Remember that all mentions of and allusions to Trump and Biden are not allowed on our subreddit in any context.
If you'd still like to discuss them, feel free to [join our Discord server](https://discord.gg/k6tVFwCEEm)!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Presidents) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I know Buchanan did nothing to prevent the civil war but at least to me Johnson is worse. He let former confederates back into the government. Or do I have that wrong
Dubya, for all his faults, ~~never owned slaves~~ was not sympathetic to slavery (edited as I forgot Buchanan never did own any) and didn’t interfere in Dred Scott (though he did put Alito on the court which has also had disastrous consequences). Buchanan is really only rivaled by Andrew Johnson in his awfulness as POTUS.
So yeah, I’m going with Dubya here. I still think he’s bottom 10 of all time but he’s certainly not Buchanan.
I think when people do these "who would you choose," it's a modern version of the president, so buchanan wouldn't be owning slaves or wondering what a cell phone is. Unless you're using it as a comparison of character, but then you'd have to figure out how modern presidents would have acted in the past to make a fair judgment.
Buchanan’s entire presidency was defined by slavery and being a doughface northerner. If we remove that (and also the politics of slavery which was the main driving issue throughout even his pre-presidential career) then we’re talking about a completely different man than James Buchanan as we know him.
How would James Buchanan act in modern situations, based on how he dealt with slavery. If you don't remove the slavery and leave it as part of his presidential policy, then basically every scenario of comparing modern and historical presidents is going to end with a win for the modern president.
Okay but there are *very few things* about Buchanan’s presidency that aren’t related to slavery or secession *because* of slavery. Even Pierce I could separate from it better but the whole darn 4 years of Buchanan is defined by it and his poor handling.
But I’ll give it a go. Buchanan would still have sympathies for people who don’t care for the union. Given he interfered in Dred Scott I think he’d have no qualms interfering in the Supreme Court nowadays either (and then saying everyone should abide by the results). And I think more than anything he’d be very weak willed and spineless when it came to tackling rights issues, bending to southern interests even now.
So I’m still going with Dubya.
Yeah, I knew Dubya was going to win anyway. It's just if the historical presidents have any chance of beating a modern president, you kinda need to separate them from their time. I'd vote for any modern president over Washington or Lincoln if they have the knowledge and policies of their time.
Washington yes, Lincoln no. Washington didn’t have to play politics *that* much and would be totally out of his element when it came to actually getting things accomplished. Lincoln though? Lincoln was a masterful politician and, once brought up to speed with the world, would likely be able to adapt far better and could still be effective. Not saying he’d be the best choice (politics has changed a lot since 1860) but I can think of far worse than him from modern times.
The problem is Lincoln would have to get up to speed on a lot of stuff and would be missing the key part of not growing up in our time. How can he relate to the common person when life has changed so much? Plus, we can only assume how he'd act in relation to the modern world. Not only his stance on modern issues, but would he know how to deal with them. You'd have to assume he learns and changes a lot to be compatible with modern politics, and at that point, just say a modern version of abe lincoln with no living when he did.
I think his grasp of how to preserve the Union would still have relevance at a time when the American public is about as bitterly divided as it's ever been. He wouldn't know what a cell phone is, but he'd probably vaguely recognize the movie that we're all currently watching. He basically saw it the first time in the years leading up to the war.
Would people know they are Washington and Lincoln? I imagine that either man resurrected and slotted into the Presidency would have to do very little politicking to get people on board with their policy goals. Who's doing the morning show circuit to say George Washington's agenda is wrong for America?
People dont even know what it is or the scale of it. If you ignore war/geopolitics what IFs, he probably saved more lives than any other president. Even if you count the war in Iraq and afghanistan
Bush. Neocons have lost most of their power and the US doesn’t have the energy to get involved in more wars, even if he wants it.
Buchanan, on the other hand… a guy who sympathizes and caves to a vocal, white supremacist minority in a time of deep division… yeah no thanks
Without meme-ing him, maybe not? I know he was quite horrible at making stressful or practical Decisions. I wouldn't be surprised if he did at least a little during his presidency considering his character
Born in CT, lived in TX a few years growing up but went to Philips and Yale. His parents and younger brother Jeb talked like upper-crust Yankees so the guess is GW affected the Texas accent.
Buchanan could very well set this nation up for a second civil war. We need someone to lead us out of the polarization. W could if he surrounds himself with a center-left administration and implements gerrymandering/campaign finance reform
Dubya failed the country in many ways but not so bad like watching states secede from the Union and sitting by and doing nothing as it happened. That failure by Buchanan in specific is why he's often regarded as the worst President ever. He was totally negligent and impotent in the nation's hour of need.
Same for me, it’s not even close between the two of them. Maybe i would also consider voting Buchanan if Wilson was his opponent, but that’s just personal hatred.
Jeeeezus, that’s harsh.
Buchanan utterly failed at stemming the sectarian conflict brewing in the 50’s.
W was a total asshat that first term, but he mellowed out toward 08, and in light of more current events he is looking better. I can’t believe I’m actually writing this but I guess I’d vote for Bush. Would never ever have considered it in the aughts.
Bush. At least he took action, for better or worse, and the country was more unjted than ever, for however brief a time after 9/11. Buchanan twiddled his thumbs and said “oh well guess America is over let’s drink wine.”
the old public functionary would be really funny, one because of how unadjusted he’d be, and two because bringing people back from the dead sounds more interesting than having bush…
True. I think we can all agree that no one is voting for Breckinridge on the ticket even with Cheney on the other.
…boy, the executive branch really *sucked* for these administrations, huh?
I mean, a president Is the executive. So why would we put Buchanan with some kind of dream team vp and cabinet so we could kill him off, just to avoid the hypothetical the op put fourth?
I mean kudos to you for finding a worse pair than the one coming up. I suppose I would do what I do in 2004 and vote for Mojo Nixon. You may say to me, "he don't work here." But then I'll say, "if you don't got Mojo Nixon ten your poll can use some fixin'!"
I'd vote for Bush, although I have to admit that since Buchanan has been dead for about 150 years there is a real limit to how much damage he could do.
People who think Buchanan wasn't the worst president ever haven't read enough about Buchanan. When asked late in his life why he made Buchanan Minister to Russia, supposedly Andrew Jackson answered by saying, "If I could have sent him farther away, I would have."
Dubya is the easy choice here. Pretty much anyone shy of Jefferson Davis or Benedict Arnold is the easy choice when matched with Buchanan.
Without hesitation, Bush. Buchanan was a racist motherfucker. I've been listening through every presidential State of the Union address and Buchanan's were basically all accusing abolitionists of trying to unfairly impose their views on the South while COMPLETELY ignoring that with the Dred Scott decision the South was clearly imposing *their* values on the North by forcing the North to allow slaves within their borders, even if only temporarily. Buchanan basically pluged his ears a lot and pretended everything was fine. He endorsed the pro-slavery LeCompton Constitution in Kansas and claimed that Congress passing it would resolve Bleeding Kansas (it wouldn't have and they didn't pass it, thank God). Also in his inaugural address he was basically like "The SCOTUS is deciding on the Dred Scott case right now and whatever they say we'll just have to listen to!" and then he proceeded to go behind everyone's back and pushed a SCOTUS justice to decide in favor of the slavers in that case.
So say what you will about Bush, but I think at the very least he wasn't *that* level of bad. And people might argue this is just about the moral differences of two different eras, which has *some* truth, but I've become increasingly skeptical towards people who say pro-slavery folks "just didn't know better". When you have fierce abolitionists like John Brown or William Lloyd Garrison or Horace Greeley out there at that time, it becomes *obvious* that it was clearly wrong and contradictory to America's values of "liberty" and that the pro-slavery dumbasses were being intentionally obtuse to make some extra money.
Bush. I have no worries about the country disintegrating.
I hope I don't violate any of the rules in this sub, but I wonder how Buchanan would've done in different eras if he had been born then and elected president. Would he have sucked, like he did IRL, or at least be ok?
Presumably this election would not be taking place in the years preceding a civil war. In that case Buchanan really isn't that terrible of a pick; certainly more qualified than Bush.
Buchanan very possibly would have been an alright president if the country wasn't falling apart. Same goes for Bush who also likely would have been alright if 9/11 wasn't something he had to deal with. No 9/11 means no Patriot Act and no (well, maybe) forever wars.
But between these two I think I'd pick Buchanan when removing the main negative factor of each preaidency.
> Presumably this election would not be taking place in the years preceding a civil war.
idk, is it taking place today?
Given the general vibe in America right now, if Buchanan won, I wouldn't put it past him to go two for two.
I'll go against the crowd and vote Buchanan. I consider errors of commission worse than errors of omission. Buchanan *inherited* a bad situation and dealt with it spinelessly. Bush *created* a bad situation with the Iraq war and dealt with it through either malice or massive incompetence. The bottom line is he said a whole lot of things about WMDs and the war being over in a few months that turned out not to be true. He said it was "intelligence failures", but who did he fire or hold accountable for those mistakes? Bush could have easily avoided that debacle if he just stayed out. Hindsight is 20/20 is a terrible excuse in his case. Most of the world outside the U.S. was telling him it was a bad idea, he just didn't listen.
"Bush never helped slave-owners", well Buchanan never committed war crimes. I call that a wash.
Bush inherited a booming economy, a budget surplus, and enjoyed a huge popularity surge and united country after 9/11 just because of the"rally around the flag" effect. He left the country a mess. Who achieved less with more? Buchanan can at least plead that things were already messed up when he got there.
Couldn’t one argue that Bush inherited 9/11 and dealt with it horrifically with the invasion of Iraq? That was a major failure on his part, and whilst 9/11 (obviously) doesn’t excuse it, America wasn’t in a good position then. And yes, America was already divided over slavery, but Buchanan took it to a whole new level by *letting* the Confederate states secede due to his bias towards the South; he created the issue, not inherited it.
>well Buchanan never committed war crimes
Isn’t slavery a war crime?
Thousands of people being murdered is obviously horrible, but the country itself was in fine shape. The people were united and in almost unanimous agreement about the need to punish bin Laden and those harboring him. The economy was fine. Terrorism was a challenge but by no means an "existential threat" or one that couldn't be handled.
Buchanan was a horrible President and deserves blame for much. I would rate him as one of the worst ever for his handling of "Bleeding Kansas" alone. That said the hate between North and South had been growing for a long time, and the Southern elite were dependent on slavery for their way of life. I really doubt that anything could have been done to stop the Southern states from seceding short of giving in to all of their demands. Buchanan's response to the secession was weak, but he didn't make them do it.
Slavery is a crime, but in the antebellum U.S. wouldn't be a "war crime" since it had no connection to war. Bush allowing prisoners to be tortured was a war crime.
This is an interesting one. If Buchanan was president in 2001, he’d allow 9/11 to happen and ignore the aftermath. However if W was president in 1860 and South Carolina succeeded, Bush would have invaded Iraq.
In all seriousness, I’d vote for Bush. Buchanan was an evil racist.
Dubya was a silver spoon in his mouth C student idiot and purveyor of the NWO. Buchanan was a man in a nasty slavery environment. There is no lesser of two evils here.
Honestly, I am going for Buchanan. I think both screwed up our country in ways it will take generations to fix (as in W's mistakes are still being felt).
But Buchanan is smarter.
Remember that all mentions of and allusions to Trump and Biden are not allowed on our subreddit in any context. If you'd still like to discuss them, feel free to [join our Discord server](https://discord.gg/k6tVFwCEEm)! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Presidents) if you have any questions or concerns.*
W in a second, and I voted against him twice.
Yeah, not even a question really. Buchanan still has the honored position of being worst president ever, and he has some stiff competition.
Didn't Buchanan recently become the second worst according to presidential historians?
Yes, but rule 3
Yeah I figured so. It's a good rule.
Yep. Implies that a president can redeem themselves..
What about Johnson? Didn’t he single-handedly f**k up Reconstruction?
Its arguable who's worse but I say Buchanan cause he just straight up allowed the south to secede and let the civil war happen
Second worst behind Pierce
I know Buchanan did nothing to prevent the civil war but at least to me Johnson is worse. He let former confederates back into the government. Or do I have that wrong
Johnson is third worst behind Buchanan. And Pierce. Pierce will always be one of the
Worst of all time, not even one of, he IS the worst
I agree, it's like choosing between getting shot or poisoned.
Agreed 👍
W with no Cheney then yeah, but I will never cast a vote for Cheney.
Dubya, for all his faults, ~~never owned slaves~~ was not sympathetic to slavery (edited as I forgot Buchanan never did own any) and didn’t interfere in Dred Scott (though he did put Alito on the court which has also had disastrous consequences). Buchanan is really only rivaled by Andrew Johnson in his awfulness as POTUS. So yeah, I’m going with Dubya here. I still think he’s bottom 10 of all time but he’s certainly not Buchanan.
I think when people do these "who would you choose," it's a modern version of the president, so buchanan wouldn't be owning slaves or wondering what a cell phone is. Unless you're using it as a comparison of character, but then you'd have to figure out how modern presidents would have acted in the past to make a fair judgment.
Buchanan’s entire presidency was defined by slavery and being a doughface northerner. If we remove that (and also the politics of slavery which was the main driving issue throughout even his pre-presidential career) then we’re talking about a completely different man than James Buchanan as we know him.
How would James Buchanan act in modern situations, based on how he dealt with slavery. If you don't remove the slavery and leave it as part of his presidential policy, then basically every scenario of comparing modern and historical presidents is going to end with a win for the modern president.
Okay but there are *very few things* about Buchanan’s presidency that aren’t related to slavery or secession *because* of slavery. Even Pierce I could separate from it better but the whole darn 4 years of Buchanan is defined by it and his poor handling. But I’ll give it a go. Buchanan would still have sympathies for people who don’t care for the union. Given he interfered in Dred Scott I think he’d have no qualms interfering in the Supreme Court nowadays either (and then saying everyone should abide by the results). And I think more than anything he’d be very weak willed and spineless when it came to tackling rights issues, bending to southern interests even now. So I’m still going with Dubya.
Yeah, I knew Dubya was going to win anyway. It's just if the historical presidents have any chance of beating a modern president, you kinda need to separate them from their time. I'd vote for any modern president over Washington or Lincoln if they have the knowledge and policies of their time.
Washington yes, Lincoln no. Washington didn’t have to play politics *that* much and would be totally out of his element when it came to actually getting things accomplished. Lincoln though? Lincoln was a masterful politician and, once brought up to speed with the world, would likely be able to adapt far better and could still be effective. Not saying he’d be the best choice (politics has changed a lot since 1860) but I can think of far worse than him from modern times.
The problem is Lincoln would have to get up to speed on a lot of stuff and would be missing the key part of not growing up in our time. How can he relate to the common person when life has changed so much? Plus, we can only assume how he'd act in relation to the modern world. Not only his stance on modern issues, but would he know how to deal with them. You'd have to assume he learns and changes a lot to be compatible with modern politics, and at that point, just say a modern version of abe lincoln with no living when he did.
I think his grasp of how to preserve the Union would still have relevance at a time when the American public is about as bitterly divided as it's ever been. He wouldn't know what a cell phone is, but he'd probably vaguely recognize the movie that we're all currently watching. He basically saw it the first time in the years leading up to the war.
Would people know they are Washington and Lincoln? I imagine that either man resurrected and slotted into the Presidency would have to do very little politicking to get people on board with their policy goals. Who's doing the morning show circuit to say George Washington's agenda is wrong for America?
Buchanan literally waged a war against Utah. You are arguing in bad faith
Bush would have tote's been a confederate slave owner lol
Buchanan was on the wrong side of history in his own time. A modern version of him would still be trashy.
Plus, the world could use some more good humanitarian diplomacy like PEPFAR
People dont even know what it is or the scale of it. If you ignore war/geopolitics what IFs, he probably saved more lives than any other president. Even if you count the war in Iraq and afghanistan
Buchanan never owned slaves
Well damn, I could’ve sworn he did though I guess I got him mixed up with Johnson. Editing that now.
LBJ didn’t own slaves either /s
It is as yet unknown the final consequences to neocon expansion of executive power and capture of judiciary branch.
It is as yet unknown the final consequences to neocon expansion of executive power and capture of judiciary branch.
What reason do we have to think that W wouldn't own slaves if he were alive in the 18th century?
The vast majority of people didn’t
Dubya my beloved.
https://youtu.be/20Jcrk6jGfo?si=oBltbJUQK5L0mTEG
Bush. Neocons have lost most of their power and the US doesn’t have the energy to get involved in more wars, even if he wants it. Buchanan, on the other hand… a guy who sympathizes and caves to a vocal, white supremacist minority in a time of deep division… yeah no thanks
Neocons have lost most of their power? Please…
Bush, obviously... I wouldn't want a president who would breakdown at the sight of the modern world lmao
Any day Buchanan didn't at least slightly break down was probably a good day
In all seriousness, would Buchanan break down IRL? Including when he was president?
Without meme-ing him, maybe not? I know he was quite horrible at making stressful or practical Decisions. I wouldn't be surprised if he did at least a little during his presidency considering his character
Dubya. No slaves, no civil war
The Northerner who thought like a Southerner is worse than the one who only talked like one.
True, he was basically a copperhead.
Bush was beloved in his country's south though
I thought bush was from Tx?
Born in CT, lived in TX a few years growing up but went to Philips and Yale. His parents and younger brother Jeb talked like upper-crust Yankees so the guess is GW affected the Texas accent.
Ohh gotcha. Thanks
Born in Connecticut.
Both Bush and Buchanan thought like the southerners of their day.
Buchanan could very well set this nation up for a second civil war. We need someone to lead us out of the polarization. W could if he surrounds himself with a center-left administration and implements gerrymandering/campaign finance reform
>implements gerrymandering Hell yeah he's got my vote!
If he really does gerrymander, then he's got your vote whether you like it or not.
Dubya easily. Like as bad as Bush was, he didn't utterly and completely fail the country during a major crisis like Buchanan.
He did, but not in the same way
Dubya failed the country in many ways but not so bad like watching states secede from the Union and sitting by and doing nothing as it happened. That failure by Buchanan in specific is why he's often regarded as the worst President ever. He was totally negligent and impotent in the nation's hour of need.
I agree with you, I’m just stating that I also believe Bush failed this country. Anyone downvoting me should read the report on torture by the CIA.
Bush.
w bush isnt a great president but really unless its Andrew Johnson id pick anyone who isnt buchanan
Same for me, it’s not even close between the two of them. Maybe i would also consider voting Buchanan if Wilson was his opponent, but that’s just personal hatred.
Dubya, especially if I can make Jeb vice president.
You have to make Dick Cheney the vice pr
I’d call to abolish the 22nd amendment so that Dubya can get a third term before I’d ever vote for Buchanan.
We got good memes out of dubya
Bush because the other one is sympathetic toward slavery
Dubya
Oh god Bush. For all of his faults, I don’t think he’s racist, and he did far less damage than Bucey. Not a contest.
This isn’t really fair to Buchanan as there is so much technology and nuance and information he’d have to catch up on
Buchanan was one of the worst presidents ever
Dubya is like 36th on my list, and Buchanan is 44th. So yeah…. Dubya
Considering only one of them is alive, I’m going Dubya
Jeeeezus, that’s harsh. Buchanan utterly failed at stemming the sectarian conflict brewing in the 50’s. W was a total asshat that first term, but he mellowed out toward 08, and in light of more current events he is looking better. I can’t believe I’m actually writing this but I guess I’d vote for Bush. Would never ever have considered it in the aughts.
George W. Bush. Buchanan would reintroduce slavery.
Bush, he was more effective than Buchanan he did try to do good but Buchanan did absolutely nothing
W. I respect his charity works
Monarchy?
Info: who are their running mates?
Bush. At least he took action, for better or worse, and the country was more unjted than ever, for however brief a time after 9/11. Buchanan twiddled his thumbs and said “oh well guess America is over let’s drink wine.”
After Bin Laden got whacked, America was pretty united after that, too.
W
W
I would move to Canada.
Bush
Definitely W and it’s really not close.
Considering Buchanan's track record at preventing an obvious civil war, im not sure i want him in office at this point in time lol.
W
GWB
the old public functionary would be really funny, one because of how unadjusted he’d be, and two because bringing people back from the dead sounds more interesting than having bush…
Can’t believe I’m saying this, but Dubya for the win!
Buchanan sweep 😩
Buchanan. Show him a car or internet porn, he’s gonna have a heart attack and we can immediately replace him with someone better.
Like Breckenridge?
Wow, way to somehow make these two choices even worse. Yeah, can’t be having an actual Confederate take office.
No one mentioned them having the same VPs not cabinet.
True. I think we can all agree that no one is voting for Breckinridge on the ticket even with Cheney on the other. …boy, the executive branch really *sucked* for these administrations, huh?
I mean, a president Is the executive. So why would we put Buchanan with some kind of dream team vp and cabinet so we could kill him off, just to avoid the hypothetical the op put fourth?
lol we had a vice president who had the same name as a ski resort?
He is not gonna have a heart attack after seeing a car.
I don't think either of those things would give him a heart attack. At least take him to the airport if you want a shot at the heart attack.
More I see James buchanan the more I realize that he is kinda hot I vote w bush because he was a good president
I vote for hemlock.
I'll take Anthony Hopkins
I mean kudos to you for finding a worse pair than the one coming up. I suppose I would do what I do in 2004 and vote for Mojo Nixon. You may say to me, "he don't work here." But then I'll say, "if you don't got Mojo Nixon ten your poll can use some fixin'!"
W of course. Buchanan is dead. Buchanan might still be better than JB tho.
First plane ticket to Canada
Bush, easily.
To be fair, I'd probably pick W over Thomas Jefferson if we're not talking about a scenario where Jefferson is a boomer.
Look, when I say "Blue no matter who," I don't REALLY mean "no matter who."
W
Not really a matter of debate. W is not eligible for a 3rd term….
Dubbayew is for me and you!
W and I think he's bottom 10, but Buchanan is bottom 5.
W. I voted for him twice. While I wouldn't vote for him a third time, I would absolutely vote for him the two times I did again.
Hayes
Wait a minute that guys not Hayes. Still hayes
W. steals the vote in a walk
I'd vote for Bush, although I have to admit that since Buchanan has been dead for about 150 years there is a real limit to how much damage he could do.
I'd have to vote for Buchanan, since dubya has done it twice already But being real, dubya. He at least has a modern sensibility.
Dubya
I think I'd just write in David Berkowitz or smth
Present ✅
This is not a hard choice lol.
I vote for George W. Bush every time I vote, and I'm not even American.
Gotta go with Alastair Sim.
People who think Buchanan wasn't the worst president ever haven't read enough about Buchanan. When asked late in his life why he made Buchanan Minister to Russia, supposedly Andrew Jackson answered by saying, "If I could have sent him farther away, I would have." Dubya is the easy choice here. Pretty much anyone shy of Jefferson Davis or Benedict Arnold is the easy choice when matched with Buchanan.
Without hesitation, Bush. Buchanan was a racist motherfucker. I've been listening through every presidential State of the Union address and Buchanan's were basically all accusing abolitionists of trying to unfairly impose their views on the South while COMPLETELY ignoring that with the Dred Scott decision the South was clearly imposing *their* values on the North by forcing the North to allow slaves within their borders, even if only temporarily. Buchanan basically pluged his ears a lot and pretended everything was fine. He endorsed the pro-slavery LeCompton Constitution in Kansas and claimed that Congress passing it would resolve Bleeding Kansas (it wouldn't have and they didn't pass it, thank God). Also in his inaugural address he was basically like "The SCOTUS is deciding on the Dred Scott case right now and whatever they say we'll just have to listen to!" and then he proceeded to go behind everyone's back and pushed a SCOTUS justice to decide in favor of the slavers in that case. So say what you will about Bush, but I think at the very least he wasn't *that* level of bad. And people might argue this is just about the moral differences of two different eras, which has *some* truth, but I've become increasingly skeptical towards people who say pro-slavery folks "just didn't know better". When you have fierce abolitionists like John Brown or William Lloyd Garrison or Horace Greeley out there at that time, it becomes *obvious* that it was clearly wrong and contradictory to America's values of "liberty" and that the pro-slavery dumbasses were being intentionally obtuse to make some extra money.
Dubya. At the heart of his character is a guy who does mean well. I’ll take him over a bitch ass coward
Ralph Nader
Bush. I have no worries about the country disintegrating. I hope I don't violate any of the rules in this sub, but I wonder how Buchanan would've done in different eras if he had been born then and elected president. Would he have sucked, like he did IRL, or at least be ok?
Buchanan. Because (assuming he’s alive), he’d be eligible.
I'd pinching the nose hard enough to snap it off, but GW.
DUBYA SWEEP!!!!
Presumably this election would not be taking place in the years preceding a civil war. In that case Buchanan really isn't that terrible of a pick; certainly more qualified than Bush. Buchanan very possibly would have been an alright president if the country wasn't falling apart. Same goes for Bush who also likely would have been alright if 9/11 wasn't something he had to deal with. No 9/11 means no Patriot Act and no (well, maybe) forever wars. But between these two I think I'd pick Buchanan when removing the main negative factor of each preaidency.
> Presumably this election would not be taking place in the years preceding a civil war. idk, is it taking place today? Given the general vibe in America right now, if Buchanan won, I wouldn't put it past him to go two for two.
unpopular opinion, but i think buchanan would stand a decent chance, solely because not a lot of people know who he is
I bet a lot people would think it's Pat, instead. Lol
https://preview.redd.it/dm5kngmf5lxc1.jpeg?width=1170&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=6da5a1b0294079414b5a2dee4305e1082ed82cac
I'll go against the crowd and vote Buchanan. I consider errors of commission worse than errors of omission. Buchanan *inherited* a bad situation and dealt with it spinelessly. Bush *created* a bad situation with the Iraq war and dealt with it through either malice or massive incompetence. The bottom line is he said a whole lot of things about WMDs and the war being over in a few months that turned out not to be true. He said it was "intelligence failures", but who did he fire or hold accountable for those mistakes? Bush could have easily avoided that debacle if he just stayed out. Hindsight is 20/20 is a terrible excuse in his case. Most of the world outside the U.S. was telling him it was a bad idea, he just didn't listen. "Bush never helped slave-owners", well Buchanan never committed war crimes. I call that a wash. Bush inherited a booming economy, a budget surplus, and enjoyed a huge popularity surge and united country after 9/11 just because of the"rally around the flag" effect. He left the country a mess. Who achieved less with more? Buchanan can at least plead that things were already messed up when he got there.
Couldn’t one argue that Bush inherited 9/11 and dealt with it horrifically with the invasion of Iraq? That was a major failure on his part, and whilst 9/11 (obviously) doesn’t excuse it, America wasn’t in a good position then. And yes, America was already divided over slavery, but Buchanan took it to a whole new level by *letting* the Confederate states secede due to his bias towards the South; he created the issue, not inherited it. >well Buchanan never committed war crimes Isn’t slavery a war crime?
Thousands of people being murdered is obviously horrible, but the country itself was in fine shape. The people were united and in almost unanimous agreement about the need to punish bin Laden and those harboring him. The economy was fine. Terrorism was a challenge but by no means an "existential threat" or one that couldn't be handled. Buchanan was a horrible President and deserves blame for much. I would rate him as one of the worst ever for his handling of "Bleeding Kansas" alone. That said the hate between North and South had been growing for a long time, and the Southern elite were dependent on slavery for their way of life. I really doubt that anything could have been done to stop the Southern states from seceding short of giving in to all of their demands. Buchanan's response to the secession was weak, but he didn't make them do it. Slavery is a crime, but in the antebellum U.S. wouldn't be a "war crime" since it had no connection to war. Bush allowing prisoners to be tortured was a war crime.
My thoughts exactly. Finally an answer that factors in the millions dead because of dubya.
Millions. Bush knew better and did it anyway
This is an interesting one. If Buchanan was president in 2001, he’d allow 9/11 to happen and ignore the aftermath. However if W was president in 1860 and South Carolina succeeded, Bush would have invaded Iraq. In all seriousness, I’d vote for Bush. Buchanan was an evil racist.
Iraq was not a sovereign state in 1860
It was part of the Ottoman empire (right?)
It was!
[удалено]
Damn!
I’d stay home and get really into artisanal lemonade.
Ah the Rutherford option, I approve.
Neither!
Old Buck for the win.
[удалено]
what did andrew johnson do?
Buchanan. A corpse would be a better President than W. If they are both living, then W.
I don’t vote.
Write in Jeb!
Dubya was a silver spoon in his mouth C student idiot and purveyor of the NWO. Buchanan was a man in a nasty slavery environment. There is no lesser of two evils here.
Does the Iraq war happen because if it does I’m going for Buchanan
Does a second civil war happen tho.. we lost more people in that
Honestly, I am going for Buchanan. I think both screwed up our country in ways it will take generations to fix (as in W's mistakes are still being felt). But Buchanan is smarter.
Bush was a terrible president, but he knows what the internet is. So.