3 ms·

Considering the fact that a US President has never had to deal with a war on US soil since Lincoln, with an invisible enemy that can’t be negotiated with, I wou

Considering the fact that a US President has never had to deal with a war on US soil since Lincoln, with an invisible enemy that can’t be negotiated with, I would say the answer is unknown.

enitihas 7y ago
Yup, but the two events which US did face on it's soil (Pearl Harbour and 9/11) did boost the support for the sitting presidents though.
- SketchySeaBeast 7y ago
  Wasn't that due to steady, determined leadership? Hasn't the current commander in chief already pushed responsibility for this issue off onto his VP?
  - BoorishBears 7y ago
    The conference that just ended was a big win for him and the market is responding well so far. He didn't necessarily take responsibility of anything, but he managed to suppress his usual behavior well enough for the people behind him to assure people
    - SketchySeaBeast 7y ago
      I sincerely and absolutely hope that he manages to pull himself together to see America through this storm. I doubt it, but I sincerely hope it happens.
    - joezydeco 7y ago
      How does the DJIA prevent future deaths from 2019-nCov?
      - BoorishBears 7y ago
        Kind of hard to unpack such a vague/terse comment... If you’re trying to say “who cares about money when lives are on the line”... in this case a strong, life-saving, response begets a positive market response. People drying en-masse is not good for the economy, or anyone really. Also, recessions are generally not good for people’s health.
        joezydeco 7y ago
        I’m saying that using a leading indicator like the stock market is no metric for declaring that things are getting better. Trump going up there and making a bunch of positive statements means zero right now. The public and private sectors have no reason to trust the federal government during this situation.
        BoorishBears 7y ago
        > I’m saying that using a leading indicator like the stock market is no metric for declaring that things are getting better. Literally no one but yourself has implied the stock market going well means Coronavirus is going away. That’s so absurd I gave you the benefit of the doubt and assumed something was lost in your wording... The comment chain is about the effect of the virus on electability of an incumbent. The stock market’s performance is very much tied to that and while not the only indicator of an election's outcome, is a pretty strong motivator of political change. On that note... since his speech a ton of bad news has come out, some his claims were proven false, the fed hit the nuclear options, and futures hit a circuit breaker Sunday night which is a terrible indicator for this morning’s market. So it’s still a strong factor in his electability, just not in the direction it was Friday evening.
  - yongjik 7y ago
    I'm too young to remember Pearl Harbor, but 9/11 definitely had nothing to do with "steady, determined leadership." On the other hand, it's much easier to rally people when your villain has an actual human face.
    - chanmad29 7y ago
      Not too hard for Trump to manufacture a villain here, if he had to- immigration etc..
fragmede 7y ago
I don't know if there's value in arguing the semantics, but there was the War on Poverty (President Lyndon B. Johnson) and the War on Drugs (President Richard Nixon), neither of which sets a precedent which bodes well for our current situation, imo.
- everybodyknows 7y ago
  This war is different, in that it will assuredly be declared at an end, as soon as the fatality rate declines below the rate typical for seasonal influenza. Whether it will have been "won" will be a subjective judgement informed by the body count, and the judger's political biases.
- joezydeco 7y ago
  Those were wars against nouns, with no real focus.
eesmith 7y ago
"never had to deal with a war on US soil since Lincoln" That should have a footnote. Pancho Villa's División del Norte invaded the US in a raid on Columbus, NM in 1916. The Japanese Army occupied the small and remote Aleutian islands of Attu and Kiska during WWII. These are both minor incidents, hence a footnote. If we expand "US soil" beyond the U.S. continent (or the 50 states), then the Japanese occupations of the Philippines, Guam and Wake Island should also count. The Commonwealth of the Philippines was not fully independent from the US. Guam is an organized territory of the US, and Wake Island is an unorganized, unincorporated territory of the US. (I'm not sure about their exact territorial status in WWII though.)
masonic 7y ago
has never had to deal with a war on US soil since Lincoln There were agents of both the Central Powers and Axis Powers active on US soil, and in WW2 Japan attacked Hawai'i and occupied many US territories (Alaska, Philippines, Guam, Wake).

Considering the fact that a US President has never had to deal with a war on US soil since Lincoln, with an invisible enemy that can’t be negotiated with, I would say the answer is unknown.

enitihas 7y ago

Yup, but the two events which US did face on it's soil (Pearl Harbour and 9/11) did boost the support for the sitting presidents though.

SketchySeaBeast 7y ago
Wasn't that due to steady, determined leadership? Hasn't the current commander in chief already pushed responsibility for this issue off onto his VP?
- BoorishBears 7y ago
  The conference that just ended was a big win for him and the market is responding well so far. He didn't necessarily take responsibility of anything, but he managed to suppress his usual behavior well enough for the people behind him to assure people
  - SketchySeaBeast 7y ago
    I sincerely and absolutely hope that he manages to pull himself together to see America through this storm. I doubt it, but I sincerely hope it happens.
  - joezydeco 7y ago
    How does the DJIA prevent future deaths from 2019-nCov?
    - BoorishBears 7y ago
      Kind of hard to unpack such a vague/terse comment... If you’re trying to say “who cares about money when lives are on the line”... in this case a strong, life-saving, response begets a positive market response. People drying en-masse is not good for the economy, or anyone really. Also, recessions are generally not good for people’s health.
      - joezydeco 7y ago
        I’m saying that using a leading indicator like the stock market is no metric for declaring that things are getting better. Trump going up there and making a bunch of positive statements means zero right now. The public and private sectors have no reason to trust the federal government during this situation.
        BoorishBears 7y ago
        > I’m saying that using a leading indicator like the stock market is no metric for declaring that things are getting better. Literally no one but yourself has implied the stock market going well means Coronavirus is going away. That’s so absurd I gave you the benefit of the doubt and assumed something was lost in your wording... The comment chain is about the effect of the virus on electability of an incumbent. The stock market’s performance is very much tied to that and while not the only indicator of an election's outcome, is a pretty strong motivator of political change. On that note... since his speech a ton of bad news has come out, some his claims were proven false, the fed hit the nuclear options, and futures hit a circuit breaker Sunday night which is a terrible indicator for this morning’s market. So it’s still a strong factor in his electability, just not in the direction it was Friday evening.
- yongjik 7y ago
  I'm too young to remember Pearl Harbor, but 9/11 definitely had nothing to do with "steady, determined leadership." On the other hand, it's much easier to rally people when your villain has an actual human face.
  - chanmad29 7y ago
    Not too hard for Trump to manufacture a villain here, if he had to- immigration etc..

fragmede 7y ago

I don't know if there's value in arguing the semantics, but there was the War on Poverty (President Lyndon B. Johnson) and the War on Drugs (President Richard Nixon), neither of which sets a precedent which bodes well for our current situation, imo.

everybodyknows 7y ago
This war is different, in that it will assuredly be declared at an end, as soon as the fatality rate declines below the rate typical for seasonal influenza. Whether it will have been "won" will be a subjective judgement informed by the body count, and the judger's political biases.
joezydeco 7y ago
Those were wars against nouns, with no real focus.

eesmith 7y ago

"never had to deal with a war on US soil since Lincoln" That should have a footnote. Pancho Villa's División del Norte invaded the US in a raid on Columbus, NM in 1916. The Japanese Army occupied the small and remote Aleutian islands of Attu and Kiska during WWII. These are both minor incidents, hence a footnote. If we expand "US soil" beyond the U.S. continent (or the 50 states), then the Japanese occupations of the Philippines, Guam and Wake Island should also count. The Commonwealth of the Philippines was not fully independent from the US. Guam is an organized territory of the US, and Wake Island is an unorganized, unincorporated territory of the US. (I'm not sure about their exact territorial status in WWII though.)

masonic 7y ago

has never had to deal with a war on US soil since Lincoln There were agents of both the Central Powers and Axis Powers active on US soil, and in WW2 Japan attacked Hawai'i and occupied many US territories (Alaska, Philippines, Guam, Wake).