Trump is by far the most incompetent and most unfit person to serve as president.

He's essentially a lame duck 7 months in. He has a decent chance of not finishing his term and 0 chance of re-election.

I'm more curious about what will happen to Trump after his term. His brand will be destroyed and he could be in financial trouble and unable to get money from Russia in the future.

We need to think about what could have been without Trump. Now there will be no reforms in four years, a long time. The work for catching up after him should start now.

Lots of bad Presidents before the Civil War too. A bunch were whatever the equivalent of Confederate sympathizers were before there was a Confederacy and the blame for the Civil War rests with the failure of political and moral leadership 30 years leading up to it. The failures of Pierce and Buchanan in fostering an environment where civil war became inevitable is well known. But it goes back further. John Tyler, 10th President, is as much a traitor as Lee, got himself elected to Confederate congress and is buried under a Confederate flag as a symbolic for instance - to prove just how quietly wedded American political leadership was to slaveocracy. Even before that, Andrew Jackson was obviously a huge piece of ****.

tl;dr summary: we've had a lot of bad Presidents

That we're 7 months into this mess and the Dems have no leadership, no policy platform, no vision of America to hold up as an alternative beyond 'hey this guy is awful and we're not' is pretty appalling.

Andrew Jackson orchestrated a genocide and is on the $20 for ****'s sake. Trump made comments idolizing him during the campaign and no one cared. At least people are talking about Jefferson, etc. now, Jackson isn't even a founding father and should be easy to reject.

Obama is also a war criminal

Straight up droning American citizens without due process

Historical context matters in these debates. Sure some presidents had slaves, for example, which by today's standard is much worse than anything Trump has done. This is a silly standard though. A president must be judged by his historical context. I would therefore argue Trump is a greater deviation from his historical norms than any other president.

I've never had much love for these "who was the best/worst X in the history of Y" discussions. Perhaps this is a learning opportunity for me and someone can explain the value beyond novelty. I suppose I generally do get a bit of ad hoc history out of it.

Christ, Trump is unhinged on Twitter this morning. Tweeting about selling books, visiting MO, winning the election, and oh yea, that hurricane thingy is a big storm.

Good to see what was first on his mind this morning: shilling for Sheriff Clarke's book

JFC. If any of the threads resident attorneys would know or would care to speculate: would a constitutional amendment be required to prohibit this sort of behavior from a future POTUS (plugging books)?

Kinda like how he had zero chance of winning in the first place? IMO, a full court press of voter suppression and the Dems ability to **** up what should be an easy win at least gives Trump a chance at winning again in 2020, no matter what things are like three years from now.

The hilarious part is the reason there isn't a law is because every single POTUS before Daddy Orange had enough self awareness not to do stuff like that.

What percentage of the population do you suppose could name one fact about Andrew Jackson -- or even that he was President?

He's going to Texas. The record setting Play-Doh shortage will soon be alleviated.

It is somewhat amazing that such a code of conduct was voluntarily upheld for so many years. I wonder what sort of speaking fees Trump will be able to command from the KKK and the Aryan Nation once he's out of office.

I disagree. Even if things flat-line for the next 3 years, Trump might get primaried. Outside the core lunatic base, he's unpopular; even in the GOP. And that's assuming we keep the status quo. Taking the past 6-7 months into account, I doubt we are keeping the status quo for the next 3 years.

Probably higher than you think since he's on the $20. If you wanted someone to be able to tell you something other than: 1.) He's on the $20 and 2.) He was a former President then I would agree it's probably low (10-15% range).

IMO, the percentage of the general population that knows Jackson is on the $20 is rather low, obviously lower than the percentage of people who know that Washington is on the $1, Lincoln is on the $5 and Franklin is on the $100.

I am an old, and I realize this is cherrypicked anecdotal evidence, but I was always amazed by the old "Tonight Show" man on the street type segments in which people could not not even identify Lincoln or Washington when shown an image of them.

NYT article showing all of Trump's biggest Twitter opponents and keywords. Nothing too surprising, obviously MSM attacks and "FAKE NEWS" are #1. LOL, even "Opponents of Civil War Monuments" has one attack.

The 363 People, Places and Things Donald Trump Has Insulted on Twitter: A Complete List

I don't feel like this is an important metric. I've only been in the US for a year now from Canada, but I can't say I've ever stopped to inspect the different bills and learn who is who. I only knew for sure the $100 from pop culture reference of people referring to 100 dollar bills as a Franklin but i couldn't select his photo from a list of similar style photographs. Lincoln everyone should know just because his likeness is plastered everywhere.

Is that actually a thing? I have heard Benjamins for 100s a lot, but never Franklins.

Lol olds