I just came across this:
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2021/07/why_historians_making_lists_of_the_best_presidents_get_it_so_wrong_.html
This article aligns with my opinions regarding the judging of presidents in the various surveys and polls of "historians" and "political scientists" which result in erotic arousal in certain Louisville "progressive" "Christians" who have a seething, grace-embracing hatred for Donald J. Trump. I know I'm being a bit coy here, but I'm not going to name this person. I'm only going to say that the article gives a good understanding of why the polls are crap as well as what a better judgement would not only look like, but why it takes time for any legitimate, honest historian not as grace embracing as Dan....oops!...to assess just what any given president's legacy truly is, and thus where among the others he might legitimately be ranked.
It's easy to hate...which I understand is akin to murder, spiritually speaking. But to deal with any political figure objectively requires one understand where the good and bad points stack against each other...which of either has any real impact with regard the rest of us. More than that, it must demand truth and the ability to dismiss that which has been found to be untrue so that it does not affect judgement in where the figure belongs amongst his peers.
The article speaks to the president's duties as laid out in the Constitution. There's no poll of any value of any kind that doesn't base it's rankings on how each president has adhered to those Constitutional duties. Indeed, each line describing those duties should be the criteria by which they are judged, not the ambiguous crap I've seen in what are now three such surveys recently presented to me by the unnamed Kentuckian above. But they all had Trump ranked last, so that was enough for Dan...oops, again!
There is a specific ranking I demand in any such poll in order to give it the time of day. William Henry Harrison, our 9th president, must always be ranked last with an asterisk to which attached must be, "He doesn't really count because he died on this 32nd day". Now, I haven't checked to see what, if anything, he accomplished in that short time, but I can't imagine it could've been all that much which would have lifted above anyone else who wasn't a total criminal despot.
32 comments:
Dealing With your source first.
1. 1st of all, M.. Boyd. Who is this?? Is she a notorian? Is she familiar with history? What are her questions?
She pierced me up not well known attorney who has written a book.. No credentials that I see of D of related to history other than perhaps personal interest.
2. Secondly, she says that historians can't evaluate a president until about 1:00 years later.. Censor? On what basis? Is this? Is this rational?
If a president inherits a collapsing Or weakening economy and turns it around, for instance as Clinton and Obama did, we can objectively note, Hey this was good.
If a president Ax and the fascist manner and attacks the prepress regularly press regularly and undermines trust in the election process, we can note, Hey this is bad.
We could note while Hitler was still in office that he was an objectively horrible leader. We may not know the full scope of how good or bad a president was for decades, but we can rationally and reasonably note and reasonably note their strengths and their weaknesses.This is especially true for especially awful presidents. What historians and scholars are telling you, conservative and liberal, is that trump was an objectively very bad president.
Your source goes on to say...
"The bottom line is we don’t know the whole story, now, about modern Presidents so evaluating them by survey is impossible."
This is , as already noted, an irrational and unsupported claim, wrong just on the face of it. This is a grade school critique of historians, not an adult one. That's part of the problem with modern conservatism is that it's just dumbed down. Infantile. If you want to make a case, make a case. But making claims without any support whatsoever is not making a case.
She continues...
"All we can do as citizens is weigh the impact of Presidential policy on our nation and try to assess which Presidents have honored their Oath of Office to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States and the integrity of our National Sovereignty."
These are reasonable measures to assess a president. And if you look at criticisms of trump, there are problems with him and his behavior constitutionally. Again, his attacks on the free press. His attacks on our free elections. His allegiance to his business. His lack of transparency. His interminglings with foreign powers. His. His criminal administration periadministration. Constitutionally speaking, trump was not a good president. This is part of the reason why rational historians historians of all political persuasions agrpersuasions agree that trump was clearly a bad president. And historically bad president.
Might we learn more years from now that might change our opinions? Sure. But that doesn't mean we can't evaluate how awful he's been based upon the known data. And the known data is damning as hell.
Marshal... "I'm only going to say that the article gives Is a good opinion as to why the polls are crap... "
Except that it doesn't. All the article does is give this non-historian (apparently, we have zero credentials) a chance to say, " Here is what I think. It's not based on anything. It's not based on my expertise as a historian, because I'm not. It's not based upon historians opinion or other presidential scholars because I Provided no such sources or expert opinion to provide some basis for my conclusions. It's just my opinion as a lawyer, for what it's worth."
The article does nothing to say why we shouldn't count the opinions of these historians from across the political spectrum as rational And certainly nothing to suggest that their opinions are crap. It just doesn't.
And again this is the problem with modern conservatism. There's no reasoning or sensibility or sense of duty to give support for one's case. A claim is sufficient for Trumpservatives
It's not.
RE: Dan's comments on July 25, 2021 at 12:54 PM
"1. 1st of all, M.. Boyd. Who is this?? Is she a notorian? Is she familiar with history?"
https://www.missconstitution.com/about-miss-constitution/
"2. Secondly, she says that historians can't evaluate a president until about 1:00 years later.. Censor? On what basis? Is this? Is this rational?"
Of course it's "rational"!! It's also honest and demonstrates integrity to allow time to pass in order to weigh the full impact (or lack thereof) of a president's work. Recall your first two offerings were after only the first year of Trump's presidency (though he had still proven to be a better president than Obama). Look, for example, at tax cuts. When such a policy is enacted, we are likely to see less revenues to federal coffers in the immediate time following enactment. But not so long after, we see revenues rise higher then they were before enactment due to the increased productivity of corporations and individuals due to having more of their own money to utilize.
Naturally, we saw many of Trump's policies reap rewards for so many people even within the span of his administration. Still, one is not honest if one believes there's no possibility of some of the seemingly beneficial policies resulting in negative consequences which would weigh negatively on the wisdom of their implementation. Then again, with Biden overturning many Trump policies, we'll never know about those.
"If a president inherits a collapsing Or weakening economy and turns it around, for instance as Clinton and Obama did..."
This wasn't the case for either of these two clowns. You prove how lefty bias and stupidity corrupts history, rather than judges it honestly. Clinton followed GOP majority Congress plan on the economy. Obama did absolutely nothing that had any significant effect on the direction of the economy, having presided over the slowest recovery in history (with two years to do something about it!). What's more, he was part of the Congress as a US Senator prior to being wrongly elected by racists and had no record of achievement there which did anything to correct the economy. Thus, he "inherited" a mess of which he was part.
Your comment then becomes unintelligible (if posted via voice rather than keyboard, proofreading is still possible. Try it.) until this:
"We may not know the full scope of how good or bad a president was for decades, but we can rationally and reasonably note and reasonably note their strengths and their weaknesses.This is especially true for especially awful presidents. What historians and scholars are telling you, conservative and liberal, is that trump was an objectively very bad president."
First, what was regarded as strengths and weaknesses in each of the three surveys you posted were judged by nonsensical criteria and wholly subjective in their applications.
Secondly, grace-embracing haters like you begin on the presumption that Trump was an "especially awful" president rather than just a president about to be judged as either good or "especially awful". Your "historians"...regardless of whether labeled left or right...certainly did this, too. So no, none of them are telling you "trump was an objectively very bad president." There was nothing "objective" about any of it. But you don't care because you jump on whatever you believe validates your vile, unChristian, but purely "progressive" grace-embracing "Christian" hatred.
July 25, 2021 at 1:07 PM
"This is , as already noted, an irrational and unsupported claim, wrong just on the face of it. This is a grade school critique of historians, not an adult one. That's part of the problem with modern conservatism is that it's just dumbed down. Infantile. If you want to make a case, make a case. But making claims without any support whatsoever is not making a case."
Wow. This is just a case of a lefty moron pot calling a superior intellect conservative kettle stupid! Her credentials I presented immediately call out your opinion as the true grade school critique of a knowledgeable person. And that's being generous, unless by grade school one is referring to the slow students. She isn't making a claim other than to provide a more reasoned basis by which to judge the performance of the president...according to their Constitutionally mandated duties. I can't see any intelligent person not agreeing with this as a more superior set of criteria than the ambiguous and meaningless criteria of the three surveys that make you orgasmic.
As to making a case against Trump's work as president, you personally have never once addressed any of his policies with anything more (where you did at all) than your typical partisan nonsense that they're bad, rather than an evidence supported argument explaining why they might be. Thus, I'm not surprised you would gravitate to anything that does the same and pretend it's affirming because "historians say so".
"And if you look at criticisms of trump, there are problems with him and his behavior constitutionally."
There's far more claims by lefty morons than actual evidence to support the contention he acted contrary to constitutional law or principles. YOU'VE never provided such!
"Again, his attacks on the free press."
His Constitutional right of free speech is denied him as far as criticizing a dangerously partisan press? How so? He never did anything close to the true attacks on the press as did his predecessor. This, too, has been demonstrated for you more than once in past discussions where you perpetuated this lie.
"His attacks on our free elections."
Another case of Trump exercising his rights as a citizen to criticize government...which so many millions of Americans, including a percentage of Dem voters...with regard to this past election due to so many examples of irregularity and fraud.
"His allegiance to his business."
"Allegiance"??? His allegiance has always been to American principles as he understood them, and fighting to right wrongs against business isn't "allegiance" to anything other than what's right. In the meantime, the Dems and corporate America are rather tight these days, while the average American has been suffering.
"His lack of transparency."
This is just unsupportable given his predecessor.
"His interminglings with foreign powers."
You mean when he whispered to the Russian "I'll have more flexibility after the election."? Oh wait!... You're a very stupid person, Dan. I may be more so spending any time expecting honesty in discourse out of you.
"Constitutionally speaking, trump was not a good president. This is part of the reason why rational historians historians of all political persuasions agrpersuasions agree that trump was clearly a bad president. And historically bad president."
Yet, none of the surveys judged him "constitutionally"...which is the point of the article. What's more, you have no idea of what that even means. You simply hate the guy like a good grace-embracer and leave it at that. BTW, those were Trump-hating historians of all political persuasions. No honest historian ranks a president below a guy who served only 32 days in office.
"Might we learn more years from now that might change our opinions? Sure. But that doesn't mean we can't evaluate how awful he's been based upon the known data. And the known data is damning as hell."
The known data, if honest people actually spend any time looking at it, proves he deserves a far higher rating than the empty suit, Obama. YOU never spend any time with the data! You just hate, because that's what "progressive" "Christians" do, given they're not truly Christian.
July 25, 2021 at 1:35 PM
"Except that it doesn't."
Except it does, and if you'd read it and judge the conclusion based on the merits of the argument rather than on the fact that it diminishes the merit of your surveys which rate Trump the worst ever...which is all you care about...you'd know that. It took me all of about two minutes to find Boyd's credentials. What's YOUR problem? She is well qualified to comment on how best to judge a president. You and your Trump-hating historians are less so because you all can't keep your partisan bullshit out of it.
"The article does nothing to say why we shouldn't count the opinions of these historians from across the political spectrum as rational And certainly nothing to suggest that their opinions are crap. It just doesn't."
It absolutely does and it's the same reason I gave: not enough time has passed for the purpose of developing an honest assessment. And even considering what we do know, it is crystal clear that your historians are not judging honestly. How could they given Trump's extraordinary performance, especially when compared to his buffoonish predecessor? It's certainly clear that YOU'RE not an honest person. Lying is what you do. It's not surprising you'd grab tightly to anything you believe validates your dishonest opinion of Trump's presidency, regardless of the merits of that alleged validation.
"And again this is the problem with modern conservatism. There's no reasoning or sensibility or sense of duty to give support for one's case. A claim is sufficient for Trumpservatives"
More evidence you don't understand what conservatism is as you again project your own evil upon conservatives. You've done nothing to provide any evidence, reasoning or support for your rejection of Boyd. You couldn't even be bothered to find info regarding her credentials. And you satisfy yourself that you are correct simply by asserting a claim. You're an inveterate liar and a person of extremely low intelligence.
So we're nowhere near a 100 years since Hitler ruled Germany. Are you getting closer yet to acknowledging that he was truly an awful leader?
What a moron.
Marshal... " if you'd read it and judge the conclusion based on the merits of the argument..."
I DID read it and judged it on the content. Or the lack thereof. SHE SAID that SHE THINKS that we need to wait 100 years to evaluate a presidency's legacy. SAYS WHO?
That is an example of an empty claim. What authority says that we have to wait 100 years to evaluate the merits of a presidency?
Who??? Based on WHAT?
I get that it hurts your little feelings if people don't just bow down and kiss the feet of people you cite, but that's not the way adult conversation works.
It's not enough to say "I think you have to wait 100 years..." You have to SUPPORT the charge. You have to answer relatively simple and obvious and reasonable questions like, "But what about really awful or really great presidencies/Leaders? Do we have to wait until 2041 to evaluate Hitler or is it sufficient and reasonable to say, OF COURSE he was a horrible leader?"
Your hyper-emotional white fragility and presumption of your own authority on your own say so is just an embarrassment.
Marshal... "More evidence you don't understand what conservatism is as you again project your own evil upon conservatives."
I'm not saying this is a trait of traditional conservatism. I'm saying it is an observable trait in Trump conservatism. Trump ROUTINELY makes empty claims and acts as if that settles the case. It's all part of his con/delusion about the perverted "power of positive thinking..." NV Peale's aberrant theology was awful by itself and then the Trump family perverted even further with his open acknowledgement that he's just playing a con and by repeating even stupidly false claims and acting as if he always wins and is always the best and any losses are denied... it's just a simple-minded, deviant theology/philosophy that anyone can observe.
Are you so blinded by partisan fever that you can't see you've been conned? That Trump gladly admits he's just bullshitting his way using lies and the power of his white wealth to get his way like a tyrant toddler?
Man, save yourself. You've all been played for a fool by a very large, deviant idiot. The sooner you acknowledge reality, the more likely you'll gain some self-respect back. Believe me, you WILL recognize Trump for the lying stupid con man that he is and that he's made Conservatism into one day. The sooner you repent, the better.
July 25, 2021 at 6:20 PM
"So we're nowhere near a 100 years since Hitler ruled Germany. Are you getting closer yet to acknowledging that he was truly an awful leader? "
Given how he got so many to follow him, he was a pretty good leader. He was just an evil person. Only a moron can't grasp that distinction.
July 25, 2021 at 10:10 PM
"SHE SAID that SHE THINKS that we need to wait 100 years to evaluate a presidency's legacy. SAYS WHO?"
Says someone who isn't so geeked to pile on Trump for something other than his stellar record as president. Honorable people don't take the first opportunity to belittle a president. They wait, as she said, for enough time to pass to best assess the impact of a president's policies. This also allows time to pass so that haters are out of the picture and objective assessment can truly be given.
Once again, Danny-girl. You're not fooling anybody. You're only concerned with crapping on Trump with every opportunity, and you're eager to attach your sorry ass to anything or anyone else who does as well, because...you know...embracing grace and all that crap.
"What authority says that we have to wait 100 years to evaluate the merits of a presidency?"
What authority is needed, Dan? I know you can't wait to heap scorn and hatred on Trump, but what authority is needed to understand the logic of Boyd's position? Put up, Dan. What authority exactly?
"I get that it hurts your little feelings if people don't just bow down and kiss the feet of people you cite, but that's not the way adult conversation works."
What makes you think my feelings are hurt? That's just another way you like to embrace grace, right Fake? You haven't provided an adult counter to Boyd's position, but rather your less than adult "Nyuh uh" response. You can't argue that your only concern is universal hatred for Trump. That's all that matters to you. You're a fraud and a stupid boy, Dan.
"It's not enough to say "I think you have to wait 100 years..." You have to SUPPORT the charge. You have to answer relatively simple and obvious and reasonable questions like, "But what about really awful or really great presidencies/Leaders?"
Good gosh, you're a simp!
"It takes this long to uncover what has been deliberately concealed or to discover documents and threads of information thought lost."
Right there Boyd gives a most logical and compelling reason why truly assessing a presidency can't happen until time has passed.
"Your hyper-emotional white fragility and presumption of your own authority on your own say so is just an embarrassment."
"hyper-emotional white fragility" BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
This from a putz who thinks bringing up an extreme like Hitler mitigates the logic of Boyd's position. Talk about grasping at straws by a moron with no point! Talk about embarrassment! What a freakin' loon!
July 25, 2021 at 10:15 PM
"I'm not saying this is a trait of traditional conservatism."
That's good, because you have no clue what conservatism is.
"I'm saying it is an observable trait in Trump conservatism."
That's not a thing. There's only conservatism, which proves once again you have no idea what it is.
"Trump ROUTINELY makes empty claims and acts as if that settles the case."
You mean like Georgia's election integrity laws are the new Jim Crow?
"Are you so blinded by partisan fever that you can't see you've been conned?"
You keep saying this crap. But it's like saying your mother conned you because she all the things she did to raise you was a lie. You're a freakin' idiot. What was the "Big Con", Danny-girl? Was it the lowest unemployment since the 60's, or the lowest black unemployment since they started tracking black unemployment? Was it the booming economy? The "no new wars" thing? Maybe it was the peace deals in the Middle East he helped bring about. Maybe it was the better trade deals. Where did the con come in, Dan? I supported him for that which is verifiable. Not some intangible nonsense. Where's the con?
You're an inveterate moron. Stop pretending you have a clue about anything.
Marshal... "because you have no clue what conservatism is."
Yeah, you keep saying this and yet, you have yet to even begin to prove it. You can't cite anything I've said as evidence that I have "no clue" what conservatism is.
Here, I'll play along with you again:
1. Conservative evangelicals tend to believe in an "inerrant Bible."
And "inerrancy" is defined in various ways but briefly, that the Bible - rightly understood - is without error or fault in all its teachings. rather consistent with Paul Feinberg's definition...
"Inerrancy means that when all facts are known, the Scriptures in their original autographs and properly interpreted will be shown to be wholly true in everything that they affirm, whether that has to do with doctrine or morality or with the social, physical, or life sciences"
That's one major thing I think that conservative Christianity teaches. Am I wrong in that?
2. Conservative evangelical Christians tend to believe in something rather close to the Penal Substitutionary Theory of Atonement. That is, that
a. humans are sinners from birth
b. That sinners are rightly punished with separation from God
c. because they are spiritually dead and have to come to spiritual life
d. and because they owe a sin-debt for their sin and the punishment/outcome of being a sinner/having this sin debt is separation from God
e. and that they are not able, in and of themselves to pay this sin debt
f. and so, in order to save some sinners, Jesus - the literal son of God - came to earth and died and was raised from the dead
g. and that his death "paid" the debt owed by the rest of humanity for our sins
h. and that those who acknowledge this gift from God, repent for their sins and make Jesus the Lord of their lives, can be saved - their debt can be atoned for by Jesus' death and thus
i. they can be saved.
That's another common belief (acknowledging some quibbles in different parts of Evangelical World about some of the specifics) among conservatives.
AM I MISTAKEN?
Simply put Marshal, CITE MY WORDS where I indicate that I don't understand about conservatism and show where I'm not understanding.
Marshal... "Given how he got so many to follow him, he was a pretty good leader. "
? You can't be seriously suggesting a good leader is defined by "he can get people to follow him..." can you?
OF COURSE, that's not the definition of "Good leader" that historians, scholars or any moral, rational adult would use.
But yes, by that definition, "Trump is a good leader because he got a large minority of the nation to go along with him... NOT a majority at ANY point in his administration, but a scary-large minority of people he could bluff, bully and fearmonger into following him."
But then, by that measure, every president is a good leader, just about.
Do you know how awful that sounds, that you would consider the mere ability to get people to follow you is what makes a "good leader"?
Marshal dodged a reasonable question by saying... "Says someone who isn't so geeked to pile on Trump for something other than his stellar record as president. "
No, says WHO? ON WHAT RATIONAL and scholarly basis is there a need to wait 100 years to evaluate a presidency?
What historical society advocates that? What university? What set of presidential scholars? Is there ANYONE besides this woman making this unsupported claim?
You Do recognize that this is an unsupported claim, right?
You're still being played for a fool. Open your eyes. Stop being a cowardly sheep who can be bullied and fearmongered into going along with an historic disaster.
Tell me, Marshal, if you're still alive from 30 years from now and Trump is STILL regarded as amongst the worst presidents ever by historians and presidential scholars, the world over and across all political boundaries, will you THEN recognize you were duped?
Marshal attempted to suggest an answer by citing this from the "source..."
""It takes this long to uncover what has been deliberately concealed or to discover documents and threads of information thought lost."
Again, SAYS WHO?
If Trump has 50 people in his administration who end up being charged with crimes, that will not have taken 100 years. In the published and pending tell-all books from Trump's allies and former allies, we'll have a record of what happened that didn't take 100 years.
Also, there is the Presidential Records Act (PRA), which requires records to be released within 12 years...
"Specifically, the PRA allows for public access to Presidential records through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) beginning five years after the end of the Administration, but allows the President to invoke as many as six specific restrictions to public access for up to twelve years."
More...
Re: PRA, read this to see more hard evidence of how unconstitutional and bad Trump was, as a president, just in regards to his legal obligation to be transparent...
"In June 2018, Politico reported that President Donald Trump frequently and routinely would tear up papers he received, resulting in government officials taping them together for archiving to ensure that Trump did not violate the Presidential Records Act.[6]
In July 2018, Business Insider reported that President Trump gave his personal cellphone number to various world leaders, having unrecorded conversations with them completely without U.S. officials' knowledge.[7]
In July 2018, CNN reported that The White House had suspended the practice of publishing public summaries of President Donald Trump's phone calls with world leaders, bringing an end to a common exercise from previous administrations.[8]
In May 2019, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, the National Security Archive, and the Society for Historians of American Foreign Relations filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration alleging that President Donald Trump and senior advisers such as Jared Kushner were failing to meet their legal obligations under the Presidential Records Act to create and to preserve records of top-level meetings with foreign leaders.[9][10]
In October 2019, an outgoing information security officer warned that with the transfer to the White House Communications Agency, political appointees would be in charge of electronic records.[11]
In December 2020, a group of historians sued (National Security Archive v. Trump, 20-cv-03500, U.S. District Court, District of Columbia) the Trump administration over its failure to preserve historical records in violation of the Presidential Records Act. Specifically they claimed that Jared Kushner was in violation of the Act by taking screen shots of his WhatsApp posts that do not include metadata, attachments, or other digital artifacts needed to authenticize the information."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidential_Records_Act
Your boy, Trump, is a moral, ethical and rational shipwreck entirely willing to take down all his cult of followers with him.
Wake up. Get off that ship before it goes down.
You've been played for a fool. How much hard data do you need to see with your own eyes before you recognize it?
July 26, 2021 at 10:38 AM
First...
"That's another common belief (acknowledging some quibbles in different parts of Evangelical World about some of the specifics) among conservatives."
That's a common belief among Christians, and it happens to be what Scripture teaches. "Nyuh uh" isn't an adult counter argument.
"Simply put Marshal, CITE MY WORDS where I indicate that I don't understand about conservatism and show where I'm not understanding."
You have this strange notion that reciting some concepts means you're possessed of understanding, and then in all else you say an do, demonstrate you don't given your poor application. It's like when you recite what you think makes one a Christian, but in everything you say and do, everything you support and encourage belies the claim outright.
Secondly....
This is a not a religious discussion. While proper and honest understanding of Christian teaching aligns with and informs political conservatism, they are not identical. This is supported by your corrupted "understanding" of Scriptural teaching and your political leftism.
I've always pointed out how your words demonstrate your lack of understanding about conservatism. I just did it above.
July 26, 2021 at 11:05 AM
"? You can't be seriously suggesting a good leader is defined by "he can get people to follow him..." can you?"
From theFreeDictionary.com:
1. One that leads or guides.
2. One who is in charge or in command of others.
3.
a. One who heads a political party or organization.
b. One who has influence or power, especially of a political nature.
If you're stupid enough to try and use Hitler as an example of what makes a good leader, you have to understand the word. The more people who follow, the more one is a good leader because a "bad" leader can't get people to follow him. Thus, he's not a leader at all.
What you're stupidly conflating is "leader" with "good president"...the latter of which you clearly are incapable of recognizing.
"Do you know how awful that sounds, that you would consider the mere ability to get people to follow you is what makes a "good leader"?"
It sounds like I understand what a leader is. You clearly don't. You...being a leftist asshat...pervert the word because you hate the leader in question. You lack the honesty and adult conversation requires when you engage in this childishness. And when you continue to criticize his presidency without ever once speaking to his policies and track record, you further demonstrate your infantile nature in discussing what makes a person a "good" or "bad" president. Comparing records proves he's head and shoulders above Obama, Carter, Clinton and most assuredly the current President Where-Am-I.
July 26, 2021 at 11:09 AM
"Marshal dodged a reasonable question..."
This from the master dodger!
"ON WHAT RATIONAL and scholarly basis is there a need to wait 100 years to evaluate a presidency?"
On THIS basis: "It takes this long to uncover what has been deliberately concealed or to discover documents and threads of information thought lost."
And given your first two offerings barely allowed his first year to pass before including him among all previous presidents, it's clear the purpose is to provide Trump-hating "scholars" the change to crap on the guy while never bothering to address his record. You're an idiot.
"What historical society advocates that? What university? What set of presidential scholars? Is there ANYONE besides this woman making this unsupported claim?"
What historical society does it any other way for any other subject? What university doesn't have a population of its professorial class partisan leftists in the vast majority? What set of presidential scholars are any better? Why are there no one but this woman making this sound and logical argument about surveys of this kind?
You reject Boyd's argument for one reason and one reason only: It dares to merely leave only the possibility that Trump is being judged unfairly and for the most un-scholarly of reasons. All you care about...because you're a hateful infant of a man...is that all agree with you about what poo-poo head Trump is. This is proven by the fact that she doesn't really give her opinion of Trump as president in her article. She simply criticizes the rush to judgement of haters like you among the historians who choose to respond to these types of surveys.
"Tell me, Marshal, if you're still alive from 30 years from now and Trump is STILL regarded as amongst the worst presidents ever by historians and presidential scholars, the world over and across all political boundaries, will you THEN recognize you were duped?"
No, Dan. Because unlike vile haters like you, I judge presidents based upon substance and not unChristian hate and lies. If surveys in 30 years continue to judge presidents based on ambiguous criteria which avoids substance...as all three of your surveys have done, I will continue to reject them as the partisan crap they are. If in 30 years it comes to pass that Trump policies I now favor turn out to have been the cause of negative consequences based on OBJECTIVE assessments by OBJECTIVE analysts (something about which you're clearly uninterested or wholly incapable of recognizing), only then will I lower Trump in my personal presidential rankings.
BTW, when the hell are you going to explain where the con is?
Marshal... "On THIS basis: "It takes this long to uncover what has been deliberately concealed or to discover documents and threads of information thought lost." "
Last time. SAYS WHO? ON WHOSE AUTHORITY AND WORD AND BASED ON WHAT EVIDENCE DOES IT TAKE THAT LONG?
It's a made up, pulled out of the depths of a diarrheic ass claim.
Maybe for morons who can only read a page a day if they try very hard does it take a century to "uncover" what was deliberately concealed. And who says something is regularly deliberately concealed? That's against the law, you know? And WHO SAYS that 100 years later, we'll be in ANY better position to assess any potential hidden documentation than we are RIGHT NOW?
The claim is, on the face of it, idiotic and wholly unsupported. It's a made up guess by a delinquent and unintelligent second grader.
Marshal... "What historical society does it any other way for any other subject? "
? What? It's ALWAYS easier to uncover data, news, stories and facts CLOSER to the time of the events in question, not 100 years later! Again, that's a moronic claim.
Give an example of something that we know about Lincoln 100 years later than we did in 1865. Or any other president.
I don't think you're understanding the point. No one SAYS we can only fairly assess an person or event's import 100 years after the fact because it's not a rational gauge, it's not based on any criteria or any rational observation.
1921. What do we know about Harding or Wilson now that we didn't know then? Name something. Anything. What data do we have NOW that would impact how we consider them as presidents?
And look, I'm not saying that there's NOTHING we learn with time. For one thing, mores and attitudes change. 102 years ago, women couldn't vote and many people had no problem with that, didn't see the great evil that this disenfranchisement represented. We understand better now how grossly evil that was and can appreciate better now, 100 years later with more maturity and enlightenment under our belts than we could then.
The same for black people finally fully getting the right to vote in 1965. We may NOW - 50 years later - more fully appreciate the depths of how wrong that was to refuse the right to vote to all black people prior to then and with more enlightenment under our national conscience, but only somewhat.
Time does off the chance for SOME insight.
BUT that is a matter of degrees, most often. There is NO reason why people in 1921 couldn't understand the import of the vote for white women at the time. There is nothing much hidden about Harding that we've learned this year that we didn't know 100 years ago. It's a made up criteria not based on any scholarly standard.
Do you truly not understand this?
Marshal... "Why are there no one but this woman making this sound and logical argument about surveys of this kind?"
That is a good question. Perhaps it's because she just pulled it out of her ass and it's not a sound rational argument and because there's no rational basis to insist upon it. It's a BAD historical suggestion she's making and the reality that she's the only one making it should be a cue for you that there's a problem.
You know, experts are experts for a reason.
If you want to be an expert in history, become a history expert. But that involves work, not just making empty and unsupported claims.
July 26, 2021 at 11:13 AM
"If Trump has 50 people in his administration who end up being charged with crimes, that will not have taken 100 years. In the published and pending tell-all books from Trump's allies and former allies, we'll have a record of what happened that didn't take 100 years."
This is absurd, but so typical of someone who yearns for any validation for his infantile and wholly unChristian hatred for someone he hasn't the honesty to regard. Which Trump people have been charged with anything related to Trump himself? How many Michael Flynns and Roger Stones are there, versus true criminals working to further criminal actions initiated by Trump? Politically motivated arrest is a worthless criteria no honest people consider. Hillary Clinton was in breech of federal laws regarding the handling of classified documents. Those laws stated intention was not a consideration for finding one guilty of being in breech of those laws protecting national security. She was never prosecuted for her clear violation of those laws. This is an example of the type of crap you think has meaning in assessing a president. Honest people don't do what partisan pussies like you do. Indeed, if you understood conservatism, you'd know that conservatives are more than ready, if not the first, to indict and punish their own for real crimes.
"Also, there is the Presidential Records Act (PRA), which requires records to be released within 12 years..."
That doesn't at all cover everything. There are peripheral associations and actions that do not fall under that Act. It covers only that which has a relation to or
direct effect upon the carrying out of constitutional, statutory, or other official or ceremonial duties of the President.
If Trump's actions are in any way in violation of any law, including this Act, I have no problem seeing him JUSTLY dealt with, as opposed to over-hyping the importance of whatever violation occurred just to hurt him as much as posssible out of partisan animus. When partisan asshats like you push for indictments for far worse violations of the law...as with Hillary... then you can talk to me about who it is who is truly duped. I doubt there could be any way anyone could prove that Trump sought to violate any law or believed himself above any law of which he had legit understanding. You can't jump between "Trump's stupid" and "Trump's an evil genius" and pretend anyone else has been conned.
Marshal... "when the hell are you going to explain where the con is?"
WHICH con? This president has been duping idiots like you (and maybe even himself) with his empty nonsense, clearly false claims and cons that it's difficult to keep track of.
The Big Con is his attacks on our free elections and his attempts to undermine faith in them by suggesting CONTRARY to the data, that elections are being "stolen."
That's a con for idiots to believe.
Or, the con that the press is an enemy of the people. There's just nothing to it. It's a stupidly false claim that only idiots believe and then, only because they're idiots.
Or his attacks on immigrants who come here to escape danger and threats, not to rape and terrorize in 90% (99%?) of the time. That was the con he led with and it pulled the idiot suckers in.
Or his con that he's a Christian or gives a flying fuck about what Jesus had to teach. That one is so over the top idiotic that it makes one wonder how white evangelicals who love Trump can even manage to get dressed in the morning.
How about the con that Trump is a "genius businessman..." Genius in being an idiot con man (which he DOES have a certain genius for) does not make one a genius businessman.
More on the cons of this pervert...
https://www.minnpost.com/eric-black-ink/2019/02/trump-and-the-art-of-constant-deception-writer-jonathan-greenberg-lays-it-out/
https://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/2019/02/opinion-the-6-essential-cons-that-define-trumps-success.html
Open your eyes. Your children and grandchildren, nieces and nephews will be laughing behind your back. Your great grandchildren will just be shaking their heads in shame.
It's not too late. Save yourself.
Marshal... "You can't jump between "Trump's stupid" and "Trump's an evil genius" and pretend anyone else has been conned."
The Thing is, there are all kinds of ways to be a genius. In fact and observably, trump is demonstrably unintelligent. Certainly academically and Rationally and Scientifically And environmentally and theologically and biblically... Trump is a genuine unintelligent human being. But he does have a gift for either conning or bullying or fear mongering or just duping a large number of conservative people.
But that a stupid man can fool gullible people is not a sign of general intelligence. of course. Everyone has some gift or gifts.
July 26, 2021 at 8:36 PM
"Last time. SAYS WHO? ON WHOSE AUTHORITY..."
Last time...what authority is needed to promote a more sound basis for judging a president? You never answer this question....that is, what authority is needed to ever satisfy your whiny demands that authority is required for anything you don't like.
So you tell me, you nutless wonder: On whose authority does your favored historians and political scientists dare rank a president who's not finished his first year in office, as your first two surveys did? On whose authority does this latest dare to judge a president immediately upon the most recent having left office? On whose authority do any of your favored historians (and such a tiny percentage of all working historians in this country) dare select such ambiguous criteria to rank anyone, much less a POTUS? On what basis and on whose authority dare they suppose these ambiguous criterion have any legitimate significance in ranking the quality of a POTUS?
"It's a made up, pulled out of the depths of a diarrheic ass claim."
No more so than any of the crap you favor simply because of the outcome, you vile hater.
"Maybe for morons who can only read a page a day if they try very hard does it take a century to "uncover" what was deliberately concealed."
That's a rich statement coming from a hateful fake Christian who couldn't find background on Boyd...which took me all of about two minutes. But only a moron would take her words and presume she thinks it can only take that long. That's highly doubtful, but it allows for the possibility that after all is said and done, more info is discovered. What's more, it doesn't necessitate even waiting 100 years, nor does she insist it does. She's merely objecting to the eagerness to rush to judgement that we see in ranking any president from the last couple of terms, which in this case is without a doubt meant to allow partisan criticism of Trump. Once again, his record as president is far superior to the hapless Obama who failed to do anything of note an honest person can regard as a positive.
"And who says something is regularly deliberately concealed?"
No one. Why not deal with what was actually said?
"The claim is, on the face of it, idiotic and wholly unsupported. It's a made up guess by a delinquent and unintelligent second grader."
First of all, it's not in the least bit idiotic. Idiotic is asserting that Trump ranks lower than a guy who died after only 32 days in office.
Secondly, it needs no support but the support of reason and logic, of which Boyd brings in her article. What support is needed beyond that, Danielle? This is the same loser crap as asking "on whose authority?".
Boyd's no second grader, but your objection to her argument is no better than one. It is based on nothing more than pure hatred for Trump. You regard these surveys as sacrosanct and beyond reproach, as if it's akin to the Scripture on which you so routinely crap. How dare anyone suggest that they're poorly done when they rank Trump so low? You're pathetic.
You want to insist...stupidly since Boyd does not make 100 years a fixed standard, but merely more beneficial to objective assessment...that we're better off judging based on what we can clearly see now, that we don't know better later. But this misses the point that your little boner over these surveys refuses to acknowledge because of Trump's nonsensical low ranking. To further illustrate my far more intelligent position (which is supported by a knowledgeable person like Boyd), I will offer two links to help support my point in the next comment....
First, we have Conrad Black, who has three presidential biographies to his credit:
https://www.newsmax.com/conradblack/indians-nato-nixon-watergate/2021/07/08/id/1027906/
His remarks on this C-SPAN survey mirrors those of Boyd and myself with respect to the passage of time. He focuses no mere perspective, while Boyd speaks of Constitutional responsibilities and how presidents adhered to them for the purposes of assessing their legacies. The passage of time alters perceptive, and more to the point, the fact that no time has passed since Trump's been in office perverts and corrupts perceptions, especially given the leftist leanings of most historians and scholars. Like you, historians intentionally avoid speaking to the accomplishments of presidents, for in doing so they don't have to acknowledge the great work Trump did for us all, and instead they can focus on the insignificant and pretend it all matters. I'm not down with all Black says regarding his own rankings of presidents, but at least he acknowledges what they actually did, unlike those from your three surveys.
So "on whose authority"..."on what basis". It seems on the authority of historians and on the basis of how things can be learned and better assessed with the passage of time. To that end I offer this link from the American Historical Association, unless you regard their perspective as "pulled out of the depths of a diarrheic ass" because it allows that Trump will one day be elevated on any number of surveys:
https://www.historians.org/about-aha-and-membership/aha-history-and-archives/historical-archives/why-study-history-(1985)
From that link I submit the following:
"Memory is not something fixed and forever. As time passes, remembered personal experiences take on new meanings. A bitter disappointment may come to seem a blessing in disguise; a triumph may later turn sour, while something trivial may subsequently loom large-all because of what happens later on. Collective memory is quite the same. Historians are always at work reinterpreting the past, asking new questions, searching new sources and finding new meanings in old documents in order to bring the perspective of new knowledge and experience to bear on the task of understanding the past. This means, of course, that what we know and believe about history is always changing. In other words, our collective, codified memory alters with time just as personal memories do, and for the same reasons."
Wow. Sounds like something I would say! Hey! I pretty much did say this!
But again, it's crystal clear you're position is entirely motivated on, not only your vile, grace-embracing hatred for a really good president, but your insistence that everyone be as vile a hater toward Trump as you are. The value you place on these surveys is solely on the fact they all rank Trump at the bottom, as if the very few historians involved are beyond questioning. You're pathetic.
July 26, 2021 at 8:39 PM
Thus we can see that Boyd is hardly alone in her objection to this C-SPAN survey, and a woman with her credentials is worthy of far better than a fake Christian asshole like you have the intellectual honesty to give. Hell..."intellectual" honesty? Just plain honesty of any kind is always in short supply where you're concerned!
"It's a BAD historical suggestion she's making and the reality that she's the only one making it should be a cue for you that there's a problem."
Ah...consensus gentium fallacy. The reality that she's the only one is now proven false, but even if it were true, it could just as easily mean she's more intelligent than the Trump-haters populating the tiny group of historians who would respond to a survey which ranks a president before the full effects of his policies can be assessed.
"You know, experts are experts for a reason."
Boyd's an expert. If you took the time to seek out her credentials, or read the link I posted which listed them, you wouldn't have made such stupid attacks on her. Must be because she's a woman. No, wait! That's the type of response YOU'D give if it was me criticizing a woman. But then, I don't criticize anyone undeserving, which is why criticizing you is almost a Christian duty.
"If you want to be an expert in history, become a history expert."
IF you want to criticize a person with more intelligence and knowledge than you, gain the knowledge and hope you've intelligence enough to apply it. That second part will always trip up YOUR sorry ass. The fact is, you don't have the smarts to comment on Boyd's article at all. It's clear you don't understand it.
July 26, 2021 at 8:47 PM
"The Big Con is his attacks on our free elections and his attempts to undermine faith in them by suggesting CONTRARY to the data, that elections are being "stolen.""
But the data's in his favor. What's more, if it wasn't, there wouldn't have been, nor would there continue to be, constant attempts by his rivals to block investigations, audits and other means of bringing the evidence to light. This is especially curious given it would validate all the asswipes...like you...who say Trump's lying (actually the worst an honest person can say is he's mistaken) about the election being stolen.
"Or, the con that the press is an enemy of the people. There's just nothing to it. It's a stupidly false claim that only idiots believe and then, only because they're idiots."
You're a liar. I've provided tons of examples that are just the tip of the iceberg. You pretend their "mistakes". Their malfeasance continues to this day. But as a quick example which is related to the stolen election, the leftist media decision to withhold reporting on the Hunter Biden laptop situation. This one lie of omission is said to have resulted in 17% of Biden voters to say they'd not have voted for him had they known of this prior to the election. That percentage alone...even if those Biden supporters simply didn't vote for president (rather than switching to Trump) would have definitely resulted in Biden losing the popular vote and in so doing possibly altered the Electoral vote in Trump's favor (even if it didn't go far enough to put him in office). That's just ONE example of media criminality and the negative consequences that result.
And of course, the New York Times bragged about the role they played in preventing a second Trump term. But no, these Trabue-like bastards aren't enemies of the people. No. Allies always lie.
"Or his attacks on immigrants who come here to escape danger and threats, not to rape and terrorize in 90% (99%?) of the time. That was the con he led with and it pulled the idiot suckers in."
The "con" is the leftist lies about Trump's position on immigration. What's more, ICE and Border Control officials assert that harm to illegals is through the roof since Biden's reversal of Trump policies have encouraged criminals to exploit illegals. And it's done this nation no favors, either. You're a freakin' moron on the immigration issue and always have been. You put your own at risk to appear compassionate. Indeed, you've harmed so many by your stupidity.
"Or his con that he's a Christian or gives a flying fuck about what Jesus had to teach."
It's clear YOU don't care about what Jesus had to teach or you wouldn't continue to drop f-bombs where you were asked to refrain from doing so, and then whine about being called a pussy...which is a pussy thing to do. What's more, if you cared about the teachings of Christ, you wouldn't dare judge his heart as if you could possibly do so, and while you display the blackness of your own with insane regularity, you baby-murdering SOB!
"How about the con that Trump is a "genius businessman.."
Here's a tip for you: if you hope to be persuasive, don't cite anyone from any of the many lefty sources I've proven have no credibility. No one can amass the wealth Trump has and not be some level of genius.
But far more pertinent to this discussion, his business acumen has nothing to do with his many presidential successes, except that his presidential successes likely would not have occurred were it not for his experience in business.
I can't help how my descendants will be raised, how they'll be taught, and whether or not their parents will be as honest and intellectually astute as I tried to raise my daughters to be. Only one of them is a conservative. Will she be able to impart such wisdom to her offspring? Time will tell, but she's got far more obstacles in the culture than I did thanks to morally bankrupt people like you.
July 27, 2021 at 1:03 AM
"The Thing is, there are all kinds of ways to be a genius."
You should identify one of them and study it. Who knows? You might not die a total dumbass.
"In fact and observably, trump is demonstrably unintelligent."
Clearly you really need to identify one those ways and study really, really hard. His record as president alone belies that wildly dumbass assertion. But then, you've never even had the basic intelligence to look at and weigh his actions as president. You're all partisan hackery and blatant unChristian hatred.
"But he does have a gift for either conning or bullying or fear mongering or just duping a large number of conservative people."
You're a moron. You're legitimately mentally disabled. Conservatives recognize his record...because they actually study such things. They don't fall for leftist platitudes and happy talk. They expect results and Trump delivered them. That you're too stupid and/or honest to acknowledge the truth is an indictment of YOUR intelligence. Indeed, I find you to be remarkably dim and our years of engagement stand as overwhelming evidence of that stark fact.
What language was being spoken in the first comment of this thread?
It's Trabuish. It's what Dan's incomprehensible gibberish looks like when he's not using English.
Re: My typos and their getting worse lately. For several months (years??) I've been dictating many of my comments when I'm out on my phone. That has led to typos. About 2 months ago I switched phones and this dictation system does an even worse job.. Sometimes I'll look down and the words will be right but by the time I hit Publish, it has edited the words to "correct" them to something different. I apologize for the typos. I'll try to do better.
Auto correct is a bitch, but not insurmountable by simply taking the time to proofread. Even then a typo might slip past, but what you post is indeed gibberish almost as bad as everything you ever post on the keyboard. Typos or not, your positions are unintelligible because they're not intelligent. Here's another tip: concentrate on enunciating better. The device hears what it hears. Make sure it hears what you mean to say.
Post a Comment