FLBear5630 said:

---

BUDOS said:

---

In your opinion who is the best Republican president?

---

Modern?

1 - Eisenhower
2 - Roosevelt (start of Modern Era in my opinion)

Overall

1- Lincoln (Father of the Party)

---

That sounds credible to me. I think Ike was one of the better ones as well. What are a couple of things he did that you especially think deserved your ranking--outside his direct military exerience.

BUDOS said:

---

historian said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

historian said:

---

Lincoln - in my mind, he's the greatest president in US history. Then Washington, then Reagan.

---

Washington was a Republican?

---

No, he was a Federalist which disappeared in the es to ly 19th century. It was replaced by the Whigs which disappeared and replaced by the Republican Party.

Fun fact: the GOP was established in 1856 expressly as an anti-slavery party (not the first) while the Dems have always been pro-slavery. That's true today since it's the home of socialists of different stripes and socialism is slavery.

We should never forget that the Dems allowed sex trafficking under Biden, often blatantly helping the traffickers bring in hundreds of thousands of children. Thankfully, the Trump administration has found many of those young children. Many more are still out there and the Dems are fighting all efforts to find and deport the criminals responsible for these crimes. They want to abolish ICE, for example.

---

Speaking of finding children and who is responsible for finding them or losing them may depend upon where you choose to look, as noted below:

Evidence shows that Trump's immigration policiesespecially the 20172018 "zerotolerance" family separation policywere directly responsible for thousands of children being taken from their parents, and for many of them becoming "lost" because the government failed to track them.

1. Thousands of children were separated by design
Trump's "zerotolerance" policy required criminal prosecution of all adults crossing the border, which automatically triggered separation from their childreneven infants.

• More than 5,500 children were separated during the first Trump administration.
• Some families seeking asylum legally at ports of entry were also separated.

2. The government did not keep a list of the separated children
This is the core reason so many children became "lost."

• The Office of Refugee Resettlement was ordered not to maintain a list linking children to parents.
• There was no centralized database connecting children to their parents.
• As a result, even after the policy ended, officials could not figure out which child belonged to which parent.

3. Many children remain unreunited years later
A 2024 Human Rights Watch/Yale report found:

• About 4,600 children were separated during Trump's first term.
• Over 1,300 remain unreunitednearly 30% of the total.

4. Separations continued even after the policy officially ended
Even after June 2018, when Trump signed an order ending the policy, separations continued:

• At least 1,100 families were separated between mid2018 and the end of 2019.

5. New forms of family separation have emerged
In Trump's current term, mass deportation efforts are again dividing families:

• Parents are detained or deported while children remain in the U.S.
• Some children are reclassified as "unaccompanied minors," placed in shelters or foster care.

Trump's policies responsible for children being lost because the policies intentionally separated families and failed to track the children. The "lost children" problem was not an accident of scale; it was a systemic failure created by:

• deliberate separation,
• lack of recordkeeping,
• lack of reunification planning, and
• continued enforcement practices that split families again.

This is why thousands of children were separated, and why hundreds to more than a thousand remain unreunited today.
Across all these independent and government sources, the findings are consistent:
[ol]

Family separation was intentional policy.

The government did not create a system to track separated children.

Thousands of children were separated.

Hundreds to more than a thousand remain unreunited.

The "lost children" problem was caused by recordkeeping failures, not by children running away.

[/ol]
These conclusions come from official government watchdogs, federal courts, and independent investigationsthe most dependable documentation available.

---

https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/press/rep/releases/new-hhs-data-confirms-biden-harris-admin-placed-tens-of-thousands-of-migrant-children-with-unvetted-sponsors-declined-recommended-home-studies

(you do know the "kids in cages" started under Obama, right?)

I provided my top 3 presidents of all time: #1 and #3 were Republicans #2 and #3 are bonus. I apologize for any confusion.

That's a fair list.

Thanks for sharing. I assumed that this was widely known. I should have known better.

Dip****, my family sponsored two families that emigrated from Israel. I grew up in NY and have been to more Bar-Mitzvahs than you have digits. So keep the anti-semite BS.

historian said:

---

I provided my top 3 presidents of all time: #1 and #3 were Republicans #2 and #3 are bonus. I apologize for any confusion.

---

Thanks. It does seem interesting to me to record the Top 5 and Worst 5 of Each Party.

Harrison,
You are partially correct, in that the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee report accurately shows the Biden-Harris administration placed thousands of unaccompanied migrant children with unvetted sponsors due to accelerated release procedures. This differs from the 2018 Trump-era "zero tolerance" policy, which involved the deliberate, forced separation of families at the border, whereas the 20212025 situation involved administrative failures in vetting children who arrived already unaccompanied.

Apparently both could have made better decisions, and some may say one of them was a bit more unethical than the other. However, why does it matter when our leaders are so busy making America Great Again, by allowing and even encouraging us that' it is okay for us to take children away from their parents as long as they are not American citizens. That their human is a technicality? Nope, we voted one of them back in so let's all share in this accomplishment.

IIRC, the problem started with foreign nationals bringing in minors who were not their blood relatives, leading to separation for the protection of those minors.

From that perspective, claiming the action was 'separating families' amounts to an invalid attack on the Trump Administration protection of minors from human traffickers.

That's not technicalities, it speaks to the essential character of the two Administrations. One which may have allowed human trafficking out of careless ignorance of the actions, and one which may or may not have made decisions on good intentions but lacking follow-through on getting the minors to their real families. Consider the problem if the minors' real parents were themselves illegals trying to enter the US.

That would be useful but more difficult. I can think of a few candidates for numbers 4 & 5. In no particular order because it would require considerable thought: Eisenhower, TR, Polk, Truman, & Coolidge. The bottom five are also difficult to choose as they include (also in no particular order): Biden, Obama, Buchanan, Carter, Hoover, and others.

William Henry Harrison deserves special mention not for lack of character but because his presidency accomplished so little since he only served got one month. He caught pneumonia at the inauguration and became very sick. Another unique example is John Quincy Adams, son of our second president, who was a great man. Arguably our best Secretary of State before becoming president and a great representative in Congress after, his presidency lacked any major accomplishments because of the circumstances of the 1824 election. He defeated Andrew Jackson in the Electoral College de sad pits losing the popular vote. This is not the only time it has happened but it was the first. The 1824 election is known as the "corrupt bargain" because it was the result of a political deal. As a result, Congress refused to cooperate with a man they considered illegitimate and his administration was essentially a failure.

I mentioned before that I do not consider a President who served for less than two years, nor a President who finished a term within the last 20 years. That limits us to consider 38 men who served, with the following breakdowns by party:

17 Republicans
13 Democrats
04 Democratic-Republicans
02 Federalists
02 Whigs

I found that telling. I don't think most people realize we have had that breakdown by party. Of course, I doubt many would know which Presidents were Federalist and which were Democratic-Republican without looking it up, either.

I have no intention of defending Biden's actions if they are as you say. Trump knew what he was doing and intentionally separated innocent children from their parents, and some for the rest of their lives. He is responsible for that. He is our president and we sit around and allowed him to do it and voted him back in. Some of us attempt to shed our guilt by saying they had no choice compared to the other party's candidate. Others brag about it.

I just hope we work hard to have better choices, locally, state and national. But I am not sure if we really care enough to do anything substantive, especially since we are so good at ripping into each other how to make America great instead of working on how to bring (more of) us together to do that.

BUDOS: " Trump knew what he was doing and intentionally separated innocent children from their parents, and some for the rest of their lives"

Disagree. Will leave it at that, since you are obviously angry on this issue.

I guess you tend to agree on some things I stated?

We do disagree on this issue, and documentation from primarily conservative sources indicates he did, although they did work to justify and rationalize his actions.

Trump and his administration deliberately implemented the "zero tolerance" immigration policy in 2018, which intentionally separated children from their parents at the U.S.-Mexico border. Rather than an accident or an unavoidable consequence of prosecution, internal government reviews and investigative reporting confirmed the policy was designed as a "prevention by deterrence" strategy to discourage unauthorized migration.

Conservative sources and organizations have documented and defended the administration's actions:The Heritage Foundation: Conservative think tanks like the Heritage Foundation published commentaries and reports validating the policy. They argued that the administration was forced into these separations by the Flores Settlement Agreement and Ninth Circuit court rulings. Heritage analysts maintained that because federal law required the detention and prosecution of adults crossing the border illegally, and the legal limits on detaining minors meant children had to be released from secured custody, the separations were the result of closing immigration loopholes.


National Review: Writers at conservative outlets like the National Review acknowledged the deliberate nature of the separations. While conservative columnists frequently debated the morality and political strategy of the policysometimes criticizing the implementation or arguing that Congress could have avoided itthey agreed that breaking up the families was a calculated maneuver intended to discourage future migrants from attempting the "often perilous and dangerous journey" with their children.

At least 5,000 children were separated from their families before the administration signed an executive order to halt the practice following widespread domestic and international backlash.

I know enough facts on this issue, to know you are emotionally invested in a false narrative, BUDOS.

You are usually very balanced, so for this issue I will not engage you.

Oldbear83 said:

---

I know enough facts on this issue, to know you are emotionally invested in a false narrative, BUDOS.

You are usually very balanced, so for this issue I will not engage you.

---

I don't deny that I am emotionally invested, and I do believe that you should know more about me than many. You indicate you have enough facts on this issue. I would like to know those facts and their sources, because you also know from the past that there are times when I have admitted that I have been proven wrong. It's my opinion that is one of the risks we take when we choose to participate in these forums.

I purposely presented to you documentation from conservative sources to give my stance credibility, as that is often your initial response to negate someone's view, before you often present your own rationale. I have no love for Biden, so I would like to study the sources where you have enough facts on this issue to refute the conservative sources I cited and the statements I made. I do not believe I am going to change your belief, based on your past posts. I just want the information for myself.

As with a few others, you have been critical of some of Trump's antics and decisions, apparently weighing those against others he has taken and still support him. I can understand and respect that, especially when there is a coherent rationale. I mean no disrespect and I cannot force you to respond. I am only making a request. Should you refuse, then this "discussion" is over and we will move on to engage in other topics in the future.
And I have no problem in moving on if that is your choice.

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

No, just for people like you. Intellectual, sorry had to stop laughing...

---

Yelling at clouds and hating Jews is no way to go through life.

---

In fairness, he hasn't gone the full Monty on hating Jews. Yet.

trendlines are bleak for Democrats. The marxist takeover of the party is not going to help it.

The 2030 apportionment forecast is a structural warning light.

Seats are projected to shift out of CA, NY, IL, PA, OR, MN, RI & WI and into TX, FL, GA, NC, AZ, ID & UT. That does not automatically equal +15 or +20 GOP seats. But it does redraw the battlefield: more House… pic.twitter.com/ravBe9BY0w

— Quantus Insights (@QuantusInsights) July 6, 2026

Let them form their own party and give the liberals two opportunities to split their votes.

whiterock said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

No, just for people like you. Intellectual, sorry had to stop laughing...

---

Yelling at clouds and hating Jews is no way to go through life.

---

In fairness, he hasn't gone the full Monty on hating Jews. Yet.

---

Trump as POTUS and his MAGA minions are the only thing I go full Monty on.

BUDOS said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BUDOS said:

---

In your opinion who is the best Republican president?

---

Modern?

1 - Eisenhower
2 - Roosevelt (start of Modern Era in my opinion)

Overall

1- Lincoln (Father of the Party)

---

That sounds credible to me. I think Ike was one of the better ones as well. What are a couple of things he did that you especially think deserved your ranking--outside his direct military exerience.

---

Ike, there were a lot. I think his war experience taught him to overlook the BS, not get caught up in the pettiness time is too short.

1 - He was steady and balanced Federal Budgets. He was fiscal Conservative, but Socially liberal (in terms of investing in the well being of US citizens)

2 - He was visionary, but practical. He got it done. Interstate Highway, NASA, NATO, he pushed STEM, Nuclear for peaceful uses not just the Triad

3 - He would do the unpopular thing because it was right. Sending troops to Little Rock, not joining Suez, and his believe in balancing military and civil needs.

4- Ended the Korean War. Campaigned on it and did it.

5 - He worked for and wanted unity. He saw us all as Americans, not 2 Parties. When Kennedy needed help, Eisenhower helped. He didn't politicize it, he helped. We need that attitude now.

Favorite picture


This is another one. We need more across the aisle..

BUDOS said:

---

Harrison,
You are partially correct, in that the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee report accurately shows the Biden-Harris administration placed thousands of unaccompanied migrant children with unvetted sponsors due to accelerated release procedures. This differs from the 2018 Trump-era "zero tolerance" policy, which involved the deliberate, forced separation of families at the border, whereas the 20212025 situation involved administrative failures in vetting children who arrived already unaccompanied.

Apparently both could have made better decisions, and some may say one of them was a bit more unethical than the other. However, why does it matter when our leaders are so busy making America Great Again, by allowing and even encouraging us that' it is okay for us to take children away from their parents as long as they are not American citizens. That their human is a technicality? Nope, we voted one of them back in so let's all share in this accomplishment.

---

Actually it started before Trump. However, I do not blame you for not realizing it ... probably do not recall the infamous Reuters article that was removed when it realized Obama not Trump was president during the period.

No I was not and thanks. Hopefully we have better candidates coming through the system this time around that we can discuss.

Nice job! Good stuff! He is been moved up on my list.
Do you have a favorite book about him that you would recommend?

Historian, thanks for the refresher on JQ Adams!
it's been a long time since a history class; however, I did enjoy your brief history lesson!

BUDOS said:

---

Nice job! Good stuff! He is been moved up on my list.
Do you have a favorite book about him that you would recommend?

---

How Ike Led: The Principles Behind Eisenhower's Biggest Decisions

Three days in January

Supreme Commander by Ambrose (Band of Brothers)

Those are all good. At least i liked them.

BUDOS said:

---

Historian, thanks for the refresher on JQ Adams!
it's been a long time since a history class; however, I did enjoy your brief history lesson!

---

My pleasure! JQA is a fascinating figure.

The title with the word"principles" certainly caught my attention. If I recall correctly, it's still in the dictionary.

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

No, just for people like you. Intellectual, sorry had to stop laughing...

---

Yelling at clouds and hating Jews is no way to go through life.

---

In fairness, he hasn't gone the full Monty on hating Jews. Yet.

---

Trump as POTUS and his MAGA minions are the only thing I go full Monty on.

---

Frankly, there isn't much difference. Each is, at root, intolerance of something different that one does not understand. Easier to just "other it" as some kind of pathology rather than look inward and see that one's own deficiencies are perhaps generating the greater portion of internal agita.

BUDOS said:

---

No I was not and thanks. Hopefully we have better candidates coming through the system this time around that we can discuss.

---

I am convinced 50% of the disagreements reasonable people have is due to disinformation and pure ignorance.

Realize your more sympathetic to the left, but the left-wing media stopped hiding the ball in 2016 and is just openly become an advocacy organization as we continue to see; hence, so many are disinformed. I have an old LWNJ friend that really does not believe 60 Minutes edited the Kamala Harris interview and it is just a bribe to Trump ... of course when you share the actual transcript and the video you get the "whatever" storm off.

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

No, just for people like you. Intellectual, sorry had to stop laughing...

---

Yelling at clouds and hating Jews is no way to go through life.

---

In fairness, he hasn't gone the full Monty on hating Jews. Yet.

---

Trump as POTUS and his MAGA minions are the only thing I go full Monty on.

---

Frankly, there isn't much difference. Each is, at root, intolerance of something different that one does not understand. Easier to just "other it" as some kind of pathology rather than look inward and see that one's own deficiencies are perhaps generating the greater portion of internal agita.

---

That's a common tactic described by Orwell and frequently used by authoritarians - National Socialist Germany did it particularly well. Just label all your opponents so you can dehumanize them and not have to engage directly. 100% chance no one can really define "MAGA" or identify a membership list, it is just a way to "otherize" anyone with a diverse POV ... I do have to engage with those dirty JEWS! It's the concept, different context.

It's like on the other threat about "Christian Nationalism," which I think means anyone who is not a radical regressive ... no one can really define what it means, whose on the membership roles, where is the headquarters, what's the platform / values, etc.

No, the part you don't get or want to admit. I understand quite well what is going on...

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

BUDOS said:

---

No I was not and thanks. Hopefully we have better candidates coming through the system this time around that we can discuss.

---

I am convinced 50% of the disagreements reasonable people have is due to disinformation and pure ignorance.

Realize your more sympathetic to the left, but the left-wing media stopped hiding the ball in 2016 and is just openly become an advocacy organization as we continue to see; hence, so many are disinformed. I have an old LWNJ friend that really does not believe 60 Minutes edited the Kamala Harris interview and it is just a bribe to Trump ... of course when you share the actual transcript and the video you get the "whatever" storm off.

---

That is a good example, especially how hard it is for someone to change a belief, due to their biases which filters the information. Examples like you presented exist on both sides of the spectrum. It's interesting how the spectrum has changed in the last few decades, as I have pretty much remained a moderate conservative but many on this forum interpret that as leftist. I guess it should be amusing, but it's quite irritating.

FLBear5630 said:

---

No, the part you don't get or want to admit. I understand quite well what is going on...

---

LOL you know nothing, Jon Snow.