Talk:President of the United States
Predicting the Future
I take serious issue with the prediction seen in the Trump section: the one that says that we’re getting two full terms with him based on the results of the midterms. A few problems:
1: I’m not sure you’re aware of this, but... um... the midterms haven’t happened yet. Like, when I first read that, they were about a year away. Besides, with the recent sweep of democratic victories in special elections (especially the most recent one in which the GOP candidate somehow lost IN ALABAMA), it’s very likely that the GOP will suffer swift defeat, and thus the election will serve as a “referendum” after all.
2: What makes you so sure that Trump stands a chance of being re-elected? He lost the popular vote. He only won the electoral college vote, and only then because of decreased voter turnout. His election was a fluke that is highly unlikely to be repeated. That’s not even mentioning Trump’s record-low approval ratings - 32% in his first year alone, the lowest approval ratings of any president since Hoover, and with his constant scandals, fuckups, blatant corruption, creeping authoritarianism, and lack of real accomplishments, he’s not exactly endearing himself to anyone outside his rapidly dwindling base. If he’s so unpopular now, why would he have even a ghost of a chance at reelection? The American people aren’t THAT stupid.
3: This also assumes that he won’t be removed from office before the 2020 vote. Robert Mueller’s investigation is rapidly gaining momentum, with four of Trump’s associates already indicted and more and more evidence uncovered by the day. He may be the President, but he is not above the law. Should Mueller find enough evidence, even Trump’s biggest sycophants won’t be able to save him. 184.108.40.206 (talk) 06:04, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
- I'm guessing we're being pessimistic so that, either way, we're not disappointed. RoninMacbeth (talk) 06:27, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
- As writer and artist Christopher Loring Knowles once said, “Defeatism is foolproof. You can’t control a positive outcome, but you can ensure a negative one simply by giving up and surrendering. Thus, the ego is protected.” NotYourAverageBoN (talk) 20:08, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
The rhetoric on the Joe Biden section -- a man who, as of this date, only took office yesterday -- is completely and totally over the top. Unfortunately, I do not have time to edit the post and take out the partisan wackiness, but there must be someone who can help. Aron (talk) 10:02, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
- I actually agree with some of the points raised in the section...but it is too early to pass any strong judgement on the man. We should wait a while before we fill out that section at all, with anything.-Flandres (talk) 22:29, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
On second thought...
...Why do we have a giant list of all presidents with further details in each entry, especially when he have detailed articles on more than a few of them? Should we not just slap a link to their respective pages and be done with it?-Flandres (talk) 19:54, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
- Okay, since at last count we have articles on more than two-thirds of all U.S. presidents now, I would like to raise the question "why do we have this list" again.-Flandres (talk) 19:56, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
- There are a number of US presidents, especially in the 19th century, who probably don't merit a full length article, but qualify for a few comments on here.
- The chief danger here is partisanship. Some people are willing to back idiots just because they belong to their party... and conversely, criticise good things which the other lot did. For example, the only coherent president of the 21st century seems to have been Obama, but his faults are often overlooked. Biden is just as incoherent and bizarre as the last incumbent but in different ways.-Albannach (talk) 12:20, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
Doesn't that largely depend on how you define authoritarianism? What can we also allocate as authoritarianism to the US president when they mostly deal with foreign rather than domestic policy? The history of politics in the United States I would argue is chalk full of authoritarianism from Jim Crow, to McCarthyism, to mass surveillance, and even including literal torture of political prisoners. I can however see the argument being made that though this is attributable to the US's political system as a whole, it still isn't itself attributable to the president himself. How do we measure and score authoritarianism in presidencies as to justify this claim that authoritarianism has largely been avoided? Is engaging the bombing of foreign citizens and declaring war not itself a type of authoritarianism? Why or why not? - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 17:50, 30 July 2022 (UTC).
- I know the examples are more modern but how is something like Trail of Tears not authoritarian policy either? --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 17:54, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
- I'd say there are numerous examples of authoritarianism. The Trail of Tears definitely qualifies as Mario says, as do their continual pandering to surveillance agencies ("Alphabet Agencies") which spy on the American public. The handling of Covid also showed that Biden has definite authoritarian tendencies, and was willing to act against the US constitution.
- Then there is the small matter of setting up dictatorships abroad, or supporting them.-Albannach (talk) 12:15, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
Obama has extremely good PR, but was much more hawkish than people realise. His government dropped tens of thousands of bombs on foreign civilians. He compares poorly to Bill Clinton and even Donald Trump. (Trump deserves credit in that regard, despite being awful in most others) I've even heard it said Obama was more hawkish than Dubya, although I'd question that assertion.
The Osama Bin Laden assassination... praised by whomever wrote that section but of dubious legality, given it occurred in Pakistan.
Also promising to close Gitmo, and never doing so.-Albannach (talk) 12:11, 20 September 2022 (UTC)