Has there been in history a more divisive president than this?

Question

Historically Americans will support their president, what we have now is 22 out of 100 Americans think this man should be occupying the High office of State. Appalling isn't it?

Answer 1

The second Adams.
he and the federalists went right back to central control and taxation. Tried to steal Jefferson's election.
Then he stuffed in appointments.
Eerie parallel with Bush being son of a pres.

Answer 2

Currently the country is much more divided than it was in recent years. Who ever said Clinton I think is wrong. The 90's were almost as prosperous and unified as the 20's. It isn't solely the presidents blame for the division. The media, and mainstream culture fuel these fires. It is right or left, liberal or conservative. There is no in between you are either one or the other, and that is ludicrous. Lincon dealt with a very similar volatile country during the civil war. The north was anti slavery, the south was pro slavery. The country was split right down the middle similar to what it is now. The presidential elections were as close then as they are now. Although the major issues are different the sentiments and feelings are the same. neither side will give an inch, there is no comprimise, and no communication. If the president is supposed to appease side and be the grand communicator than he is failing, but only if you expect him to be able to unify 300 million+ people with opposing views.

Answer 3

First of all, I think that Lincoln wins the divisive contest hands down. If you don't understand why, you're a lot more dense than even I think you are.

Second, Bush isn't divisive. I can see that from the cheap seats that you major party guys relegate us Libertarians to. It's the liberals, specifically Pelosi, Kennedy, and their crew that are divisive, by absolutely refusing to cooperate in any way with the administration, even when he's doing things they agree with.

I think the difference between Lincoln and Bush is that Lincoln's opponents had a genuine beef, and the balls to do something about it. The Liberals don't have either.

Answer 4

Yes..Herbert Hoover.Read History.

Answer 5

Sure every time one that is not from your party is elected.

I figure with all that has happened, clinton would have been on his 3rd intern, and a full box of cigars by now.

The towers would still be smokin.....weekly attack at H.S. Colleges, gee the terrorists might have to Skip the liberal professors speech..No doubt would attack a Church or Synagogue..

Answer 6

Richard Nixon.

Answer 7

It is, people should support thier president,

It has been a 6 year smear campaign by democrats who just could not accept they lost, They have shown thierself poor losers and have really shown thier colors before this election.
They already have attorneys hired to sue election boards if they don't get the result they want. They don't care if they win and won't sue, so if they win it is fair, if they lose they were cheated

Answer 8

I thought you said you live in Venezuala.

The answer should give one pause. It's also obvious.

Bush is no more divisive than Clinton, btw. In case you're unaware, in the US, we have always had at least 2 parties...

Answer 9

Yes it is appalling we allowed him to steal two elections

Answer 10

Bush is a uniter...He is the decider....
And everyone is united is wanting him out of office.
They just focus their anger on him, its not him its the system. The entire government of this country is a corrupt wheel that will never stop turning.