|
it's not like we have documentation on how exactly johnson lied and murdered vietnamese people or anything
|
# ? Oct 1, 2017 23:21 |
|
|
# ? May 23, 2024 16:18 |
|
Adlai Stevenson posted:Is this a thing that gets taught in some places or what? It reminds me somewhat of arguments I've heard that try to downplay Jackson's role in the Indian Removal Act and its repercussions by placing more of the blame on Van Buren's shoulders. VBs issue was in his relative inability to respond quickly to problems that arose during his tenure, which is why he cops the largest amount of the blame for the panic and the border issues with Canada. He also finalized the trail of tears by having Scott forcibly move the Cherokees out west.
|
# ? Oct 1, 2017 23:21 |
|
Office Pig posted:Johnson really shouldn't get off for putting us into Vietnam. A lot of his domestic achievements were important, albeit critically incomplete, but there is no getting around the fact he sent us into Vietnam for the express purpose of upholding a colonialist agreement with France that was absolutely, utterly worthless. It's right up there with antagonizing a potential ally in order to 'contain' communism. I would argue that it was more he was doing as JFK wanted. As well as in a untenable position due to JFK having had tte only semi competent South Vietnamese leader assassinated.
|
# ? Oct 1, 2017 23:24 |
|
Mister Facetious posted:It's nothing like that, it's just that my knowledge of US history is stronger after 1980. That's fine, but starting with the 80s means you miss a lot of context that goes towards understanding why the Democrats currently are what they are. Grapplejack posted:VBs issue was in his relative inability to respond quickly to problems that arose during his tenure, which is why he cops the largest amount of the blame for the panic and the border issues with Canada. He also finalized the trail of tears by having Scott forcibly move the Cherokees out west. You're right, he's a justifiably soft target. It's just been a sticking point for me before in regards to discussing Jackson with people who don't want to assign him his due portion of blame.
|
# ? Oct 1, 2017 23:26 |
|
Crowsbeak posted:I would argue that it was more he was doing as JFK wanted. As well as in a untenable position due to JFK having had tte only semi competent South Vietnamese leader assassinated. and that somehow justifies 3 million+ dead vietnamese people???
|
# ? Oct 1, 2017 23:43 |
|
stone cold posted:and that somehow justifies 3 million+ dead vietnamese people??? I read their comment more as a different reading of Johnson's motives and not as an excuse for his decisions.
|
# ? Oct 1, 2017 23:44 |
|
Remember when Hillary Clinton was the hyper-electable candidate who would run the most competent campaign ever and totally demolish Trump 100% guaranteed? Good times.
|
# ? Oct 1, 2017 23:50 |
|
Adlai Stevenson posted:I read their comment more as a different reading of Johnson's motives and not as an excuse for his decisions. his motive was containing the threat of chinese communism i don't think jfk was in his head when he escalated after tonkin
|
# ? Oct 1, 2017 23:55 |
|
Crowsbeak posted:I love how your ignoring that the Democrats actually had a debate about the war. Typical liar Also you never responded about why Mondale had a balanced budget as a central plank. But then that would undermine your whole much mountain of lies neoliberal. Now go join the gop. Sociopath. Probably because Reagan had big budget deficits due to tax cuts and part of running against an incumbent is attacking stuff that they did. And yeah the democrats had a debate on Vietnam, and the president who some claim ruled over some golden leftist age was firmly pro-war.
|
# ? Oct 2, 2017 00:19 |
|
stone cold posted:his motive was containing the threat of chinese communism he certainly wasn't in his head later on
|
# ? Oct 2, 2017 00:59 |
|
yronic heroism posted:Probably because Reagan had big budget deficits due to tax cuts and part of running against an incumbent is attacking stuff that they did. Yah that was him running to the right of Reagan. You loving liar. Also you can't seem to deny that JafK got America into Vietnam. JFK was the centernof the dems he cut taxes and attacked Ike for lack of militancy against communism.
|
# ? Oct 2, 2017 01:00 |
|
Indeed JFK was a centrist president. It's not me claiming the 60s were some sort of leftist heyday.
|
# ? Oct 2, 2017 01:07 |
|
Crowsbeak posted:Yah that was him running to the right of Reagan. You loving liar. Also you can't seem to deny that JafK got America into Vietnam. JFK was the centernof the dems he cut taxes and attacked Ike for lack of militancy against communism. we sent military advisors and equipment starting in september of 1950 remind me, who was president in 1950? e: i'd also like to point out that while from eisenhower to kennedy military personnel in vietnam went from 900~ to 16,000~ from kennedy to johnson that number went from 16,000~ to 525,000~ stone cold fucked around with this message at 01:22 on Oct 2, 2017 |
# ? Oct 2, 2017 01:07 |
|
Remind me who increaced troop levels by 1700%? It wasn't Truman it was not Eisinhower. Who had Diem overthrown after Diem looked like he may negotiate independently of the USA with Mihn? Do you really think anyone in America even Eugene Mccarthy would have had America withdraw when it had almost two divisions worth of troops in the South? JFK also who unlike Truman moved to the center ground on medicare and was very happy letting it be turned into a joke like the Ryan plan by congress. It was LBJ who changed that. LBJ was no Sandrrs but he is not some centrist like the sociopath Yronic pretends he is. Crowsbeak fucked around with this message at 01:26 on Oct 2, 2017 |
# ? Oct 2, 2017 01:23 |
|
Double post
|
# ? Oct 2, 2017 01:25 |
|
Crowsbeak posted:Remind me who increaced troop levels by 1700%? It wasn't Truman it was not Eisinhower. Who had Diem overthrown after Diem looked like he may negotiate independently of the USA with Mihn? Do you really think anyone in America even Eugene Mccarthy would have had America withdraw when it had almost two divisions worth of troops in the South? JFK also who unlike Truman moved to the center ground on medicare and was very happy letting it be turned into a joke like the Ryan plan by congress. It was LBJ who changed that. LBJ was no Sandrrs but he is not some centrist like the sociopath Yronic pretends he is. i mean you can go ahead and play the percentage game all you like but the fact remains that kennedy increased military personnel by 15,000~ while johnson increased it by 509,000~ don't get me wrong johnson did a lot of good poo poo domestically but he was also an imperialist monster bent on containing chinese communism as you can read for yourself in the national archives it's not a good look to stan for johnson on his foreign policy built on murdering vietnamese people imo, but you keep doing you
|
# ? Oct 2, 2017 01:36 |
|
Adlai Stevenson posted:That's fine, but starting with the 80s means you miss a lot of context that goes towards understanding why the Democrats currently are what they are. What does the Vietnam War have to do with the Democratic Party abandoning organized labour and the poor, while still asking for their vote?
|
# ? Oct 2, 2017 01:46 |
|
stone cold posted:i mean you can go ahead and play the percentage game all you like but the fact remains that kennedy increased military personnel by 15,000~ while johnson increased it by 509,000~ Mister Facetious posted:What does the Vietnam War have to do with the Democratic Party abandoning organized labour and the poor, while still asking for their vote? It is sonthe neoliberal posters here can pretend America never had a party that helped the poor.
|
# ? Oct 2, 2017 01:47 |
|
tbh it would be easier to just say lbj wasn't left wing enough rather than twist yourself into knots defending the vietnam war
|
# ? Oct 2, 2017 01:49 |
|
Mister Facetious posted:What does the Vietnam War have to do with the Democratic Party abandoning organized labour and the poor, while still asking for their vote? Because the rising tide of younger Democrats found reasons to fight internally concerning both civil rights and Vietnam which led to, over time, a bigger split in ideology that resulted in modern Democratic views on the economy. Divorcing themselves from traditional Southern concerns was part of a move that also removed the party from deeper union ties in favor of a more corporate outlook.
|
# ? Oct 2, 2017 01:49 |
|
Badger of Basra posted:tbh it would be easier to just say lbj wasn't left wing enough rather than twist yourself into knots defending the vietnam war I can agree with that. I just despise the narrative where he almost singlehandily gets America involved.
|
# ? Oct 2, 2017 01:51 |
|
Badger of Basra posted:tbh it would be easier to just say lbj wasn't left wing enough rather than twist yourself into knots defending the vietnam war
|
# ? Oct 2, 2017 01:52 |
|
Crowsbeak posted:I can agree with that. I just despise the narrative where he almost singlehandily gets America involved. same but i also hate the narrative where he wasn't an imperialist monster drowning in blood
|
# ? Oct 2, 2017 01:55 |
|
The original claim was that supporting the Great Society again means you must be suggesting we support Jim Crow because that's the only way 60s Democrats won. I showed that this wasn't true, so now the corporate dems are moving the goalposts "but Vietnam was bad!" Of course it was, but Vietnam wasn't why LBJ won and it is why Humphrey lost so it's irrelevant to the discussion. The point is, accusing anyone of saying "hey the Great Society was good policy and good politics" of being a secret Jim Crow loving racist is incorrect. And I know you know that yronic, so it's dishonest and quite frankly tiresome to boot. All you ever do is make up accusations of racism against anyone you disagree with, I don't know what you get out of it but it's really boring and irritating please stop. It's also hypocritical because as we saw in 2008, 2016, and 2017 the instant a non-white and/or non-Christian runs on anything even vaguely economically populist, the centrist corporate faction of the Democrats trample over each other in a stampede to Lee Atwater's grave to dig up the golden dogwhistles entombed therein.
|
# ? Oct 2, 2017 02:10 |
|
Crowsbeak posted:MLK who really was the voice of the left was neutral on it. Absolutely false, by 1968 MLK was not the "voice" of the left (they were seen as a decreasingly relevant part of the civil rights movement, belonging more to the beginning of the movement, as younger afams looked to the black power movement for leadership and guidance; by the time of king's death, some poll said that 75% of americans disapproved of MLK and 57% of african americans thought of MLK as being irrelevant to the black community/the CRM) even if they had shifted to organizing for leftist stances/causes. They also came out against the war, which alienated them from LBJ + liberal democrats who had previously seen them as the "reasonable" civil rights leader. Many democrats said in response to king's vocal rejection of the war that they should stick to what they knew and not concern themselves with war. Never forget that people did not like MLK when they were living. They got the treatment and resentment any leftist or social justice advocate today gets by popular media and the IC, but worse. Also never forget that most americans love war when it's happening, hate anyone who opposes it, and only express it as something unavoidable and to be regretted long after it has happened Rodatose fucked around with this message at 02:20 on Oct 2, 2017 |
# ? Oct 2, 2017 02:12 |
|
VitalSigns posted:I showed that this wasn't true, so now the corporate dems are moving the goalposts "but Vietnam was bad!" Of course it was, but Vietnam wasn't why LBJ won and it is why Humphrey lost so it's irrelevant to the discussion. i came in when some dumbass claimed johnson wasn't pro war so that's where the discussion had shifted to
|
# ? Oct 2, 2017 02:17 |
|
are mlk's pronouns unclear
|
# ? Oct 2, 2017 02:20 |
|
stone cold posted:i came in when some dumbass claimed johnson wasn't pro war so Fair enough, Johnson was a babykiller that's indisputable.
|
# ? Oct 2, 2017 02:21 |
|
think i've already answered you when you griped in the past for someone different
|
# ? Oct 2, 2017 02:23 |
|
VitalSigns posted:The original claim was that supporting the Great Society again means you must be suggesting we support Jim Crow because that's the only way 60s Democrats won. No I'm saying you can't point to a moment in time and ignore its historical context. Also what Great Society programs did Obama not support?
|
# ? Oct 2, 2017 03:08 |
|
Crowsbeak posted:Lbj did so because no one would have supported America leaving. MLK who really was the voice of the left was neutral on it. The left wing position if there was one outside of types like Ginsburg was for a negotiated settlement to be attempted. It was not bring the troops home. Also neoliberal( which your constant need to pubch left shows). It was tragic he did that. But unlike you I actually recognise what America was like then I think his biographers will tell you LBJ did what he did because he believed in the war. Also lol at talking about punching left while defending the sworn enemy of hippies and 60s leftists everywhere.
|
# ? Oct 2, 2017 03:17 |
|
Adlai Stevenson posted:That's fine, but starting with the 80s means you miss a lot of context that goes towards understanding why the Democrats currently are what they are. A good rundown of this can be found here. It really is a must-read before anybody enters into these discussions.
|
# ? Oct 2, 2017 03:33 |
|
yronic heroism posted:No I'm saying you can't point to a moment in time and ignore its historical context.
|
# ? Oct 2, 2017 03:39 |
|
Also I like that this sealioning thing you're doing now inadvertently undermines your own point. "The Great Society was racist, anyone who like it is a secret racist!" "Not really, here's the proof." "Oh um uh well, hm okay new claim: actually Obama was identical to LBJ so what are you whining about?"
|
# ? Oct 2, 2017 03:45 |
|
VitalSigns posted:Should you really be posting on a political forum if you're this ignorant of the last 8 years, come on man. Read a book. Can't name anything can you?
|
# ? Oct 2, 2017 04:01 |
|
yronic heroism posted:Can't name anything can you? The big problem with Obama wasn't that he dismantled the Great Society; rather, it had already largely been dismantled by his predecessors, and he didn't do enough to put it back together. Read the Atlantic piece that I just posted; it provides some good history.
|
# ? Oct 2, 2017 04:06 |
|
Majorian posted:The big problem with Obama wasn't that he dismantled the Great Society; rather, it had already largely been dismantled by his predecessors, and he didn't do enough to put it back together. Read the Atlantic piece that I just posted; it provides some good history. That article is interesting in that it argues that we should have been more forgiving of former supporters of segregation and of the Vietnam war so long as they're also economic populists. Certainly has parallels to current politicians and their former support for the Iraq war and the prison-industrial complex.
|
# ? Oct 2, 2017 04:16 |
|
yronic heroism posted:Can't name anything can you? If you don't know that Obama literally tried to cut Medicare, one of the signature accomplishments of the Great Society then you're really not informed enough to be worth talking to honestly.
|
# ? Oct 2, 2017 04:24 |
|
Trabisnikof posted:That article is interesting in that it argues that we should have been more forgiving of former supporters of segregation and of the Vietnam war so long as they're also economic populists. Where does it argue this? Post a quote.
|
# ? Oct 2, 2017 04:29 |
|
|
# ? May 23, 2024 16:18 |
|
Majorian posted:Where does it argue this? Post a quote. Did you read the article at all? quote:Ironically, as chairman of the Banking Committee, Patman had been the first Democrat to investigate the Watergate scandal. But he was vulnerable to the new crowd he had helped usher in. He was old; they were young. He had supported segregation in the past and the war in Vietnam; they were vehemently against both. Patman had never gone to college and had been a crusading economic populist during the Great Depression; the Watergate Babies were weaned on campus politics, television, and affluence. The article's premise is that the removal of Patman from Banking was one of the mistakes that led towards the pro-banking era of the Democratic party. Patman was a former supporter of segregation and the war in Vietnam and the article argues that those issues should have been ignored because of his populist positions on banking.
|
# ? Oct 2, 2017 04:35 |