Trump: Orrin Hatch told me I am a better president than Lincoln & Washington

[OSR stands with Israel]

My picks of political leaders for the last 500 years by likelihood of lasting influence

1. George Washington
2. Sir Winston Churchill
3. Mohandas Gandhi
4. Meiji
5. Charles deGaulle
6. Mao Zedong
7. Otto von Bismarck
8. Napoleon Bonaparte
9. Peter the Great
10. Simon Bolivar

I hate Mao. I wish that I could instead put Sun Yat-Sen in the list.

Lincoln and FDR were more influential than Churchill

[OSR stands with Israel]

Lolololol... time to retire for Hatch. Trump will go down as worst president since the mid-19th century.

Hoover is still considerably worse

[OSR stands with Israel]

My picks of political leaders for the last 500 years by likelihood of lasting influence

1. George Washington
2. Sir Winston Churchill
3. Mohandas Gandhi
4. Meiji
5. Charles deGaulle
6. Mao Zedong
7. Otto von Bismarck
8. Napoleon Bonaparte
9. Peter the Great
10. Simon Bolivar

I hate Mao. I wish that I could instead put Sun Yat-Sen in the list.

Lincoln and FDR were more influential than Churchill

It is fine to admire them more. But Lincoln did not found America, and Churchill made sure that Hitler stayed off the list.

I do not admire Mao Zedong (body count).

I would argue America had a lot more to do with defeating the Germans in WW2 than the UK did. Nazi Germany was defeated by America in Western Europe and the Soviet Union in Eastern Europe.


Lincoln won the civil war and ended slavery. Keeping the country united set the stage for the industrial revolution in the late 1800s.

[OSR stands with Israel]

My picks of political leaders for the last 500 years by likelihood of lasting influence

1. George Washington
2. Sir Winston Churchill
3. Mohandas Gandhi
4. Meiji
5. Charles deGaulle
6. Mao Zedong
7. Otto von Bismarck
8. Napoleon Bonaparte
9. Peter the Great
10. Simon Bolivar

I hate Mao. I wish that I could instead put Sun Yat-Sen in the list.

Lincoln and FDR were more influential than Churchill

It is fine to admire them more. But Lincoln did not found America, and Churchill made sure that Hitler stayed off the list.

I do not admire Mao Zedong (body count).

I would argue America had a lot more to do with defeating the Germans in WW2 than the UK did. Nazi Germany was defeated by America in Western Europe and the Soviet Union in Eastern Europe.

With their selfish isolationism, Americans let the world go without a proper superpower after WW1, thus allowing chaos in Europe and unlocking one of the safeguards that was supposed to stop another war. And then in WW2 as well they took their sweet, sweet time joining and had to actually be attacked to join. Without the UK, Germany would've quickly won WW2, at least in Europe, and our world today would be very different.
But yeah, sure, America is the best nation ever and we should all bow and thank it because it was finally forced to move a finger and help stop a murderous regime trying to dominate an entire continent.

Yes American isolationism in the post WW1 period was bad and they should have joined the League of Nations , but the fact is the UK and France could have stopped the Germans in 1936 when the Germans remilitarized the Rhineland and did not because of isolationist sentiments in their own countries as well.


Should America have Joined the League of Nations - Yes
Should America have gotten involved in WW2 earlier Yes

But the fact is the UK and France also could have stopped Germany in 1936 but instead decided to pursue the policy of appeasement. Also they handled the end of WW1 really badly with the Treaty of Versailles .



If I had to rank the countries most responsible for defeating the Germans it would be this :


1. Russia
2. USA
3. UK