Trump vs. Biden - the Final Showdown

[Remus West]

Maybe I'm seeing thru the rose-colored glasses of history, but I don't think our best minds are in government any more, or that those who are have the caliber of those 18th century minds. Let's put it this way: if there's going to be a constitutional convention, I don't want politicians running it. I don't see any Jeffersons or Franklins or Hamiltons among them.

I hate to break it to you, but Jefferson, Franklin, and Hamilton were all politicians.

I believe he is saying that there are no politicians of their caliber left.

[Holman]

I know life is full of contradictions and everyone manages them every day - I just don't see many atheists designing their entire lifestyles around them.

Sure they do, you just don't recognize it.

Can you cite examples? I mean, real world "big" things that would differentiate an atheist from anyone else in terms of lifestyle that requires us to have logical inconsistencies as a group? Not just things on an individual level that might apply to anyone, religious or not.

Sunday brunch?

[El Guapo]

Maybe I'm seeing thru the rose-colored glasses of history, but I don't think our best minds are in government any more, or that those who are have the caliber of those 18th century minds. Let's put it this way: if there's going to be a constitutional convention, I don't want politicians running it. I don't see any Jeffersons or Franklins or Hamiltons among them.

I hate to break it to you, but Jefferson, Franklin, and Hamilton were all politicians.

I believe he is saying that there are no politicians of their caliber left.

I guess I disagree then. They were smart guys who did a lot in unusual circumstances, but obviously they all had their issues - Franklin was a notorious slut (good luck him getting by in a modern media environment), Jefferson recognized the evils of slavery but didn't even get rid of his own slaves, etc. And every era has politicians who rise to the occasion (Lincoln, FDR, etc.) and those who actively make problems worse (George Wallace). You could absolutely put together a convention of people up to the task (though getting from here to there isn't easy).

Just reminds me of Truman's quote - "A statesman is a politician who’s been dead ten or 15 years."

[Kraken]

Maybe I'm seeing thru the rose-colored glasses of history, but I don't think our best minds are in government any more, or that those who are have the caliber of those 18th century minds. Let's put it this way: if there's going to be a constitutional convention, I don't want politicians running it. I don't see any Jeffersons or Franklins or Hamiltons among them.

I hate to break it to you, but Jefferson, Franklin, and Hamilton were all politicians.

I believe he is saying that there are no politicians of their caliber left.

Yeah, I'd call them statesmen. Of course, a statesman is just a master-level politician with good press, but you know the difference. I'm hard-pressed to think of anyone currently serving who belongs in that company.

[Fireball]

Maybe I'm seeing thru the rose-colored glasses of history, but I don't think our best minds are in government any more, or that those who are have the caliber of those 18th century minds. Let's put it this way: if there's going to be a constitutional convention, I don't want politicians running it. I don't see any Jeffersons or Franklins or Hamiltons among them.

I hate to break it to you, but Jefferson, Franklin, and Hamilton were all politicians.

I believe he is saying that there are no politicians of their caliber left.

Yeah, I'd call them statesmen. Of course, a statesman is just a master-level politician with good press, but you know the difference. I'm hard-pressed to think of anyone currently serving who belongs in that company.

That's because history buffs out the flaws of people. Great men rarely seem great at the time. Even Washington was despised by large swaths of the country towards the end of his second term. Lincoln was unpopular and was reelected mostly out of fear that his opponent would cave to the South. Hamilton was completely overlooked in his time and considered a failure. Jefferson had as many detractors as he had supporters and was seen by many as a scheming politician who smeared his opponents in order to win. Everyone liked Benjamin Franklin, probably because he had the good sense to never actually run for high elected office. In short: the people of their day often didn't have much use for the "Great Statesmen" of American history than modern people do for our own flawed leaders.

In 50 years, George H.W. Bush and Barack Obama will likely be viewed as statesmen of the same vein in which we regard, say, Eisenhower or Teddy Roosevelt.

[Remus West]

I feel like Obama already is viewed as one of the best ever.

[RunningMn9]

I feel like Obama already is viewed as one of the best ever.

Best ever what? I don’t imagine he’s viewed as one of the best ever anything.

[Remus West]

I feel like Obama already is viewed as one of the best ever.

Best ever what? I don’t imagine he’s viewed as one of the best ever anything.

[Kraken]

Maybe I'm seeing thru the rose-colored glasses of history, but I don't think our best minds are in government any more, or that those who are have the caliber of those 18th century minds. Let's put it this way: if there's going to be a constitutional convention, I don't want politicians running it. I don't see any Jeffersons or Franklins or Hamiltons among them.

I hate to break it to you, but Jefferson, Franklin, and Hamilton were all politicians.

I believe he is saying that there are no politicians of their caliber left.

Yeah, I'd call them statesmen. Of course, a statesman is just a master-level politician with good press, but you know the difference. I'm hard-pressed to think of anyone currently serving who belongs in that company.

That's because history buffs out the flaws of people. Great men rarely seem great at the time.

I tried to account for that in my remark about rose-colored glasses of history. I do think old-timey statesmen were better-rounded, and often better-educated -- Renaissance men with firm grounding in history, philosophy, literature, rhetoric, law, and logical thinking. That kind of holistic worldview was more common then, and is rare in today's specialized world.

Maybe you could cobble together a convention that could write a new constitution superior to the one we have...but I'm still skeptical.

[RunningMn9]

I feel like Obama already is viewed as one of the best ever.

Best ever what? I don’t imagine he’s viewed as one of the best ever anything.

I should qualify that. Prior to Trump's inauguration, I don't think that Obama was a particularly good President. Intelligent, and a good person, but as a President, I don't think that his resume is very compelling. Today? Yeah, through this lens, he looks like an all-time best everything.

[malchior]

I feel like Obama already is viewed as one of the best ever.

Best ever what? I don’t imagine he’s viewed as one of the best ever anything.

I should qualify that. Prior to Trump's inauguration, I don't think that Obama was a particularly good President. Intelligent, and a good person, but as a President, I don't think that his resume is very compelling. Today? Yeah, through this lens, he looks like an all-time best everything.

Obama did remarkably well when you consider that an entire party took quasi-to-open racist vows of chaos to prevent his entire agenda. He made mistakes - the biggest probably was Syria but his Presidency was essentially corruption free . And it doesn't hurt that he was book ended by the worst President in history and one that might end up in the bottom 10.

[Remus West]

I feel like Obama already is viewed as one of the best ever.

Best ever what? I don’t imagine he’s viewed as one of the best ever anything.

I should qualify that. Prior to Trump's inauguration, I don't think that Obama was a particularly good President. Intelligent, and a good person, but as a President, I don't think that his resume is very compelling. Today? Yeah, through this lens, he looks like an all-time best everything.

Obama did remarkably well when you consider that an entire party took quasi-to-open racist vows of chaos to prevent his entire agenda. He made mistakes - the biggest probably was Syria but his Presidency was essentially corruption free . And it doesn't hurt that he was book ended by the worst President in history and one that might end up in the bottom 10.

This. That he accomplished anything with the open hostility he faced regarding everything is remarkable. Even his biggest scandals are directly tied to that hostility.

[Grifman]

I know life is full of contradictions and everyone manages them every day - I just don't see many atheists designing their entire lifestyles around them.

Sure they do, you just don't recognize it.

Can you cite examples? I mean, real world "big" things that would differentiate an atheist from anyone else in terms of lifestyle that requires us to have logical inconsistencies as a group? Not just things on an individual level that might apply to anyone, religious or not.

If the physical world is all there is, then there is no morality. Yet many/most atheists attempt to live what we would call a moral life. You can try to construct a moral system but it's an entirely arbitrary system, and there's nothing that compels anyone to live by your vision of morality.

Of course, we can go and on about this, and there are many other arguments, all of which I was trying to avoid getting into in this thread, but you asked, and here we are

[LordMortis]

I should qualify that. Prior to Trump's inauguration, I don't think that Obama was a particularly good President. Intelligent, and a good person, but as a President, I don't think that his resume is very compelling. Today? Yeah, through this lens, he looks like an all-time best everything.

It's weird that I both don't think of Obama as a particularly good president but I also think of him as the best president of my political awareness lifetime. I'd say my expectation must be too high, but it's the President of the US. Who do you set much higher expectations for?

[Remus West]

If the physical world is all there is, then there is no morality. Yet many/most atheists attempt to live what we would call a moral life. You can try to construct a moral system but it's an entirely arbitrary system, and there's nothing that compels anyone to live by your vision of morality.

Religious morality is arbitrary too. I believe mankind can be moral without a guiding "extra" power to make us so. Your statement there makes it seem like we need that guiding hand to make it happen.

[Fireball]

Maybe I'm seeing thru the rose-colored glasses of history, but I don't think our best minds are in government any more, or that those who are have the caliber of those 18th century minds. Let's put it this way: if there's going to be a constitutional convention, I don't want politicians running it. I don't see any Jeffersons or Franklins or Hamiltons among them.

I hate to break it to you, but Jefferson, Franklin, and Hamilton were all politicians.

I believe he is saying that there are no politicians of their caliber left.

Yeah, I'd call them statesmen. Of course, a statesman is just a master-level politician with good press, but you know the difference. I'm hard-pressed to think of anyone currently serving who belongs in that company.

That's because history buffs out the flaws of people. Great men rarely seem great at the time.

I tried to account for that in my remark about rose-colored glasses of history. I do think old-timey statesmen were better-rounded, and often better-educated -- Renaissance men with firm grounding in history, philosophy, literature, rhetoric, law, and logical thinking. That kind of holistic worldview was more common then, and is rare in today's specialized world.

Maybe you could cobble together a convention that could write a new constitution superior to the one we have...but I'm still skeptical.

If we were smart and able to do it, we'd just adopt Germany's Constitution. We wrote it for them, and it is superior to ours in basically every way, and designed to keep fringe elements out of power.

[gbasden]

If the physical world is all there is, then there is no morality. Yet many/most atheists attempt to live what we would call a moral life. You can try to construct a moral system but it's an entirely arbitrary system, and there's nothing that compels anyone to live by your vision of morality.

Of course, we can go and on about this, and there are many other arguments, all of which I was trying to avoid getting into in this thread, but you asked, and here we are

The teachings of most religions are great. Christ asks that we care for others above ourselves, help the weak and poor, and treat others as we want to be treated. It's just a shame that a great many of his followers do none of the above.

[geezer]

I know life is full of contradictions and everyone manages them every day - I just don't see many atheists designing their entire lifestyles around them.

Sure they do, you just don't recognize it.

Can you cite examples? I mean, real world "big" things that would differentiate an atheist from anyone else in terms of lifestyle that requires us to have logical inconsistencies as a group? Not just things on an individual level that might apply to anyone, religious or not.

If the physical world is all there is, then there is no morality. Yet many/most atheists attempt to live what we would call a moral life. You can try to construct a moral system but it's an entirely arbitrary system, and there's nothing that compels anyone to live by your vision of morality.

It’s late, and I’m not on a keyboard, so just, “bullshit” (at least insofar as religion - in practice just as human a construct as ethics - creates anything more absolute.)

[Blackhawk]

I know life is full of contradictions and everyone manages them every day - I just don't see many atheists designing their entire lifestyles around them.

Sure they do, you just don't recognize it.

Can you cite examples? I mean, real world "big" things that would differentiate an atheist from anyone else in terms of lifestyle that requires us to have logical inconsistencies as a group? Not just things on an individual level that might apply to anyone, religious or not.

If the physical world is all there is, then there is no morality. Yet many/most atheists attempt to live what we would call a moral life. You can try to construct a moral system but it's an entirely arbitrary system, and there's nothing that compels anyone to live by your vision of morality.

Emphasis mine. If it is compelled, is it truly moral?

When there is an absence of externally compelled morality, it can be replaced with compassion. With compassion, you aren't avoiding harmful actions out of fear of divine consequences, or because those are the imposed rules, and you aren't helping because it is expected or because of a divine reward. Compassion is internal. You act because you genuinely do not want to see others suffer.

We could argue all day which is better, but i will say this: Those who lack the innate compassion and introspection do better when the rules are imposed on them, while those who can look inside will do better without, as they can adapt to changing situations and a changing world.

[Isgrimnur]

[Jaymann]

I like the Calvinist version - you are predestined to be saved or damned, but you should act as if you are one of the saved anyway.

[Kraken]

I like the Calvinist version - you are predestined to be saved or damned, but you should act as if you are one of the saved anyway.

Not when the saved have a stick up their butt.

[Zarathud]

Prior to Trump's inauguration, I don't think that Obama was a particularly good President. Intelligent, and a good person, but as a President, I don't think that his resume is very compelling. Today? Yeah, through this lens, he looks like an all-time best everything.

Yea, but your lens was wrong then.

Obama was grossly under-appreciated.
Obama was hamstrung by the wolves who created Trump, especially Mitch McConnell.

[Little Raven]

I don't think Obama will be remembered as one of the greats by the general public in, say, 50 years. Not for lack of ability, but lack of opportunity. To be considered great, one must have an appropriate challenge to overcome, and Obama was a good enough President to prevent such a challenge from arising in the first place. Good for him, but it did limit his historical appeal. Actual historians who study this stuff will have a much higher opinion of him, being much better informed.

[Blackhawk]

I don't think we'll ever know if Obama was a good President. He was only able to get anything done during the first two out of his eight years. After that it was just spinning his wheels, and he wasn't the one responsible for them spinning.

[Moat_Man]

I don't think Obama will be remembered as one of the greats by the general public in, say, 50 years. Not for lack of ability, but lack of opportunity. To be considered great, one must have an appropriate challenge to overcome, and Obama was a good enough President to prevent such a challenge from arising in the first place. Good for him, but it did limit his historical appeal. Actual historians who study this stuff will have a much higher opinion of him, being much better informed.

Holy crap is that short sighted. Obama's administration saved your country from a financial meltdown that started at the end of Bush's presidency. Don't you remember the crap storm that happened with the mortgage crisis? The targeted bailouts of the financial industry, including propping up a host of the other business, staved off what could have been a total protonic reversal of your banking system.

Now post-finanical crisis I think they could have done a better job of enacting measures to ensure it didn't happen again but he had massive headwind to fight into at every turn. It's amazing he got anything done with the total obstructionist congress he had to deal with.

Trump's getting into power was enabled by a section of the Republican party that embraced the, "never work with the other side", ethic. He is their posterboy and then he turned around and made them all his bitch. It's laughable if it wasn't so sad.

[Zarathud]

Trump and Obama will be forever contrasted. Obama preserved the US economy in the face of a banking crisis, while Trump compounded the economic crisis he faced in a pandemic. Obama passed his signature health care bill while Trump failed to repeal it or build his wall to stop immigrants. First black President vs white nationalist President. Uniter vs divider.

[Paingod]

If the physical world is all there is, then there is no morality. Yet many/most atheists attempt to live what we would call a moral life. You can try to construct a moral system but it's an entirely arbitrary system, and there's nothing that compels anyone to live by your vision of morality.

Religious morality is arbitrary too. I believe mankind can be moral without a guiding "extra" power to make us so. Your statement there makes it seem like we need that guiding hand to make it happen.

We could argue all day which is better, but i will say this: Those who lack the innate compassion and introspection do better when the rules are imposed on them, while those who can look inside will do better without, as they can adapt to changing situations and a changing world.

It’s late, and I’m not on a keyboard, so just, “bullshit” (at least insofar as religion - in practice just as human a construct as ethics - creates anything more absolute.)

I really don't want to derail this excessively, but do want to add that this topic was exactly what was on my mind this morning on my drive in. If someone believes religion is the only thing making a person truly moral, then they must be a fucking monster just below the surface. Atheist morality comes from understanding that good and right things help everyone in society survive and thrive in peace and happiness, not because someone's threatening to spank them if they don't.

This one particular argument that religious people wheel out any time they're challenged by an atheist is probably the single most repugnant and closed-minded thing they can say. It insinuates that if not for the rules of society, we'd be out there eating babies and raping men/women until we were exhausted - and that's as far from the truth as you can get. See also: The countless examples of absolutely inhumane, criminal, and irredeemably evil acts committed throughout history under the guise of "religious moral superiority".

[LordMortis]

If the physical world is all there is, then there is no morality. Yet many/most atheists attempt to live what we would call a moral life. You can try to construct a moral system but it's an entirely arbitrary system, and there's nothing that compels anyone to live by your vision of morality.

Religious morality is arbitrary too. I believe mankind can be moral without a guiding "extra" power to make us so. Your statement there makes it seem like we need that guiding hand to make it happen.

We could argue all day which is better, but i will say this: Those who lack the innate compassion and introspection do better when the rules are imposed on them, while those who can look inside will do better without, as they can adapt to changing situations and a changing world.

It’s late, and I’m not on a keyboard, so just, “bullshit” (at least insofar as religion - in practice just as human a construct as ethics - creates anything more absolute.)

I really don't want to derail this excessively, but do want to add that this topic was exactly what was on my mind this morning on my drive in. If someone believes religion is the only thing making a person truly moral, then they must be a fucking monster just below the surface. Atheist morality comes from understanding that good and right things help everyone in society survive and thrive in peace and happiness, not because someone's threatening to spank them if they don't.

This one particular argument that religious people wheel out any time they're challenged by an atheist is probably the single most repugnant and closed-minded thing they can say. It insinuates that if not for the rules of society, we'd be out there eating babies and raping men/women until we were exhausted - and that's as far from the truth as you can get. See also: The countless examples of absolutely inhumane, criminal, and irredeemably evil acts committed throughout history under the guise of "religious moral superiority".

I don't pretend to understand religion but my mother is deeply religious and at her core there are two things she believes, you have to truly strive to be good and you have give yourself to Jesus and God. She doesn't do unto others as Jesus would have her do. She does unto others as she would have others do unto her. That's not the key to heaven, though. The key to heaven belief in and loving of Jesus and his Father. We are sinners and Jesus will love us anyway as long as accept him as our savior. If anything Jesus is your get out jail free card but a moral person rejects this card and is good in spite of having a savior. (I don't for a moment believe the masses of her church work this way though. Mom is a giving person in extreme. I think that gives her a purpose, even as it is a never ending source of stress. It doesn't take much to see people taking advantage.)

[Little Raven]

Holy crap is that short sighted. Obama's administration saved your country from a financial meltdown that started at the end of Bush's presidency. Don't you remember the crap storm that happened with the mortgage crisis? The targeted bailouts of the financial industry, including propping up a host of the other business, staved off what could have been a total protonic reversal of your banking system.

Of course I do. But most people in 50 years won't - precisely because Obama was able to head it off before it became Great Depression 2.0. And it's going to be further buried by the fact that Trump seems poised to GIVE us Great Depression 2.0.

I have a very high opinion of Obama, and I think future historians will as well....but most people are not historians. To make a lasting impression on the group that doesn't actually know very much history, you have to do something very flashy, like win a war.

[Unagi]

In 50 years, most people wont know dick about Obama, accept what the Historians tell them.
So, I think he will age well.

[LawBeefaroni]

I know life is full of contradictions and everyone manages them every day - I just don't see many atheists designing their entire lifestyles around them.

Sure they do, you just don't recognize it.

Can you cite examples? I mean, real world "big" things that would differentiate an atheist from anyone else in terms of lifestyle that requires us to have logical inconsistencies as a group? Not just things on an individual level that might apply to anyone, religious or not.

If the physical world is all there is, then there is no morality. Yet many/most atheists attempt to live what we would call a moral life. You can try to construct a moral system but it's an entirely arbitrary system, and there's nothing that compels anyone to live by your vision of morality.

It’s late, and I’m not on a keyboard, so just, “bullshit” (at least insofar as religion - in practice just as human a construct as ethics - creates anything more absolute.)

Atheist morality and religious morality, both forms of philosophical altruism, could very well have the same root source: biological altruism.

[Paingod]

In 50 years, most people wont know dick about Obama, accept what the Historians tell them.
So, I think he will age well.

Trump may very well be one everyone still knows by name, but for very terrible reasons.

Historians have already done some weighing in on his "Presidential-ness" in comparison to others, and he was damn near the bottom of the list before 2020.

[Little Raven]

So, I think he will age well.

Oh, he'll age well, but I'll be surprised if he joins the likes of Lincoln, Washington, or FDR.

[Unagi]

Well, you mean lionized?

You need to hold a special place in history for that, and well - he sorta holds a special place in history. It's not like the birth of the country, or the civil war - but his election was fairly historic in it's own right.

[Holman]

Maybe the "basis of morality" conversation needs a separate thread?

But I can't resist throwing out there that modern Western Europe is probably the closest thing we've ever had to a genuinely atheistic civilization (not just officially atheistic, like the USSR), and its rates of violent crime are among the lowest in the world.

Murder rates (not just killing, as in warfare, but actual murder between civilians) were much, much higher in Europe when it was culturally unified as religious Christendom.

EDIT: Of course I don't mean to imply a linear relation between atheism and morality: prosperity and the social safety net probably have more to do with it than irreligion does. But it's notable that a culture where God is more or less gone from the public sphere can do better than almost anyone on objective measures of ethical behavior.

[Holman]

So, I think he will age well.

Oh, he'll age well, but I'll be surprised if he joins the likes of Lincoln, Washington, or FDR.

It's good (for one's ranking) to be a very competent president, but it's even better to be a very competent president during an extreme national crisis.

Obama was very competent and uncommonly dedicated to the public good, but his historical ranking will suffer because 2008-2016 was relatively stable (historically speaking).

That's why Trump will be ranked at the very bottom. He was incompetent as a baseline and the most dishonest man ever to hold office, but he met two national crises (race relations and Covid-19) with the kind of spectacular ineptitude that made everything worse in every way. Only Buchanan was worse, and only because the crisis he exacerbated was so much worse.

[Little Raven]

That's why Trump will be ranked at the very bottom.

Yeah, I suspect that Trump is going to end up on pretty much every "Worst 10 Presidents ever" list from here on out. Benjamin Harrison and Chester Arthur are no doubt heaving sighs of relief right now.

[LordMortis]

Obama was very competent and uncommonly dedicated to the public good, but his historical ranking will suffer because 2008-2016 was relatively stable (historically speaking).

This is actually exactly why I rank him the best president of my political awareness lifetime. He took the impending and ongoing shitstorm that was on track to literally collapse our entire economy and collective way of life and worked with Congress to create a fragile prosperity.

He had a lot of fail. He had a lot of executive office over-reach and an arrogance in statesman's clothing that fed it. But the short of it is his work and the work of the people around him saved us all from the irresponsible exercise of unchecked banking power and those with no regard for their ability to pay for things. For a time their work stopped the can kicking that went back to Clinton (on securing property through loans with little regard on paying them back) and even Reagan (on unchecked banking).

I dunno how history will view him but to date, for all of the flaws I saw, he's still number 1 for me (and I didn't even vote for him in 2012).

[Paingod]

That's why Trump will be ranked at the very bottom.

Yeah, I suspect that Trump is going to end up on pretty much every "Worst 10 Presidents ever" list from here on out. Benjamin Harrison and Chester Arthur are no doubt heaving sighs of relief right now.

I'm rolling for bottom 5, if not lowest three.