claim as the start of war, ignoring the original acts of war already committed on Lincoln's orders. Illogical in my view to ignor invading the territory of the south and Blockading it too, both, recognized in international law as acts of war.

Lincoln attempted to say the Southern states were rogue states not a separate country, therefore invasion and Blockades were not an act of war. Well hell, what sort of bullshit is that? If true then where the hell did he get Constitutional authority to do any of the shit he ordered in making war?

The South had been gone from the Union since the prior year before Lincoln started his war!


"
TheUnion blockadein the American Civil War was a naval strategy by the United Statesto prevent the Confederacy from trading.

The blockade was proclaimed by President Abraham Lincoln in April 1861, and required the monitoring of 3,500 miles (5,600 km) of Atlantic and Gulf coastline, including 12 major ports, notably New Orleans andMobile. Those blockade runners fast enough to evade the Union Navy could only carry a small fraction of the supplies needed. They were operated largely byBritishcitizens, making use of neutral ports such asHavana,NassauandBermuda. The Union commissioned around 500 ships, which destroyed or captured about 1,500 blockade runners over the course of the war."


Stop the South from trading!
Lincoln wanted them to pay the super high tariffs the tyrants in the North imposed on the stuff the South used. That is why the bugger went to war.

It was abandonded in 1860 before General Anderson was ordered to move from fort Moultrie to fort sumter. Again the order was given under the presidency of James Buchanan against his wishes.

It was then held by the Union until the battle of for sumter when Lincoln attempted to resupply it after supplies were drearily short. He even notified the governor of South Carolina he was doing so. Lincoln didn't want a war, neither was he about to recognize the confederate states as a soverign nation...hell no.

The blockade happened after the battle of fort sumter. The confederacy started the war. Lincoln made tbe next move. They were in fact rogue states. They were never recognized as a nation.

If ever a president cherished and abided by the constitution it was Abraham Lincoln. He didn't start the war, but he sure as hell ended it.

Learn the correct history then post
 
held by the Union until the battle of for sumter when Lincoln attempted to resupply it after supplies were drearily short.

Held by the Union indeed. An island in South Carolina. That would be about like us today, occupying Corregidor again and expecting the Philippines to like it.

These two quotes can not be both true,
They were never recognized as a nation.

If ever a president cherished and abided by the constitution it was Abraham Lincoln

If he never recognized the nation then a blockade is all kinds of wrong.
Quartering troops in homes of citizens is a direct violation of the Third amendment
Ceasing property without compensation. Wrong again.

Killing your citizens with federal troops is way out of bounds in every State.

Worst yet, he has no authority to stop a State from seceding. California has been talking of just this the past year. Should we go to war over it it they actually declare it?
 
Held by the Union indeed. An island in South Carolina. That would be about like us today, occupying Corregidor again and expecting the Philippines to like it.

These two quotes can not be both true,




If he never recognized the nation then a blockade is all kinds of wrong.
Quartering troops in homes of citizens is a direct violation of the Third amendment
Ceasing property without compensation. Wrong again.

Killing your citizens with federal troops is way out of bounds in every State.

Worst yet, he has no authority to stop a State from seceding. California has been talking of just this the past year. Should we go to war over it it they actually declare it?

It wouldn't be like occupying corrigedor at all. Soldiers loyal to the United States were already there in South Carolina before it's secession, which was still considered by the Union to be apart of the United States.

They can and are true. After the confederacy started the war by attacking Fort Sumter, Lincoln by the constitution was sworn to protect his country. He did so. Though he did not recognize them as a nation, he recognized them as an attacking force.

If California seceeded than attacked us, than yes.

Maris and you claim to be so American, yet you are confederacy sympathizers? Sorry, you can't have slaves man.
 
What about Carter? Are you saying that Carter wasn't decent?

It was extremely indecent to give away the Panama Canal. You ought to see what they want now for a small boat to go through that facility. It is about the same as for a large Container ship.
 
It was extremely indecent to give away the Panama Canal. You ought to see what they want now for a small boat to go through that facility. It is about the same as for a large Container ship.

And the whole Iran thing....
 
If California seceeded than attacked us, than yes.
Come on now. Federal troops did not occupy Sumter until after SC seceded. The South did no war like act until Lincoln pushed them into it. Just like if we occupied Corregidor again and sent a fleet to back them up.
The South would have left without a war. The natural progression of man would have eliminated Slavery on about the same schedule that it happen in the western world in the South as well no doubt.
Lincoln did not have the foresight to see beyond the brim of his tall hat! He went to war, provoked what was not needed. Killing more Americans than any other war ever has by a wide margin.

He damn well should have just let them go, just like I would hope we let California go if they wish. Take them back when they come to their senses.

Btw
His oath it to;
"preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
not the country.

A huge fail.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top