KaiBear said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

historian said:

---

Lincoln was only divisive because he stood for America's founding principles (see the Declaration of Independence) while the South was obsessed with maintaining and expanding slavery. Yes, I know the Civil War was about a lot more than slavery and the southern focus was on "states rights" (still an important issue). But at the root of all the division and all their rhetoric was slavery. The reality of it is much more complicated but it's still at the top of the list of issues dividing the country along with industrialization.

---

Not a slam on Lincoln at all ... but he literally presided over the War Between the States. Not his fault but ...

---

Lincoln most certainly contributed to onset of the Civil War.
Both with his rhetoric prior to his presidential election and aggressive actions soon after taking office.

Easily one of the most overrated presidents in US history. But a timely assassination does wonders for ones legacy.

---

Lincoln's "aggressive" actions at the beginning of his presidency were in response to provocations by Southern states. In every state of the conflict, including before the 1860 election, they deserve all the blame for what happened:

- By splitting the Democrat party and running to presidential candidates, they handed the White House to Lincoln in a silver platter. The southern Democrats were responsible for that.

- Southern states began seceding in December, months before Lincoln's inauguration. That divided the nation more than anything else had since the War for Independence.

- It was southerners who started the war when they fired the first shots, bombarding Ft Sumter in Charleston harbor.

etc

These ard the biggest examples, but there are more.

Biden has zero competency: He has trouble remembering basic facts about his family. (Beau did not die in combat in Iraq & his uncle probably was not eaten by cannibals). He requires detailed cheat sheets to deal with the press or any kind of meeting. He shakes hands with ghosts. He abruptly walks out of a room or off a stage. He cannot climb stairs consistently.

He is the best example of elder abuse and the poster boy for the effects of dementia. It's very sad but also very dangerous since he ostensibly holds the most important job on the planet.

historian said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

historian said:

---

Lincoln was only divisive because he stood for America's founding principles (see the Declaration of Independence) while the South was obsessed with maintaining and expanding slavery. Yes, I know the Civil War was about a lot more than slavery and the southern focus was on "states rights" (still an important issue). But at the root of all the division and all their rhetoric was slavery. The reality of it is much more complicated but it's still at the top of the list of issues dividing the country along with industrialization.

---

Not a slam on Lincoln at all ... but he literally presided over the War Between the States. Not his fault but ...

---

Lincoln most certainly contributed to onset of the Civil War.
Both with his rhetoric prior to his presidential election and aggressive actions soon after taking office.

Easily one of the most overrated presidents in US history. But a timely assassination does wonders for ones legacy.

---

Lincoln's "aggressive" actions at the beginning of his presidency were in response to provocations by Southern states. In every state of the conflict, including before the 1860 election, they deserve all the blame for what happened:

- By splitting the Democrat party and running to presidential candidates, they handed the White House to Lincoln in a silver platter. The southern Democrats were responsible for that.

- Southern states began seceding in December, months before Lincoln's inauguration. That divided the nation more than anything else had since the War for Independence.

- It was southerners who started the war when they fired the first shots, bombarding Ft Sumter in Charleston harbor.

etc
These ard the biggest examples, but there are more.

---

Fair points …….but from an exclusively Northern perspective.

As you probably know :

Even a unified Democratic Party could not have prevented a Republican victory and Lincoln's elevation into the White House.

Lincoln repeatedly refused to peacefully restore Fort Sumner to the state of South Carolina ( as occurred in Texas and other southern states ) and publicly announced the sending of reinforcements. Thereby making the vital port of Charleston untenable to southern merchant shipping.

By no means did the South 'deserve' the carnage that was thrust upon them. Their leadership repeatedly begged the Northern abolitionists to let them go in peace . That the southern states had no desire to invade the North; if allowed to leave …..as their citizens had OVERWHELMINGLY voted to do so.

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

October 7th happened to Netanyahu's country on Netanyahu's watch with a warning from his intelligence and ours.

And y'all want to blame Biden.

So glad we no longer have a grifter foreign policy. Israel is one multi billion dollar deal away from Trump supporting Hamas.

Biden gets my vote, again.

---

He didn't get it the first time. Does it not concern you that he is a puppet or are you just team first? Abortions for all, trans men, open borders - that sort of thing?

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

So glad we no longer have a grifter foreign policy. Israel is one multi billion dollar deal away from Trump supporting Hamas.

Biden gets my vote, again.

---

Yeah, those days under Trump not being involved in any foreign wars really sucked! So glad China Joe fixed that for us. Multi billion dollar foreign policy? Biden has sent $Billions to Ukraine and Iran. Isn't that special?

What is hilarious to think about is that these demonstrating ragheads in the U.S. think that Biden supports Israel, but he has made it very clear he does not. A vote for Biden is a vote for Hamas.

I don't see it as a northern perspective; I see it as an American perspective. Lincoln was President of the United States, not the dis-United States. Ft Sumter didn't belong to South Carolina, it was a federal fort and the men stationed inside were soldiers in the U.S. Army. As commander in chief, it was Lincoln's responsibility to do everything possible for them. There never was any question of him doing his job, unlike some modern presidents.

historian said:

---

I don't see it as a northern perspective; I see it as an American perspective. Lincoln was President of the United States, not the dis-United States. Ft Sumter didn't belong to South Carolina, it was a federal fort and the men stationed inside were soldiers in the U.S. Army. As commander in chief, it was Lincoln's responsibility to do everything possible for them. There never was any question of him doing his job, unlike some modern presidents.

---

The very fact that secession was overwhelmingly approved by southern voters in each state …..and that the North invaded the south despite their pleas for a peaceful separation ….tells you whatever you need to know .

The north was never going to allow the southern economy to become the stronger of the two.

Northerners were never going to allow the south to conduct their own affairs as political equals.

The south was doomed to economic and political domination whatever course it chose.

And they chose to night ….against long odds .

So almost 700,000 Americans died .


For nothing .

KaiBear said:

---

historian said:

---

I don't see it as a northern perspective; I see it as an American perspective. Lincoln was President of the United States, not the dis-United States. Ft Sumter didn't belong to South Carolina, it was a federal fort and the men stationed inside were soldiers in the U.S. Army. As commander in chief, it was Lincoln's responsibility to do everything possible for them. There never was any question of him doing his job, unlike some modern presidents.

---

The very fact that secession was overwhelmingly approved by southern voters in each state …..and that the North invaded the south despite their pleas for a peaceful separation ….tells you whatever you need to know .

The north was never going to allow the southern economy to become the stronger of the two.

Northerners were never going to allow the south to conduct their own affairs as political equals.

The south was doomed to economic and political domination whatever course it chose.

And they chose to night ….against long odds .

So almost 700,000 Americans died .


For nothing .

---

Kinda like the 700,000 Biden onama and dem voters sent to their deaths

But they too dumb to even realize it and or don't care.

And they go a little more broke each month.

That CB is the Confederate point of view. The north used its army to put down a rebellion after the rebellious states formed their own army.

If you read Lincoln's First Inaugural Address, he makes clear his positions on all the main issues: slavery, secession, rebellion, etc. He never accepted secession is legitimate and he had a sound constitutional argument to back that up.

Once one gets beyond secession and realizes it was a rebellion (the dictionary definition of one) then everything else follows. No society founded on the rule of law can allow armed bandits roaming the countryside defying legitimate authority & terrorizing any part of the country. Yes, many southerners supported the Confederacy and eagerly joined up (including some of my ancestors) but when they invited the north, most notably in the Antietam & Gettysburg campaigns, the were more like marauders.

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

October 7th happened to Netanyahu's country on Netanyahu's watch with a warning from his intelligence and ours.

And y'all want to blame Biden.

So glad we no longer have a grifter foreign policy. Israel is one multi billion dollar deal away from Trump supporting Hamas.

Biden gets my vote, again.

---

Obvious who benefitted from the removal of literacy tests to vote.

Fre3dombear said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

historian said:

---

I don't see it as a northern perspective; I see it as an American perspective. Lincoln was President of the United States, not the dis-United States. Ft Sumter didn't belong to South Carolina, it was a federal fort and the men stationed inside were soldiers in the U.S. Army. As commander in chief, it was Lincoln's responsibility to do everything possible for them. There never was any question of him doing his job, unlike some modern presidents.

---

The very fact that secession was overwhelmingly approved by southern voters in each state …..and that the North invaded the south despite their pleas for a peaceful separation ….tells you whatever you need to know .

The north was never going to allow the southern economy to become the stronger of the two.

Northerners were never going to allow the south to conduct their own affairs as political equals.

The south was doomed to economic and political domination whatever course it chose.

And they chose to night ….against long odds .

So almost 700,000 Americans died .


For nothing .

---

And they go a little more broke each month.

---

Indeed, credit card debt has never been higher.


Economic firestorm without any firewalls is inevitable.

Frank Galvin said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Examples?

---

Your previous comment .

Typical entitlement.

---

As I thought. You got nothing.

---

LOL

Always amusing when mediocrities like you anoint themselves as the 'winner' of an Internet discussion.

Guess it's easier than going on a treadmill for an hour.

denial ain't just a river.............

- KKM

{ sipping mr coffee's sweet sweet pungent acrid nectar }

{ hyper-glucosing }

KaiBear said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Examples?

---

Your previous comment .

Typical entitlement.

---

As I thought. You got nothing.

---

LOL

Always amusing when mediocrities like you anoint themselves as the 'winner' of an Internet discussion.

Guess it's easier than going on a treadmill for an hour.

---

I won because you refused to play.


Again specific examples of words, acts, or policies that were unusually divisive. Do you have any or is it just unsupported opinion?

Frank Galvin said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Examples?

---

Your previous comment .

Typical entitlement.

---

As I thought. You got nothing.

---

LOL

Always amusing when mediocrities like you anoint themselves as the 'winner' of an Internet discussion.

Guess it's easier than going on a treadmill for an hour.

---

I won because you refused to play.


Again specific examples of words, acts, or policies that were unusually divisive. Do you have any or is it just unsupported opinion?

---

Hilarious how you feels entitled to make the rules on a free message board .

As if any amount of time spent or links provided would alter your attitude in the slightest.

Frank Galvin said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Examples?

---

Your previous comment .

Typical entitlement.

---

As I thought. You got nothing.

---

LOL

Always amusing when mediocrities like you anoint themselves as the 'winner' of an Internet discussion.

Guess it's easier than going on a treadmill for an hour.

---

I won because you refused to play.


Again specific examples of words, acts, or policies that were unusually divisive. Do you have any or is it just unsupported opinion?

---

Hilarious how you feels entitled to make the rules on a free message board .

As if any amount of time spent or links provided would alter your attitude in the slightest.

---

Discussions where people just trade opinions with no basis aren't very interesting.

---

So you get to determine what constitutes a 'basis' ?

Would be 'interesting' to learn the basics of such an ego.

Suspect it's underwhelming.

KaiBear said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Examples?

---

Your previous comment .

Typical entitlement.

---

As I thought. You got nothing.

---

LOL

Always amusing when mediocrities like you anoint themselves as the 'winner' of an Internet discussion.

Guess it's easier than going on a treadmill for an hour.

---

I won because you refused to play.


Again specific examples of words, acts, or policies that were unusually divisive. Do you have any or is it just unsupported opinion?

---

Hilarious how you feels entitled to make the rules on a free message board .

As if any amount of time spent or links provided would alter your attitude in the slightest.

---

Discussions where people just trade opinions with no basis aren't very interesting.

---

So you get to determine what constitutes a 'basis' ?

Would be 'interesting' to learn the basics of such an ego.

Suspect it's underwhelming.

---

You are a weird cat. And apparently an insecure one.

Asking what factual basis you have for supporting the idea that Obama was an unusually divisive president. What did he do that made people like him or dislike him more than the normal president? Divisive to me has an element of intentionality-you want to set up an us against them narrative. That never seemed like Obama to me.

If you disagree great. But usually discussion boards involve saying why you disagree.

Frank Galvin said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Examples?

---

Your previous comment .

Typical entitlement.

---

As I thought. You got nothing.

---

LOL

Always amusing when mediocrities like you anoint themselves as the 'winner' of an Internet discussion.

Guess it's easier than going on a treadmill for an hour.

---

I won because you refused to play.


Again specific examples of words, acts, or policies that were unusually divisive. Do you have any or is it just unsupported opinion?

---

Hilarious how you feels entitled to make the rules on a free message board .

As if any amount of time spent or links provided would alter your attitude in the slightest.

---

Discussions where people just trade opinions with no basis aren't very interesting.

---

So you get to determine what constitutes a 'basis' ?

Would be 'interesting' to learn the basics of such an ego.

Suspect it's underwhelming.

---

You are a weird cat. And apparently an insecure one.

Asking what factual basis you have for supporting the idea that Obama was an unusually divisive president. What did he do that made people like him or dislike him more than the normal president? Divisive to me has an element of intentionality-you want to set up an us against them narrative. That never seemed like Obama to me.

If you disagree great. But usually discussion boards involve saying why you disagree.

---

I'm just curious... do you only value the intent, or do you also think the results weigh in the balance?

If someone is swinging a blade on a rope around in circles... does it only matter that he liked the sound it makes as it slices through the air, or do you think he is also to blame for the dozens of people who end up with stitches as a result?

ShooterTX said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Examples?

---

Your previous comment .

Typical entitlement.

---

As I thought. You got nothing.

---

LOL

Always amusing when mediocrities like you anoint themselves as the 'winner' of an Internet discussion.

Guess it's easier than going on a treadmill for an hour.

---

I won because you refused to play.


Again specific examples of words, acts, or policies that were unusually divisive. Do you have any or is it just unsupported opinion?

---

Hilarious how you feels entitled to make the rules on a free message board .

As if any amount of time spent or links provided would alter your attitude in the slightest.

---

Discussions where people just trade opinions with no basis aren't very interesting.

---

So you get to determine what constitutes a 'basis' ?

Would be 'interesting' to learn the basics of such an ego.

Suspect it's underwhelming.

---

You are a weird cat. And apparently an insecure one.

Asking what factual basis you have for supporting the idea that Obama was an unusually divisive president. What did he do that made people like him or dislike him more than the normal president? Divisive to me has an element of intentionality-you want to set up an us against them narrative. That never seemed like Obama to me.

If you disagree great. But usually discussion boards involve saying why you disagree.

---

I'm just curious... do you only value the intent, or do you also think the results weigh in the balance?

If someone is swinging a blade on a rope around in circles... does it only matter that he liked the sound it makes as it slices through the air, or do you think he is also to blame for the dozens of people who end up with stitches as a result?

---

No, people can be divisive based on reasons other than intent. But the correlation between intent and divisiveness seems high to me.

As to BHO, he was not swinging a blade with a rope on it that I am aware of.

Frank Galvin said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Examples?

---

Your previous comment .

Typical entitlement.

---

As I thought. You got nothing.

---

LOL

Always amusing when mediocrities like you anoint themselves as the 'winner' of an Internet discussion.

Guess it's easier than going on a treadmill for an hour.

---

I won because you refused to play.


Again specific examples of words, acts, or policies that were unusually divisive. Do you have any or is it just unsupported opinion?

---

Hilarious how you feels entitled to make the rules on a free message board .

As if any amount of time spent or links provided would alter your attitude in the slightest.

---

Discussions where people just trade opinions with no basis aren't very interesting.

---

So you get to determine what constitutes a 'basis' ?

Would be 'interesting' to learn the basics of such an ego.

Suspect it's underwhelming.

---

You are a weird cat. And apparently an insecure one.

Asking what factual basis you have for supporting the idea that Obama was an unusually divisive president. What did he do that made people like him or dislike him more than the normal president? Divisive to me has an element of intentionality-you want to set up an us against them narrative. That never seemed like Obama to me.

If you disagree great. But usually discussion boards involve saying why you disagree.

---

I'm just curious... do you only value the intent, or do you also think the results weigh in the balance?

If someone is swinging a blade on a rope around in circles... does it only matter that he liked the sound it makes as it slices through the air, or do you think he is also to blame for the dozens of people who end up with stitches as a result?

---

No, people can be divisive based on reasons other than intent. But the correlation between intent and divisiveness seems high to me.

As to BHO, he was not swinging a blade with a rope on it that I am aware of.

---

And yet, after his 8 years our nation is more racially divided than ever before. Is that just a coincidence?

ShooterTX said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Examples?

---

Your previous comment .

Typical entitlement.

---

As I thought. You got nothing.

---

LOL

Always amusing when mediocrities like you anoint themselves as the 'winner' of an Internet discussion.

Guess it's easier than going on a treadmill for an hour.

---

I won because you refused to play.


Again specific examples of words, acts, or policies that were unusually divisive. Do you have any or is it just unsupported opinion?

---

Hilarious how you feels entitled to make the rules on a free message board .

As if any amount of time spent or links provided would alter your attitude in the slightest.

---

Discussions where people just trade opinions with no basis aren't very interesting.

---

So you get to determine what constitutes a 'basis' ?

Would be 'interesting' to learn the basics of such an ego.

Suspect it's underwhelming.

---

You are a weird cat. And apparently an insecure one.

Asking what factual basis you have for supporting the idea that Obama was an unusually divisive president. What did he do that made people like him or dislike him more than the normal president? Divisive to me has an element of intentionality-you want to set up an us against them narrative. That never seemed like Obama to me.

If you disagree great. But usually discussion boards involve saying why you disagree.

---

I'm just curious... do you only value the intent, or do you also think the results weigh in the balance?

If someone is swinging a blade on a rope around in circles... does it only matter that he liked the sound it makes as it slices through the air, or do you think he is also to blame for the dozens of people who end up with stitches as a result?

---

No, people can be divisive based on reasons other than intent. But the correlation between intent and divisiveness seems high to me.

As to BHO, he was not swinging a blade with a rope on it that I am aware of.

---

And yet, after his 8 years our nation is more racially divided than ever before. Is that just a coincidence?

---

No. That is what happens when change bothers people.

BHO was no radical. What did he do/not do that was racially divisive?

Frank Galvin said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Examples?

---

Your previous comment .

Typical entitlement.

---

As I thought. You got nothing.

---

LOL

Always amusing when mediocrities like you anoint themselves as the 'winner' of an Internet discussion.

Guess it's easier than going on a treadmill for an hour.

---

I won because you refused to play.


Again specific examples of words, acts, or policies that were unusually divisive. Do you have any or is it just unsupported opinion?

---

Hilarious how you feels entitled to make the rules on a free message board .

As if any amount of time spent or links provided would alter your attitude in the slightest.

---

Discussions where people just trade opinions with no basis aren't very interesting.

---

So you get to determine what constitutes a 'basis' ?

Would be 'interesting' to learn the basics of such an ego.

Suspect it's underwhelming.

---

You are a weird cat. And apparently an insecure one.

Asking what factual basis you have for supporting the idea that Obama was an unusually divisive president. What did he do that made people like him or dislike him more than the normal president? Divisive to me has an element of intentionality-you want to set up an us against them narrative. That never seemed like Obama to me.

If you disagree great. But usually discussion boards involve saying why you disagree.

---

I'm just curious... do you only value the intent, or do you also think the results weigh in the balance?

If someone is swinging a blade on a rope around in circles... does it only matter that he liked the sound it makes as it slices through the air, or do you think he is also to blame for the dozens of people who end up with stitches as a result?

---

No, people can be divisive based on reasons other than intent. But the correlation between intent and divisiveness seems high to me.

As to BHO, he was not swinging a blade with a rope on it that I am aware of.

---

And yet, after his 8 years our nation is more racially divided than ever before. Is that just a coincidence?

---

No. That is what happens when change bothers people.

BHO was no radical. What did he do/not do that was racially divisive?

---

Actually, Frank, Joe Biden has me missing Barack Obama. In my opinion, Obama was much closer to the middle than Joe. Biden has embraced (for whatever reason) the extreme, radical Progressive Left. I am still not convinced Obama is China Joe's Puppet Master.

Frank Galvin said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Examples?

---

Your previous comment .

Typical entitlement.

---

As I thought. You got nothing.

---

LOL

Always amusing when mediocrities like you anoint themselves as the 'winner' of an Internet discussion.

Guess it's easier than going on a treadmill for an hour.

---

I won because you refused to play.


Again specific examples of words, acts, or policies that were unusually divisive. Do you have any or is it just unsupported opinion?

---

Hilarious how you feels entitled to make the rules on a free message board .

As if any amount of time spent or links provided would alter your attitude in the slightest.

---

Discussions where people just trade opinions with no basis aren't very interesting.

---

So you get to determine what constitutes a 'basis' ?

Would be 'interesting' to learn the basics of such an ego.

Suspect it's underwhelming.

---

You are a weird cat. And apparently an insecure one.

Asking what factual basis you have for supporting the idea that Obama was an unusually divisive president. What did he do that made people like him or dislike him more than the normal president? Divisive to me has an element of intentionality-you want to set up an us against them narrative. That never seemed like Obama to me.

If you disagree great. But usually discussion boards involve saying why you disagree.

---

Obama's entire election strategy was built
on Identity Politics and building a coalition of grievance.

- Obamacare was divisive
- He authoritarian fiat of Title IX was divisive
- He laid the foundational of radical DEI in the bureaucracy
- His droning of American citizens was divisive

Mostly his tendency to insert the bully pulpit into local issues by playing the race card from fake news around the beer summit, michael brown, and trayvon

All extremely divisive.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/1687/Race-Relations.aspx

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Examples?

---

Your previous comment .

Typical entitlement.

---

As I thought. You got nothing.

---

LOL

Always amusing when mediocrities like you anoint themselves as the 'winner' of an Internet discussion.

Guess it's easier than going on a treadmill for an hour.

---

I won because you refused to play.


Again specific examples of words, acts, or policies that were unusually divisive. Do you have any or is it just unsupported opinion?

---

Hilarious how you feels entitled to make the rules on a free message board .

As if any amount of time spent or links provided would alter your attitude in the slightest.

---

Discussions where people just trade opinions with no basis aren't very interesting.

---

So you get to determine what constitutes a 'basis' ?

Would be 'interesting' to learn the basics of such an ego.

Suspect it's underwhelming.

---

You are a weird cat. And apparently an insecure one.

Asking what factual basis you have for supporting the idea that Obama was an unusually divisive president. What did he do that made people like him or dislike him more than the normal president? Divisive to me has an element of intentionality-you want to set up an us against them narrative. That never seemed like Obama to me.

If you disagree great. But usually discussion boards involve saying why you disagree.

---

Obama's entire election strategy was built
on Identity Politics and building a coalition of grievance.

- Obamacare was divisive
- He authoritarian fiat of Title IX was divisive
- He laid the foundational of radical DEI in the bureaucracy
- His droning of American citizens was divisive

Mostly his tendency to insert the bully pulpit into local issues by playing the race card from fake news around the beer summit, michael brown, and trayvon

All extremely divisive.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/1687/Race-Relations.aspx

---

Edit: Sorry, wrong post.

Frank Galvin said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Examples?

---

Your previous comment .

Typical entitlement.

---

As I thought. You got nothing.

---

LOL

Always amusing when mediocrities like you anoint themselves as the 'winner' of an Internet discussion.

Guess it's easier than going on a treadmill for an hour.

---

I won because you refused to play.


Again specific examples of words, acts, or policies that were unusually divisive. Do you have any or is it just unsupported opinion?

---

Hilarious how you feels entitled to make the rules on a free message board .

As if any amount of time spent or links provided would alter your attitude in the slightest.

---

Discussions where people just trade opinions with no basis aren't very interesting.

---

So you get to determine what constitutes a 'basis' ?

Would be 'interesting' to learn the basics of such an ego.

Suspect it's underwhelming.

---

You are a weird cat. And apparently an insecure one.

Asking what factual basis you have for supporting the idea that Obama was an unusually divisive president. What did he do that made people like him or dislike him more than the normal president? Divisive to me has an element of intentionality-you want to set up an us against them narrative. That never seemed like Obama to me.

If you disagree great. But usually discussion boards involve saying why you disagree.

---

The guy coined "Elections have consequences." Get real.

Obama is one of the most racist presidents in our history, possibly only behind Woodrow Wilson & Andrew Johnson.

Biden accidentally admits that the Biden administration cannot be trusted. LOL
Poor ol dementia Joe... accidently said the quiet part out loud again.

Ha! Biden accidentally tells the truth when speaking of President Trump:

“How many times does he have to prove WE can’t be trusted?”

Just perfect. pic.twitter.com/XlygOxSdAy

— Charlie Kirk (@charliekirk11) April 23, 2024

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Examples?

---

Your previous comment .

Typical entitlement.

---

As I thought. You got nothing.

---

LOL

Always amusing when mediocrities like you anoint themselves as the 'winner' of an Internet discussion.

Guess it's easier than going on a treadmill for an hour.

---

I won because you refused to play.


Again specific examples of words, acts, or policies that were unusually divisive. Do you have any or is it just unsupported opinion?

---

Hilarious how you feels entitled to make the rules on a free message board .

As if any amount of time spent or links provided would alter your attitude in the slightest.

---

Discussions where people just trade opinions with no basis aren't very interesting.

---

So you get to determine what constitutes a 'basis' ?

Would be 'interesting' to learn the basics of such an ego.

Suspect it's underwhelming.

---

You are a weird cat. And apparently an insecure one.

Asking what factual basis you have for supporting the idea that Obama was an unusually divisive president. What did he do that made people like him or dislike him more than the normal president? Divisive to me has an element of intentionality-you want to set up an us against them narrative. That never seemed like Obama to me.

If you disagree great. But usually discussion boards involve saying why you disagree.

---

Obama's entire election strategy was built
on Identity Politics and building a coalition of grievance.

- Obamacare was divisive
- He authoritarian fiat of Title IX was divisive
- He laid the foundational of radical DEI in the bureaucracy
- His droning of American citizens was divisive

Mostly his tendency to insert the bully pulpit into local issues by playing the race card from fake news around the beer summit, michael brown, and trayvon

All extremely divisive.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/1687/Race-Relations.aspx

---

Overall your take suffers from a huge doses of faulty assumptions and recency bias.

Obama's 2008 campaign was built on an economy that had just evaporated. That was by far and away the number one issue. His biggest hurdle was overcoming race concerns and he spent considerable time assuring America he was no radical. His 2012 campaign was all about class, not race. He painted Romney as the personification of corporate America and ran against that. But the thing about Obama is that both times he ran on optimism. "Yes we can" was his theme overall. So your first point about identity politics and grievance is just faulty memory.

Obamacare was a hard fought legislative battle that passed with 60 votes in the Senate. It was "divisive" in the same way the minimum wage act, allowing unions, trustbusting, the forty-hour workweek, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, establishing the income tax, reconstruction, civil rights legislation, and don't ask, don't tell were "divisive." That is just domestic policy. The decisions to enter WWI, to support the allies before Japan's attack, to support Korea and to fire MacArthur, to integrate the service, to bomb Cambodia, and to surge troops in Iraq after "misision accomplished' were all just as "divisive." In that context, I have a hard time seeing how Obama is more divisive that the Roosevelts, Wilson, Truman, Johnson, Nixon, Clinton or Bush (leaving aside Trump who is unique in his abiltiy to inspire passions of all types).

Particularly considering he scored two comfortable election victories. Add to that the fact that Obamacare, his signature achievement, is not nearly as divisive anymore. (https://www.kff.org/affordable-care-act/poll-finding/5-charts-about-public-opinion-on-the-affordable-care-act/)

Your next three are just far right talking points. The average American has zero view on the dear colleague letter (Baylor is uniquely attuned to it becuase of our football scandal) or droning. They have heard about DEI but almost no one attributes that to Obama.

Your last point is the most interesting and probably the most accurate. Its tough to hear opposing points of view and its even tougher to hear them from someone who holds power that you do not think should. So yes, Obama's lectures on race relations were not always well received. Sometimes the truth hurts to hear.

But your chart actually proves something different than you think.The main thing is that just like the stock market average is not an accurate indicator of the president's economic policies, what is measured here is not an accurate indicator of people's view of whether the president is causing or is appropriately handling race problems the respondent perceives.

Even if you don't accept that, the figures still do not support you. When Obama first campaigned in 2008, 29% of whites, and 37% of blacks and hispanics had a negative view of race relations in America. After Obama's second inaugaration in 2013, that number improved to 27% for whites, 33% for blacks and 36% for hispanics. That time period included the beer summit incident and the Trayvon Martin killing. Meaning that for four+ years America had no problem with Obama on race, it felt things were getting better under his watch.

Things went way off track in 2015 when 54% of whites, 48% of blacks and 52% of hispanics reported negative views of race relations. The answer is obvious. Following the MIchael Brown death we were watching race riots on tv-pretty easy to understand why people thought race relations were poor.

Two things though. First, Obama did not cause the race riots. Second, following the riots, the view of race relations by whites and hispanics improved again. By the time of the Trump-Clinton campaign 44% of whites and 45 % of hispanics had negative views. Still high but a material improvement following the riots. Thing were again improving

The same thing happened to Trump/. Following the George Floyd killing and riots 54% of whites (the same amount as after the Michael Brown killing and riots) and 63% of blacks (no separate hispanic measurment given) had a negative view of race relations. So by your own metric, Trump was at least as if not more divisive than Obama.

And that is not really fair. Sometimes it is events that divide people as opposed to the leadership that has to respond to those events. That applies to Obama and Trump. Their presidencies may have done more to reveal divides than to cause them. Obama at least demonstrated an ability to preside over improvement, We never saw that from Trump.

GrowlTowel said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Examples?

---

Your previous comment .

Typical entitlement.

---

As I thought. You got nothing.

---

LOL

Always amusing when mediocrities like you anoint themselves as the 'winner' of an Internet discussion.

Guess it's easier than going on a treadmill for an hour.

---

I won because you refused to play.


Again specific examples of words, acts, or policies that were unusually divisive. Do you have any or is it just unsupported opinion?

---

Hilarious how you feels entitled to make the rules on a free message board .

As if any amount of time spent or links provided would alter your attitude in the slightest.

---

Discussions where people just trade opinions with no basis aren't very interesting.

---

So you get to determine what constitutes a 'basis' ?

Would be 'interesting' to learn the basics of such an ego.

Suspect it's underwhelming.

---

You are a weird cat. And apparently an insecure one.

Asking what factual basis you have for supporting the idea that Obama was an unusually divisive president. What did he do that made people like him or dislike him more than the normal president? Divisive to me has an element of intentionality-you want to set up an us against them narrative. That never seemed like Obama to me.

If you disagree great. But usually discussion boards involve saying why you disagree.

---

The guy coined "Elections have consequences." Get real.

---

Incindiary stuff there, encouraging people to vote. Just awful

Frank Galvin said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Examples?

---

Your previous comment .

Typical entitlement.

---

As I thought. You got nothing.

---

LOL

Always amusing when mediocrities like you anoint themselves as the 'winner' of an Internet discussion.

Guess it's easier than going on a treadmill for an hour.

---

I won because you refused to play.


Again specific examples of words, acts, or policies that were unusually divisive. Do you have any or is it just unsupported opinion?

---

Hilarious how you feels entitled to make the rules on a free message board .

As if any amount of time spent or links provided would alter your attitude in the slightest.

---

Discussions where people just trade opinions with no basis aren't very interesting.

---

So you get to determine what constitutes a 'basis' ?

Would be 'interesting' to learn the basics of such an ego.

Suspect it's underwhelming.

---

You are a weird cat. And apparently an insecure one.

Asking what factual basis you have for supporting the idea that Obama was an unusually divisive president. What did he do that made people like him or dislike him more than the normal president? Divisive to me has an element of intentionality-you want to set up an us against them narrative. That never seemed like Obama to me.

If you disagree great. But usually discussion boards involve saying why you disagree.

---

The guy coined "Elections have consequences." Get real.

---

Incindiary stuff there, encouraging people to vote. Just awful

---

Dude, it was after the election when he was negotiating with the Republicans about his legislative agenda.

Come on Man.

GrowlTowel said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Examples?

---

Your previous comment .

Typical entitlement.

---

As I thought. You got nothing.

---

LOL

Always amusing when mediocrities like you anoint themselves as the 'winner' of an Internet discussion.

Guess it's easier than going on a treadmill for an hour.

---

I won because you refused to play.


Again specific examples of words, acts, or policies that were unusually divisive. Do you have any or is it just unsupported opinion?

---

Hilarious how you feels entitled to make the rules on a free message board .

As if any amount of time spent or links provided would alter your attitude in the slightest.

---

Discussions where people just trade opinions with no basis aren't very interesting.

---

So you get to determine what constitutes a 'basis' ?

Would be 'interesting' to learn the basics of such an ego.

Suspect it's underwhelming.

---

You are a weird cat. And apparently an insecure one.

Asking what factual basis you have for supporting the idea that Obama was an unusually divisive president. What did he do that made people like him or dislike him more than the normal president? Divisive to me has an element of intentionality-you want to set up an us against them narrative. That never seemed like Obama to me.

If you disagree great. But usually discussion boards involve saying why you disagree.

---

The guy coined "Elections have consequences." Get real.

---

Incindiary stuff there, encouraging people to vote. Just awful

---

Dude, it was after the election when he was negotiating with the Republicans about his legislative agenda.

Come on Man.

---

Two things can be true. He says it during campaigns also. And if that is the worst example youcan come up waith as far as divisiveness-snowflake melting.

Frank Galvin said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Examples?

---

Your previous comment .

Typical entitlement.

---

As I thought. You got nothing.

---

LOL

Always amusing when mediocrities like you anoint themselves as the 'winner' of an Internet discussion.

Guess it's easier than going on a treadmill for an hour.

---

I won because you refused to play.


Again specific examples of words, acts, or policies that were unusually divisive. Do you have any or is it just unsupported opinion?

---

Hilarious how you feels entitled to make the rules on a free message board .

As if any amount of time spent or links provided would alter your attitude in the slightest.

---

Discussions where people just trade opinions with no basis aren't very interesting.

---

So you get to determine what constitutes a 'basis' ?

Would be 'interesting' to learn the basics of such an ego.

Suspect it's underwhelming.

---

You are a weird cat. And apparently an insecure one.

Asking what factual basis you have for supporting the idea that Obama was an unusually divisive president. What did he do that made people like him or dislike him more than the normal president? Divisive to me has an element of intentionality-you want to set up an us against them narrative. That never seemed like Obama to me.

If you disagree great. But usually discussion boards involve saying why you disagree.

---

The guy coined "Elections have consequences." Get real.

---

Incindiary stuff there, encouraging people to vote. Just awful

---

Dude, it was after the election when he was negotiating with the Republicans about his legislative agenda.

Come on Man.

---

Two things can be true. He says it during campaigns also. And if that is the worst example youcan come up waith as far as divisiveness-snowflake melting.

---

With all your experience in appellate courts, I find it odd that you consistently move the goal posts when arguing a point. You asked: "Asking what factual basis you have for supporting the idea that Obama was an unusually divisive president." A major data point was given - his political philosophy that shaped his entire presidency.