All errors should be reported to DonSurber@gmail.com

Saturday, November 30, 2019

Why 25% say Trump is better than Lincoln



A new poll shows 1 in 4 Americans say President Donald John Trump is doing a better job than Abraham Lincoln.

The Hill reported, "53% of Republicans said Trump was a better president than Lincoln, while 47% chose the Civil War-era leader.

"Lincoln still overwhelmingly beats Trump among all Americans, 75% to 25%, with the vast majority of Democrats and independents choosing the former president."

That pro-Donald Trump vote is a defiance in that choice. Selecting President 45 over President 16 is a flip of the old bird to the establishment.

Obviously the man who started the transcontinental railroad, signed the Homestead Act, created land-grant colleges, and freed the slaves had the more significant presidency. Lincoln enabled the nation to settle the Great American Desert, which we turned into America's Breadbasket.

But certainly, President Trump is worthy of President Lincoln as no president has been since Reagan.

The parallels are real. Both President Trump and Lincoln were men of success outside politics. Donald Trump was a household word 30 years before he ran for president. Both men had the common touch with the working class whose wages were suppressed by slave labor in the South in Lincoln's case and in Red China in the case of Donald Trump.

That bond with the people showed in West Virginia, where Lincoln received 68.2% of the vote in its first election as a state in 1864.

That was a record that stood for 152 years until President Trump took 68.5% of West Virginia's vote 3 years ago.

Another parallel is Democrats have tried to assassinate Donald Trump since he was elected, just as they tried with Lincoln. Not with guns, of course, but with lies, hoaxes, and horse manure investigations.

Obama used our spies to spy on Donald Trump. Democrats colluded with the Kremlin (via British spy Christopher Steele) to manufacture dirt on The Donald. The deep state's efforts to do him in are the existential threat to the republic. Once again, we fight to ensure that a government of the people, by the people, and for the people shall survive.

The poll showed 53% of Republicans prefer President Trump to Lincoln.

Newsweek reported, "Further polling also found that Republicans preferred Trump to George W. Bush, George H. W. Bush, Gerald Ford, Richard Nixon and Dwight Eisenhower — but not Ronald Reagan.

"71% of Republicans said they preferred Trump over both George W. Bush and his father George H. W. Bush, 82% preferred Trump to Ford, 86% preferred him to Nixon, and 65% preferred him to Eisenhower.

"But pit against Reagan, 59% of Republicans said they preferred Reagan, the 40th president of the United States, compared to 41% saying Trump."

Today, I would select both Lincoln and Reagan over President Trump. Maybe Ike, too.

That is subject to change because the Trump presidency has just started hitting its stride.

45 comments:

  1. Scott Johnson at Powerline has a great analysis: When asked in question 70 whether Lincoln or Trump was the better Republican president, I would wonder if this is some kind of a joke. In my understanding Abraham Lincoln is the lodestar of American politics, human excellence, and much else besides, but I would think that we should probably wait for the end of the Trump presidency to ask such a question. What’s the rush? I would wonder if the question had any purpose other than to belittle Trump.

    After suppressing the thoughts, however, I might well have wanted to express my support of President Trump in the current political context by picking Trump. As a bonus, I would have thought to myself, I can troll the pollster and perhaps even drive the left a little closer to the straitjacket brigade. Among 410 Republicans, Trump edged Lincoln 53-47; among 438 2016 Trump voters, Trump edged Lincoln 55-45.

    The poll also asked respondents to compare Trump with other Republican presidents including Eisenhower, Nixon, Ford, Reagan, George H.W. Bush, and George W. Bush. Question 73 presented Reagan versus Trump. Among 438 2016 Trump voters (again assuming I’m reading the results correctly), Reagan bested Trump 60-40. Among 411 Republicans, Reagan bested Trump 59-41.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Reagan had it easy compared to Trump -- the media was against him, of course, but at least they had a semblance of fairness.
    Has CNN or MSNBC run one positive or neutral chyron about Trump in the last 3 years?
    Has one MSM error run in Trump's favor the last 3 years?
    They weren't happy with the Spicer/Sanders briefings; they're not happy with the helicopter gaggles with the c-in-c. The only thing would make them happy is a return to the Obama paradise. Of course, he spied on the media and filibustered his answers but he was so eloquent.
    And forget the Dems -- Aside from the unelected Ford, the last president they didn't try to impeach was Ike.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Two men are the proximate cause of the helicopter gaggles, Acosta (#1 with a bullet) and Brien Karem.

      Delete
    2. "Reagan had it easy compared to Trump -- the media was against him, but...."
      And, the Dems were hugely more sane/ responsible.
      If DJT actually manages to jail the D.S. conspirators, the he will indeed be greater than old Abe.

      Delete
    3. Typo: "... THEN he will indeed be greater...."

      Delete
  3. and freed the slaves had

    Lincoln didn't free one slave! Gracious the historical ignorance here is appalling. The victors write the textbooks if you want the FACTS read primary sources.

    Others here have outlined Lincoln's atrocities so I won't bother. To think Lincoln invaded to South to free the slaves is laughable beyond belief.

    He invaded because he wanted those Southern tariffs and he sacrificed 700K lives to keep them. The battle cry of the North was 'preserve the Union'....in other words, preserve the tariff base!

    No doubt Lincoln is spending time now with Hitler, Stalin, et al.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Lincoln's 'House Divided' Speech:

      A house divided against itself, cannot stand. I believe this government cannot endure, permanently, half slave and half free. I do not expect the Union to be dissolved — I do not expect the house to fall — but I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing or all the other. Either the opponents of slavery will arrest the further spread of it, and place it where the public mind shall rest in the belief that it is in the course of ultimate extinction; or its advocates will push it forward, till it shall become lawful in all the States, old as well as new — North as well as South.

      Sounds like 'free the slaves' to me, you nincompoop.
      What's gonna be your next quiff? Something stupid like 'Lincoln didn't actually shoot anyone' I suppose.
      Well, Barry Husein didn't actually shoot binladin, either.
      -lg

      Delete
    2. Emancipation Proclamation. It was not written by a democrat.
      History in this case was written by the democrats. Look at all the military installations named for southern generals. The only post named for a northern general is McClellan who was a Disaster and wanted to surrender rather than win.
      Lincoln and Johnson wanted to heal the wounds. They opted to not educate the south so here we are today with people who only imagine they understand history.

      Delete
    3. >>> Guessing that the Anon's posting is how we got a West Virginia...Thankfully!

      Delete
    4. There is much that Anon left out, but if you love Lincoln, then Obama is your homey. Lincoln made the US safe for the deep state by forcing the south back into the raw deal.

      WV came into being as a bribe to a group that wanted to be "free" from Richmond.

      Delete
    5. Mountaineers foresaw the reign of Coonman and the Fairfax Rapist. THAT’S how freakin smart we are.

      Delete
    6. (Apologies to Chris Cornell, RIP)

      Coonman
      It don’t fit with mama’s plans
      Kill them
      Kill those babies with your hands
      Kill them
      KILL THEM!!!

      Delete
  4. You're writing nonsense. The deep South seceded to defend slavery. It's in the primary sources like you say. Lincoln wouldn't have called out for 75,000 soldiers if the Confederacy hadn't of fired on Fort Sumter.

    Sure Lincoln himself was no true friend of black folk, but he did make ending slavery in the Confederacy a war goal, which ultimately undermined the peculiar institution once and for all... and to not only the slaves, but America's great benefit.

    Tariffs are still around if you haven't noticed and Trump uses them to stick it to the authoritarian prince-lings of Beijing and anyone else who wants to work over the USA. More power to Trump and his tariffs.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Your reading is rather selective. He couldn't have cared less about slavery if he tried. That's in the primary sources. All he cared about about was the tariff and keeping the south in, slave or free. The end of slavery did not become a war goal until half way through.

      Delete
    2. Slavery would have ended on it's own without the loss of 700,000. Read your fookin' history books, the South was goaded into firing on Sumter. If not for the overwhelming industrial base the north had, the South might have won.

      I don't believe one southern state would have ever ratified the Constitution had they known it was a one way street.

      One needs to look no further then the "reconstruction" to see just exactly how the north viewed the South before the war.

      Delete
    3. Lincoln’s paramount objective was to “save the Union; if I can save it by freeing all the slaves, I will do it. If I can save it by freeing none of the slaves, I would do it. And if I can save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that.”

      The Emancipation Proclamation was a political master stroke; up until that time -September 1862 - England & France had been looking to come into the war on the side of the South. By Lincoln defining the war as one of “free vs slave” both countries backed off entirely, having abolished slavery in their own countries years before.

      As far as Lincoln goes, I can see both sides of this. He did suspend the writ of habeus corpus which would get any Republican president immediately impeached, probably not so as a Democrat since they get to break the law with abandon & suffer no consequences.

      Delete

    4. BoarwildDecember 1, 2019 at 11:35 AM: I agree that the Emancipation Proclamation was a political move in many ways including it only freed slaves in the states in rebellion. Even people who wanted slavery abolished did not believe that the slaves were mentally equal to Whites, Lincoln included.
      As with most historical events, the truth is not as clean as we would like it.

      Delete
  5. Lincoln was our worst President (besides Obama).

    ReplyDelete
  6. >>> 1) Washington; 2) Lincoln; 3) FDR --- He did help win WWII [3½. Truman For the non-PC guts to drop the A-bombs and integrating the Military]; 4) DONALD J. TRUMP! ZB

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. FDR got us into WW2. Lincoln was scum.

      Delete
    2. FDR also extended the depression through his meddling and anti-free market policies. Great read - The Forgotten Man.

      Delete
    3. Truman got the ball rolling with EO9981, and Eisenhower put it on steroids. Those two men did more for equal rights than the whole of the Washington insiders aka the derp state have done before, or after.
      All LBJ did was figure out a way to subvert it while making it appear that the demonrats were changing their colors when it is fact that they did more to harm blacks and the black community than people like quartermaster will ever admit.

      Delete
  7. I don't always comment, but when I do I Rushmore


    I love talking about Lincoln

    No president has been researched by historians.

    No Presidential administration has been rocked by turmoil.

    When Lincoln was ELECTED the southern states seceded. Lincoln was inaugurated to a nation divided.

    There were people on his cabinet who wanted to let the south go. (sound familiar) he had to fire his dissenter then mostly by will alone keep the nation intact. He was the President who sent Troops to the Maryland statehouse to make sure DC WAS NOT surrounded by rebellious states.

    Pretty extra legal act no? but he did it anyway.

    Fired a General who swore to run AGAINST his President if fired. This General Macellan actually publicly claimed the President was a Tyrant! Hoping his preening press would keep him in command AND able to run for political office IN A TIME OF WAR!

    And Lincoln's reward was an Assassin's bullet.

    Bit of trivia for you

    what did Booth yell from the stage after shooting the Best President of the Nation's history?

    "Sic semper tyrannis" or "thus always to tyrants"

    dramatic yes ... but he was an actor of sorts.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The bullet was Lincoln's Karma. He was a tyrant that got over 700k troops killed and over a million civilians. The three generals that ended the war were the inventors of total war. Lincoln was scum.

      Delete
    2. I disagree most strenuously

      Lincoln has been judged by history as the exact opposite you claim.

      Before Lincoln the US was a collection of independent states. After the US was a unified nation.

      Before Lincoln there was genuine debate about the US being a de facto confederacy. in 1860 the US solved what took Germany and Italy til 1930 to figure out.

      When thinking of Lincoln... realize that there are many many nations that to this day wish there were a unifying civil war that would settle if states are independent or not. (Canada, UK, China are all grappling with independent seeking sub-states)

      the US by contrast figured this out BEFORE nuclear weapons were invented.

      Lincoln's gift to posterity IS a unified US.

      Delete
  8. I get it. You are still sore that he freed the slaves, so that someone like me could succeed in this day and age.

    How dare Lincoln free the Black man so he could live the American dream. That scum!

    Or, maybe you, quartermaster, are a bigot. The confederacy were democrat traitors.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If you think you've succeeded and your "education" has left you with that POV of our history, you're leading a life of delusion.

      Lincoln many a time expressed that if he could keep the nation intact with slavery, he would. He cared not a whit for the "black" man but he sure wanted that tariff flow from the South uninterrupted.

      Shame on the teacher's unions.

      Delete
    2. I entered a reply earlier, but somehow it did not get posted. so I will try again.

      Lincoln was a man of his time. Most whites back then were inveterate racists, and those who weren't were prejudiced. So, he was guilty of watering down his antislavery views for the goal of more widespread acceptance, for electoral benefit. However, he and others of better conscience cared enough about the Black man to support the elimination of slavery as a goal. He should have written the EP as soon as he entered office, or as soon as the confeds fired upon Fort Sumpter. This 'tariff flow' of which you speak is just your way of intellectualizing your tacit support for the Confederacy. You try to sling feces on Lincoln by arguing that 'he did it for the money'. What's next, eh? Are you going to say he did it at the behest of the Elders of Zion?
      Whether he did it for Africans living in bondage in America, or for good press in the afterlife, or because he ate a ham sandwich, it remains that HE DID IT. 700,000 Americans died, which I see as Divine judgement; the only way that the evil could be expunged was through punishment. But, as you are likely one of those secular-uber-alles types (I'm speculating), that won't matter to you. So I will argue this: that Lincoln belatedly recognized that a moral thrust to the war would help the Union war effort, and perhaps cynically he went full force behind emancipation to that end. Of course, Lincoln's writings and speeches abound with condemnations of slavery, and he joined the most explicitly anti-slavery party, the Republican Party, and ran as its second POTUS nominee. I don't usually support ends-justify-the-means thinking, but the arguably extra-legal steps he may have taken still resulted in a great good being accomplished.

      You seem to prefer the EP was not written, n'est pas? Slavery indeed might have died out, true, or it might have lingered on into the 20th century (which it kind of did with Jim Crow, anyway). You also likely would prefer if the Afrikaners were still in charge, and if Zimbabwe was still Rhodesia. I believe that people should govern themselves, and not live under a racial hierarchy. A man's toil should be for the benefit of himself and his family, not for the benefit of elites (white, black, or other). If said people end up being worse than their oppressors, may God judge them. You confederacy-lovers (please, correct me if I'm wrong!) seem to view the antebellum south as a utopia, where Black men and women were kept under the lash working for the comfort of their betters. If so, I truly pity you.

      Delusion? Teacher's unions? Bah. Weak insults from a weak-minded neoconfederate. I am not trying to win you over to reason, that ship has sailed. Your subconscious racial hatred blinds you to the truth. Your 'Cause' is indeed lost.

      Delete
    3. Elders of Zion...don't get me started.

      Delete
    4. That's right, delusion. I could care less about your fanaticism, your outmoded view of whites. You're an anachronism, a relic from the past that refuses to accept the US as it now stands.

      Your bitterness and ill conceived notions of our history are not only a result of the teacher's unions you so idiotically defend, but they are obviously eating you alive.

      My cause "lost"?? The worm turns pal.

      Delete
  9. Those defending the Confederacy are not honest in argumentz

    They dishonestly use parts of the constitution while demonizing others.

    There is no reasonably explanation or rational for their arguments then and especially today these justifications are ridiculous.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Really? Hmmm, please quote the exacr words in the Constitution that says once a state signs off on it, it's no going back.

      While you're at it, ask yourself why Texas, before signing off, had explicit language in it's agreement stating it could in fact leave.
      Do you think that the fact we have our own electrical grid, unconnected from the rest of the country is an accident? Get real.

      Delete
  10. OK .... MMinLamesa ...

    Article I, Section 10 ...

    Section 10
    1: No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

    2: No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.

    3: No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

    So, yes, no explicit forbidding, but really? Ya think they would have put this in thinking that ... over policy differences... like slavery ... states could just leave and then form a new country?

    At some point, after trying to destroy the United States and then for 100 years afterwards openly defying the Constitution putting blacks to into 2nd class status with no rights, y'all would recognize all that was done for "State's Rights" was wrong.

    One would think.


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Maybe you need a remedial course in Englisg 101 because what you apparently think those words say, which is no state can step back, they come no where close to anything like that.

      You don't even get a nice try pal.

      And "think"??? yeah, that would be you I'm sure you "think" so.

      Delete
  11. Let's be honest here: given the state of ignorance in this country when it comes to civics and history how many polled do you think even know much about Lincoln's presidency? I saw this poll ad laughed. Totally meaningless.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't think Trump is better than Lincoln. Apart from the butthurt neo-confederates, most Americans revere him as the Preserver of Union he was. I truly don't want to see if Trump has the same metal, because that would mean a few million Americans would die in an internecine conflict first.

      I will agree with the kloset klansmen (not you acidulous, I mean MN et al)a few posts earlier in one thing: the shape of public education in this country is despicable. That doesn't negate the fact that Lincoln deserves his perch on Rushmore.

      Delete
  12. Lincoln locked up newspaper editors who crossed him. Trump simply ridicules them.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Would that Trump would lock up some newspaper editors. The libel laws need to be revisited.

      Delete
  13. Sundance on the Conservative Tree House Blog illustrated the attack on Trump in its simplest terms:

    "Candidate Trump was framed for stealing a horse; President Trump was subsequently accused of trying too hard to avoid hanging for it. Prosecutor Mueller eventually conceded that Trump didn’t steal the horse; however, by then the focus was on Trump’s efforts to avoid the hanging. Eventually Mueller testified; it surfaced there was never a horse to begin with… Impeachment was stalled. Prosecutor Jerry Nadler is attempting to resurrect a legal theory that President Trump can still be hung for attempting to avoid the hanging, even if there was no horse theft. Yup, that’s were we’re at."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. re amr

      This is really a great way to look at this.

      There was no Prius stolen to begin with. The Dems are just trying jail Trump who owns a bigger fancier Prius for driving while Republican. And the Dems actually dumped their Little Prius in the river for Russian mafia insurance money. All of this is about Dems having Prius Envy.

      I knew there would eventually be someone who could dumb it down as a statement

      Delete
  14. seriuosly? I don't hate him. I feel sad for him that almost whole american hate him. he is addicted to his power. he is crazy. something bad happend since he win the election my shop Vegus168 Line that sells baccarat cards and other casino equipment go bankrupt!. I changed my mind, I HATE HIM!

    ReplyDelete
  15. little known fact about Lincoln. he didn't hang many in general, but those he hung as policy were slave ship captains caught by us navy, which with Britain was blockading Africa to stop the slave trade. as a lawyer, he had to address slavery in a legal fashion.

    but as commander in chief, he STOPPED the slave trade on the high seas. the slavers were "dancing on air," as the saying was.

    waterman

    ReplyDelete