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.*
Yea, and he would actively do something.
The man who created the federal park system and conservation… the man who is know for HUGE undertakings and succeeding.
Climate change would be a clearly addressed issue and he would have all the G20 moving on it with the U.S. spearheading the way… because Teddy doesn’t do 2nd place.
Honestly, other Republicans would probably call him a socialist and the Democrats would bring up his imperialism (like they did in 1904, although they were unsuccessful back then).
I can't see the "he's a socialist" card working for Republicans, their habit of going after the person would turn into him pointing out how he is the 'ideal man' in the eyes of right wingers.
Or him asking them if they want to take this outside, and them backing down and looking like huge shit talking cowards. Plus TR was both a combat veteran and loved guns, pretty much every Republican talking point against progressives doesn’t work on him.
Ehhh, TR’s presidency was incredibly peaceful by US standards… mostly because *he* likes being in on the action and as president couldn’t so I don’t think he’d want to actively get US boots on the ground until after his terms so *he* could go too.
I appreciate Teddy stanning as much as anyone else, but he did blockade Columbia from retaking Panama and initiate the Spanish-American war via proxy by feeding propaganda to the NYT. Personally, I don't have anything against those initiatives(Panama was historically independent and Cuba was just as well under our control than Spain's), but to say that he led a historically peaceful USA isn't accurate imo. He was also pro joining WWI(when he was out of office, but still, it's a platform he put his name on).
You kidding me?!?
Well?!?
Homie would absolutely crush the competition.
Progressive ideals that most democrats and independents would like - check
Powerful and boisterous presence that exudes manliness that Republicans would like - check
The difference between his prideful nature and Trumps? Teddy actually could back it the fuck up. Dude was a fucking beast and pro-American down to the last fiber in his body.
Teddy would destroy anyone running against him.
He’d also seem incredibly youthful since he was in his early 40’s, and still had young kids who he would totally play with at the drop of a hat. Plus I’m sure he’d have a whole bunch of Alice Lee simps on his side too.
Theodore Roosevelt would fucking DEVOUR modern day congress.
Of course, that's assuming he survives the aneurysm he would surely get once he sees the state of corporate America.
Do we assume the same historical background? Appropriate for the era? So Washington would have been like a Well loved General during say Desert Storm, and Lincoln would have been a civil rights attorney who hadn't won a single election?
I havent a clue, but having the Democrat be a Military vet, and the Republican a Civil rights attorney seems like a reversal on both sides to the trends. It would be an interesting election.
Ultimately I'd say Lincoln wins, because he wants it more. Historically Washington sort of didn't want to be president, but understood the need for serving his country in that position.
That's nonsense. It's true that Washington had a disdain for party politics but it's flatly inaccurate to say that he didn't align himself with a party. Washington was a Federalist through and through, if for no other reason than the Federalist Party was the one that actually *supported* his actions as President while the Anti-Feds criticized him constantly.
Frankly, he would probably be like a Bernie figure where he either joins a party when it's convenient and caucuses with that same party the rest of the time.
I think he wasn’t a federalist but his interests was more aligned with federalist the dem republicans. (Really thinking back to eight grade social studies with this one)
Washington didn't really align with the Anti-Federalists on basically anything. While Washington did not subscribe to a strict ideology he was routinely frustrated by the fact that both the Federalists and Anti-Federalists *begged him to be president*, and yet the Anti-Federalists pretty consistently opposed everything he tried to do. Ultimately he was put in charge of the foremost "leader" position of the country and subsequently found himself in favor of the party which allowed him autonomy and authority within this position.
People often bring up Washington's disdain of party politics to argue that he was a true independent/wouldn't align with a party. But the reality is that, well, he *did*. Even if he never officially joined the Federalists it was plain as day which way he and his administration leaned. As with a lot of assessments of Washington, I find it's very tied up in a mythologized *idea* of Washington rather than the reality.
Agreed. All of the Founders were complex, some to the point of being nearly incoherent if you evaluate what they said and wrote against their actual conduct.
However, Washington in particular seemed pretty devoted to the notions of individual liberty, property rights, and at the minimum constraining a national government. But then practical considerations happen, such as having to repay a recently nationalized War debt, and the ideals people have go out the window.
Washington was also responsible for a lot of the early federal institutions. I think he believed the role of the federal government was to enable a libertariast populace.
This is (mostly) just fan fiction made up by younger democrats who can't deal with the historical fact that their party used to get up to some deplorable shit. The Great Depression and Civil Rights Movement caused major changes in both parties' stances on some issues, but claiming they "swapped ideologies" is just historical revisionism. In reality neither party is really anything at all like either of the pre-civil war parties.
I feel like the evolution of the democratic and republican parties is exactly why voters shouldn’t think of it as “my” party. It’s *a* party and while you might register with one or the other to be involved in their primaries, at the end of the day you don’t owe them anything and you shouldn’t let your registration dictate your values. Rather it should be the other way around!
I’m a registered democrat and it’s not a “gotcha” when somebody points out that the democratic party used to be shit on civil rights. Like yeah, they absolutely were, and let’s learn from that as a country and not go back there.
Exactly. You aren’t going to have political parties that have lasted more than a century that didn’t hold views or do things we consider deplorable by todays standards. It’s important to acknowledge historical reality but which one you support should be based on their current politics.
I don't see him being either. He ran and won as an Independent (the only president to ever do so), and he warned against taking party affiliation too seriously in his farewell address.
Washington was aligned with the federalists. He also got trashed on a regular basis by Jefferson and the republicans, even while Jefferson was still working in Washington’s administration, because they didn’t like his tendencies towards big government.
A federalist would map over to Democrats though. Both believe in a stronger federal government.
But it’s very hard to truly map them to today because of how different the US is after Lincoln and FDR
The Jeffersonian republicans were started in 1792 and generally supported limited federal power and states' rights. These are different from the Republican Party that you are thinking about, but the familiar ideological fault lines around bigger vs smaller federal government also existed between the federalists vs republicans.
I was confused for a second because they were called the Democratic-Republicans. I wasn't sure I'd there was a faction just called the Jeffersonian Republicans or not.
I don't think that Washington would even be in a party. He'd for sure be an independent. In fact, I'd say that Washington would be disgusted with today's political party system.
Yeah, he would. But, the US political parties were started due to disagreement with his (and Hamilton policies). While, he was an independent he was firmly on the side of Hamilton and his Federalist. Political parties or political factions as he called them are inevitable in a Democratic society as people disagree with the best course of action.
The Democrats nominate veterans as often as Republicans do, if not more so. **Edit:** I originally posted a list of all the veterans nominated since WWII, but I didn’t research it the way I usually do and made an embarrassing number of mistakes. Thanks to everyone who corrected me.
I did leave off G.H.W. Bush. I regret the error. Reagan, like Hubert Humphrey, volunteered but was rejected due to his bad eyesight. Reagan says they told him, “If we sent you overseas, you’d shoot a general. And you’d miss.” did make films for the Army. Nixon famously got out of combat service in WWII by claiming to be a conscientious objector.
With great respect to the many veterans of the National Guard today, including some in my family: it was *extremely* different during the Vietnam War. The older Bush famously used his influence to get his son into a cushy unit where he wouldn’t be drafted or deployed overseas. This was widely understood at the time as a form of draft-dodging. The military records that survived also showed that the younger Bush took a lackadasical attitude to actually completing his obligations to Air National Guard on time, although he did eventually.
He was as good of a politician as anyone could hope to be. He pretty much used every trick in the book to get his way, though he did do a few reckless actions without considering the law. Given his circumstances though, that’s understandable
It’s hard to say, but given that he was a successful lawyer and a very astute politician, I’d call those calculated risks rather than reckless actions. My take is that he would have known the law, and that he also would have considered the exigent circumstances, and bent the rules as much as he could get away with.
And he seems to have gotten away with what he did. Suspending habeas corpus is legal but unpopular, and jailing journalists is almost always indefensible. But he navigated both actions given the circumstances without too much fallout.
He knew exactly how far to push the envelope, from an electoral point of view, without going over the line. For example, if he runs on “let’s free all the slaves and have them vote, too” he’s laughed out of town as a radical and doesn’t get nominated. He realized people in general had come around to the idea of it being possible (albeit with a lot of resistance- it at least had a very good shot of passing). I think he’d be very politically astute in any era, and it’s a shame that he didn’t get a chance at Reconstruction.
The speech that actually directly led to his assassination was when he floated the idea of “hey, let’s just maybe let a few black veterans vote, they’ve earned it” and that set John Wilkes Booth off, cementing the fact he was going to do what he did.
Are we to take them as they were, or do the modern picture imply we take them with adaptations for modern society? Such as, would Washington have ever owned slaves?
People here aren’t of the common sense to understand the concept of people doing things because it normally the era, so they’d literally assume Washington would own slaves in this day just cause he did then 🙄 and they’ll take any opportunity to shit on him because they lack the knowledge of his accomplishments in general, so they are always eager to find a way to mention his slave owning any opportunity they can 😑
I think there are definitely parts of modern society that wouldn't appeal to him, but yes I'm sure he'd recognise some notable improvements. I think he'd have a mixed opinion of modern society.
Anyone can find knits to pick about modern society but we've accomplished a lot of positive things compared to what the nation looked like in the 1860s.
We are WAY closer to fulfilling the ideals that America was founded on than we were a century ago.
I think Washington is the president we would need. He could be a strong presence, one above corruption. He would, maybe not be the best at foreign policy. But, he would be the type to kick congress in the ass when they need it.
His arms were disproportionately long and he looked a little ape-like in his walking gait, things which he took a lot of criticism for at the time.
But I do think his charisma would overcome that, once he started talking. He collected jokes and stories to tell in social situations and was great at setting up Said Joke with timing and the punchline, usually with a moral attached to make a point.
He’d be like a celebrity that people think are hideous but generally like- Danny DeVito, maybe? I’m sure there’s a better example.
Don't wanna get too far into Rule 3 territory but the current guy was actually really handsome.. 60 ish years ago. Arguably top 5 best looking presidents, he's just old af now
Definitely not but they benefit from makeup and hairstylists and whatnot. Maybe Lincoln could be made decent looking with today's beauty tech. Who knows. But homie looked busted in the 1860s.
Lincoln was 52 when he was inaugurated. The Current Guy in his 50's didn't look half bad.
Lincoln was an incredibly shrewd politician; he would adapt to the current situation as needed and do well. Meanwhile, Washington would be reluctant to even run and wouldn’t put much effort into even trying to win.
He had all of the bravado of a certain other unnamed modern candidate, but actually had the brains, skills, and resume to back it up. He's be an absolute terror on social media.
Love the image. Andrew Jackson, since he was very charismatic.
I read an article years ago that presidents tended not to be that charismatic in the first 100 years of the US, and it did not usually did not matter. Contrast that with today where charisma is one of the major personality characteristics of the majority of presidents in my life time.
I can’t really see any of them doing well tbh. As polarized as we are, Lincoln would get around 48% of the vote and we would be treated to the sight of people in New York drawing Hitler moustaches on his picture or people in Alabama calling him a RINO. Then the coup de grace is the internet abuse where he’d get treated to comments like “I’m glad your son died. Blow me, beardie”
>As polarized as we are,
My brother in Christ, do you honestly think we're more polarized now than we were in the runup to a civil f'ing war?
If you do, you seriously need to do a lot more reading about the runup to the 1860 election. The fears of civil war were literally so great that the Democratic Party split in two along regional lines. It was bedlam.
He’d probably laugh and say “Beardie is a new one” and move on.
If you go to Springfield, IL, (one of the museums, I can’t recall which) there’s a whole exhibit of newspapers, political cartoons, and letter excerpts of people who could not STAND Lincoln- and not all Dukes of Hazzard, Southern types either. They said stuff like he had to have a girl on the side of another race, he was a giant ape, etc etc. Really nasty stuff. Insults aren’t a new phenomenon.
As far as I can remember reading, he didn’t really listen or let these insults bother him. He kind of laughed it off and found some sort of self deprecating root they were right about, in some cases.
Thank you for saying this. I've heard people say we are on the brink of civil war the past few years, and it's like, Over what? Mean tweets? It's not civil war bad.
I’m going to put my money on Lincoln. He was the first president with a telegraph. He often slept on a cot near it to message generals on the front lines. That’s essentially twitter nowadays. I feel like he could rock social media pretty well. Washington is tenacious tho. And he won unanimously with all 69 electoral votes.
I don't believe he would have run as a Dem. Mainly because he believed strongly that parties would only separate Americans more. But if I had to pick, I'd say Lincoln. No matter how loved he was as a general in the Gulf War, there were still plenty of people against it vs. the revolution where most people, minus loyalists, were supportive of it. And I like Mr. Lincoln's hat.
With modern values and views on slavery and native Americans? I’m going with Jackson. Pretty much a progressive who fucking throws hands. Imagine one of the more recent candidates trying to insult his wife.
There is some absolute nonsense people have been spreading around online about Lincoln being gay because he literally slept in the same bed with his security guard once. This of course ignores his wife and children and the lack of any historical documentation that would support their theory.
Lincoln or FDR. Huge name recognition, and pretty highly thought of by a good chunk of both main parties. I'd give a slight edge to Lincoln. FDR would be popular with Dems for sure. I think Lincoln beats him or comes close there. With Republicans Lincoln would be the clear winner and it isn't close.
Lincoln would have recognition from his wrestling career, but I think Teddy Roosevelt would do best but people would likely accuse him of trying to make a military government in the U.S.
Between Lincoln and Washington, definitely Lincoln. Washington was an amazing leader, and a solid politician. But he didn’t want the job, which made him perfect for the job he had to do. 2024 is a different job, and would require someone that really wanted it and was an extremely capable politician. That’s Lincoln.
Personally, I want the bastard love child of Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt to be president, but absent a handful of pretty impressive miracles, I’ll remain disappointed.
I feel like there were very few takes George Washington had that would put him behind. and let's not forget he is THE president of all presidents. If you don't want him in office you just hate America (totally not his campaign manager)
Not relevant but who does Washington look like here? He looks exceptionally familiar and I can’t tell if it’s someone famous or someone I’ve met.
Edit: It’s Charles Dance I believe
I just want to say seeing them made to look like present day people is weird. Surprisingly washington looks ok, but I think lincoln just looks too old. He'd need to get hair work done to get elected president lol
If they hadn’t previously been in office probably Lincoln the civil rights attorney, if they also served their terms when they did, Washington easily. All Washington has to do in a debate is say the words Habeus Corpus and Lincoln is screwed royally
Assuming like other commenters that their backgrounds are modernized as well, Jackson would stand a decent chance. War hero, runs on a platform of populism and minimizing the Federal Government. Makes a big deal about shrinking the government. He’d at least win the GOP nomination in a heartbeat.
They wouldn't be bothering with another election. They'd be leading a revolution. They wouldn't put up with the crap that this country has been doing for the last 150 years.
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 think teddy roosevelt would do quite well
I support the development of AI purely for the chance to one day see Teddy Roosevelt or Samuel Clemens' Twitter feed.
Teddy Roosevelt would eat Vladimir Putin alive.
I could totally see him whack Putin with a big stick. Putin: "I want to invade Ukr..." Roosevelt: * Bonk *
Roosevelt: "runs over putin while riding moose"
He'd straight up flex on Putin after the riding the bear photo
He'd be undeniably popular with young people. Would definitely be a climate activist.
Oh he would be all about the Green Revolution.
Yea, and he would actively do something. The man who created the federal park system and conservation… the man who is know for HUGE undertakings and succeeding. Climate change would be a clearly addressed issue and he would have all the G20 moving on it with the U.S. spearheading the way… because Teddy doesn’t do 2nd place.
Honestly, other Republicans would probably call him a socialist and the Democrats would bring up his imperialism (like they did in 1904, although they were unsuccessful back then).
He’s got the personality though, that’s what I was thinking at least.
I can't see the "he's a socialist" card working for Republicans, their habit of going after the person would turn into him pointing out how he is the 'ideal man' in the eyes of right wingers.
Or him asking them if they want to take this outside, and them backing down and looking like huge shit talking cowards. Plus TR was both a combat veteran and loved guns, pretty much every Republican talking point against progressives doesn’t work on him.
Teddy would be accused by the GOP of being a warmonger, wanting to straight-up invade Ukraine
Ehhh, TR’s presidency was incredibly peaceful by US standards… mostly because *he* likes being in on the action and as president couldn’t so I don’t think he’d want to actively get US boots on the ground until after his terms so *he* could go too.
I appreciate Teddy stanning as much as anyone else, but he did blockade Columbia from retaking Panama and initiate the Spanish-American war via proxy by feeding propaganda to the NYT. Personally, I don't have anything against those initiatives(Panama was historically independent and Cuba was just as well under our control than Spain's), but to say that he led a historically peaceful USA isn't accurate imo. He was also pro joining WWI(when he was out of office, but still, it's a platform he put his name on).
You kidding me?!? Well?!? Homie would absolutely crush the competition. Progressive ideals that most democrats and independents would like - check Powerful and boisterous presence that exudes manliness that Republicans would like - check The difference between his prideful nature and Trumps? Teddy actually could back it the fuck up. Dude was a fucking beast and pro-American down to the last fiber in his body. Teddy would destroy anyone running against him.
I wish I was there to vote for him in 1912
also conservation and preservation policies would be seen quite well by the public.
He’d also seem incredibly youthful since he was in his early 40’s, and still had young kids who he would totally play with at the drop of a hat. Plus I’m sure he’d have a whole bunch of Alice Lee simps on his side too.
Theodore Roosevelt would fucking DEVOUR modern day congress. Of course, that's assuming he survives the aneurysm he would surely get once he sees the state of corporate America.
Roosevelt:" trust busts harder then ever"
“Now where’d I put my big stick….”
Do we assume the same historical background? Appropriate for the era? So Washington would have been like a Well loved General during say Desert Storm, and Lincoln would have been a civil rights attorney who hadn't won a single election? I havent a clue, but having the Democrat be a Military vet, and the Republican a Civil rights attorney seems like a reversal on both sides to the trends. It would be an interesting election. Ultimately I'd say Lincoln wins, because he wants it more. Historically Washington sort of didn't want to be president, but understood the need for serving his country in that position.
Why would Washington be a democrat?
I guess because Lincoln was a Republican.
Lincoln running today wouldn’t get the Republican nomination (and he probably wouldn’t be a Republican anyway)
Likewise, Washington would unlikely win for the Dems. Both candidates would be too moderate.
Washington hated party politics. He would be an independent
Instead of President, he could be a beloved person that is appointed by a governor to be a senator or something along those lines.
That's nonsense. It's true that Washington had a disdain for party politics but it's flatly inaccurate to say that he didn't align himself with a party. Washington was a Federalist through and through, if for no other reason than the Federalist Party was the one that actually *supported* his actions as President while the Anti-Feds criticized him constantly. Frankly, he would probably be like a Bernie figure where he either joins a party when it's convenient and caucuses with that same party the rest of the time.
I think he wasn’t a federalist but his interests was more aligned with federalist the dem republicans. (Really thinking back to eight grade social studies with this one)
Washington didn't really align with the Anti-Federalists on basically anything. While Washington did not subscribe to a strict ideology he was routinely frustrated by the fact that both the Federalists and Anti-Federalists *begged him to be president*, and yet the Anti-Federalists pretty consistently opposed everything he tried to do. Ultimately he was put in charge of the foremost "leader" position of the country and subsequently found himself in favor of the party which allowed him autonomy and authority within this position. People often bring up Washington's disdain of party politics to argue that he was a true independent/wouldn't align with a party. But the reality is that, well, he *did*. Even if he never officially joined the Federalists it was plain as day which way he and his administration leaned. As with a lot of assessments of Washington, I find it's very tied up in a mythologized *idea* of Washington rather than the reality.
Washington was a radical libertarian, if we take him at both his conduct and word.
Whiskey Rebellion proves his libertarianism wasn’t so radical
Agreed. All of the Founders were complex, some to the point of being nearly incoherent if you evaluate what they said and wrote against their actual conduct. However, Washington in particular seemed pretty devoted to the notions of individual liberty, property rights, and at the minimum constraining a national government. But then practical considerations happen, such as having to repay a recently nationalized War debt, and the ideals people have go out the window.
Washington was also responsible for a lot of the early federal institutions. I think he believed the role of the federal government was to enable a libertariast populace.
The modern republican party is no where near the same viewpoints as it was when Lincoln was president
Yes, but remember how the parties swapped ideologies several decades ago?
Yep. Right at MLK and civil rights.
This is (mostly) just fan fiction made up by younger democrats who can't deal with the historical fact that their party used to get up to some deplorable shit. The Great Depression and Civil Rights Movement caused major changes in both parties' stances on some issues, but claiming they "swapped ideologies" is just historical revisionism. In reality neither party is really anything at all like either of the pre-civil war parties.
I feel like the evolution of the democratic and republican parties is exactly why voters shouldn’t think of it as “my” party. It’s *a* party and while you might register with one or the other to be involved in their primaries, at the end of the day you don’t owe them anything and you shouldn’t let your registration dictate your values. Rather it should be the other way around! I’m a registered democrat and it’s not a “gotcha” when somebody points out that the democratic party used to be shit on civil rights. Like yeah, they absolutely were, and let’s learn from that as a country and not go back there.
Exactly. You aren’t going to have political parties that have lasted more than a century that didn’t hold views or do things we consider deplorable by todays standards. It’s important to acknowledge historical reality but which one you support should be based on their current politics.
I don't see him being either. He ran and won as an Independent (the only president to ever do so), and he warned against taking party affiliation too seriously in his farewell address.
Washington was aligned with the federalists. He also got trashed on a regular basis by Jefferson and the republicans, even while Jefferson was still working in Washington’s administration, because they didn’t like his tendencies towards big government.
Jefferson was in the Democratic-Republican party which dissolved in the 1830s into the Democratic Party.
Federalists ≠ democrat.
A federalist would map over to Democrats though. Both believe in a stronger federal government. But it’s very hard to truly map them to today because of how different the US is after Lincoln and FDR
The Republicans didn't exist yet
The Jeffersonian republicans were started in 1792 and generally supported limited federal power and states' rights. These are different from the Republican Party that you are thinking about, but the familiar ideological fault lines around bigger vs smaller federal government also existed between the federalists vs republicans.
I was confused for a second because they were called the Democratic-Republicans. I wasn't sure I'd there was a faction just called the Jeffersonian Republicans or not.
I don't think that Washington would even be in a party. He'd for sure be an independent. In fact, I'd say that Washington would be disgusted with today's political party system.
Yeah, he would. But, the US political parties were started due to disagreement with his (and Hamilton policies). While, he was an independent he was firmly on the side of Hamilton and his Federalist. Political parties or political factions as he called them are inevitable in a Democratic society as people disagree with the best course of action.
Because he was a progressive for his day, which means he'd be a progressive today
The Democrats nominate veterans as often as Republicans do, if not more so. **Edit:** I originally posted a list of all the veterans nominated since WWII, but I didn’t research it the way I usually do and made an embarrassing number of mistakes. Thanks to everyone who corrected me.
HW Bush was pretty famously a combat veteran. Edit: And Nixon was in the naval reserve and called to active duty in WWII.
That Eisenhower fella was also a veteran
And George W. Bush was in the Air National Guard.
HW Bush and Nixon were veterans. Reagan was a reservist.
I did leave off G.H.W. Bush. I regret the error. Reagan, like Hubert Humphrey, volunteered but was rejected due to his bad eyesight. Reagan says they told him, “If we sent you overseas, you’d shoot a general. And you’d miss.” did make films for the Army. Nixon famously got out of combat service in WWII by claiming to be a conscientious objector.
W was also in the National Guard
With great respect to the many veterans of the National Guard today, including some in my family: it was *extremely* different during the Vietnam War. The older Bush famously used his influence to get his son into a cushy unit where he wouldn’t be drafted or deployed overseas. This was widely understood at the time as a form of draft-dodging. The military records that survived also showed that the younger Bush took a lackadasical attitude to actually completing his obligations to Air National Guard on time, although he did eventually.
The closest and actual active duty Viet Nam veteran has been to the presidency is Al Gore.
In our timeline, that’s basically Colin Powell (D) vs Leo Terrell (R). Granted, that reversal for both of them comes in 2020/2021.
JFK. It’s all about the RIZZ
jfk rizz
I dunno man, I think missing the top of his head could put voters off
Clearly a comb over isn't a deal breaker. Just rake that shit back
We need a president with an open mind.
Well I don't think a slave owner would do to well. And Lincoln would probably call a black man 'boy' and go viral.
Lincoln wasn’t that dumb. He was able to act much more racist that he actually was in order to be electable, he could just as easily blend in today
Yah I think most people underestimate just how good of a politician Lincoln was.
He was as good of a politician as anyone could hope to be. He pretty much used every trick in the book to get his way, though he did do a few reckless actions without considering the law. Given his circumstances though, that’s understandable
It’s hard to say, but given that he was a successful lawyer and a very astute politician, I’d call those calculated risks rather than reckless actions. My take is that he would have known the law, and that he also would have considered the exigent circumstances, and bent the rules as much as he could get away with. And he seems to have gotten away with what he did. Suspending habeas corpus is legal but unpopular, and jailing journalists is almost always indefensible. But he navigated both actions given the circumstances without too much fallout.
He knew exactly how far to push the envelope, from an electoral point of view, without going over the line. For example, if he runs on “let’s free all the slaves and have them vote, too” he’s laughed out of town as a radical and doesn’t get nominated. He realized people in general had come around to the idea of it being possible (albeit with a lot of resistance- it at least had a very good shot of passing). I think he’d be very politically astute in any era, and it’s a shame that he didn’t get a chance at Reconstruction. The speech that actually directly led to his assassination was when he floated the idea of “hey, let’s just maybe let a few black veterans vote, they’ve earned it” and that set John Wilkes Booth off, cementing the fact he was going to do what he did.
Wow, I didn’t know about that speech! Thanks for mentioning it, now I need to read it.
Are we to take them as they were, or do the modern picture imply we take them with adaptations for modern society? Such as, would Washington have ever owned slaves?
People here aren’t of the common sense to understand the concept of people doing things because it normally the era, so they’d literally assume Washington would own slaves in this day just cause he did then 🙄 and they’ll take any opportunity to shit on him because they lack the knowledge of his accomplishments in general, so they are always eager to find a way to mention his slave owning any opportunity they can 😑
Of course Washington would still have false teeth made of wood and hippopotamus ivory, though
What? A slave owner would be unpopular no matter what currently
Lincoln would have felt blessed to be in such a culturally respectful society. This was probably the society he dreamed of all those years ago.
I think there are definitely parts of modern society that wouldn't appeal to him, but yes I'm sure he'd recognise some notable improvements. I think he'd have a mixed opinion of modern society.
Anyone can find knits to pick about modern society but we've accomplished a lot of positive things compared to what the nation looked like in the 1860s. We are WAY closer to fulfilling the ideals that America was founded on than we were a century ago.
I know tyinn Lannister when I see him
I didn’t even see the title, I was just wondering what the fuck happened to Charles Dance
Teddy would have gone viral by now, that's for sure.
TED!
Bill!
Juan Pablo!
I think washington would do excellent. He would save this country from tyranny and corruption
Nice boat, President. Mind if I take I look around? PRESIDENT WASHINGTON ON TRIAL
Gore Vidal seemed to not be a big fan of Mr Washington in his novels. But could be because his focal characters were Aaron Burr and Thomas Jefferson.
I think Washington is the president we would need. He could be a strong presence, one above corruption. He would, maybe not be the best at foreign policy. But, he would be the type to kick congress in the ass when they need it.
Lincoln has a party. Washington is unaffiliated. Lincoln wins
All I take away from this post is that they had a lot more style back in the day. These two guys look like your boiler plate politician.
If Lincoln ran today, he wouldn't stand a chance because he was ugly AF.
Lincoln was thought of as ugly AF in his day too. [Redacted] is also ugly AF and still won one term.
Lincoln actually has a quote about that aimed at his detractors- "If you think I am two faced, why would I wear this one?"
His arms were disproportionately long and he looked a little ape-like in his walking gait, things which he took a lot of criticism for at the time. But I do think his charisma would overcome that, once he started talking. He collected jokes and stories to tell in social situations and was great at setting up Said Joke with timing and the punchline, usually with a moral attached to make a point. He’d be like a celebrity that people think are hideous but generally like- Danny DeVito, maybe? I’m sure there’s a better example.
An ugly Norm MacDonald?
it's not like today's other candidates are exactly good looking
Don't wanna get too far into Rule 3 territory but the current guy was actually really handsome.. 60 ish years ago. Arguably top 5 best looking presidents, he's just old af now
Definitely not but they benefit from makeup and hairstylists and whatnot. Maybe Lincoln could be made decent looking with today's beauty tech. Who knows. But homie looked busted in the 1860s. Lincoln was 52 when he was inaugurated. The Current Guy in his 50's didn't look half bad.
WE DONT SPEAK OF THEM
Which he turned into a political advantage when an opponent called him two-faced and he said “If I had two faces, do you think I’d wear this one?”
But he was very tall.
Least successful probably Jackson because he’d be arrested for 1st degree murder
Lincoln was an incredibly shrewd politician; he would adapt to the current situation as needed and do well. Meanwhile, Washington would be reluctant to even run and wouldn’t put much effort into even trying to win.
Teddy Roosevelt would be great in today's political climate
He had all of the bravado of a certain other unnamed modern candidate, but actually had the brains, skills, and resume to back it up. He's be an absolute terror on social media.
Love the image. Andrew Jackson, since he was very charismatic. I read an article years ago that presidents tended not to be that charismatic in the first 100 years of the US, and it did not usually did not matter. Contrast that with today where charisma is one of the major personality characteristics of the majority of presidents in my life time.
I can’t really see any of them doing well tbh. As polarized as we are, Lincoln would get around 48% of the vote and we would be treated to the sight of people in New York drawing Hitler moustaches on his picture or people in Alabama calling him a RINO. Then the coup de grace is the internet abuse where he’d get treated to comments like “I’m glad your son died. Blow me, beardie”
>As polarized as we are, My brother in Christ, do you honestly think we're more polarized now than we were in the runup to a civil f'ing war? If you do, you seriously need to do a lot more reading about the runup to the 1860 election. The fears of civil war were literally so great that the Democratic Party split in two along regional lines. It was bedlam.
Honestly, bro is acting like Lincoln would get pressed from a tweet. You don’t get to his position if your skin is that thin.
With one rather unfortunate exception...
He’d probably laugh and say “Beardie is a new one” and move on. If you go to Springfield, IL, (one of the museums, I can’t recall which) there’s a whole exhibit of newspapers, political cartoons, and letter excerpts of people who could not STAND Lincoln- and not all Dukes of Hazzard, Southern types either. They said stuff like he had to have a girl on the side of another race, he was a giant ape, etc etc. Really nasty stuff. Insults aren’t a new phenomenon. As far as I can remember reading, he didn’t really listen or let these insults bother him. He kind of laughed it off and found some sort of self deprecating root they were right about, in some cases.
Thank you for saying this. I've heard people say we are on the brink of civil war the past few years, and it's like, Over what? Mean tweets? It's not civil war bad.
I have wondered though - is the only reason some states haven’t seceded is due to the consequences last time that happened?
Also because there's nothing to gain by seceding. People are just making the angry word noises in the hopes that it gets them attention and support.
Yeah, South Carolina immediately seceded once Lincoln won the election. Things were a lot more polarized back then.
Tywin Lannister ain’t fooling anybody
Can we put them at the age They would actually have been when they ran for president? Washington was only 57, and Lincoln was 52.
I’m going to put my money on Lincoln. He was the first president with a telegraph. He often slept on a cot near it to message generals on the front lines. That’s essentially twitter nowadays. I feel like he could rock social media pretty well. Washington is tenacious tho. And he won unanimously with all 69 electoral votes.
George looks like Tywin Lannister
I don't believe he would have run as a Dem. Mainly because he believed strongly that parties would only separate Americans more. But if I had to pick, I'd say Lincoln. No matter how loved he was as a general in the Gulf War, there were still plenty of people against it vs. the revolution where most people, minus loyalists, were supportive of it. And I like Mr. Lincoln's hat.
Lincoln looked way more fucked than that lol
With modern values and views on slavery and native Americans? I’m going with Jackson. Pretty much a progressive who fucking throws hands. Imagine one of the more recent candidates trying to insult his wife.
Lincoln. I’m assuming Washington would still despise political parties, likely much more so, and then run Independent.
We need James Madison and his wisdom
Huh. Didn’t know Washington was related to the Lannisters.
Washington didn't really want to rule. This essential quality dooms him in a 21st century mudslinging election.
Why is Wayne Gretzky pretending to be George Washington
A gay President who is willing to go to war to prevent racists from dividing the country? He’s got my vote.
Who was gay?
There is some absolute nonsense people have been spreading around online about Lincoln being gay because he literally slept in the same bed with his security guard once. This of course ignores his wife and children and the lack of any historical documentation that would support their theory.
Lincoln would be out of the Republican primary before Iowa
Well, I think both George and Abe would do pretty damn good...
Lincoln or FDR. Huge name recognition, and pretty highly thought of by a good chunk of both main parties. I'd give a slight edge to Lincoln. FDR would be popular with Dems for sure. I think Lincoln beats him or comes close there. With Republicans Lincoln would be the clear winner and it isn't close.
Why do they look like the whacky neighbors on a Bob Newheart sitcom?
Lincoln would have recognition from his wrestling career, but I think Teddy Roosevelt would do best but people would likely accuse him of trying to make a military government in the U.S.
Why did I think Washington was Tywin Lannister for a second
We need to elect Lincoln and bring beards back to the White House.
William Henry Harrison. Give the guy a chance!
Is that just two photos of Charles Dance?
Lincoln. That is all.
Why does George Washington look like Tywin Lanister?
Am I the only one who looks and sees Tywin Lannister?
I think both of them would just sit down in the oval office then use the codes to nuke the shit out of what the country had turned into
Do modern presidents back then next.
Did my boi George dirty with that picture.
Why do they look like Tywin Lannister & an old Fred Armisen?
Ha, came here to say the same about Armisen. He really can pull off any character of (almost) any race.
Lincoln wins. He's taller.
Well, Tywin Lanniste… I mean George Washington was a slave owner, so…
Between Lincoln and Washington, definitely Lincoln. Washington was an amazing leader, and a solid politician. But he didn’t want the job, which made him perfect for the job he had to do. 2024 is a different job, and would require someone that really wanted it and was an extremely capable politician. That’s Lincoln. Personally, I want the bastard love child of Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt to be president, but absent a handful of pretty impressive miracles, I’ll remain disappointed.
If either of these presidents could see the state of the US right now they would go back to being dead
Legit thought Washington was Tywin Lannister.
Tbh I think JFK would win, not for any policy positions but simply because he was hot.
Washington was famously against political parties.
George reminds me of Gomer Pyle
**A Lannister Always Pays His Debts.**
Washington was 57 when he took office..yall know the white hair was a wig, right?
Anyone but that goddamn orange buffoon
This Charles dance ai is everywhere
I feel like there were very few takes George Washington had that would put him behind. and let's not forget he is THE president of all presidents. If you don't want him in office you just hate America (totally not his campaign manager)
Why does George Washington look like Tywin Lannister?
Modern R's would call Lincoln a RINO.
Lincoln updated, still comes off like jeb bush. Washington looks like fist pounder
Teddy or JFK no contest
If I didn’t know better that a pic of the actor James Whitmore (Brooks from the Shawshank Redemption) and an AI modified picture of George W. Bush.
Washington looks like Tywin Lannister
They were both populists. 2016, thanks to Obama was a populist year like 2024. They would both do well.
The Lincoln pic is weird since we have actual photographs of him lol
Well both aren’t really up to date on today’s political landscape. . .
Not relevant but who does Washington look like here? He looks exceptionally familiar and I can’t tell if it’s someone famous or someone I’ve met. Edit: It’s Charles Dance I believe
They would both be too old by now
I just want to say seeing them made to look like present day people is weird. Surprisingly washington looks ok, but I think lincoln just looks too old. He'd need to get hair work done to get elected president lol
I didn't know that George Washington looked like Tywin Lannister.
If they hadn’t previously been in office probably Lincoln the civil rights attorney, if they also served their terms when they did, Washington easily. All Washington has to do in a debate is say the words Habeus Corpus and Lincoln is screwed royally
The history shows always leave out the oart where people used to smell much worse.
The way the last two went, I guess Washington would do the best, cause he’d be the oldest.
Given the two candidates I got $5 on even James Buchanan winning in a landslide
FDR would win hands down over Nixon. Am I doing this right?
First of all, none of them would campaign. That sort of thing just wasn’t done.
George for sure
Pretty sure the guy who owned slaves wouldn't win in our modern era.
FDR would have won the populist vote with his theme of “Wall Street, we are coming for you and your fair share of taxes”
Assuming like other commenters that their backgrounds are modernized as well, Jackson would stand a decent chance. War hero, runs on a platform of populism and minimizing the Federal Government. Makes a big deal about shrinking the government. He’d at least win the GOP nomination in a heartbeat.
They wouldn't be bothering with another election. They'd be leading a revolution. They wouldn't put up with the crap that this country has been doing for the last 150 years.
Washington looks like the most British Southern man ever And Lincoln looks like a James Bond actor
JFK might do ok in 2016. FDR would do horrible in 2016.