cowboycwr said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Assassin said:

---

BREAKING: NATO also says that Iran was on the brink of obtaining a nuclear weapon. pic.twitter.com/2ZYpxH24E4

— Eyal Yakoby (@EYakoby) March 3, 2026

---

This can't be. Trump told us the strike a few months ago completely destroyed their weapons program.

So which is it? They almost had one (which means the strike was not successful)? Or the strike was successful?

---

Recent negotiations revealed that Iran had a stockpile of 11 tons of 60% enriched uranium. Restarting their enrichment could get them weapons grade material in a couple of weeks for 11 nuclear devices. The centrifuges were destroyed, but this material was kept elsewhere.

---

Sooooo Trump lied or overstated the effectiveness of the strike???

---

Iran presently cannot enrich the uranium because of the previous strike. Recent negotiations demanded Iran hand over the enriched uranium.
They refused.

Diversity is our strength!

I love the 15th amendment!

100% Indian Boy Scouts in Frisco Texas tonight.

Is this what diversity looks like? https://t.co/VxSjb0repR pic.twitter.com/G8tFgmUSNA

— Marc Palasciano (@marc_palasciano) March 4, 2026

Do they own any race horses, perhaps?

If not, maybe improvise?

As we say goodbye to Jasmine Crockett, never forget the campaign ad she released where Trump just calls her a “low IQ person” for 30 seconds straight.

A true piece of art that will never be forgotten ✊🏿pic.twitter.com/4I6ki98Nas

— Savanah Hernandez (@Savsays) March 4, 2026

KaiBear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Bestweekeverr said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Bestweekeverr said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

The Department of Education hung large banners of American "heroes" on its building in Washington D.C. on Sunday, including Ben Franklin, Martin Luther King Jr., Catharine Beecher and Charlie Kirk.

In a video posted to social media by Education Sec. Linda McMahon, the banners… pic.twitter.com/Ota3BgiVYJ

— CBS News (@CBSNews) March 2, 2026

---

Grant, an often overlooked American who served and led when needed. Never gets credit he deserves.

George Washington
Theodore Roosevelt
Steven Jobs
Albert Einstein

---

---

You can't be serious.

Grant was a butcher.....lost men to Lee at almost a 3-1 ratio. Grant simply had a many more men to begin with and understood the math.

---

This is lost cause nonsense. The Union was fighting a mostly offensive war, of course they were going to lose more men. Lee/the confederacy lost every offensive campaign they tried to muster. Grant was the best general in the Civil War and if he was put in charge at the beginning the war would have been won much sooner. Lee was the better tactician, but Grant was the better strategist. Tactics wins battles, but strategy wins war.

Grant's presidency is looked at more favorably now than it typically has been. He pushed for the ratification of the 15th amendment, created the first national park at Yellowstone, and actively tried to dismantle the KKK.

His worst trait was that he was too trusting, which led to the corruption that most historians agreed he had no involvement in.

---

Grant's army outnumbered Lee approx 3-1 and by this time the South was barely able to feed or otherwise supply Lee's troops.

Students are taught about Picket's hopeless charge at Gettysburg.....but weeks after that battle Grant did one even worse at COLD HARBOR. A battle were Grant repeatedly sent his men in suicidial charges against Lee's entrenched army on higher ground. Confederates inflicted over 15,000 casualties on Grant's troops in less than 48 hours.

The north was outraged over the slaughter....even Lincoln's wife openly referred to Grant as a 'butcher'.
Always been amusing to me how the entertainment industry never made a movie about COLD HARBOR.

Grant failed in every business he attemped prior to the Civil War.
He accepted significant financial 'arrangments' as president....only to loss all the money in bad investments.

Would have died broke had he not mustered the strength to endure his cancer ( Grant was a habitual cigar smoker ) and finish his autobiography. Grant died onlt a few days after its completion.

---

Pickett's charge is taught because it was the turning point in one of the most important battles in the Civil War. Cold Harbor isn't taught because it was Lee's last victory, and it did not have a significant impact on the war. Although the Union lost more men in total in the overland campaign, Lee lost more men relative to his total number. Wouldn't that make Lee the butcher?

Mary Todd didn't like anyone very much and no one liked her. I don't blame her too much given what she went through, but she no military expert so I don't know why I would value her military opinion.

I don't understand your point with the rest... Grant was a bad person because he didn't have an acumen for business?? He was a bad person because he died poor?

You say he fought through a painful cancer to finish his Memoirs so that his family would be taken care of... I think most people would find that extremely admirable.

---

It most certainly was admirable. However he was a mediocre officer in the Mexican American War....and resigned his commission. Failed in business both before and after the civil war. The guy drank far too much and was not particularly bright.

Grant makes the bottom 5 list of US presidents consistently for valid reasons.

---

I'm curious. What criteria do you use in grading Presidents?

---

Accomplishments vs lack of accomplishments or acts destructive to the American people.

Most accomplished

Washington
Polk
T. Roosevelt
F. Roosevelt
Reagan

Most destructive

Biden
Wilson
LBJ
Obama
Nixon

---

Trump belongs in the "most accomplished" category. Depending on how the last 3 years go (and specifically whether he will be able to get Vance/Rubio elected), he might push FDR for top of the list. So many things....transforming us from a consumer economy to a production economy......conducting the next census, which will move the Electoral College into structurally red territory...cementing a generation conservative SCOTUS judges.

No POTUS in my lifetime has worked to implement the platform with such urgent resolve. He has not an ounce of the Bushie notion that we cannot push too hard for fear of losing the next election. He understands that we elections will be lost, therefore the most important thing is to actually accomplish as much of your agenda as you can before the loss happens. So refreshing.

That's the way Dems do it. The enact their agenda. If it costs them elections....fine. Then the GOP has to spend its capital undoing the Democrat agenda (rather than enacting the GOP agenda). That is the proper way to play the game.

---

IMO Trump is in the 'undecided ' column. Until he allowed Israel to use our military to save their ass ( again ) I might have ranked him higher,
Sigh. You are a lot smarter than barBEARean. We do not bomb Iran because Israel demanded we do it. We bomb Iran because they are a strategic threat to us.

But this bull**** war could end up getting hundreds of thousands of people killed.
I only care about how many of our kids get killed. And it won't be very many. Open question whether the butchers' bill will hit double digits.

This war is NOT in the strategic interest of the United States. This is NOT putting America First.
This war is about bribery of our entire federal government.
BS. You refuse to see the obvious threat Iran posed to us because it forces you to rethink your position on Israel (who has more skin in the game than we do, per capita....they're fully mobilized and doing the riskiest parts of the mission).

However now that we have already been manipulated into being Israel's pigeon once again.......I hope our military can completely destroy Iran without the need for ground troops.

War is anything but 'amazing' at eye level.

---

And sometimes it needs to happen. Rarely is there a clearer case for needing it than the mullah regime in Iran. I mean, the *******s tried to assassinate a President of the USA, fer crissakes. That alone justifies what we are doing now.

The_barBEARian said:

---

Diversity is our strength!

I love the 15th amendment!

100% Indian Boy Scouts in Frisco Texas tonight.

Is this what diversity looks like? https://t.co/VxSjb0repR pic.twitter.com/G8tFgmUSNA

— Marc Palasciano (@marc_palasciano) March 4, 2026

---

they're here. Would you rather them be in the Boy Scouts, or the Communist Youth League?

Looks like Talarico won. I saw polls saying Crockett was up big on him no less than a week ago

Figured that was a load of bs. She appeals to no one

cowboycwr said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

The Department of Education hung large banners of American "heroes" on its building in Washington D.C. on Sunday, including Ben Franklin, Martin Luther King Jr., Catharine Beecher and Charlie Kirk.

In a video posted to social media by Education Sec. Linda McMahon, the banners… pic.twitter.com/Ota3BgiVYJ

— CBS News (@CBSNews) March 2, 2026

---

Grant, an often overlooked American who served and led when needed. Never gets credit he deserves.

George Washington
Theodore Roosevelt
Steven Jobs
Albert Einstein

---

---

You can't be serious.

Grant was a butcher.....lost men to Lee at almost a 3-1 ratio. Grant simply had a many more men to begin with and understood the math.

As president he bungled 'reconstruction' throughout the south; had several corruption scandals in his administration and failed to reach any fair settlement with the various indian tribes of the West.

After Grant left office he went broke on some bad business investments. While dying of throat cancer he managed to complete his autobiography. ( probably the bravest act of his life )

After his death the book did provide enough money for his widow to live on.

Historians across the spectrum have Grant in the bottom 5 of all US presidents.

---

There are a whole list of generals that have "understood" the math and lost men at much greater rates than the enemy but win the war. Some of them did so in much worse fashion than Grant. At least with him the majority of the time it was while winning battles, forcing Lee to retreat, capturing land, etc.

Unlike many of the others that simply threw men into meat grinders for no gain, mere yards, or just to kill a few enemy and waste their supplies until eventually they ran out.

---

Lee's percentage of losses was higher than Grant's. Lee lost a higher percentage of his troops than Grant did. Grant's numbers were higher as he had more. Lee was no great preserver of his Army. He continually put his Army in precarious situations and made major mistakes, as well. The Civil War was a meat grinder, the first modern war by the end.

It changed warfare, think of the technology changes in 5 years! Grant got that war was about resources and the ability to stay in the fight, as brutal as that was. Lee knew he had to keep the momentum and force a surrender. Neither strategy was conducive to low casualties. I aways thought Grant got the shaft because Lee came to represent the Old South and fighting a fantasy of the past is impossible.

FLBear5630 said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

The Department of Education hung large banners of American "heroes" on its building in Washington D.C. on Sunday, including Ben Franklin, Martin Luther King Jr., Catharine Beecher and Charlie Kirk.

In a video posted to social media by Education Sec. Linda McMahon, the banners… pic.twitter.com/Ota3BgiVYJ

— CBS News (@CBSNews) March 2, 2026

---

Grant, an often overlooked American who served and led when needed. Never gets credit he deserves.

George Washington
Theodore Roosevelt
Steven Jobs
Albert Einstein

---

---

You can't be serious.

Grant was a butcher.....lost men to Lee at almost a 3-1 ratio. Grant simply had a many more men to begin with and understood the math.

As president he bungled 'reconstruction' throughout the south; had several corruption scandals in his administration and failed to reach any fair settlement with the various indian tribes of the West.

After Grant left office he went broke on some bad business investments. While dying of throat cancer he managed to complete his autobiography. ( probably the bravest act of his life )

After his death the book did provide enough money for his widow to live on.

Historians across the spectrum have Grant in the bottom 5 of all US presidents.

---

There are a whole list of generals that have "understood" the math and lost men at much greater rates than the enemy but win the war. Some of them did so in much worse fashion than Grant. At least with him the majority of the time it was while winning battles, forcing Lee to retreat, capturing land, etc.

Unlike many of the others that simply threw men into meat grinders for no gain, mere yards, or just to kill a few enemy and waste their supplies until eventually they ran out.

---

Lee's percentage of losses was higher than Grant's. Lee lost a higher percentage of his troops than Grant did. Grant's numbers were higher as he had more. Lee was no great preserver of his Army. He continually put his Army in precarious situations and made major mistakes, as well. The Civil War was a meat grinder, the first modern war by the end.

It changed warfare, think of the technology changes in 5 years! Grant got that war was about resources and the ability to stay in the fight, as brutal as that was. Lee knew he had to keep the momentum and force a surrender. Neither strategy was conducive to low casualties. I aways thought Grant got the shaft because Lee came to represent the Old South and fighting a fantasy of the past is impossible.

---

100% accurate. People don't realize that the later years of the Civil War were fought much like WW1 would be fought, which unfortunately led to more casualties on both sides.

cowboycwr said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Assassin said:

---

BREAKING: NATO also says that Iran was on the brink of obtaining a nuclear weapon. pic.twitter.com/2ZYpxH24E4

— Eyal Yakoby (@EYakoby) March 3, 2026

---

This can't be. Trump told us the strike a few months ago completely destroyed their weapons program.

So which is it? They almost had one (which means the strike was not successful)? Or the strike was successful?

---

Recent negotiations revealed that Iran had a stockpile of 11 tons of 60% enriched uranium. Restarting their enrichment could get them weapons grade material in a couple of weeks for 11 nuclear devices. The centrifuges were destroyed, but this material was kept elsewhere.

---

Sooooo Trump lied or overstated the effectiveness of the strike???

---

Trump has dismissed the idea that his critics could speak for the Make America Great Again Movement: "MAGA is Trump," he said in an interview with independent journalist Rachael Bade on Monday.

whiterock said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Diversity is our strength!

I love the 15th amendment!

100% Indian Boy Scouts in Frisco Texas tonight.

Is this what diversity looks like? https://t.co/VxSjb0repR pic.twitter.com/G8tFgmUSNA

— Marc Palasciano (@marc_palasciano) March 4, 2026

---

they're here. Would you rather them be in the Boy Scouts, or the Communist Youth League?

---

A picture is worth a thousand words... the future of America, represented by the youth on stage, is entirely Indian and the applauding audience is filled with balding, grey haired Boomers who replaced you with H1Bs and called you racist for complaining about it.

RAW.

>>
he United States successfully concluded a joint operation with Europol (the European Union's Agency for Law Enforcement Cooperation) and Ecuadorian authorities that dismantled the transnational drug trafficking organization Hernn Ruilova Barzola, linked to the Los Lobos cartel.

Thanks to the coordination between Ecuador, the United States, Belgium, Italy, the Netherlands, and Spain, the detention of 16 suspects was achieved, including a high-value target, the seizure of significant quantities of cocaine and cash, and the dismantling of a complex money laundering and corruption scheme.

This complex operation is another important milestone in disrupting the operations and finances of narcoterrorists, directly contributing to the security of the United States. These concrete results strengthen international cooperation for the benefit of the American people, with a global impact.
<<

Hell Yes!

The 15th amendment is the best thing this country has ever done!

I'm so glad we massacred half the nation in order to enact this wonder law!

Immigrant in Frisco, Texas wants to take your 2A rights away. That’s what they do, they come here and attempt to change policy to destroy your way of life. pic.twitter.com/BeRiulDCIh

— Kaylee Campbell (@kaylee_ashlynn) March 4, 2026

BREAKING - The president of Texas’s Medical Board, Sherif Z. Zaafran, proudly reveals that foreign doctors in Texas are receiving preferential treatment over Americans, obtaining faster licenses, jobs, and opportunities to practice, all with Gov. Greg Abbott’s approval. pic.twitter.com/2QfwmMYmCV

— Right Angle News Network (@Rightanglenews) March 2, 2026

whiterock said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Diversity is our strength!

I love the 15th amendment!

100% Indian Boy Scouts in Frisco Texas tonight.

Is this what diversity looks like? https://t.co/VxSjb0repR pic.twitter.com/G8tFgmUSNA

— Marc Palasciano (@marc_palasciano) March 4, 2026

---

they're here. Would you rather them be in the Boy Scouts, or the Communist Youth League?

---

They’re literally only there because of college applications.

One of America’s great traditions of boyhood has been degraded into a college app checkmark for Indians to lazily get through… https://t.co/Sdih9l0HuA pic.twitter.com/nHNzRTuiDf

— Will Sexton (@vrilliumlive) March 4, 2026

It passed. ✔️ https://t.co/7uTWlHGijv

— Anna Paulina Luna (@realannapaulina) March 4, 2026

The_barBEARian said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

So, subjective as hell.

As expected.

---

LOL


All writen history is subjective.


Sorry to waste both of our time.

---

Any rational evaluation starts with definition of expectations, standardized metrics, and application of objective controls, such as not grading a President within a certain time after leaving office. Schlesinger once said no President should be judged within 20 years of leaving office, but he forgot that as soon as he could attack a Republican.

Things like ending wars successfully (especially wars started by someone else), improving GDP and lowering the debt (I know, stop laughing), signing meaningful treaties.

The thing about 'Historians' is that they package everything as a narrative. So Trump's economic and border accomplishments first term or now are ignored in favor of mocking Trump's speaking style, his presumed lack of eloquence, and of course scurrilous rumors floated without evidence. In the same way, 'historians' ignore Obama's extraconstitutional use of drones to kill American citizens, blame Vietnam on Nixon rather than LBJ and ignore JFK's own part. The same 'historians' ignore the disaster of FDR's first two terms in actually recovering from the Depression, while blaming it on Coolidge out of spite.

Those same 'historians' ignore the success of John Adams and Polk's territory expansion, ignore Clinton's sex crimes while all but making up claims to smear whatever Republican is in office.

It's not a 'waste of time' to insist on and use standard definitions and clear measurements. It's unacceptable to let academics continue a lie they themselves know should have been eviscerated decades ago.

---

You make some good points.

Lets see your lists.

---

I follow Schlesinger's old rule of not grading a President until he has left office for 20 years or more.

Best:

1) Washington
2) Polk
3) Adams, John
4) Reagan
5) Monroe


Worst:

1) Wilson
2) Roosevelt, Franklin
3) Buchanan
4) Johnson, Lyndon
5) Carter

FOX NEWS POLL: The results are in on President Trump’s job performance, with 57% of voters disapproving and 43% approving.

Border security is the president’s only issue in which more voters approve of him than disapprove, with 52% of voters approving and 48% disapproving. His… pic.twitter.com/JOXfDrc2NA

— Fox News (@FoxNews) March 5, 2026

🚨#BREAKING: The Trump Justice Department has ended its investigation into former President Joe Biden’s alleged use of an auto-pen, after officials failed and found no applicable criminal statute to pursue charges.

— R A W S A L E R T S (@rawsalerts) March 5, 2026

boognish_bear said:

---

FOX NEWS POLL: The results are in on President Trump’s job performance, with 57% of voters disapproving and 43% approving.

Border security is the president’s only issue in which more voters approve of him than disapprove, with 52% of voters approving and 48% disapproving. His… pic.twitter.com/JOXfDrc2NA

— Fox News (@FoxNews) March 5, 2026

---

Looks about right.

Border security is good… now let's get some more deportations

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Border security is good… now let's get some more deportations

---

I don't know the numbers...but feels like it's really slowed down since Minneapolis

Oldbear83 said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

So, subjective as hell.

As expected.

---

LOL


All writen history is subjective.


Sorry to waste both of our time.

---

Any rational evaluation starts with definition of expectations, standardized metrics, and application of objective controls, such as not grading a President within a certain time after leaving office. Schlesinger once said no President should be judged within 20 years of leaving office, but he forgot that as soon as he could attack a Republican.

Things like ending wars successfully (especially wars started by someone else), improving GDP and lowering the debt (I know, stop laughing), signing meaningful treaties.

The thing about 'Historians' is that they package everything as a narrative. So Trump's economic and border accomplishments first term or now are ignored in favor of mocking Trump's speaking style, his presumed lack of eloquence, and of course scurrilous rumors floated without evidence. In the same way, 'historians' ignore Obama's extraconstitutional use of drones to kill American citizens, blame Vietnam on Nixon rather than LBJ and ignore JFK's own part. The same 'historians' ignore the disaster of FDR's first two terms in actually recovering from the Depression, while blaming it on Coolidge out of spite.

Those same 'historians' ignore the success of John Adams and Polk's territory expansion, ignore Clinton's sex crimes while all but making up claims to smear whatever Republican is in office.

It's not a 'waste of time' to insist on and use standard definitions and clear measurements. It's unacceptable to let academics continue a lie they themselves know should have been eviscerated decades ago.

---

You make some good points.

Lets see your lists.

---

I follow Schlesinger's old rule of not grading a President until he has left office for 20 years or more.

Best:

1) Washington
2) Polk
3) Adams, John
4) Reagan
5) Monroe


Worst:

1) Wilson
2) Roosevelt, Franklin
3) Buchanan
4) Johnson, Lyndon
5) Carter

---

Not a bad list.

Attacking Wilson is in vogue because its the politically correct thing to do... but he is another one, like Nixon, who gets unfairly maligned.

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Border security is good… now let's get some more deportations

---

I think we got what we're going to get.

Trump is willing to sacrifice congress for Greater Israel.

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Assassin said:

---

BREAKING: NATO also says that Iran was on the brink of obtaining a nuclear weapon. pic.twitter.com/2ZYpxH24E4

— Eyal Yakoby (@EYakoby) March 3, 2026

---

This can't be. Trump told us the strike a few months ago completely destroyed their weapons program.

So which is it? They almost had one (which means the strike was not successful)? Or the strike was successful?

---

Recent negotiations revealed that Iran had a stockpile of 11 tons of 60% enriched uranium. Restarting their enrichment could get them weapons grade material in a couple of weeks for 11 nuclear devices. The centrifuges were destroyed, but this material was kept elsewhere.

---

Sooooo Trump lied or overstated the effectiveness of the strike???

---

Iran presently cannot enrich the uranium because of the previous strike. Recent negotiations demanded Iran hand over the enriched uranium.
They refused.

---

So Trump either lied or overstated the effectiveness of the strike. Which is it?


Completely destroyed means completely. Like nothing left.


Not we destroyed all of this one part but left this part intact.

The_barBEARian said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

So, subjective as hell.

As expected.

---

LOL


All writen history is subjective.


Sorry to waste both of our time.

---

Any rational evaluation starts with definition of expectations, standardized metrics, and application of objective controls, such as not grading a President within a certain time after leaving office. Schlesinger once said no President should be judged within 20 years of leaving office, but he forgot that as soon as he could attack a Republican.

Things like ending wars successfully (especially wars started by someone else), improving GDP and lowering the debt (I know, stop laughing), signing meaningful treaties.

The thing about 'Historians' is that they package everything as a narrative. So Trump's economic and border accomplishments first term or now are ignored in favor of mocking Trump's speaking style, his presumed lack of eloquence, and of course scurrilous rumors floated without evidence. In the same way, 'historians' ignore Obama's extraconstitutional use of drones to kill American citizens, blame Vietnam on Nixon rather than LBJ and ignore JFK's own part. The same 'historians' ignore the disaster of FDR's first two terms in actually recovering from the Depression, while blaming it on Coolidge out of spite.

Those same 'historians' ignore the success of John Adams and Polk's territory expansion, ignore Clinton's sex crimes while all but making up claims to smear whatever Republican is in office.

It's not a 'waste of time' to insist on and use standard definitions and clear measurements. It's unacceptable to let academics continue a lie they themselves know should have been eviscerated decades ago.

---

You make some good points.

Lets see your lists.

---

I follow Schlesinger's old rule of not grading a President until he has left office for 20 years or more.

Best:

1) Washington
2) Polk
3) Adams, John
4) Reagan
5) Monroe


Worst:

1) Wilson
2) Roosevelt, Franklin
3) Buchanan
4) Johnson, Lyndon
5) Carter

---

Not a bad list.

Attacking Wilson is in vogue because its the politically correct thing to do... but he is another one, like Nixon, who gets unfairly maligned.

---

Wilson gave us the Income Tax and literally invited the KKK's leaders to the White House and praised their cause.

cowboycwr said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Assassin said:

---

BREAKING: NATO also says that Iran was on the brink of obtaining a nuclear weapon. pic.twitter.com/2ZYpxH24E4

— Eyal Yakoby (@EYakoby) March 3, 2026

---

This can't be. Trump told us the strike a few months ago completely destroyed their weapons program.

So which is it? They almost had one (which means the strike was not successful)? Or the strike was successful?

---

Recent negotiations revealed that Iran had a stockpile of 11 tons of 60% enriched uranium. Restarting their enrichment could get them weapons grade material in a couple of weeks for 11 nuclear devices. The centrifuges were destroyed, but this material was kept elsewhere.

---

Sooooo Trump lied or overstated the effectiveness of the strike???

---

Iran presently cannot enrich the uranium because of the previous strike. Recent negotiations demanded Iran hand over the enriched uranium.
They refused.

---

So Trump either lied or overstated the effectiveness of the strike. Which is it?


Completely destroyed means completely. Like nothing left.


Not we destroyed all of this one part but left this part intact.

---

Pretty sure I read that Trump and Vance were given access to Iran after the bombing to confirm the strikes. It was in the NY Times...

Oldbear83 said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

So, subjective as hell.

As expected.

---

LOL


All writen history is subjective.


Sorry to waste both of our time.

---

Any rational evaluation starts with definition of expectations, standardized metrics, and application of objective controls, such as not grading a President within a certain time after leaving office. Schlesinger once said no President should be judged within 20 years of leaving office, but he forgot that as soon as he could attack a Republican.

Things like ending wars successfully (especially wars started by someone else), improving GDP and lowering the debt (I know, stop laughing), signing meaningful treaties.

The thing about 'Historians' is that they package everything as a narrative. So Trump's economic and border accomplishments first term or now are ignored in favor of mocking Trump's speaking style, his presumed lack of eloquence, and of course scurrilous rumors floated without evidence. In the same way, 'historians' ignore Obama's extraconstitutional use of drones to kill American citizens, blame Vietnam on Nixon rather than LBJ and ignore JFK's own part. The same 'historians' ignore the disaster of FDR's first two terms in actually recovering from the Depression, while blaming it on Coolidge out of spite.

Those same 'historians' ignore the success of John Adams and Polk's territory expansion, ignore Clinton's sex crimes while all but making up claims to smear whatever Republican is in office.

It's not a 'waste of time' to insist on and use standard definitions and clear measurements. It's unacceptable to let academics continue a lie they themselves know should have been eviscerated decades ago.

---

You make some good points.

Lets see your lists.

---

I follow Schlesinger's old rule of not grading a President until he has left office for 20 years or more.

Best:

1) Washington
2) Polk
3) Adams, John
4) Reagan
5) Monroe


Worst:

1) Wilson
2) Roosevelt, Franklin
3) Buchanan
4) Johnson, Lyndon
5) Carter

---

Agreed that one should wait 20 years before grading a president. Then you can see the long term impacts of their policies and get rid of the recency bias or feeling that they were good/bad.

Like how people thought Clinton was great right after he left but now look back and realize he was not really that great.

Assassin said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Assassin said:

---

BREAKING: NATO also says that Iran was on the brink of obtaining a nuclear weapon. pic.twitter.com/2ZYpxH24E4

— Eyal Yakoby (@EYakoby) March 3, 2026

---

This can't be. Trump told us the strike a few months ago completely destroyed their weapons program.

So which is it? They almost had one (which means the strike was not successful)? Or the strike was successful?

---

Recent negotiations revealed that Iran had a stockpile of 11 tons of 60% enriched uranium. Restarting their enrichment could get them weapons grade material in a couple of weeks for 11 nuclear devices. The centrifuges were destroyed, but this material was kept elsewhere.

---

Sooooo Trump lied or overstated the effectiveness of the strike???

---

Iran presently cannot enrich the uranium because of the previous strike. Recent negotiations demanded Iran hand over the enriched uranium.
They refused.

---

So Trump either lied or overstated the effectiveness of the strike. Which is it?


Completely destroyed means completely. Like nothing left.


Not we destroyed all of this one part but left this part intact.

---

Pretty sure I read that Trump and Vance were given access to Iran after the bombing to confirm the strikes. It was in the NY Times...

---

So he made claims without all the facts……

cowboycwr said:

---

Assassin said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Assassin said:

---

BREAKING: NATO also says that Iran was on the brink of obtaining a nuclear weapon. pic.twitter.com/2ZYpxH24E4

— Eyal Yakoby (@EYakoby) March 3, 2026

---

This can't be. Trump told us the strike a few months ago completely destroyed their weapons program.

So which is it? They almost had one (which means the strike was not successful)? Or the strike was successful?

---

Recent negotiations revealed that Iran had a stockpile of 11 tons of 60% enriched uranium. Restarting their enrichment could get them weapons grade material in a couple of weeks for 11 nuclear devices. The centrifuges were destroyed, but this material was kept elsewhere.

---

Sooooo Trump lied or overstated the effectiveness of the strike???

---

Iran presently cannot enrich the uranium because of the previous strike. Recent negotiations demanded Iran hand over the enriched uranium.
They refused.

---

So Trump either lied or overstated the effectiveness of the strike. Which is it?


Completely destroyed means completely. Like nothing left.


Not we destroyed all of this one part but left this part intact.

---

Pretty sure I read that Trump and Vance were given access to Iran after the bombing to confirm the strikes. It was in the NY Times...

---

So he made claims without all the facts……

---

You can say that all you want but it doesnt make it true or false. You simply don't know. You don't have all the facts...

Oldbear83 said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

So, subjective as hell.

As expected.

---

LOL


All writen history is subjective.


Sorry to waste both of our time.

---

Any rational evaluation starts with definition of expectations, standardized metrics, and application of objective controls, such as not grading a President within a certain time after leaving office. Schlesinger once said no President should be judged within 20 years of leaving office, but he forgot that as soon as he could attack a Republican.

Things like ending wars successfully (especially wars started by someone else), improving GDP and lowering the debt (I know, stop laughing), signing meaningful treaties.

The thing about 'Historians' is that they package everything as a narrative. So Trump's economic and border accomplishments first term or now are ignored in favor of mocking Trump's speaking style, his presumed lack of eloquence, and of course scurrilous rumors floated without evidence. In the same way, 'historians' ignore Obama's extraconstitutional use of drones to kill American citizens, blame Vietnam on Nixon rather than LBJ and ignore JFK's own part. The same 'historians' ignore the disaster of FDR's first two terms in actually recovering from the Depression, while blaming it on Coolidge out of spite.

Those same 'historians' ignore the success of John Adams and Polk's territory expansion, ignore Clinton's sex crimes while all but making up claims to smear whatever Republican is in office.

It's not a 'waste of time' to insist on and use standard definitions and clear measurements. It's unacceptable to let academics continue a lie they themselves know should have been eviscerated decades ago.

---

You make some good points.

Lets see your lists.

---

I follow Schlesinger's old rule of not grading a President until he has left office for 20 years or more.

Best:

1) Washington
2) Polk
3) Adams, John
4) Reagan
5) Monroe


Worst:

1) Wilson
2) Roosevelt, Franklin
3) Buchanan
4) Johnson, Lyndon
5) Carter

---

Not a bad list.

Attacking Wilson is in vogue because its the politically correct thing to do... but he is another one, like Nixon, who gets unfairly maligned.

---

Wilson gave us the Income Tax and literally invited the KKK's leaders to the White House and praised their cause.

---

Yeah he was a proponent of segregation. Was that controversial at the time? He got re-elected and would have won a 3rd term had he not suffered a stroke. If you are going to criticize him for that, then you should apply it to many of the Presidents in your Top 5 also.

You complain about leftists creating a narrative and re-writing history so that it suits their political agenda but you do it yourself.

All modern Presidents since JFK have invited Zionist, Jewish Supremacists to the White House and the Jewish mafia(present day Mossad) killed many more people than the KKK

He created the income tax to remove tarriffs. Not a huge fan obviously... but as you rightly listed, it was F Roosevelt who really weaponized the income tax.

The_barBEARian said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

So, subjective as hell.

As expected.

---

LOL


All writen history is subjective.


Sorry to waste both of our time.

---

Any rational evaluation starts with definition of expectations, standardized metrics, and application of objective controls, such as not grading a President within a certain time after leaving office. Schlesinger once said no President should be judged within 20 years of leaving office, but he forgot that as soon as he could attack a Republican.

Things like ending wars successfully (especially wars started by someone else), improving GDP and lowering the debt (I know, stop laughing), signing meaningful treaties.

The thing about 'Historians' is that they package everything as a narrative. So Trump's economic and border accomplishments first term or now are ignored in favor of mocking Trump's speaking style, his presumed lack of eloquence, and of course scurrilous rumors floated without evidence. In the same way, 'historians' ignore Obama's extraconstitutional use of drones to kill American citizens, blame Vietnam on Nixon rather than LBJ and ignore JFK's own part. The same 'historians' ignore the disaster of FDR's first two terms in actually recovering from the Depression, while blaming it on Coolidge out of spite.

Those same 'historians' ignore the success of John Adams and Polk's territory expansion, ignore Clinton's sex crimes while all but making up claims to smear whatever Republican is in office.

It's not a 'waste of time' to insist on and use standard definitions and clear measurements. It's unacceptable to let academics continue a lie they themselves know should have been eviscerated decades ago.

---

You make some good points.

Lets see your lists.

---

I follow Schlesinger's old rule of not grading a President until he has left office for 20 years or more.

Best:

1) Washington
2) Polk
3) Adams, John
4) Reagan
5) Monroe


Worst:

1) Wilson
2) Roosevelt, Franklin
3) Buchanan
4) Johnson, Lyndon
5) Carter

---

Not a bad list.

Attacking Wilson is in vogue because its the politically correct thing to do... but he is another one, like Nixon, who gets unfairly maligned.

---

a. Wilson dragged the US into WW1 despite repeated promises to avoid entering the slaughter
b. Did little to nothing to stop the spread of the 1918 Spanish Influenza virus because he was concerned such publicity would hurt the US war effort. Continued to pack troops on ships toward France where they died by the hundreds.
C.Butchered the WW1 peace settlement.
D.Hardcore racist
E. Failed to hand over power to the vice president even though he had suffered a massive stroke.

cowboycwr said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

So, subjective as hell.

As expected.

---

LOL


All writen history is subjective.


Sorry to waste both of our time.

---

Any rational evaluation starts with definition of expectations, standardized metrics, and application of objective controls, such as not grading a President within a certain time after leaving office. Schlesinger once said no President should be judged within 20 years of leaving office, but he forgot that as soon as he could attack a Republican.

Things like ending wars successfully (especially wars started by someone else), improving GDP and lowering the debt (I know, stop laughing), signing meaningful treaties.

The thing about 'Historians' is that they package everything as a narrative. So Trump's economic and border accomplishments first term or now are ignored in favor of mocking Trump's speaking style, his presumed lack of eloquence, and of course scurrilous rumors floated without evidence. In the same way, 'historians' ignore Obama's extraconstitutional use of drones to kill American citizens, blame Vietnam on Nixon rather than LBJ and ignore JFK's own part. The same 'historians' ignore the disaster of FDR's first two terms in actually recovering from the Depression, while blaming it on Coolidge out of spite.

Those same 'historians' ignore the success of John Adams and Polk's territory expansion, ignore Clinton's sex crimes while all but making up claims to smear whatever Republican is in office.

It's not a 'waste of time' to insist on and use standard definitions and clear measurements. It's unacceptable to let academics continue a lie they themselves know should have been eviscerated decades ago.

---

You make some good points.

Lets see your lists.

---

I follow Schlesinger's old rule of not grading a President until he has left office for 20 years or more.

Best:

1) Washington
2) Polk
3) Adams, John
4) Reagan
5) Monroe


Worst:

1) Wilson
2) Roosevelt, Franklin
3) Buchanan
4) Johnson, Lyndon
5) Carter

---

Agreed that one should wait 20 years before grading a president. Then you can see the long term impacts of their policies and get rid of the recency bias or feeling that they were good/bad.

Like how people thought Clinton was great right after he left but now look back and realize he was not really that great.

---

Clinton was bad... I almost had him in my bottom 5...

Most of his "accomplishments" were inherited from Reagan and Senior Bush.

Assassin said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Assassin said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Assassin said:

---

BREAKING: NATO also says that Iran was on the brink of obtaining a nuclear weapon. pic.twitter.com/2ZYpxH24E4

— Eyal Yakoby (@EYakoby) March 3, 2026

---

This can't be. Trump told us the strike a few months ago completely destroyed their weapons program.

So which is it? They almost had one (which means the strike was not successful)? Or the strike was successful?

---

Recent negotiations revealed that Iran had a stockpile of 11 tons of 60% enriched uranium. Restarting their enrichment could get them weapons grade material in a couple of weeks for 11 nuclear devices. The centrifuges were destroyed, but this material was kept elsewhere.

---

Sooooo Trump lied or overstated the effectiveness of the strike???

---

Iran presently cannot enrich the uranium because of the previous strike. Recent negotiations demanded Iran hand over the enriched uranium.
They refused.

---

So Trump either lied or overstated the effectiveness of the strike. Which is it?


Completely destroyed means completely. Like nothing left.


Not we destroyed all of this one part but left this part intact.

---

Pretty sure I read that Trump and Vance were given access to Iran after the bombing to confirm the strikes. It was in the NY Times...

---

So he made claims without all the facts……

---

You can say that all you want but it doesnt make it true or false. You simply don't know. You don't have all the facts...

---

Lol. Yes I do I have all the facts.

There is plenty of video of him and people in his administration telling us the strikes completely destroyed, wiped out, or other similar phrases Irans nuclear weapons program.

Now there are videos of his administration using Irans weapons program as a justification for these strikes just months later…… except we aren't going after nuclear sites this time……