I can name all the Presidents in order so I know he was actually President, but I admit I know little about him. Still I'd be shocked if Kamala is smarter than him.
He basically started the civil war because he thought he would "solve the issue of slavery" with the Fugitive Slave Act (which guaranteed federal over-reach), and instructed the Chief Justice of SCTOUS to rule in his favor, when it inevitably got hit with a lawsuit. This presidential support is also what allowed SCOTUS to just declare that blacks in America, even the ones who were free, owned property, or were even in political office, were just not considered citizens because something something English law something something, despite England actively ending slavery and having no objection to blacks in England. He additionally did nothing to stop the situation with Bleeding Kansas, and as the secession crisis deepened he neither pushed hard enough towards state's rights to keep the South in the Union, nor did he go hardline with the North, leaving everything entirely up in the air as violence increased. He did nothing to really even keep southern generals in the Union as the crisis worsened. He also presided over a massive bank failure. Oh, and he's famous for being a secret homosexual that took swims in the Potomac.
He was basically infamous at the time for being wrong about almost everything, and blew up the country.
While all of that is valid, I'm not convinced Kamala wouldn't have done similar or worse if put in the same circumstance.
Its why these comparisons, especially ones with long history, aren't really useful beyond hyperbole. Because we only get one shot at each event and any comparison is purely speculative from there.
Like, Bush wasn't a very good president but even the best among them probably wouldn't have handled 9/11 in a way anyone would consider "well."
I don't think it's an exaggeration to say that Kamala Harris is the least capable presidential candidate of all time. She's so fucking stupid.
I mean... Dukakis exists. Even Kameltoe can't compare to that blowout.
Of all time?
James Buchanan?
James Buchanan was still at very least a White man, which makes him better and smarter by default.
Ah, so you're an idiot.
I can name all the Presidents in order so I know he was actually President, but I admit I know little about him. Still I'd be shocked if Kamala is smarter than him.
He's also known as the "bachelor president" as he never married. Rumors existed in his time until present times, he enjoyed a bit of cock suckery.
Wheatland is house in Lancaster, PA is a cool building for anyone planning a trip to Lancaster.
He basically started the civil war because he thought he would "solve the issue of slavery" with the Fugitive Slave Act (which guaranteed federal over-reach), and instructed the Chief Justice of SCTOUS to rule in his favor, when it inevitably got hit with a lawsuit. This presidential support is also what allowed SCOTUS to just declare that blacks in America, even the ones who were free, owned property, or were even in political office, were just not considered citizens because something something English law something something, despite England actively ending slavery and having no objection to blacks in England. He additionally did nothing to stop the situation with Bleeding Kansas, and as the secession crisis deepened he neither pushed hard enough towards state's rights to keep the South in the Union, nor did he go hardline with the North, leaving everything entirely up in the air as violence increased. He did nothing to really even keep southern generals in the Union as the crisis worsened. He also presided over a massive bank failure. Oh, and he's famous for being a secret homosexual that took swims in the Potomac.
He was basically infamous at the time for being wrong about almost everything, and blew up the country.
While all of that is valid, I'm not convinced Kamala wouldn't have done similar or worse if put in the same circumstance.
Its why these comparisons, especially ones with long history, aren't really useful beyond hyperbole. Because we only get one shot at each event and any comparison is purely speculative from there.
Like, Bush wasn't a very good president but even the best among them probably wouldn't have handled 9/11 in a way anyone would consider "well."
Interesting, but imagine what Kamala would have done in that spot.
I doubt Buchanan turned into a cackling mess of word salad every time he was asked a question.
I'm talking pure stupidity here. Not bad policy decisions.