|
|
Post by jasmine on Jul 25, 2020 3:35:16 GMT
I can understand Trump being No. 1. But if Obama isn’t No. 2 or No. 3, then this ranking is worthless. Lincoln is up there, too, with a bullet!  |
|
Odysseus
Legend
Trump = Disaster
Posts: 41,115
|
Post by Odysseus on Jul 25, 2020 5:19:19 GMT
I can understand Trump being No. 1. But if Obama isn’t No. 2 or No. 3, then this ranking is worthless. Lincoln is up there, too, with a bullet! 
Lincoln is #2.
Obama is tied for #12 with Andrew Jackson.
If you had bothered to click on the link provided in the OP, you could have learned this all on your only lonely.
What's worthless? 99.999% of Jasman's posts, that's what's worthless.
|
|
|
|
Post by jasmine on Jul 25, 2020 5:44:18 GMT
I can understand Trump being No. 1. But if Obama isn’t No. 2 or No. 3, then this ranking is worthless. Lincoln is up there, too, with a bullet!
What's worthless? 99.999% of Jasman's posts, that's what's worthless.
Dude, you have more than 1,700 posts here. That’s more than *THREE TIMES* as many as Q, who is second (527). That’s more than 37 posts a day. And 85% are troll posts or insults to other members. |
|
bama beau
Legend
Fish will piss anywhere. They just live in water.
Posts: 11,585
|
Post by bama beau on Jul 25, 2020 6:53:12 GMT
No. No. No, and No. Lincoln led the fight to preserve a Union which he found divided. Other Presidents fought wars, rightfully less than wrongfully perhaps, but they too often used those wars to paper over other issues and unite our citizenry behind the war effort, not to divide it over a cause. Just for my edification, though, could you please explain what you meant by including the civil rights movement in your list, and could you also identify which President used the civil rights movement to divide the country? Perfect example of letting your bias cloud your reasoning. Whether the actions are justified or not, whether or not there was intent to divide or unify, is irrelevant. A historical look at if those actions caused division is what needs to be analyzed. Lincoln led a fight that killed hundreds of thousands. His armies burned and pillaged the south. He instituted a highly unpopular draft. He emancipated the slaves. Declared martial law. Suspended habeas corpus. Restricted freedom of speech. Wrong or right, justified or not, doesn't matter. Those actions were the most divisive by any president we've ever had. I included the civil rights movement, specifically I was thinking during the 60's, when the President and federal government started getting more heavily involved, because the actions of the Presidents at the time in regards to it often caused mass unrest. You arguing that Lincoln was divisive because as he walked into the WH he had to step over the Civil War on the doorstep is much like paleocon arguing that slavery wasn't that war's impetus. |
|
|
|
Post by phillip on Jul 25, 2020 7:14:14 GMT
But honestly, what is divisive about Trump?
The above post is the epitome of the lack of any awareness. Even most Trumpers would agree Trump is divisive, even if it's seen as a positive trait of his.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 25, 2020 11:13:02 GMT
The above post is the epitome of the lack of any awareness. Even most Trumpers would agree Trump is divisive, even if it's seen as a positive trait of his.
I'm perfectly aware of how he behaves. I'm also acutely aware of why. With a couple of exceptions, he responds to attacks in kind. If you don't like the way he's behaving it is because you are looking in a mirror. He's reflecting the left's full throated vitriol that has been ever present for decades. |
|
Odysseus
Legend
Trump = Disaster
Posts: 41,115
|
Post by Odysseus on Jul 25, 2020 11:20:54 GMT
The above post is the epitome of the lack of any awareness. Even most Trumpers would agree Trump is divisive, even if it's seen as a positive trait of his.
I'm perfectly aware of how he behaves. I'm also acutely aware of why. With a couple of exceptions, he responds to attacks in kind. If you don't like the way he's behaving it is because you are looking in a mirror. He's reflecting the left's full throated vitriol that has been ever present for decades.
Not quite.
Trump engages in attacks pre-emptively. If he's engaging in some skullduggery, the first thing he does is to accuse his opposition of the same thing, preferably before his own bad behavior becomes public knowledge. It's a well established pattern for him.
I'm surprised you haven't noticed that.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 25, 2020 11:46:34 GMT
I'm perfectly aware of how he behaves. I'm also acutely aware of why. With a couple of exceptions, he responds to attacks in kind. If you don't like the way he's behaving it is because you are looking in a mirror. He's reflecting the left's full throated vitriol that has been ever present for decades.
Not quite.
Trump engages in attacks pre-emptively. If he's engaging in some skullduggery, the first thing he does is to accuse his opposition of the same thing, preferably before his own bad behavior becomes public knowledge. It's a well established pattern for him.
I'm surprised you haven't noticed that.
In your own response you admit that he's responding in kind. He wouldn't be making accusations of the opposition unless the opposition wasn't already making their wild claims. The most prominent example would be the Russian hoax. |
|
Odysseus
Legend
Trump = Disaster
Posts: 41,115
|
Post by Odysseus on Jul 25, 2020 11:51:06 GMT
Not quite.
Trump engages in attacks pre-emptively. If he's engaging in some skullduggery, the first thing he does is to accuse his opposition of the same thing, preferably before his own bad behavior becomes public knowledge. It's a well established pattern for him.
I'm surprised you haven't noticed that.
In your own response you admit that he's responding in kind. He wouldn't be making accusations of the opposition unless the opposition wasn't already making their wild claims. The most prominent example would be the Russian hoax.
No, that's not what I said. I said he launches dastardly attacks on someone BEFORE he is accused of same. Look up the meaning of "pre-emptive".
Sheesh.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 25, 2020 12:07:55 GMT
In your own response you admit that he's responding in kind. He wouldn't be making accusations of the opposition unless the opposition wasn't already making their wild claims. The most prominent example would be the Russian hoax.
No, that's not what I said. I said he launches dastardly attacks on someone BEFORE he is accused of same. Look up the meaning of "pre-emptive".
Sheesh.
I know that isn't what you were trying to say. But who does he attack? You say it is the opposition. Who is the opposition? The investigators of course. All of the investigations, to date, were public before he attacked them. So, while you try to pass the blame to him, the bulk of what he has done was in response to the investigators. The investigations have all proven to be bogus. So, your statement contradicts itself. |
|
|
|
Post by crepe05 on Jul 25, 2020 12:12:53 GMT
Good grief, people. All Presidents are "divisive" or else they have no morals, political stances, or ideology. People then disagree about these issues, and somehow or other, that's considered as "divisive" and not as a healthy reacting Republic. Of course there are divisions, and that is what we want. When did we become a nation where everyone marches to the same tune, and why does anyone believe that would be healthy?
I hope that someone can explain all of that to me. Heck, this nation can never be 'undevisive' as long as Nancy Pelosi is allowed to speak aloud. Why would we want to be?
|
|
Odysseus
Legend
Trump = Disaster
Posts: 41,115
|
Post by Odysseus on Jul 25, 2020 12:25:33 GMT
Good grief, people. All Presidents are "divisive" or else they have no morals, political stances, or ideology. People then disagree about these issues, and somehow or other, that's considered as "divisive" and not as a healthy reacting Republic. Of course there are divisions, and that is what we want. When did we become a nation where everyone marches to the same tune, and why does anyone believe that would be healthy? I hope that someone can explain all of that to me. Heck, this nation can never be 'undevisive' as long as Nancy Pelosi is allowed to speak aloud. Why would we want to be?
Well, first of all, there is no such term as "undivisive". The closest would be "unifying" or even "concordant" or "agreeable". I can't think of any time when Trump has been "agreeable", can you?
|
|
|
|
Post by crepe05 on Jul 25, 2020 14:41:40 GMT
I certainly don't look for my President to be "agreeable". I look for him to be strong in his political beliefs and hopefully most of those beliefs match or are close to matching my own beliefs. Agreeable is for someone wanting to be Mr. America, like obummer, Agreed, and agreed and agreed and led from behind (no one even said that wasn't leading, idiot. The "idiot" isn't aimed at anyone on the board. It's aimed at our former POTUS. But boy, Obama was agreeable. So agreeable that he almost killed forever our manufacturing industry, smiling agreeably all the time.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lomelis on Jul 25, 2020 14:53:31 GMT
Perfect example of letting your bias cloud your reasoning. Whether the actions are justified or not, whether or not there was intent to divide or unify, is irrelevant. A historical look at if those actions caused division is what needs to be analyzed. Lincoln led a fight that killed hundreds of thousands. His armies burned and pillaged the south. He instituted a highly unpopular draft. He emancipated the slaves. Declared martial law. Suspended habeas corpus. Restricted freedom of speech. Wrong or right, justified or not, doesn't matter. Those actions were the most divisive by any president we've ever had. I included the civil rights movement, specifically I was thinking during the 60's, when the President and federal government started getting more heavily involved, because the actions of the Presidents at the time in regards to it often caused mass unrest. You arguing that Lincoln was divisive because as he walked into the WH he had to step over the Civil War on the doorstep is much like paleocon arguing that slavery wasn't that war's impetus. Lol. Actually that's exactly what -you- are doing not me. |
|
|
|
Post by Fiddler on Jul 25, 2020 14:54:25 GMT
The same news organization that faked military records of a Republican President thinks the current Republican President is the worst? Color me shocked. I may just die. If an error made by one reporter being mislead by a source is enough for you to still be pissing and moaning about it after 16 years.. how can you possibly still be watching and referencing Fox and OANN as a reliable news source.. Oh yea.. Hypocrisy .. .. .. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 25, 2020 15:05:12 GMT
Perfect example of letting your bias cloud your reasoning. Whether the actions are justified or not, whether or not there was intent to divide or unify, is irrelevant. A historical look at if those actions caused division is what needs to be analyzed. Lincoln led a fight that killed hundreds of thousands. His armies burned and pillaged the south. He instituted a highly unpopular draft. He emancipated the slaves. Declared martial law. Suspended habeas corpus. Restricted freedom of speech. Wrong or right, justified or not, doesn't matter. Those actions were the most divisive by any president we've ever had. I included the civil rights movement, specifically I was thinking during the 60's, when the President and federal government started getting more heavily involved, because the actions of the Presidents at the time in regards to it often caused mass unrest. You arguing that Lincoln was divisive because as he walked into the WH he had to step over the Civil War on the doorstep is much like paleocon arguing that slavery wasn't that war's impetus. Lincoln himself created that crisis and started that war. He is primarily responsible for the 620,000 deaths on both sides and the bloody, cruel legacy of his tyranny. That's divisive by any measure. And Trump....well, he tweets stuff that liberals don't like.
Oh yeah, that's exactly the same. SMH.
"....much like paleocon PROVING that slavery wasn't that war's impetus."
FIFY
|
|
|
|
Post by Fiddler on Jul 25, 2020 15:13:14 GMT
I certainly don't look for my President to be "agreeable". I look for him to be strong in his political beliefs and hopefully most of those beliefs match or are close to matching my own beliefs. Agreeable is for someone wanting to be Mr. America, like obummer, Agreed, and agreed and agreed and led from behind (no one even said that wasn't leading, idiot. The "idiot" isn't aimed at anyone on the board. It's aimed at our former POTUS. But boy, Obama was agreeable. So agreeable that he almost killed forever our manufacturing industry, smiling agreeably all the time. Honey .. If you decide to someday to start valuing facts the data is available that completely debunks that^ nonsense .. Hit me up.. I'll send it to you assuming your unwarranted hate for Obama has abated ..
Hint: The decline starts with Ronald McReagan .. AND ENDS under Obama..
link |
|
|
|
Post by Fiddler on Jul 25, 2020 15:39:53 GMT
You arguing that Lincoln was divisive because as he walked into the WH he had to step over the Civil War on the doorstep is much like paleocon arguing that slavery wasn't that war's impetus. Lincoln himself created that crisis and started that war. He is primarily responsible for the 620,000 deaths on both sides and the bloody, cruel legacy of his tyranny. That's divisive by any measure. And Trump....well, he tweets stuff that liberals don't like.
Oh yeah, that's exactly the same. SMH.
"....much like paleocon PROVING that slavery wasn't that war's impetus."
FIFY
Son.. You were slaughtered in that thread .. Absolutely whipped like your Great Great Grandfather's houseboy .. Period.
Look .. I'm actually no longer interested in your alternate history .. I'm from the South.. I've heard your brand of bullshit all my life .. Still I suppose we can from now on expect you to jump to your pulpit to try and defend the embarrassing absurdities you attempted to foist upon this forum .. .
Rave on, Reverend ..
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 25, 2020 15:52:43 GMT
The same news organization that faked military records of a Republican President thinks the current Republican President is the worst? Color me shocked. I may just die. If an error made by one reporter being mislead by a source is enough for you to still be pissing and moaning about it after 16 years.. how can you possibly still be watching and referencing Fox and OANN as a reliable news source.. Oh yea.. Hypocrisy .. .. .. A mistake? Four executives were fired over it. Dan Rather claimed the documents had been authenticated. They lied. Either they created those documents or they knowingly published faked documents. Either way, they are partisan hacks. |
|
|
|
Post by Fiddler on Jul 25, 2020 16:11:12 GMT
They lied. Either they created those documents or they knowingly published faked documents. A leading journalist (as Rather at the time) wouldn't risk everything unless they had a very high level of confidence in the story.. Rather/CBS fucked up. The source mislead them. It takes a hyperpartisan to still believe it was intentional. |
|
