What does a TRUMP presidency look like?

[Zanza]

He must be talking about Jackson and the Nullification Crisis, which, on reflection, is not as totally brain dead as I thought.

Or he just blabbered nonsense, which seems rather more likely.

[frunk]

He must be talking about Jackson and the Nullification Crisis, which, on reflection, is not as totally brain dead as I thought.

I think it likely that someone told him about the Nullification Crisis so he could talk about it, and he ad-libbed Jackson into his speech without really understanding it.

[The Minsky Moment]

It's clear from the context he knew that Jackson was not around for Civil War, because he suggests the war might have been averted had Jackson "been a little bit later."  Virtually everything else he says is nonsense, but it's not exactly news that Trump is an ignoramus.

[jimmy olsen]

It's clear from the context he knew that Jackson was not around for Civil War, because he suggests the war might have been averted had Jackson "been a little bit later."  Virtually everything else he says is nonsense, but it's not exactly news that Trump is an ignoramus.

Well, if someone like Jackson was president in 1860 rather than Buchanan then things would have probably gone a lot better.

[Grinning_Colossus]

Jackson would have killed all the damn Yankees and established a slave empire that spanned the Americas.

[Oexmelin]

Here's what David Blight (Yale) answered when he was told of Trump's take on Jackson and the Civil War:

He really said this about Jackson and the Civil War?

All I can say to you is that from day one I have believed that Donald Trump's greatest threat to our society and to our democracy is not necessarily his authoritarianism, but his essential ignorance—of history, of policy, of political process, of the Constitution.

Saying that if Jackson had been around we might not have had the Civil War is like saying that one strong, aggressive leader can shape, prevent, move history however they wish. This is simply a fifth-grade understanding of history or worse. And this comes from the president of the United States! Under normal circumstances if a real estate tycoon weighed in on the nature of American history from such ignorance and twisted understanding we would simply ignore or laugh at him. But since this man lives in the historic White House and wields the constitutional powers of the presidency and the commander in chief we have to pay attention.

Trump's "learning" of American history must have stopped even before the fifth grade. I wish I could say this is funny and not deeply disturbing. My profession should petition the President to take a one- or two-month leave of absence, VP Pence steps in for that interim, and Trump goes on a retreat in one of his resorts for forced reeducation. It could be a new tradition called the presidential education leave. Or perhaps in New Deal tradition, an 'ignorance relief' period. This alone might gain the United States again some confidence and respect around the world. God help us."

[saskganesh]

Fair enough Jake - I don't agree. I think they are well above the average in corruption, of the specific kind I am talking about, where money buys access and influence.

Their success and profile are a function of how good they have been at it. They get a obscene amount of money because they know how to play the game well, and the people paying understand exactly what they are getting.

It's kind of hard to benchmark, since there's so few examples to usefully compare with.

Carter.

Edit: also Truman. So you have TWO.

https://theintercept.com/2017/05/01/barack-obama-is-using-his-presidency-to-cash-in-but-harry-truman-and-jimmy-carter-refused/

[Razgovory]

I'm having a difficult time understanding what type of "access" is attained by hiring a retired politician.

[crazy canuck]

The speaking fees I think are much more problematic. They directly enriched the Clintons, and scale does matter. If it was some amount that wasn't a fundamental change to their standard of living, then I guess, whatever. But it wasn't - it was an obscene amount of money, and I don't buy the "Oh, we just want to be able to say we had a Clinton speak!" story anymore than I buy the lobbyists claim that they don't expect any kind of political payback in return for their giant donations.

So if someone is a very good public speaker and is in demand for those skills (which President Clinton certainly has been since he left office) the amount earned because of the demand for such a gifted speaker tells us something other than he is a gifted speaker?


You might not want to "buy" it, but organizations in Vancouver have paid top dollar for both Clintons to speak at various occasions.  Why?  Because there is some connection with political favours that breaks the time/space continuum or because they pack the house and the organizers easily make a profit after paying the large speaking fee?

[saskganesh]

I'm having a difficult time understanding what type of "access" is attained by hiring a retired politician.

Huge. Knows everyone. Knows process. And of course, there's always just prestige, which is always useful.

Of course, these payments can also be seen as retroactive, for services loyally rendered, nudgewink, thankyouverymuch.

[CountDeMoney]

Holy shit, just look at all that corruptionism

May 2, 2017    New York City, New York    Planned Parenthood Gala: 100 Years Strong: The Celebration of a Century    
May 23, 2017    New York City, New York    Children's Health Fund Annual Benefit    
May 26, 2017    Wellesley, Massachusetts    Commencement Address at Wellesley College    
June 8, 2017    Brooklyn, New York            Medgar Evers College    

https://hillaryspeeches.com/scheduled-events/

[HVC]

Taking money from charities that could be better spent? For shame!

[HVC]

Here's what David Blight (Yale) answered when he was told of Trump's take on Jackson and the Civil War:

He really said this about Jackson and the Civil War?

All I can say to you is that from day one I have believed that Donald Trump's greatest threat to our society and to our democracy is not necessarily his authoritarianism, but his essential ignorance—of history, of policy, of political process, of the Constitution.

Saying that if Jackson had been around we might not have had the Civil War is like saying that one strong, aggressive leader can shape, prevent, move history however they wish. This is simply a fifth-grade understanding of history or worse. And this comes from the president of the United States! Under normal circumstances if a real estate tycoon weighed in on the nature of American history from such ignorance and twisted understanding we would simply ignore or laugh at him. But since this man lives in the historic White House and wields the constitutional powers of the presidency and the commander in chief we have to pay attention.

Trump's "learning" of American history must have stopped even before the fifth grade. I wish I could say this is funny and not deeply disturbing. My profession should petition the President to take a one- or two-month leave of absence, VP Pence steps in for that interim, and Trump goes on a retreat in one of his resorts for forced reeducation. It could be a new tradition called the presidential education leave. Or perhaps in New Deal tradition, an 'ignorance relief' period. This alone might gain the United States again some confidence and respect around the world. God help us."

I'm not a historian, far from, but haven't there been plenty of examples of strong man changing history? Not saying Jackson could, but Blighty here making a blanket statement seems odd.

[Oexmelin]

I'm not a historian, far from, but haven't there been plenty of examples of strong man changing history? Not saying Jackson could, but Blighty here making a blanket statement seems odd.

The operative expression here is "however they wish". The idea that the Civil War would not have happened because Andrew Jackson would not have allowed it is what is being indicted as "fifth-grade understanding of history".

[PDH]

it works for Harry Turtledove