A second "9/11" happens, this time under Trump's watch

In My Humble Opinion
1

The recent thread about Trump saying that the nation would not unify unless something major happened has me thinking that 9/11’s rally-around-the-flag effect sixteen years ago was a one-time thing; something that wouldn’t materialize again. If there were a terrorist attack tomorrow that killed 3,000 Americans, it’s hard to see the nation rallying around Trump, and it sure is hard to see Trump’s approval ratings spiking to around 90 percent the way Bush’s did.

Democrats didn’t play the blame game with Bush after 9/11 (well, not until a long time afterwards, when some started to claim that Bush ignored intelligence warnings, and even then, it was only a few Democrats who did.) With Trump, it’s just hard to see how the 65% of America that disapproves of him at the moment would rally around him.

2

Too late to edit: There’s a good chance that Trump himself would have been seen as a cause of the attack, especially if it had to do with North Korea.

3

The likelihood of Trump blaming other Americans is quite high, regardless of the evidence. So, fizzled rally at best.

4

It would be the Mother Of All Twitter Storms.

5

My speculation is that Trump would be Trump. The initial instinct for all Americans would be to support the government, including the President. But I speculate that Trump would turn around and try to take partisan and personal advantage in the aftermath (“Aren’t you glad Hillary isn’t President now?”) and would alienate a lot of people, including a lot of conservatives.

6

I think the OP is correct. There is a segment of people that will hate Trump no matter what happens.

7

Or Russia.

8

Trump cares nothing for anyone but himself; rallying to him for any reason would be irrational. He’s also a thoroughly repellent human being in every way as well as incompetent. He’d neither be capable of dealing with whatever caused the disaster, nor interested in trying; and plenty of people know all this.

So no, there’d be no rally. There’d be no point, and doing so would be immoral anyway.

9

Trump’s incompetence would be seen as the likely cause. Plus there’d be speculation that it was possibly something he wanted to get his poll numbers up and that would follow him.

10

You really don’t understand us then. Besides, even for the people who do that, that happened under Obama too.

If a big terror attack happens, Trump’s gross incompetence has been on open display for a long time. Plus his belligerence towards NK may lead them to attack.

Either way, no, we aren’t going to rally over the guy whose incompetence and belligerence causes the next 9/11 because everyone knows a competent president probably would’ve taken it seriously and prevented it.

11

Possibly what you meant to say is “there is a segment of people that will hate Trump, because of what has already happened”?

12

No, I said what I meant to say.

As exhibit A, I offer this post:

This is true (ETA: and please take note that I’m not complaining about the “bothsides” argument here). And there’ll be a segment of the population that hates the next president too, no matter what he does or does not do.

13

I don’t see the problem. Trump is incompetent and an embarrassment. He is also treasonous and authoritarian. Even if he rules over 4 years of peace and prosperity he is bad for America due to these things and a likely criminal who needs to be investigated.

We can have peace and prosperity without treason, authoritarianism, incompetence, criminality and shame.

14

That doesn’t surprise me in the least.

Try imagining how you’d have felt about it if someone said something along those lines about Obama.

15

People said that and much worse about Obama; the difference is, they were wrong.

16

I voted “other”, because if Dumpster could pick his 9/11, it would probably lead to some variation of this:

https://www.cbr.com/a-month-of-pulitzer-prize-winning-cartoons-day-10/

SFW.

17

Yes, on September 10th, 2001, “terrorism” was non-existent as a major political issue and there weren’t really any entrenched partisan opinions on it.

18

Let’s say the attacks can’t really be blamed on Trump. “This is for what the USA did in 2011 to kill my dad!” (secret badass son of Bin Laden is back for revenge)

I could see that if Trump then competently and diligently organized an effort to respond to the attack and reassure America that the best people are on it, sure, there would be people who would support him. George Bush made some very 'Merica, Fuck Yeah! speeches post 9/11. He did in fact inspire Americans and as a result of the massive military response, which was going pretty well in the early years (the real problem with the Iraq/Afghanistan invasions wasn’t getting in the door or killing the main defenders, it was trying to hold on to them…) he enjoyed an increased approval rating and was re-elected.

But I just can’t imagine Trump doing this. He’s old and he’s out of his depth. He may have always been a bit of a flim/flam con man.

19

The real problem with the invasion of Iraq was that it occurred. Odd that invading a country under false pretenses isn’t considered a real problem. Anyway, people would rally around Trump for the same baffling reasons they had for rallying around Bush, and the fact doing so would be stupid and irrational wouldn’t make a lick of difference because mobs aren’t driven by intelligence or rationality. They would wave flags and make excuses for the awful things America does abroad and accuse those who oppose such awful things as hating America (more contempt than hate in my case) or the troops (couldn’t care less).

20

“Why are you bad-mouthing that bank robber? What if people talked that way about your grandmother?”.
BTW, how did you talk about Obama when he was President?