The Next US President is....

Status
Not open for further replies.
90534885_888516524943966_7793962940280864768_n.png
 
Andrew Cuomo is acting mighty presidential right now but way too late for the Dems to change horses.

Yeah, but Cuomo also publicly praised and thanked Trump for his response and assistance throughout the NY outbreak. That puts him on the DNC "Public Enemy" list and he'll be a pariah forever and ever and ever.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TheScientist
Yeah, but Cuomo also publicly praised and thanked Trump for his response and assistance throughout the NY outbreak. That puts him on the DNC "Public Enemy" list and he'll be a pariah forever and ever and ever.
To be fair to Trump, he publicly said before his election that he would not even try to be « Presidential ». So theres that. And he succeeded beyond anyone’s hope
 
Yeah, but Cuomo also publicly praised and thanked Trump for his response and assistance throughout the NY outbreak. That puts him on the DNC "Public Enemy" list and he'll be a pariah forever and ever and ever.
The DNC for NY is a vicious beast. I have a memory of an NYC local election where they ran TWO dead candidates rather than replace favored (corpses) with party outliers.
 
The Worst President Ever

- Max Boot / The Washington Post

April 5, 2020 at 8:00 a.m. CDT

Until now, I have generally been reluctant to label Donald Trump the worst president in U.S. history. As a historian, I know how important it is to allow the passage of time to gain a sense of perspective. Some presidents who seemed awful to contemporaries (Harry S. Truman) or simply lackluster (Dwight D. Eisenhower, George H.W. Bush) look much better in retrospect. Others, such as Thomas Jefferson and Woodrow Wilson, don’t look as good as they once did.

So I have written, as I did on March 12, that Trump is the worst president in modern times — not of all time. That left open the possibility that James Buchanan, Andrew Johnson, Franklin Pierce, Warren Harding or some other nonentity would be judged more harshly. But in the past month, we have seen enough to take away the qualifier “in modern times.” With his catastrophic mishandling of the coronavirus, Trump has established himself as the worst president in U.S. history.

His one major competitor for that dubious distinction remains Buchanan, whose dithering helped lead us into the Civil War — the deadliest conflict in U.S. history. Buchanan may still be the biggest loser. But there is good reason to think that the Civil War would have broken out no matter what. By contrast, there is nothing inevitable about the scale of the disaster we now confront.

Trump may think he can sugarcoat coronavirus, but media critic Erik Wemple says it is time for the government to speak with one clear voice about public health.

The situation is so dire, it is hard to wrap your mind around it. The Atlantic notes: “During the Great Recession of 2007–2009, the economy suffered a net loss of approximately 9 million jobs. The pandemic recession has seen nearly 10 million unemployment claims in just two weeks.” The New York Times estimates that the unemployment rate is now about 13 percent, the highest since the Great Depression ended 80 years ago.

Far worse is the human carnage. We already have more confirmed coronavirus cases than any other country. Trump claimed on Feb. 26 that the outbreak would soon be “down to close to zero.” Now he argues that if the death toll is 100,000 to 200,000 — higher than the U.S. fatalities in all of our wars combined since 1945 — it will be proof that he’s done “a very good job.”

No, it will be a sign that he’s a miserable failure, because the coronavirus is the most foreseeable catastrophe in U.S. history. The warnings about the Pearl Harbor and 9/11 attacks were obvious only in retrospect. This time, it didn’t require any top-secret intelligence to see what was coming. The alarm was sounded in January by experts in the media and by leading Democrats including presumptive presidential nominee Joe Biden.

Government officials were delivering similar warnings directly to Trump. A team of Post reporters wrote on Saturday: “The Trump administration received its first formal notification of the outbreak of the coronavirus in China on Jan. 3. Within days, U.S. spy agencies were signaling the seriousness of the threat to Trump by including a warning about the coronavirus —the first of many—in the President’s Daily Brief.” But Trump wasn’t listening.

The Post article is the most thorough dissection of Trump’s failure to prepare for the gathering storm. Trump was first briefed on the coronavirus by Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar on Jan. 18. But, The Post writes, “Azar told several associates that the president believed he was ‘alarmist’ and Azar struggled to get Trump’s attention to focus on the issue.” When Trump was first asked publicly about the virus, on Jan. 22, he said, “We have it totally under control. It’s one person coming in from China.”

In the days and weeks after Azar alerted him about the virus, Trump spoke at eight rallies and golfed six times as if he didn’t have a care in the world.

Trump’s failure to focus, The Post notes, “sowed significant public confusion and contradicted the urgent messages of public health experts.” It also allowed bureaucratic snafus to go unaddressed — including critical failures to roll out enough tests or to stockpile enough protective equipment and ventilators.

Countries as diverse as Taiwan, Singapore, Canada, South Korea, Georgia and Germany have done far better — and will suffer far less. South Korea and the United States discovered their first cases on the same day. South Korea now has 183 dead — or 4 deaths per 1 million people. The U.S. death ratio (25 per 1 million) is six times worse — and rising quickly.

This fiasco is so monumental that it makes our recent failed presidents — George W. Bush and Jimmy Carter — Mount Rushmore material by comparison. Trump’s Friday night announcement that he’s firing the intelligence community inspector general who exposed his attempted extortion of Ukraine shows that he combines the ineptitude of a George W. Bush or a Carter with the corruption of Richard Nixon.

Trump is characteristically working hardest at blaming others — China, the media, governors, President Barack Obama, the Democratic impeachment managers, everyone but his golf caddie — for his blunders. His mantra is: “I don’t take responsibility at all.” It remains to be seen whether voters will buy his excuses. But whatever happens in November, Trump cannot escape the pitiless judgment of history.

Somewhere, a relieved James Buchanan must be smiling.
 
WaPo should have all its staff from the top down to the lowest clerk perform a daily ritual where they get down on their knees and worship the ground Donald Trump walks on because were it not for all their articles about him, they'd be out of business despite Bezos's bailout.
 
I'm curious as to how the GOP even plans to keep winning despite the demographic changes. They've made next to no inroads with most minorities (with a very few exceptions).The more diverse the country becomes the less they have a chance of winning in the future. We saw that in 2018 when overwhelmingly rejected the Republican Party. As much as I don't like the GOP I do think they have a pretty valid point: as the country becomes more diverse the chances of the GOP winning certain states will be damn near impossible. Even minorities who tend to hold socially conservative views (particularly African-Americans) will continue voting for the Democrats. Trump is basically capped at around 30% with Hispanics as well (even lower in some polls).

It's interesting for me to see this as a non-American because we don't have this situation in Canada. Even though our center-right Conservative Party has more support from rural white folk they still have a considerable amount of backing from minorities so they'll always have a chance to win in the future.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Frenchy
It's interesting for me to see this as a non-American because we don't have this situation in Canada.

We find it equally odd that y'all still have a queen.

But to address your point more directly, the narrative that non-whites automatically vote Democrat is one pushed very heavily by the media and while it is in supported by surveys in a certain view, and that the narrative about demographic shift has been pushed VERY heavily, actual voting patterns do not always match the narrative.

There also seems to be a small but growing and increasingly vocal subset of the non white population in the US that is becoming upset that Democrat candidates seem to take their votes for granted.

That is to say, be careful with the narrative, pundits are often more interested in themselves than reality and pollsters are absolutely not prophets.
 
But to address your point more directly, the narrative that non-whites automatically vote Democrat is one pushed very heavily by the media and while it is in supported by surveys in a certain view, and that the narrative about demographic shift has been pushed VERY heavily, actual voting patterns do not always match the narrative.

I know several Puerto Ricans who have been very active in both Trump's campaigns. As they are wealthy I see this more like rich - poor thing than white - non-white.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Keihan Chikan
We find it equally odd that y'all still have a queen.

But to address your point more directly, the narrative that non-whites automatically vote Democrat is one pushed very heavily by the media and while it is in supported by surveys in a certain view, and that the narrative about demographic shift has been pushed VERY heavily, actual voting patterns do not always match the narrative.

There also seems to be a small but growing and increasingly vocal subset of the non white population in the US that is becoming upset that Democrat candidates seem to take their votes for granted.

That is to say, be careful with the narrative, pundits are often more interested in themselves than reality and pollsters are absolutely not prophets.

Haha! The British monarchy is loved by most Protestants and some other related groups. The French Catholics in Quebec, for example, are against it completely.

While I agree there is a "increasingly vocal subset" I don't know about "growing". George W. Bush managed to pull about 40% of the Latino vote from what I remember. I can't imagine the GOP getting anywhere near that nowadays with someone like Trump. I suppose if the GOP ran someone like Marco Rubio he could possibly pull a good amount of the Latino vote but he would risk alienating the MAGA crowd and hence cost them the election. Especially if the Democrats run a WASP candidate.

Pollsters are not prophets but polling data and exit polls in general do paint a pretty clear picture. I see next to no evidence anywhere that minorities are starting to support the GOP more and more. Recent voting patterns seem to indicate the opposite. There are other reasons why people vote the way they vote, of course. I know it's not just one thing but it's something that's quite noticeable.


I know several Puerto Ricans who have been very active in both Trump's campaigns. As they are wealthy I see this more like rich - poor thing than white - non-white.

There probably are but even then most Puerto Ricans vote for the Democrats. There are many who support the GOP but they still tilt the other way. And as far as wealthy people supporting the Republicans goes - I think there is some truth to this. People at the top don't want to pay a shit ton of taxes. Understandable. However, but looking at the top earners in America you can see that Indians and East Asians earn the most and both are dedicated Democratic voting blocks with only a few exceptions. Even other affluent groups within the subcategories for "whites" such as Jewish-Americans are also mostly Democrats.
 
No matter what your politics are, Trump's newest attack ad is pretty fucking good.



It doesn't look like Biden's family is going to intervene and force him to stop, so unless all Americans are somehow injected with massive doses or estrogen and start doling out compassionate pity votes, Trump is going to destroy Biden in November by an even bigger margin than he did Hillary.
 
No matter what your politics are, Trump's newest attack ad is pretty fucking good.



It doesn't look like Biden's family is going to intervene and force him to stop, so unless all Americans are somehow injected with massive doses or estrogen and start doling out compassionate pity votes, Trump is going to destroy Biden in November by an even bigger margin than he did Hillary.

I dont know... all I can see is a « Biden dangerous for America » followed by a chess game :ROFLMAO:
 
No matter what your politics are, Trump's newest attack ad is pretty fucking good.



It doesn't look like Biden's family is going to intervene and force him to stop, so unless all Americans are somehow injected with massive doses or estrogen and start doling out compassionate pity votes, Trump is going to destroy Biden in November by an even bigger margin than he did Hillary.


Watching both of them makes me think that age restrictions should be imposed, or at the very least candidates should have to undertake extensive physical and mental health tests.
 
Last edited:
Watching both of them makes me think that the age restrictions should be imposed, or at the very least candidates should have to undertake extensive physical and mental health tests.
No. You get the leaders you deserve is my motto (for democracies at least)
 
93655781_10158308868245097_5628075864223645696_n.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: Negi77 and Frenchy
Status
Not open for further replies.