Trump vs. Biden - the Final Showdown

[Little Raven]

I'm rolling for bottom 5, if not lowest three.

It's possible, although he has some tough competition at that level. We've had some real stinkers in the past.

It's impossible to tell until we put him decently in the past and get a real sense for how much damage he's actually done. We're lucky that most of his idiocy has been limited to executive orders, and those are easily undone. In terms of actual legislative accomplishments, the man has practically none.

[Holman]

I'm rolling for bottom 5, if not lowest three.

It's possible, although he has some tough competition at that level. We've had some real stinkers in the past.

A lot of the "worst presidents" are bad because their administrations were corrupt and self-dealing. The worst were feckless racists who gloried in the power of the office to support slavery or make the coming secession crisis more likely. Some of them are among the worst simply because they misunderstood economics in an age of economic ignorance, and so caused financial panics.

But we have never had a president credibly accused to accepting help from a foreign power, let alone soliciting it and doing everything possible to thwart investigation into it.

If we can transition to new administration and bring the truths of the this era to light, Trump's place at the very bottom of the list is certain.

[El Guapo]

I'm rolling for bottom 5, if not lowest three.

It's possible, although he has some tough competition at that level. We've had some real stinkers in the past.

A lot of the "worst presidents" are bad because their administrations were corrupt and self-dealing. The worst were feckless racists who gloried in the power of the office to support slavery or make the coming secession crisis more likely. Some of them are among the worst simply because they misunderstood economics in an age of economic ignorance, and so caused financial panics.

But we have never had a president credibly accused to accepting help from a foreign power, let alone soliciting it and doing everything possible to thwart investigation into it.

If we can transition to new administration and bring the truths of the this era to light, Trump's place at the very bottom of the list is certain.

Well, it's pretty well established that Nixon's team in 1968 secretly reached out to the North Vietnamese government and convinced them to back away from peace talks, in order to avoid boosting Humphrey in the presidential election and help Nixon win. So, don't count out Nixon just yet.

[Jaymann]

At least he wasn't a crook.

[malchior]

Only Buchanan was worse, and only because the crisis he exacerbated was so much worse.

I'm going to disagree here. Eventually Trump will be seen as worse. I believe Buchanan will finally get sprung from the bottom spot. The civil war was worse (so far) but Buchanan was only partially responsible for it. Trump was handed a superpower with a roaring economy that had all the pieces in place to deal with almost any crisis. His first 3 years was complete dysfunction. His massive issues with integrity compounded until he was rightfully impeached. And then he was dealt a bad break in the form of the pandemic. He went on to fail that spectacularly. He undermined his experts. He lied in the face of facts. And every single peer nation outperformed us by leaps and bounds. And it's all on tape. People will be able to see it for centuries.

[Little Raven]

If we can transition to new administration and bring the truths of the this era to light, Trump's place at the very bottom of the list is certain.

The only way Trump bumps Buchanan off the top of the list is if Americans start killing each other by the millions within the next few years.

I certainly hope it doesn't come to that.

[malchior]

If we can transition to new administration and bring the truths of the this era to light, Trump's place at the very bottom of the list is certain.

The only way Trump bumps Buchanan off the top of the list is if Americans start killing each other by the millions within the next few years.

I certainly hope it doesn't come to that.

Everyone says this but I don't understand it. Buchanan made mistakes but a lot of that is all a matter of interpretation. In context, historians will be able to point at every mistake Trump made and have evidence that he was terrible top to bottom. There won't be much ambiguity like there is with Buchanan.

[El Guapo]

If we can transition to new administration and bring the truths of the this era to light, Trump's place at the very bottom of the list is certain.

The only way Trump bumps Buchanan off the top of the list is if Americans start killing each other by the millions within the next few years.

I certainly hope it doesn't come to that.

Everyone says this but I don't understand it. Buchanan made mistakes but a lot of that is all a matter of interpretation. In context, historians will be able to point at every mistake Trump made and have evidence that he was terrible top to bottom. There won't be much ambiguity like there is with Buchanan.

I agree. Could Buchanan have done more? Probably. But by 1857 the only realistic way to prevent a Civil War would be to let the South secede peacefully.

[Little Raven]

Everyone says this but I don't understand it.

It's not that difficult: Buchanan set the stage for an America covered in cemeteries full of Americans killed by other Americans. Was it all Buchanan's fault? Of course not. But more than anyone else, he was the man who perhaps could have prevented it and failed to do so. And so that legacy will haunt him eternal.

Trump is awful, but he is thankfully a very long way from THAT. At least for now.

[El Guapo]

Everyone says this but I don't understand it.

It's not that difficult: Buchanan set the stage for an America covered in cemeteries full of Americans killed by other Americans. Was it all Buchanan's fault? Of course not. But more than anyone else, he was the man who perhaps could have prevented it and failed to do so. And so that legacy will haunt him eternal.

Trump is awful, but he is thankfully a very long way from THAT. At least for now.

How could he have possibly prevented it? The immediate spark for the Civil War was just the fact of the election of a President (Lincoln) who was opposed to slavery, even though he had little ability to end it and was willing to compromise on slavery to prevent war. And the Supreme Court (via Dred Scott) had drastically curtailed the permissible contours of any sort of plausible grand bargain.

If anything, I think the fairer criticism is that Buchanan didn't do more to prepare the Union for war while it was just on the horizon. But I don't think it's fair to knock him for failing to prevent the war.

[RunningMn9]

I think that it’s fair to enshrine Buchanan unless there’s another civil war.

That said, there is no doubt in the slightest that Donald J. Trump is worst person to ever be President, and by a very wide margin, the least competent person to ever be President. He’s so incompetent at his job that I think even Sarah Palin would put him to shame.

Trump did not have the opportunity for massive calamity that Buchanan had (yet), but Buchanan was not a worse person or less competent than Trump.

[Little Raven]

But I don't think it's fair to knock him for failing to prevent the war.

You are more generous than most historians.

Buchanan consistently gets raked across the coals because he repeatedly did nothing (arguing that the rules said he HAD to do nothing) in the face of a growing crisis. And of course, he was right about the rules - he maintained till his dying day the history would vindicate him for having "done his duty." But of course it didn't - because part of being President is knowing when to break the rules. All of the great Presidents have done it - some quite brazenly. History will forgive you for breaking eggs so long as the omelet is good, but leaving the kitchen on fire is never a good look regardless of how you found it.

[El Guapo]

But I don't think it's fair to knock him for failing to prevent the war.

You are more generous than most historians.

Buchanan consistently gets raked across the coals because he repeatedly did nothing (arguing that the rules said he HAD to do nothing) in the face of a growing crisis. And of course, he was right about the rules - he maintained till his dying day the history would vindicate him for having "done his duty." But of course it didn't - because part of being President is knowing when to break the rules. All of the great Presidents have done it - some quite brazenly. History will forgive you for breaking eggs so long as the omelet is good, but leaving the kitchen on fire is never a good look regardless of how you found it.

But what could he have done to prevent the war had he been willing to 'break the rules'?

[Fireball]

Bad presidents come in a lot of forms.

Some were bad people, like Jackson, Nixon, and Wilson.

Some were incompetent leaders, like basically every Whig President, or Polk, Buchanan, and Harding.

Some were neither bad nor incompetent but did awful things, like FDR, Reagan or Bush Jr. And how you view the scale of the awfulness of those things in contrast to the non-awful things they did may lead one to view them as being good presidents.

Trump, though, he's the trifecta: a bad person, who has been both incompetent but has also done awful things without any good things to offset them.

I'd say he's clearly in the running for "worst ever."

[Little Raven]

Trump did not have the opportunity for massive calamity that Buchanan had (yet), but Buchanan was not a worse person or less competent than Trump.

Agreed. As far as I can tell, the relationship between being a good person and being a good President is....tenuous at best.

As far as I can tell, Jimmy Carter is one of the best humans our country has ever produced - but he was not a successful President. LBJ was an absolute bastard, but his list of accomplishments puts Obama's to shame. The Universe is a funny place.

[Little Raven]

But what could he have done to prevent the war had he been willing to 'break the rules'?

No idea. But he probably should have tried something. Nobody said being President was easy.

[Jeff V]

Trump did not have the opportunity for massive calamity that Buchanan had (yet)

Really? Over 4 years the Civil War averaged 155,000 deaths per year. With the Trump Virus, we're up to 140,000 in about 4 months. I think about now Buchanan is holding his beer.

[Little Raven]

Really? Over 4 years the Civil War averaged 155,000 deaths per year. With the Trump Virus, we're up to 140,000 in about 4 months. I think about now Buchanan is holding his beer.

Gotta put that into per capita numbers. In 1864, there were just over 31 million Americans. Today, there are almost 340 million. Plus, the Civil War killed mostly young men, with their whole lives in front of them. So far, COVID is mostly killing the very old or already sick.

I don't mean to underplay the Coronavirus, but I don't think we're going to setting up Memorial Cemeteries to COVID any time soon. Though I've been wrong before.

[Smoove_B]

I don't mean to underplay the Coronavirus, but I don't think we're going to setting up Memorial Cemeteries to COVID any time soon. Though I've been wrong before.

I've said it before - I think one of the first acts of 2021 should be to seize the Virginia Trump Golf Course and convert it into national park that contains a Vietnam-style wall that rises and falls as a memorial for COVID-19 victims in the US.

[El Guapo]

Though I've been wrong before.

Yeah, I remember way back when you were wrong about President Buchanan being able to prevent the Civil War.

[Little Raven]

Yeah, I remember way back when you were wrong about President Buchanan being able to prevent the Civil War.

[Paingod]

Trump is awful, but he is thankfully a very long way from THAT. At least for now.

His term's not up, and I'm seeing more than a handful of people getting concerned that his "master plan" is to try and hold power through force and/or deny elections from taking place. He has so far managed to surpass anyone's wildest expectations of just how low he's really willing to go, and I don't want him to surpass this one.

The only thing we have on our side is that people keep assigning intent to his actions. I honestly don't think there's a master plan. He's not capable of strategizing like this. I believe everything is just him lashing out at people who don't like him. He got a taste of real dictatorship-level power when he purged the park near the Whitehouse and it gave him a hard-on for it. He wants to keep feeling that kind of power. Any plans that come with this are attached by others around him.

I mean, he's deliberately going against the US's own handbook on how to deal with angry populations. Everything in our own manuals say marching in with force can ONLY create escalation. Moving troops into cities where there aren't violent protests will create violent protests.

[malchior]

But what could he have done to prevent the war had he been willing to 'break the rules'?

No idea. But he probably should have tried something. Nobody said being President was easy.

Sometime in the next 1-5 years we're going to get access to evidence that not only confirms Trump made everything worse but *actively* took steps where he weighed his interests against American lives and chose his own interests. We pretty much know it but eventually it'll likely be proven. In comparison, Buchanan was a bungler at best and maybe borderline treasonous according to the worst accounts. Trump was impeached, almost certainly will be proven as a negligent murderer of his citizens, ruined a prosperous economy, abused civil rights, ruined international relations, and led one of the most corrupt administrations in American history. In time this won't be a debate unless a literal Jesus appears level miracle or he becomes the dear leader.

[Little Raven]

His term's not up, and I'm seeing more than a handful of people getting concerned that his "master plan" is to try and hold power through force and/or deny elections from taking place.

Sure, but we heard the same thing with Obama. There are ALWAYS people convinced THIS President intends to burn it all down. Granted, Trump makes those people sound slightly less crazy than most other Presidents.

The thing is, we've seen quite a few Presidents transition to dictators over the last few decades, and they all start by getting SUPER cozy with the military and other powerful, but centralized interests - for obvious reasons. Trump has done just the opposite - he's alienated practically everyone that holds any kind of power. Even if Trump really plans on trying to illegally seize power (and I'm not at all convinced that he does...like you, I don't think Trump really plans anything) I don't think he has the support. I don't think there's anyone left he could call that would listen. There are lots of people that will listen to the Office of the President of the United States, but barring something truly strange, I don't think he'll occupy that office come January 20th, 2021.

[Paingod]

...we heard the same thing with Obama...

I totally forgot how he rolled the customs and border police into cities to suppress people's 1st amendment rights.

As you mentioned, the people who thought Obama was going to burn it all down were being extremists; they weren't actually watching him fan the flames on civil unrest by rolling shock troops into cities. There's a subtle difference.

[YellowKing]

but barring something truly strange, I don't think he'll occupy that office come January 20th, 2021.

The key indicator to me that he has no plans to steal the election is his apparent utter apathy towards Joe Biden. I would expect, if Trump really wanted another four years, he'd be banging the drum about the Hunter Biden conspiracies, Biden's ties to Ukraine, etc. that were all the rage during the impeachment scandal. Instead we get nothing more than "Sleepy Joe" tweets.

Truly rigging the election in his favor is not something you can do the day before. It would take a mass coordination of effort to figure out ways to delay/stop mail-in voting in swing states. It would require an absolute assault on social media. We're not seeing any of that.

Then, if your goal is not to steal the election before the vote, but after (by disputing results, dragging it out in courts, etc.) you require a LOT of secondary support from people willing to essentially toss out free and fair elections altogether. I think even the biggest Trump ass-kissers in Congress would have a hard time supporting directly defying the will of the American people to that extent. If the election was truly close I think you could get the GOP on board, but no way in hell you're going to get them if the election plays out as polls currently indicate.

I could be wrong, but I just feel like there's no fight left in Trump, and I'm not sure there's much fight left in the GOP in general. Over the course of 4 years, Trump has slowly destroyed all of his loyalists. The only people remaining are a small circle of yes men. He can't even turn to Fox News to cut him a break anymore. I feel like his last limp-dick rally might have been his breaking point.

[Little Raven]

I totally forgot how he rolled the customs and border police into cities to suppress people's 1st amendment rights.

No, he just ordered Americans assassinated without ever being convicted...or even charged...with a crime.

I like Obama. But he did terrible things. (you have to, in order to be President) Obama, on his worst day, was far, far more dangerous than Trump has ever been, because he did plan, and he planned well.

[Paingod]

Obama, on his worst day, was far, far more dangerous than Trump has ever been, because he did plan, and he planned well.

/looks around at the smoking ruins of our global image, strained allegiances, tripwired racial tensions, shock troops being deployed against peaceful protesters, ethics violations in flagrant display, and sheer unadulterated corruption at every turn...

Seriously? Trump is dangerous on the level of a toxic waste dump catching fire is dangerous. Obama was dangerous on the level of a bullet sitting on a table.

The US has been killing terrorists outside our borders since before and after Obama. It doesn't bother me that Obama didn't let a piece of paper act as a shield of invulnerability to commit terrorist acts with impunity. Would I have preferred they try and find some way to arrest and try him? Sure. I'd love to do that for every single person we may have otherwise assassinated. Sometimes it's just not an available option and a threat still needs to be stopped.

[Unagi]

I totally forgot how he rolled the customs and border police into cities to suppress people's 1st amendment rights.

No, he just ordered Americans assassinated without ever being convicted...or even charged...with a crime.

I like Obama. But he did terrible things. (you have to, in order to be President) Obama, on his worst day, was far, far more dangerous than Trump has ever been, because he did plan, and he planned well.

Is this the 'dangerous' in the sense of Drone Attacks, or 'dangerous' in the sense of giving Saudi Arabia the nod on chopping up journalists?

[El Guapo]

I totally forgot how he rolled the customs and border police into cities to suppress people's 1st amendment rights.

No, he just ordered Americans assassinated without ever being convicted...or even charged...with a crime.

I like Obama. But he did terrible things. (you have to, in order to be President) Obama, on his worst day, was far, far more dangerous than Trump has ever been, because he did plan, and he planned well.

This is bonkers. Obama was certainly more capable than Trump, so in that sense you could argue that he was capable of doing more damage if he turned to the dark side. But he wasn't malicious, and Trump is, and that's why in reality Trump is DRAMATICALLY more dangerous to the Republic than Obama was.

[Little Raven]

Remember, we are discussing "dangerous" in terms of the ability to seize permanent power. This all started by discussing how people believe various Presidents intend to overturn democracy on their way out.

Trump is an absolute failure of a President, but the very things that make him such a disaster also make him pretty harmless when it comes to taking permanent hold of the country. As Yellowking points out, that's not the kind of thing you can do overnight or on a whim. It takes many years of careful preparation - making sure that the right people are in the right places to support you when it comes time for you to make your move. Trump is psychologically incapable of that kind of action even if he actually desires it.

Obama was not. Obama is a truly gifted man - one with superb intelligence, fantastic charisma, and the ability to play the long game. These gifts made a very good President, but they also made him very dangerous. There are a LOT of barriers between a President and dictatorship, and I'm not confident that even Obama could have overcome them, but I'm quite sure he would do a hell of lot better job at it than Trump ever would. When was the last time Trump did a good job at anything?

[Unagi]

Are you just saying a smart man is potentially sharper, and more dangerous, than a dull dimwit ?

Cause, yeah - sure.

[El Guapo]

Are you just saying a smart man is potentially sharper, and more dangerous, than a dull dimwit ?

Cause, yeah - sure.

Yes, that is essentially the argument. Bizarro Obama (BizarrObama?) is more dangerous than Trump.

[Little Raven]

Are you just saying a smart man is potentially sharper, and more dangerous, than a dull dimwit ?

Yup. Good Presidents are inherently more dangerous than bad ones when it comes to losing control of Democracy. Price you pay for competence. Trump has done and will do tons of damage, but I have zero fear about his ability to subvert the electoral process.

[El Guapo]

Are you just saying a smart man is potentially sharper, and more dangerous, than a dull dimwit ?

Yup. Good Presidents are inherently more dangerous than bad ones when it comes to losing control of Democracy. Price you pay for competence. Trump has done and will do tons of damage, but I have zero fear about his ability to subvert the electoral process.

We'll have to remember to only elect idiots from here on out.

[malchior]

Are you just saying a smart man is potentially sharper, and more dangerous, than a dull dimwit ?

Yup. Good Presidents are inherently more dangerous than bad ones when it comes to losing control of Democracy. Price you pay for competence. Trump has done and will do tons of damage, but I have zero fear about his ability to subvert the electoral process.

We'll have to remember to only elect idiots from here on out.

Luckily this idiot only has the backing of the entire Republican party. A party that has been totally committed to the principles of good governance, shared purpose, and bipartisanship.

[Freyland]

Well, cool, because I think Kanye is still running.

[Isgrimnur]

And the guys in the white coats are chasing him.

[Octavious]

That man is legit mentally ill and it's kind of sad that he can't/won't get proper help. I have someone like that in the family and it's just terrifying as you don't know when they are going to kersplode. Oh and Kanye needs help too.

[malchior]

That man is legit mentally ill and it's kind of sad that he can't/won't get proper help. I have someone like that in the family and it's just terrifying as you don't know when they are going to kersplode. Oh and Kanye needs help too.