CDZ Is Trump more like Grant, Sherman or Churchill?

[martybegan]

Taft

That's just because of the girth, and you can't be Taft-esque without a kickass mustache.

 

[Moonglow]

Trump is closer to a Jimmy Carter leadership...

 

[Pogo]

Taft

That's just because of the girth, and you can't be Taft-esque without a kickass mustache.

I still say Chester Alan Arthur's is the standard.

 

[toobfreak]

So.....Because of the reaction to Trump from the left and the establishment republicans, it reminded me of the story Hugh Hewitt told about President Lincoln when he was told by establisment republican politicians and generals that he needed to get rid of General Grant. These establishment types didn't like Grant, he was not dignified, he drank too much, was a messy dresser....but he knew how to fight the war.....and Lincoln replied to these requests....I can't lose this man, he fights.....

Churchill....another guy that the left wingers and establisment types couldn't stand.....but he knew how to fight.....

So...who is Trump more like....Churchill, Grant or even General Sherman....?

Victor Davis Hanson - Civilization's 'Darkest Hour'

Chamberlain and senior conservative politician Edward Wood both considered Churchill unhinged for believing Britain could survive.


The Bigmouth Tradition of American Leadership

Grant/Sherman

Both Ulysses S. Grant and William Tecumseh Sherman were military geniuses. Grant was quiet and reflective — at least in his public persona, which gave scant hint that he struggled with alcohol and often displayed poor judgement about those who surrounded him. Sherman was loud. He was often petty, and certainly ready in a heartbeat to engage in frequent feuds, many of them cul de sacs and counter-productive. Sherman threatened to imprison or even hang critical journalists and waged a bitter feud with the secretary of war, Edwin Stanton. Too few, then or now, have appreciated that the uncouth Sherman, in fact, displayed both a prescient genius and an uncanny understanding of human nature. Whereas Grant could brilliantly envision how his armies might beat the enemy along a battle line or capture a key fortress or open a river, Sherman’s insight encompassed whole regions and theaters, in calibrating how both economics and sociology might mesh with military strategy to crush an entire people. For all of Grant’s purported drinking and naïveté about the scoundrels around him, his outward professional bearing, his understated appearance of steadiness and discretion, enhanced his well-earned reputation for masterful control in times of crises. The volatile and loquacious nature of Sherman, in contrast, often hid and diminished appreciation of his talents — in some ways greater than Grant’s. To the stranger, Grant would have seemed the less likely to have had too much to drink and smoked too many daily cigars, Sherman the more prone to all sorts of such addictions.

Read more at: The Bigmouth Tradition of American Leadership

Trump: The Unlikeliest Churchillian

Chamberlain resigned, and Churchill accepted King George VI's appointment to the position of prime minister, but the king, and both parties of Parliament, loathed Churchill.

------

To the horror of our 2016 establishment, Donald Trump was elected. He has been as loathed as Churchill was when he took on the P.M. job as the catastrophe at Dunkirk was unfolding. Like Churchill, Trump is a bit reckless with his opinions and his speech. Churchill regularly offended people on both sides of the political spectrum, as does Trump. Churchill was innovative, imaginative. He devised the civilian boat rescue of all those soldiers at Dunkirk. It worked. Trump has, in a year, defeated ISIS, although the media are loath to report that. Trump has revitalized the economy beyond anything Obama was able to do. He has successfully rolled back the restrictive regulations Obama put in place that have strangled the economy and suppressed GDP growth to 2% for eight years.

When all the smoke clears from all the liberal bullshit years from now and we look back honestly, the world and nation will see Trump as a visionary and as a bold, passionate leader, one of the greatest in the last 200 years, who despite unprecedented obstacles and resistance, went against the corrupted flow and forged ahead to do the right things and who truly changed the world for the better in ways few men in history have.

 

[Pogo]

Trump is closer to a Jimmy Carter leadership...

Mmm... not really. Carter never started a war, never dropped a bomb, never fired a shot. Only POTUS in the last 85 years who can say that.

Needless to say that's why the PTB had to make sure he didn't stay on. You can't have a POTUS sitting around not starting wars. That's unAmerican.

 

[Moonglow]

Trump is closer to a Jimmy Carter leadership...

Mmm... not really. Carter never started a war, never dropped a bomb, never fired a shot. Only POTUS in the last 85 years who can say that.

Trump has yet to prove his manliness by doing anything as of yet also...

 

[Moonglow]

So.....Because of the reaction to Trump from the left and the establishment republicans, it reminded me of the story Hugh Hewitt told about President Lincoln when he was told by establisment republican politicians and generals that he needed to get rid of General Grant. These establishment types didn't like Grant, he was not dignified, he drank too much, was a messy dresser....but he knew how to fight the war.....and Lincoln replied to these requests....I can't lose this man, he fights.....

Churchill....another guy that the left wingers and establisment types couldn't stand.....but he knew how to fight.....

So...who is Trump more like....Churchill, Grant or even General Sherman....?

Victor Davis Hanson - Civilization's 'Darkest Hour'

Chamberlain and senior conservative politician Edward Wood both considered Churchill unhinged for believing Britain could survive.


The Bigmouth Tradition of American Leadership

Grant/Sherman

Both Ulysses S. Grant and William Tecumseh Sherman were military geniuses. Grant was quiet and reflective — at least in his public persona, which gave scant hint that he struggled with alcohol and often displayed poor judgement about those who surrounded him. Sherman was loud. He was often petty, and certainly ready in a heartbeat to engage in frequent feuds, many of them cul de sacs and counter-productive. Sherman threatened to imprison or even hang critical journalists and waged a bitter feud with the secretary of war, Edwin Stanton. Too few, then or now, have appreciated that the uncouth Sherman, in fact, displayed both a prescient genius and an uncanny understanding of human nature. Whereas Grant could brilliantly envision how his armies might beat the enemy along a battle line or capture a key fortress or open a river, Sherman’s insight encompassed whole regions and theaters, in calibrating how both economics and sociology might mesh with military strategy to crush an entire people. For all of Grant’s purported drinking and naïveté about the scoundrels around him, his outward professional bearing, his understated appearance of steadiness and discretion, enhanced his well-earned reputation for masterful control in times of crises. The volatile and loquacious nature of Sherman, in contrast, often hid and diminished appreciation of his talents — in some ways greater than Grant’s. To the stranger, Grant would have seemed the less likely to have had too much to drink and smoked too many daily cigars, Sherman the more prone to all sorts of such addictions.

Read more at: The Bigmouth Tradition of American Leadership

Trump: The Unlikeliest Churchillian

Chamberlain resigned, and Churchill accepted King George VI's appointment to the position of prime minister, but the king, and both parties of Parliament, loathed Churchill.

------

To the horror of our 2016 establishment, Donald Trump was elected. He has been as loathed as Churchill was when he took on the P.M. job as the catastrophe at Dunkirk was unfolding. Like Churchill, Trump is a bit reckless with his opinions and his speech. Churchill regularly offended people on both sides of the political spectrum, as does Trump. Churchill was innovative, imaginative. He devised the civilian boat rescue of all those soldiers at Dunkirk. It worked. Trump has, in a year, defeated ISIS, although the media are loath to report that. Trump has revitalized the economy beyond anything Obama was able to do. He has successfully rolled back the restrictive regulations Obama put in place that have strangled the economy and suppressed GDP growth to 2% for eight years.

When all the smoke clears from all the liberal bullshit years from now and we look back honestly, the world and nation will see Trump as a visionary and as a bold, passionate leader, one of the greatest in the last 200 years, who despite unprecedented obstacles and resistance, went against the corrupted flow and forged ahead to do the right things and who truly changed the world for the better in ways few men in history have.

 

[toobfreak]

Trump is closer to a Jimmy Carter leadership...

Mmm... not really. Carter never started a war, never dropped a bomb, never fired a shot. Only POTUS in the last 85 years who can say that.

Carter also never won a war, never brought home a single hostage, and never solved a gas shortage. He didn't do anything but sit there and try to grin.

 

[martybegan]

Taft

That's just because of the girth, and you can't be Taft-esque without a kickass mustache.

I still say Chester Alan Arthur's is the standard.

As far as presidents go, sure, but Burnside is still the gold standard.

 

[martybegan]

Trump is closer to a Jimmy Carter leadership...

Mmm... not really. Carter never started a war, never dropped a bomb, never fired a shot. Only POTUS in the last 85 years who can say that.

Needless to say that's why the PTB had to make sure he didn't stay on. You can't have a POTUS sitting around not starting wars. That's unAmerican.

So you honestly think zero black ops went on from 1976-1980 under a former naval officer?

LOL.

And maybe if he did do some bomb dropping or bullet firing while in office during the Iran thing he might have gotten a second term.

 

[Pogo]

Trump is closer to a Jimmy Carter leadership...

Mmm... not really. Carter never started a war, never dropped a bomb, never fired a shot. Only POTUS in the last 85 years who can say that.

Needless to say that's why the PTB had to make sure he didn't stay on. You can't have a POTUS sitting around not starting wars. That's unAmerican.

So you honestly think zero black ops went on from 1976-1980 under a former naval officer?

LOL.

And maybe if he did do some bomb dropping or bullet firing while in office during the Iran thing he might have gotten a second term.

As it was he got those hostages back --- again, without firing a shot. Is that not preferable?

I made no mention of "black ops". I said POTUS. That means as official US policy.

Now if we want to get into who the President of the Shadow Government is, that's a whole 'nother thread. And not an uninteresting one.

 

[MarathonMike]

Teddy Roosevelt.

 

[Pogo]

Trump is closer to a Jimmy Carter leadership...

Mmm... not really. Carter never started a war, never dropped a bomb, never fired a shot. Only POTUS in the last 85 years who can say that.

Carter also never won a war, never brought home a single hostage, and never solved a gas shortage. He didn't do anything but sit there and try to grin.

Actually he brought them all home. Literally went to meet the plane when it first touched down in Germany.

Wars? If you don't start 'em ---- you don't need to win 'em. War is the ultimate human failure. It always has two losers.

As far as oil, that's an international fungible commodity. Unless you want to nationalize oil companies and build your system sui generis, a POTUS can't control that. Nixon had the same problem.

 

[martybegan]

Trump is closer to a Jimmy Carter leadership...

Mmm... not really. Carter never started a war, never dropped a bomb, never fired a shot. Only POTUS in the last 85 years who can say that.

Needless to say that's why the PTB had to make sure he didn't stay on. You can't have a POTUS sitting around not starting wars. That's unAmerican.

So you honestly think zero black ops went on from 1976-1980 under a former naval officer?

LOL.

And maybe if he did do some bomb dropping or bullet firing while in office during the Iran thing he might have gotten a second term.

As it was he got those hostages back --- again, without firing a shot. Is that not preferable?

I made no mention of "black ops". I said POTUS. That means as official US policy.

Black ops IS official US policy, we just don't know about it.

Well the Iranians got to humiliate us and have spent the next 4 decades thumbing their noses at us, so maybe some shots fired back then would have prevented all this.

 

[Pogo]

Trump is closer to a Jimmy Carter leadership...

Mmm... not really. Carter never started a war, never dropped a bomb, never fired a shot. Only POTUS in the last 85 years who can say that.

Needless to say that's why the PTB had to make sure he didn't stay on. You can't have a POTUS sitting around not starting wars. That's unAmerican.

So you honestly think zero black ops went on from 1976-1980 under a former naval officer?

LOL.

And maybe if he did do some bomb dropping or bullet firing while in office during the Iran thing he might have gotten a second term.

As it was he got those hostages back --- again, without firing a shot. Is that not preferable?

I made no mention of "black ops". I said POTUS. That means as official US policy.

Black ops IS official US policy, we just don't know about it.

Well the Iranians got to humiliate us and have spent the next 4 decades thumbing their noses at us, so maybe some shots fired back then would have prevented all this.

By definition if we don't know about it ---- it can't be "official".

Maybe not sending those same black ops in there in 1953 would have prevented all this. Ya think?

 

[toobfreak]

Wars? If you don't start 'em ---- you don't need to win 'em.

That's pretty funny. Tell that to the survivors of Czechoslovakia, Austria, Poland, Norway, Belgium, The Netherlands, France, and Pearl Harbor.

 

[Correll]

I'm fairly certain that Churchill never described the Nazis as "very fine people". So... there's that.

Neither did Trump.

Back up your claim or admit you are a liar.

I didn't mention Rump --- you did. Therefore only you can be a liar. That is, of course, pending refutation.

And here it is now. You're welcome. Yeah he also said "the press has treated them very unfairly" .

But of course the comparison is not quite fair, since Nazis did not exist in Grant's and Sherman's time so they could not have opined on them. So to balance the comment I would venture to say that neither Grant nor Sherman ever said "Black guys counting my money --- I hate it. The only people I want counting my money are short guys that wear yarmulkes every day".

Although I suppose either of them might have said, "they don't look like Indians to me, and they don't look like Indians to Indians" .

1. YOur pretense that your statement was not an obvious smear of President Trump is an absurd lie, and dismissed.


2. Your link is full of a falsehoods, the biggest one, ignoring the fact that the rally's stated reason was not "White Nationalism" but to save historical statues.

Designed by the rally organizers to bring in people from OUTSIDE their normal base, ie white nationalists.


Thus, plenty of good people who just were against the tearing down of historical statues, did indeed show up.


3. The White Nationalists did that in a dishonest attempt to inflate their perceived numbers and, thus, relevance. When you call all the people that showed up, white nationalists, you are working with them in that effort.


Why are you allied with the White Nationalists?

Hey, those are his words. You'll have to deal with 'em......

I did deal with them. I explained how your characterization of them was completely false.


YOu ignored that, because you know it is true, and simply repeated your original assertion.


That is the Logical Fallacy of Proof by Assertion used as political propaganda.


Your point is invalid. You lose.


My points stand.


Trump was right, plenty of good people support keeping those historical statues.


Your claim that he said something he did not say, was incorrect, and now that you have been corrected and you still holding to it,

you are being actively and purposefully dishonest.

YOu lose again.

 

[Correll]

Sherman on steroids and amphetamines.

Nah he's on the opposing side that Sherman fought against

Trump is not for slavery nor leaving the Union.


Try to be less bat shit crazy.

You don't know those things. He supported Roy Moore and said some Nazi's are good people.

What he said was that some good people support keeping the statues.


Why did you lie about what he said?


Are you that sure that you can't make a point without lying?

 

[jon_berzerk]

None of the above. Grant, Sherman and Churchill were all adults.

But given the limitation of these three I guess I would say he's most like Grant, who expelled Jews from his administrative territory of Tennessee/Kentucky/Mississippi.

Why would you use that example...considering Trump is a great friend of Israel....?

Because, as Grant expelled Jews, so Rump (wants to) expel Muslims. In both cases antiConstitutional bullshit bigotry based on religion, and in both cases stopped in their tracks by higher government that doesn't automatically disregard the Constitution.

Same shit, different day.

I guess the case could be made that Rump "burned" Atlantic City just as Sherman "burned" Atlanta, but that's kind of a mixed metaphor. Grant's infamous General Order No. 11 is far more close a parallel. It's the same thing.

Please explain where Trump has stated or even acted to expel muslims......even his travel holds on immigrants from terrorist countries don't target muslims...since of the 52 muslim controlled countries, only 6 have holds on their immigration......and the largest muslim controlled countries aren't on the list.....so you will lie all day long...and the Supreme Court has upheld his immigration holds since that power clearly resides in the executive branch.

Please...explain to us how holding immigration from 6 countries...out of 52 muslim controlled countries is bigotry based on religion. Explain how not holding immigration from the 52 muslim controlled countries with the largest popultions of muslims in the world is bigotry....please....go ahead...try to explain it...

Please explain where Trump has stated or even acted to expel muslims.

he cant because he is a lying about Trump

He did, because it's on video. Nothing you can do about that except acknowledge it.

The transparent revisionism going on in the OP by the way, is trying to "legitimize" Rump by comparing three military officers with an entitled elitist wimp who wiggled out of the same service claiming "bone spurs while playing squash" and then had the callous effrontery to claim he served his "own personal Vietnam" by avoiding AIDS in New York sex clubs.

once again you are simply a liar

 

[Pogo]

Sherman on steroids and amphetamines.

Nah he's on the opposing side that Sherman fought against

Trump is not for slavery nor leaving the Union.


Try to be less bat shit crazy.

You don't know those things. He supported Roy Moore and said some Nazi's are good people.

What he said was that some good people support keeping the statues.


Why did you lie about what he said?


Are you that sure that you can't make a point without lying?

Nnnnnnnnnnnnope. He doesn't mention statues there --- he says "many fine people on both sides".

Whelp --- guess who was on one of those sides.