Sfdebris.net

I figured that we couldn't really have a proper news thread without a Trump thread. So, I'm creating this thread for discussion of the current President of the United States, his policies, and his many, many scandals.

I make no claim to being unbiased, but then, I honestly don't really feel that their's much of a middle ground on the leader of the most powerful country on Earth being a narcissistic internet troll/reality TV show host who bragged about groping women and got endorsed by multiple Klan leaders. And that's not even getting into the as yet unproven allegations against him (including rape and collusion with Russian espionage). To me that transcends partisanship, and becomes a matter of basic decency and reason.

But if you want to argue in Trump's defence, well... its a free country.

LOL

The Romulan Republic wrote:I figured that we couldn't really have a proper news thread without a Trump thread. So, I'm creating this thread for discussion of the current President of the United States, his policies, and his many, many scandals.

I make no claim to being unbiased, but then, I honestly don't really feel that their's much of a middle ground on the leader of the most powerful country on Earth being a narcissistic internet troll/reality TV show host who bragged about groping women and got endorsed by multiple Klan leaders. And that's not even getting into the as yet unproven allegations against him (including rape and collusion with Russian espionage). To me that transcends partisanship, and becomes a matter of basic decency and reason.

But if you want to argue in Trump's defence, well... its a free country.

He claimed he groped women who wanted to be groped by him. The Klan is less relevant than a bigger WOW guild. If you have a lot of money the chances of allegations go up regardless if you are a rapist or not. Russia and some Repubs might have wanted to save the world for all i know.

There are standards of decency for presidents? Since when?

How low can Trump go? How low can the media go.

Agent Vinod wrote:He claimed he groped women who wanted to be groped by him.

"They wanted it"- the classic cry of rapists and rape apologists everywhere.

Walking up and grabbing random women (a number of whom made complaints against him) cannot be excused by "they wanted it".

The Klan is less relevant than a bigger WOW guild.

That multiple Klan leaders evidently felt Trump was representative of their views is nonetheless telling, as is the fact that he did not immediately and unequivocally reject Klan endorsement.

If you have a lot of money the chances of allegations go up regardless if you are a rapist or not.

Question: why is it that a man accused of sexual assault must be presumed innocent even when he has bragged on tape about committing sexual assault, but it is evidently okay (in your mind) to make insinuations that his accusers are lying for financial gain without evidence? Because it is simply to be taken for granted that any man accused of sexual assault is the victim of a female conspiracy?

Of course, I could just as easily flip it around and say "A powerful man is less likely to be accused because of his ability to retaliate against and intimidate his victims"- especially when the man in question is the freaking President, and has a history of vindictive litigation against his critics. Yet their are multiple people who have alleged sexual assault or harassment by Trump.

And this isn't just "He said, she said". This is "She and she and she said, and he admitted to it on tape."

And let's be honest... would it really surprise anyone if Donald Trump of all people turned out to be a rapist? A man with a history of raging narcissism, vindictiveness, and objectification of women? I mean, sure, innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, but he's "innocent" in the same way OJ was "innocent".

Russia and some Repubs might have wanted to save the world for all i know.

Maybe. Of course, their idea of "saving the world" seems to be to "save" it from imagined threats from women and minorities, so I'll pass.

And Putin's Russia is in it purely to expand their power, and the power of Russia, at our expense.

There are standards of decency for presidents? Since when?

We've had shitty Presidents in the past, but this is the first time that a President has been regularly, openly, unapologetically offensive and criminal, and been rewarded for it. This is a normalization of all the worst aspects of society.

This shouldn't be a partisan issue. It really shouldn't. But apparently "Don't grope women" is now a Left wing position. Shame.

If we're talking Approval Rating, 23% That seems to be the bottom. I don't think any President since they started tracking these things has ever gone below that number. 23% of Americans will support this man no matter what he does. Starts World War III over a sarcastic tweet? 23% Strangles his wife? 23% Openly brags at the State of the Union address that he lied like a motherfucker during the campaign and people bought it? 23% Which means that at least 23% of the Adult American population is on the flip side of the Authoritarian personality coin; they want very badly to be ruled, and they don't care who's doing the ruling, so long as he at least acts like a strong Daddy figure.

Arkle wrote:If we're talking Approval Rating, 23% That seems to be the bottom. I don't think any President since they started tracking these things has ever gone below that number. 23% of Americans will support this man no matter what he does. Starts World War III over a sarcastic tweet? 23% Strangles his wife? 23% Openly brags at the State of the Union address that he lied like a motherfucker during the campaign and people bought it? 23% Which means that at least 23% of the Adult American population is on the flip side of the Authoritarian personality coin; they want very badly to be ruled, and they don't care who's doing the ruling, so long as he at least acts like a strong Daddy figure.

That's... probably sadly true.

The question is, how soon will Trump hit that number.

Arkle wrote:If we're talking Approval Rating, 23% That seems to be the bottom.

I think the lowest it ever dropped was 22% actually (under Truman and Nixon, one over Korea, one over Scandal). Trump could conceivably drop lower; nobody took approval ratings of Hoover after all. Even if it won't drop lower, I bet he could have the lowest Approval+Undecideds.

I've looked at Average Approval Rating (AAR) vs. Historical Rank; there is a correlation but it is fairly weak... It seems to work best for presidents like Eisenhower or Reagan (not a comparison), as opposed to presidents like Truman, Bush or Nixon. Buchanan, the worst president, had a hypothetical AAR of 31.8%, while Lincoln had a hypothetical AAR of 110.2%.

Getting away from statistics, I seriously doubt that Trump will be able to beat out Buchanan for last unless he starts a literal civil war, or he starts an unpopular war and the economy implodes.

Well, Buchanan still holds the special distinction of being the only President to leave the US territorially smaller when he left office than when he entered, a distinction Trump will hopefully not match.

Edits: Well, the part of the US under government control. Since the Confederates were never recognized as a nation, I suppose that they were technically part of the US, just in rebellion.

Either way, though... I'm still hopeful Trump won't manage to beat that particular record, but that's a seriously low bar to pass.

Personally, though, I'm rather hoping for "First President to leave the White House in handcuffs."

Personally I've never put a LOT of stock in approval rating, as sometimes you have to do what's necessary over what's popular.

Keyword being DO which hasn't been the hallmark of the administration so far.

Personally I've never given a damn about the man's policies because I've been in marketing. It's a common tactic to have someone say "Now I am X successful following (whatever you're selling)". It's a tactic that preys on low self-esteem and it's quite effective, particularly on the motivational speaker circuit. And I never saw a rally or interview where he didn't employ it ala "I am fabulously rich" and the drones around me who then say "Well he must be doing something right to be that rich!" It's the political equivalent of putting supermodels in your beer commercial when you have no testimonials worth a damn.

And the first thing he did (of substance) was pull out of TPP. When his entire platform was that he was an amazing negotiator and had an "expertise" in economics. The treaty that was literally designed to maintain the American Empire for the next century by shutting out China and we just walked away. No negotiations. No backroom handshakes to smooth over the rough edges. Just out and out bailed. And then Australia and NZ and Canada turn and say, again, LITERALLY say the words "maybe we can replace the United States with China?"

Based on that alone, and how history views it he might be remembered as one of the worst, who set the tone for a receding superpower and maybe it gives rise to a new great powers system or something else that will lead to instability. Or he might be remembered as the guy who lucked into the end of american oppression, all depends who writes the books, I suppose.

Though Trump won't be writing any of them, I feel. Certainly won't be reading them.