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."
There's a big difference between having an event befall you, and fucking causing it.
I never thought of it, but I can scarcely imagine what Trump would have done if he ran for president in 2000 and won. I doubt he would have invaded Iraq, but I'd think Afghanistan would have gone differently, and the level of violence would have been prepared to use would have been fucking startling if the strikes on Syria were any indication.
There's a big difference between having an event befall you, and fucking causing it.
There is, but the point is that we can never know because we only have one president at a time reacting to them. Trump might have bungled it even worse than Bush for all we could know because he wasn't part of the Uniparty and was allowed to fail with no deeper objective. I doubt it, but its possible. Harris might have made reparations happen immediately and literally caused a genocide.
Its just a poor comparison system all around if we leave the hyperbole of "she is the worst ever" and try to factually think about it.
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."
There's a big difference between having an event befall you, and fucking causing it.
I never thought of it, but I can scarcely imagine what Trump would have done if he ran for president in 2000 and won. I doubt he would have invaded Iraq, but I'd think Afghanistan would have gone differently, and the level of violence would have been prepared to use would have been fucking startling if the strikes on Syria were any indication.
There is, but the point is that we can never know because we only have one president at a time reacting to them. Trump might have bungled it even worse than Bush for all we could know because he wasn't part of the Uniparty and was allowed to fail with no deeper objective. I doubt it, but its possible. Harris might have made reparations happen immediately and literally caused a genocide.
Its just a poor comparison system all around if we leave the hyperbole of "she is the worst ever" and try to factually think about it.
It's always the case to try and make those kinds of direct comparisons, but I think it's an interesting thought exercise.
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.