Oops - your Trump presidency discussion thread.

12627293132103

Comments

  • I am convinced Hillary shouldn't run again. As long as the electoral college is what it is today, with a small number of states holding the balance of power, there is every possibility that she would lose all over again.
  • Simon Toad wrote: »
    I just saw someone - a right-winger on PBS Newshour - opine that NATO was seriously in trouble because of Trump, and that he expects NATO will not survive a second Trump term. The speaker was pro-Trump and looking forward to NATO going. I don't know why.

    I am seriously scared by that.

    A lot of people are afraid of the US not being fully in charge of itself. So some of them are waiting for UN helicopters to invade. Maybe they feel the same about NATO.

    It bloody hurts, huh. And I know you guys want Trump gone more than me. You must, when you live with and around people who suffer directly as a result of his policies.

    And that may include me, if he and his Congressional crew accomplish dismantling Medicaid, Medicare, and Social Security.

    GK, do you think I am living in a fools paradise when I say that impeachment is likely to further divide America, but Trump losing in a Presidential election might just help get the country back to normal political discourse? I am well inclined to believe you if you really think that I'm wrong about that. I think the November election will help heaps in working out whether Americans are ready to get out of the trenches for a while.

    Ummm...yes, re fool's paradise. There would be all sorts of conspiracy theories. And political discourse was messed up before T's campaign...it just got worse..

    I will be happy if we manage to avoid a full-on, bloody civil war. (Literally bloody.) There've been skirmishes, mostly about race and/or policing. Given all the factors that are just below the surface, or breaking through...add inn militias, and anyone else with guns...
    (eek)

    It *may* help that some Republicans are unexpectedly speaking up. Even George Will, a respected conservative writer. And, believe it or not, Newt Gingrich, formerly in Congress. I have a very low opinion of him, because of things he's said and done. (Not the least of which is the "Contract With America", nicknamed "Contract ON America".) I wouldn't trust him to go to the store and buy a bag of carrots. But he recently spoke against T. (Either about the NATO summit or Helsinki.)

    I wish she would get herself a Senate seat where she can continue to apply her prodigious talents to the benefit of America. Mind you I like her mentoring young Democrat leaders too. She has so much to give (she can also retire from public life - God knows she has earned a period of rest and lazy happiness).

    Well, she *was* a senator from New York before she became Secretary of State. The other options you mentioned could be good, as well as playing with the grandkids.
  • LeRocLeRoc Shipmate
    I am convinced Hillary shouldn't run again. As long as the electoral college is what it is today, with a small number of states holding the balance of power, there is every possibility that she would lose all over again.
    I'm not an overly big fan of Mrs. Clinton either (I'm mostly to the left of her politically) but I also feel that the aversion that some people have against her is the effect of right-wing media successfully spouting bullshit about her for the last thirty years.

    I rather like Ms Ocasio-Cortez, but I'm not one of those who are calling for her to run in 2020 or 2024. The priority of the Democratic Party for now should be to find more Ocasios.
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    Eutychus wrote: »
    Speaking as a professional interpreter whose job sometimes reaches to heads of government, that was understandable but dumb of the Congressional Democrats. The precedent would come back and bite them and everybody else. It would be like setting a precedent for lawyers to break attorney-client privilege.

    A translator isn't an attorney or a priest and while I can see reasons why certain aspects of a summit between world leaders may need to be kept secret from the general public I don't see any reason (and do see a lot of potential pitfalls) why an American president should keep the details of such meetings secret from Congress. The Russians are already talking about moving forward with what was agreed to and nobody on the American side other than Trump and his translator knows what that means. Having a note-taker on hand who wasn't also working as a translator would have been ideal, but that's not the situation we're in.
  • Would a translator at that level, or indeed any level, change the way they performed their role if they knew there would be a possibility that they could be called to give evidence before a Congressional Committee? I'm not aware of any provision protecting translators from being called to give sworn evidence before a court in Australia, but I probably should ask my wife about that. What's the downside here?
  • @Simon Toad, @Crœsos, this to me looks like a good example of "extreme cases make bad laws".

    If the US presidency governance is so dysfunctional as to have allowed Trump to have such an exchange on his own terms, the problems would not be solved by subpoenaing his interpreter. Trump being Trump, he'd simply go into the meeting relying on the other party's interpreter(s) (I'm actually a little surprised he didn't do so in Helsinki. At least I haven't heard that he did so).

    In terms of a downside, the worse precedent to be broken would be the principle enshrined in normal diplomatic relations, of wholly confidential meetings between heads of government. Compelling any of the participants to testify would be terribly damaging to US diplomacy. No interlocutor could ever be sure what they said would not emerge in court.

    (Or at least, the principle of a pretence of full confidentiality. I'd guess exactly what's been said in the meeting is known to the intelligence community on both sides anyway, it's just not admissible evidence).
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    edited July 2018
    Eutychus wrote: »
    Trump being Trump, he'd simply go into the meeting relying on the other party's interpreter(s) (I'm actually a little surprised he didn't do so in Helsinki. At least I haven't heard that he did so).

    Trump allegedly did so at the G-20 summit in Hamburg a year ago.
    Eutychus wrote: »
    In terms of a downside, the worse precedent to be broken would be the principle enshrined in normal diplomatic relations, of wholly confidential meetings between heads of government. Compelling any of the participants to testify would be terribly damaging to US diplomacy. No interlocutor could ever be sure what they said would not emerge in court.

    The U.S. Congress is not a court. It is, supposedly, a co-equal branch of government with significant foreign policy making powers. (e.g. any treaties negotiated by the president must be ratified by the Senate) I can understand diplomatic interest in keeping negotiations secret from ordinary judicial discovery. I'm not sure I buy that there's a legitimate interest in keeping any agreements which might have been reached secret from the rest of the U.S. government, which seems to be the case here. There's also the danger of the other party making fraudulent or exaggerated claims about what was agreed to. If Putin claims Trump agreed to recognize the annexation of Crimea (for example) how would Congress know if that's true or not?

    tl;dr - There is no "principle enshrined in normal diplomatic relations" that neither party will reveal the details of summit meetings to their own government. In fact, there's usually an understanding that they will do so.
  • EutychusEutychus Admin
    edited July 2018
    Crœsos wrote: »
    Trump allegedly did so at the G-20 summit in Hamburg a year ago.
    Yes I know, and my professional conscience was outraged at the time (although the circumstances were more borderline). Helsinki happened because this didn't lead to some operational safeguards being put in place.
    Eutychus wrote: »
    If Putin claims Trump agreed to recognize the annexation of Crimea (for example) how would Congress know if that's true or not?
    The problem I see there is with the degree of unilateral powers held by a US President. That is way beyond my field, but if a US President's unilateral spoken word alone is binding on the entire nation then I think it's your institutions that need overhauling, not interpreters that need subpoaenaing.
    There is no "principle enshrined in normal diplomatic relations" that neither party will reveal the details of summit meetings to their own government
    Again, if Trump can legitimately, constitutionally refuse to discuss the details of such a meeting with anybody else at all, or his entourage are willing to let him do so, with no possibility of mounting a challenge (rather than resort to subpoenaing interpreters and other such manouvres), then you're further down the road to a dictatorship than I thought.
  • A brief interpolation to apologise, if I may, on behalf of non-US Shipmates who sometimes (yes, Guilty as Charged, m'Lud) seem to be overly judgemental about US politics and the 'Trump Effect', IYSWIM.

    For all the mess 'presided' over by our own Polly Titians, at least here in the UK, we do find it hard to comprehend how such an egregious Blump has somehow managed to get to be POTUS, and how hard it seems to be to redress the balance without recourse to a Time Machine.

    We do, I'm sure, all hope that Better Times may not be too far off, for the USA, and for the World in general.

    If all this appears to be patronising, it's not meant to be.

    IJ
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    Eutychus wrote: »
    Crœsos wrote: »
    There is no "principle enshrined in normal diplomatic relations" that neither party will reveal the details of summit meetings to their own government
    Again, if Trump can legitimately, constitutionally refuse to discuss the details of such a meeting with anybody else at all, or his entourage are willing to let him do so, with no possibility of mounting a challenge (rather than resort to subpoenaing interpreters and other such manouvres), then you're further down the road to a dictatorship than I thought.

    The U.S. Constitutional system is designed with a series of checks and balances rather than an assumption that a president's "entourage" (which I would think includes interpreters, but YMMV) will do the right thing out of the goodness of their hearts and an unswayable patriotism. One of these checks is Congressional subpœna power, so that Congress can perform oversight duties on the executive branch. Relying on a president's hand-picked supporters to restrain him seems even further along "the road to a dictatorship" than allowing the legislature to compel testimony from executive branch officials, like interpreters.
  • Granted my experience is not as an executive branch official, but as a freelancer.

    If the check exists, so much the better, but what you link to appears to be a vote by a specially appointed, bipartisan committee, not a straight vote in Congress.
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    edited July 2018
    Eutychus wrote: »
    If the check exists, so much the better, but what you link to appears to be a vote by a specially appointed, bipartisan committee, not a straight vote in Congress.

    Most Congressional work is done by committees, which also have subpœna power in their own right, rather than by each chamber as a whole. The (unsuccessful) move to subpœna Trump's interpreter was undertaken by the House Intelligence Committee, for example.
  • The problem with our checks and balances is that it rather depends on a Congress interested in doing what's right, rather than kissing the president's ass (arse). The founders imagined that the power struggle would be between the presidency and Congress, rather than between rival political parties that might just might gain control of both.
  • Crœsos wrote: »
    Most Congressional work is done by committees, which also have subpœna power in their own right, rather than by each chamber as a whole. The (unsuccessful) move to subpœna Trump's interpreter was undertaken by the House Intelligence Committee, for example.
    Thanks for the clarification. The terms are certainly more acceptable than some sort of open-session testimony, but I still think it would be better not to have had to resort to this sort of move on an interpreter. Is it known whether the vote was solely along party lines?

  • GwaiGwai Epiphanies Host
    It's the U.S; I strongly presume it was on party lines. The only thing we've done not on party lines lately is rule that a foreign somewhat hostile power may not be given our citizens to interrogate.
  • I see :( I note the resolution @Crœsos linked to was also unanimous, albeit more than fifty years ago.
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    Eutychus wrote: »
    Crœsos wrote: »
    Most Congressional work is done by committees, which also have subpœna power in their own right, rather than by each chamber as a whole. The (unsuccessful) move to subpœna Trump's interpreter was undertaken by the House Intelligence Committee, for example.
    Thanks for the clarification. The terms are certainly more acceptable than some sort of open-session testimony, but I still think it would be better not to have had to resort to this sort of move on an interpreter.

    The default for Congressional Committee hearings is that they're done in open session "excepting such Parts as may in their Judgment require Secrecy" (Art. I, §5, cl. 3). As you can imagine the House Intelligence Committee, by the nature of its work, spends more time in closed session than most Congressional committees and, according to Adam Schiff (the ranking Democrat on the committee) that was what was suggested for interviewing Trump's interpreter.
  • This whole secret Putin-Trump deal thing is just an outrage. It is a typical corporate move though. Eutychus, I see your downside. Thanks.
  • Trump today: "What you’re seeing and what you’re reading is not what’s happening." For some reason people are comparing this to Orwell.
  • Various:
    {News items either from TV late news or Colbert.}

    --Watching Colbert's monologue. Good.

    --T has suggested that he revoke the security clearances of his critics. (I gather these are former officials who've kept clearance so they can offer advice.)

    --Speaker Paul Ryan was publicly questioned about T's recent behavior, and said "I think he's just trolling". Said repeatedly, and in a relaxed manner.

    --Russian hackers have hacked the US power grid.

    --T should be deported. and stripped of his citizenship. Perhaps Putin has a nice little dacha country house where T can recupe, and they can get together on the weekend.

    Or...there's an old story poem called "Man Without A Country", inspired by a true story from earlier American history. An American man was on trial for something political (?), and he said "God damn the United States! May I never hear the name of the United States again!" He was sentenced to spend the rest of his life on a sailing ship, never hearing the name of his country, and having its name cut out of any newspapers that reached him. A horrible fate, but possibly justifiable in the present situation. (If done legally and non-violently.)

    --Colbert mentioned, in his second segment, remarks by Virginia Kruta. (Not sure who she is. Maybe a state-level politician?) She went to a rally for Ms. Ocasio, the young social democrat from New York. VK said some very odd things (paraphrase from memory): She could see how someone could fall for the populist vision, want health care and education, etc. (I don't remember the rest, but it was worse.) Worth looking up.
  • Barnabas62Barnabas62 Purgatory Host, Epiphanies Host
    mousethief wrote: »
    Trump today: "What you’re seeing and what you’re reading is not what’s happening." For some reason people are comparing this to Orwell.

    Yes. I include in President Trump's assertion the following tweet from President Trump
    I’m very concerned that Russia will be fighting very hard to have an impact on the upcoming Election. Based on the fact that no President has been tougher on Russia than me, they will be pushing very hard for the Democrats. They definitely don’t want Trump!

    8:50 AM - 24 Jul 2018
    That's certainly not going to happen.

    But he just says what he thinks works for him with his adoring core support base. Paul Ryan thinks he's trolling people on one issue. Why just one? POTUS is a troll. He likes it, likes the attention it gets him. If he were a Shipmate, I would recommend his permanent planking.
  • If he were a shipmate, he would have lasted two days before flouncing off of his own accord.
  • Iran issued a tweet in response to T's threatening tweet. It starts with "Color us unimpressed".
    (chuckle) (notworthy)
  • Moderation, in all senses of the word, is certainly sorely lacking in his case.
  • If he were a shipmate, he would have lasted two days before flouncing off of his own accord.

    He'd try to take over the Ship. Imagine him tangling with Erin...
    (ROTFL)
  • I am convinced Hillary shouldn't run again. As long as the electoral college is what it is today, with a small number of states holding the balance of power, there is every possibility that she would lose all over again.

    I agree she shouldn't run. I'd like to see a female president (it's way past time for one), and I would have liked her to win in 2016, and I think she'd have done a reasonable job as president, but she lost, and the brutal truth is that she is widely disliked. Not only is she the bête noire for every Republican voter, but she's not liked by many centrists and Democrats. And that left her vulnerable to the rabble-rousing of someone like Trump.

    You can certainly argue, with some justification, that she is disliked because of sexist attitudes in her media portrayal, but the fact remains that she is not widely viewed as likeable.

    So who would I pick? In a normal election, where decent honourable people who cared about the country and had different ideas for what was best for it were the candidates, I might go for Kamala Harris.

    Against Trump? I'm not sure a California Democrat is the best tactic. To go up against Trump, Joe Biden might be a better play.
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    I agree she shouldn't run. I'd like to see a female president (it's way past time for one), and I would have liked her to win in 2016, and I think she'd have done a reasonable job as president, but she lost, and the brutal truth is that she is widely disliked. Not only is she the bête noire for every Republican voter, but she's not liked by many centrists and Democrats. And that left her vulnerable to the rabble-rousing of someone like Trump.

    Contrary to conventional wisdom Americans like Hillary Clinton pretty well, as long as she's not running for anything. Even when she was running for something we know she was exactly 2,868,691 votes more popular than Donald Trump on November 8, 2016.
    Against Trump? I'm not sure a California Democrat is the best tactic. To go up against Trump, Joe Biden might be a better play.

    Biden has already made two attempts at the presidency that garnered a combined total of exactly zero delegates for him. I suppose it's possible that Joe Biden 2020 will be more appealing to voters than Joe Biden 1988 or Joe Biden 2008, but the assumption that he'd be more popular than the majority vote getter in the 2016 general election seems like something that should be explained rather than assumed. Especially in light of the fact that, if elected, Biden would be the oldest person ever inaugurated as president, including second term Reagan. The same age-related caveat applies to Hillary Clinton, who on January 20, 2021 will be only slightly younger than Reagan was on January 20, 1985. That seems like a more relevant bar to the candidacy of either of them.
  • Crœsos wrote: »
    Contrary to conventional wisdom Americans like Hillary Clinton pretty well, as long as she's not running for anything.

    This may not be the most compelling argument. It may merely mean that people are more well disposed towards her when they consider as an individual, rather than as a potential leader.
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    Crœsos wrote: »
    Contrary to conventional wisdom Americans like Hillary Clinton pretty well, as long as she's not running for anything.

    This may not be the most compelling argument. It may merely mean that people are more well disposed towards her when they consider as an individual, rather than as a potential leader.

    But they seem fine with her as an actual leader. As the article notes her popularity rebounded when she actually became a U.S. Senator and again when she became Secretary of State. In other words I suspect that it's part of the overall problem people have with women who are seen as ambitious rather than anything particular about Hillary Clinton as an individual. I suppose you could use this to argue that this means no woman should ever get involved in politics (because they'll be "widely disliked"), but that's not a concession I'm willing to make.
  • Crœsos wrote: »
    Even when she was running for something we know she was exactly 2,868,691 votes more popular than Donald Trump on November 8, 2016.

    Sure. But they weren't the right 3 million people.

    Against Trump? I'm not sure a California Democrat is the best tactic. To go up against Trump, Joe Biden might be a better play.
    Crœsos wrote: »
    I suppose it's possible that Joe Biden 2020 will be more appealing to voters than Joe Biden 1988 or Joe Biden 2008, but the assumption that he'd be more popular than the majority vote getter in the 2016 general election seems like something that should be explained rather than assumed.

    The question is which candidate is most likely to deliver enough electoral votes in 2020. Not "who is most popular with people who vote in primaries", or even "who would win the most votes nationwide", but "who would win where it counts".

    Hillary Clinton faced Donald Trump in three debates before the election, and wiped the floor with him in all three. She demonstrated her command of the whole gamut of policy topics, and revealed Trump as the intellectual pygmy that he is. It wasn't enough.

    She, I think, believes that the emails nonsense did for her, and that she would have won without Comey's last minute reopening of the emails investigation. Perhaps that's true - but my opinion is that she was on pretty thin ground even without that. It's not that she's a bad candidate - it's that she doesn't match up well against a Trump candidate. And I don't think that's changed. Hillary Clinton can explain, in detail, why Trump is wrong, and it won't matter. Trump voters are not evidence-based voters.

    Sure - Trump has the lowest sustained approval ratings of any president ever. I don't think that matters, either. President Trump has not performed worse than Candidate Trump - he has behaved as president more or less exactly as he behaved as a candidate.

    I don't think you can fight Trump with arguments, or data, by themselves.

    I'm not trying to argue that Biden would make a better president than Clinton. I don't think he would. And I do take your point about his age, which is a problem (and, as you note, also applies to Clinton, and to Bernie Sanders).
  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    Who should run against tRump. In my book, a Gen X, Millenials are just beginning to come of age.
  • The best person to run against Trump in 2020 is somebody who sounds like a moderate Republican but isn't, and looks like a safe pair of hands. Don't scare people till you have the levers of power!!!

    I would go for someone who is ex-military or intelligence with a good service record, maybe an officer in Afghanistan and Iraq. I would couple them with a moderate-looking person from the left of the Party, someone who the left could get behind but who wouldn't scare the Independents.

    I don't think the above is Tim Kaine, but what about Time Kaine? I don't know much about him, but I have noticed his name is not mentioned really at all.

    What about that Stockton CA Mayor for a senior role, maybe in the cabinet? I reckon he should be blooded on the national scene soon. I'd put him in charge of a social ministry like housing or social security or health first up. Maybe not health. That's too much of a battleground. Wouldn't it be great for a young guy like that to come up with an innovative social policy like our Opposition Leader did for people with disabilities in his first ministry. I would love Stockton to be the home of a future President!
  • Re Kamala Harris as a possible 2020 pres. candidate:

    Here's her Wikipedia page. She has experience at local and state levels, here in California, as SF District Attorney and Calif. Attorney General.

    But her only national experience is becoming senator *last year*. Plus I'm not sure about having a president whose career is as a prosecutor.

    If Kamala wants to leave the Senate, she might be a good fit at the Dept. of Justice--maybe Deputy Atty. General or some such, and (some day) maybe *the* Attorney General.

    I'd have to review her work to decide about voting for her. On the plus side, she would definitely add diversity to the presidency: a woman with Indian and Jamaican parents.

    Anyway, I don't think Kamala is The Answer for 2020.
  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    Cohen is now ready to testify that Trump knew in advance of Trump Jr.'s meeting with the Russians in Trump Tower. Collusion? Let's say it is getting awfully smokey around here.

    Meanwhile, Allen Weisselberg, the CFO of the Trump foundation is being subpoenaed before the federal grand jury. This the guy who supposedly prepared Trump's tax returns. I wonder how many skeletons he knows about. Story here. Looks like the House of Cards is beginning to teeter
  • Barnabas62Barnabas62 Purgatory Host, Epiphanies Host
    A link to the Trump Jr story.

    I think it means that POTUS has been caught out in another lie over when he knew something, But his loyal support base don't seem that bothered about these kinds of lies. All he's doing is misleading the "Fake News" media - who deserve to be misled because all they ever do is mislead.

    And in many ways that is the most serious thing that is happening. In far too many people's eyes, Trump has successfully discredited the mainstream media and has made himself a more believable source. Uncritical loyalty is pretty hard to undermine, if the underminer has lost credibility in the minds of the loyalists. "The Devil (i.e the Fake News media) is not to be believed, even when he is speaking the truth."
  • Barnabas62 wrote: »
    "The Devil (i.e the Fake News media) is not to be believed, even when he is speaking the truth."

    Actual Trump quote:
    “What you’re seeing and what you’re reading is not what’s happening,"

    1984:
    “The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command,”

    Source.

  • CathscatsCathscats Shipmate
    bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-44959300

    Hope this link works - my first URL! But I read this yesterday and it struck chill, like Eutychus' previous post.
  • BoogieBoogie Shipmate
    Yep. Gaslighting.

    It’s probably how he’s lived his whole life.

    What happens when the supporters of such people cotton on to the fact that they’ve been played by a gaslighter?

    (Genuine question, I’m lucky to have never come across one IRL)
  • Barnabas62Barnabas62 Purgatory Host, Epiphanies Host
    Here is a quote from Harry Truman re McCarthyism.
    It is now evident that the present Administration has fully embraced, for political advantage, McCarthyism. I am not referring to the Senator from Wisconsin. He is only important in that his name has taken on the dictionary meaning of the word. It is the corruption of truth, the abandonment of the due process law. It is the use of the big lie and the unfounded accusation against any citizen in the name of Americanism or security. It is the rise to power of the demagogue who lives on untruth; it is the spreading of fear and the destruction of faith in every level of society.

    That part in italics is striking in its resonance to Trumpism.
  • Yep. In another historical reference, on the day that Nixon resigned to avoid impeachment, there were pro-Nixon rallies in Washington DC.
  • Are you guys getting this story about an upcoming strike on Iran? Our politicians are denying it up hill and down dale. The radio news is saying that a strike is expected next month, and all the commentariat are coming out to put in their 2cents worth. It is very unusual for such a story to hit our papers BEFORE a strike.
  • mousethiefmousethief Shipmate
    edited July 2018
    Boogie wrote: »
    Yep. Gaslighting.

    It’s probably how he’s lived his whole life.

    What happens when the supporters of such people cotton on to the fact that they’ve been played by a gaslighter?

    (Genuine question, I’m lucky to have never come across one IRL)
    It is very, very hard to cotton on to. I saw a quote recently to the effect that, it's easier to fool someone than to convince them that they've been fooled. Once you start believing something you have an innate need to protect that belief. It's this dynamic that fuels conspiracy nuts. And of course it's painful to have to admit that you've been hoodwinked, so you have a natural aversion to admitting it and changing course.

    Or as one of my favorite quips has it,
    A man who has bought a theory will fight a furious rear guard action against the facts. - Joseph R. Alsop, Jr.
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    Cohen is now ready to testify that Trump knew in advance of Trump Jr.'s meeting with the Russians in Trump Tower. Collusion? Let's say it is getting awfully smokey around here.

    For that little bit of historical callback (and because whoever is writing the bad political thriller we're all living in these days can't resist being as heavy-handed as possible) one of the bylined authors of CNN's account of Cohen's latest accusation is Carl Bernstein, who knows a bit about presidential scandals.
  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    edited July 2018
    The news keeps saying tRump has 88% Republican support. But, if you consider Republicans make up just 26% of the electorate that is a very small percentage. Ever since the election Trump's disapproval rating has been higher than his approval rating. The average has been 53% disapprove, 41% approve. No president who has had less than 50 percent approval rating has ever been elected a second time.

    I have been reading Steinbeck's book It Can't Happen Here, a novel about how the Fascists took over the United States in 1936. The book was published in 1933. The fly page has a note on it saying it can happen here. The note was written in 1939. It is now 2018 and it is uncanny how the book predicts what is happening.
  • stetsonstetson Shipmate
    Gramps:

    I think you mean "Sinclair Lewis" for the author of It Can't Happen Here.
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    The news keeps saying tRump has 88% Republican support.

    Not surprising. Richard Nixon still had the support of a majority of Republicans the day he resigned, and that was an era in which there were still northern moderate ("Rockefeller") Republicans.
  • Re books predicting reality:

    --There're two pieces of fiction that seemingly predicted the Titanic disaster:

    "Years before the Titanic sank, two mysterious books were published that seemed to predict the disaster" ( Business Insider--France).

    I'm also including "A story written in 1886 predicted the 1912 “Titanic” disaster with eerie accuracy" (The Vintage News) because it's such a cool site.

    Oh, and one of the stories is called "The Wreck of the Titan: Or, Futility"...


    --I heard Chilean author Isabel Allende speak, many years ago. She told about writing fiction about various Latin-American conditions and political struggles. (In the 1970s, IIRC. Very volatile, then.) There was a particular gap, where she didn't have any info to use as a basis. So she thought through the possibilities, came up with something, and used it.

    After the book came out, she got a frantic call from a Catholic priest. She'd gotten some secret thing in her filler exactly right. The priest knew the truth. He was terrified, because the only person he'd told was his bishop, and wanted to know how she knew.

    Reality is really weird.

  • Crœsos wrote: »
    But they seem fine with her as an actual leader. As the article notes her popularity rebounded when she actually became a U.S. Senator and again when she became Secretary of State.

    In other words I suspect that it's part of the overall problem people have with women who are seen as ambitious rather than anything particular about Hillary Clinton as an individual. I suppose you could use this to argue that this means no woman should ever get involved in politics (because they'll be "widely disliked"), but that's not a concession I'm willing to make.

    I've been thinking about this and I think there's a jump in your reasoning there from 'Hillary Clinton' to 'all women', unless there is a pattern you can show where there is a effect of similar magnitude that applies consistently to women from both parties running for office in the US.

    It may simply be that there are well rehearsed attack lines regarding the Clintons that always get trotted out whenever she is running for office, and she has the bad fortune to be a person that the right wing media have taught their listeners to hate for the last 20 years.

  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    edited July 2018
    Newseek came out with a poll that asked self-identified never Hillary independents how they felt about Trump. Their disapproval rating of him is now 57% to 41% approval rating. The thought is this could impact the midterm elections.
  • I am heartened by that Gramps, and I agree with Chris. We will have a female President sooner or later.
Sign In or Register to comment.