Support NeoGAF

[Chichikov]

Honestly I think he should've just cut and run in 65 like Reagan did in Beirut in 84, would've had no impact on his approval rating.

That's a move that only the GOP can really pull politically, because if a Democrat pulled that they would've whine about succumbing to communism and "first president to lose a war".
True then as it is now.

Edit: he should've still done it, but I I don't think that images like the fall of Saigon would have had no negative impact on his approval ratings.

 

[Bonen no Max'd]

LBJ was not a nice person and he was pretty damn corrupt, but he cared about poverty and social welfare like few presidents ever did, and by all accounts it wasn't a show.

And I don't think you can pin Vietnam on LBJ, he inherited that mess and unlike JFK, he wanted nothing to do with it.
RFK should go fuck himself in general.

wait what's wrong with RFK? honestly don't know, I thought he was supposed to be the best of the Kennedy bros

That's a move that only the GOP can really pull politically, because if a Democrat pulled that they would've whine about succumbing to communism and "first president to lose a war".
True then as it is now.

Edit: he should've still done it, but I I don't think that images like the fall of Saigon would have had no negative impact on his approval ratings.

Eh not true at all, the idea that liberals are wimps only really came after Vietnam. Before that they were basically all pretty hawkish.

Spoiler

they're still hawkish

 

[Spoiled Milk]

That's a move that only the GOP can really pull politically, because if a Democrat pulled that they would've whine about succumbing to communism and "first president to lose a war".
True then as it is now.

Edit: he should've still done it, but I I don't think that images like the fall of Saigon would have had no negative impact on his approval ratings.

Kennedy also won on the back of a red missile scare and painting Nixon as too soft on Communism, despite the two having identical party platforms.

 

[Autodidact]

Kennedy also won on the back of a red missile scare and painting Nixon as too soft on Communism, despite the two having identical party platforms.

And looking young and telegenic while Dick Nixon looked like a basset hound who downed a fifth of whiskey every day.

 

[Spoiled Milk]

And looking young and telegenic while Dick Nixon looked like a basset hound who downed a fifth of whiskey every day.

That alone would have made me vote for Dickie

 

[jtb]

This is the last place I would've expected to find people shitting on RFK.

Also, you can absolutely pin Vietnam on LBJ. (Of course, you can also pin it on JFK and Eisenhower too, but no one's comparing them to Lincoln) It happened on his watch! He was President! Negligence is simply not a sufficient excuse, certainly not when you have 500,000 (!!!) American troops deployed. The Gulf of Tonkin incident was, at best, a calculated misinformation campaign and, at worst, an outright fabricated pretext for war.

The Great Society is undeniably the high water mark for progressivism in this country. And I admire his ruthlessness in achieving progressive goals. I don't think that means we have to gloss over the rest, either.

It's one thing to claim that the ends justify the means. It's another to just gloss over LBJ's involvement - deliberate or otherwise - in Vietnam as some minor speedbump when it singlehandedly destroyed the progressive movement in America and irreparably fractured the Democratic party.

 

[TiredofWinning]

wait what's wrong with RFK? honestly don't know, I thought he was supposed to be the best of the Kennedy bros

Oh man, he was the beginning of the Third Way Democrats, like I said he was opportunistic little shit. Started his career as Joe McCarthy's aide, waffled so intensely on civil rights it's jaw dropping (he got mad at a black activist who said he wouldn't join the American military and said he wanted to stay out of civil rights as soon as he was appointed AG).

He was just a generic bougie Dem, can't understand why Sirhan Sirhan shot him thought.

 

[TiredofWinning]

It's one thing to claim that the ends justify the means. It's another to just gloss over LBJ's involvement - deliberate or otherwise - in Vietnam as some minor speedbump when it singlehandedly destroyed the progressive movement in America and irreparably fractured the Democratic party.

I'm not glossing over his record on Vietnam, which was abhorrent thanks to the mess Kennedy left him and the terrible advice he got from Rusk, McNamara, Taylor, Bundy etc. he handled a war that should've never happened absolutely terribly. He handled it like a politician, for example in 65 he tried to negotiate peace with the North Vietnamese by proposing the "TVA of the Mekong Delta" like wtf dude this ain't the senate.

If Reagan and Schultz could see the maw they were looking at in Beirut in 83 then Johnson could've in Vietnam as well, especially since they all knew the domino theory was a bunch of bullshit.

What I don't like is the Camelot mythos that portrays Bobby Kennedy as some sort of Christ figure even though he was a generic liberal.

 

[jtb]

I'm not glossing over his record on Vietnam, which was abhorrent thanks to the mess Kennedy left him and the terrible advice he got from Rusk, McNamara, Taylor, Bundy etc. he handled a war that should've never happened absolutely terribly.

If Reagan and Schultz could see the maw they were looking at in Beirut in 83 then Johnson could've in Vietnam as well.

What I don't like is the Camelot mythos that portrays Bobby Kennedy as some sort of Christ figure even though he was a generic liberal.

That I'll agree with. He was a politician. End of. It's interesting, I think if you ask most liberals today who the most prominent progressive figure of modern history is, they'll answer LBJ, not JFK. Which says that some of the mythmaking is beginning to peel away with time, and also tells you something about the political environment we live in today, I think.

I just think we also overcorrect in the opposite direction with LBJ too much too. He has plenty of black marks on his legacy and was every bit as opportunistic as the Kennedy clan was. We dream of Machiavellian legislative geniuses who ram through progressive policies like LBJ without acknowledging that it's no longer really possible and that LBJ abused his power in all kinds of ways. Can't have it both ways.

 

[You Know Nothing]

And looking young and telegenic while Dick Nixon looked like a basset hound who downed a fifth of whiskey every day.

Oop.

I'd've voted for Kennedy. (My grandparents had a Kennedy campaign button) lmao

 

[TiredofWinning]

That I'll agree with. He was a politician. End of. It's interesting, I think if you ask most liberals today who the most prominent progressive figure of modern history is, they'll answer LBJ, not JFK. Which says that some of the mythmaking is beginning to peel away with time, and also tells you something about the political environment we live in today, I think.

I just think we also overcorrect in the opposite direction with LBJ too much too. He has plenty of black marks on his legacy and was every bit as opportunistic as the Kennedy clan was. We dream of Machiavellian legislative geniuses who ram through progressive policies like LBJ without acknowledging that it's no longer really possible and that LBJ abused his power in all kinds of ways. Can't have it both ways.

I don't buy into the mythos that LBJ was some sort of master legislator in the White House either. I'd recommend the book "Bill of the Century" to read how people like John Lindsay and Everett Dirksen helped push the 1964 Civil Rights Act through the southern filibuster, with Johnson's involvement being minimal. I just think he came into the perfect time for major domestic change with the growth of the middle class and the landslide the Dems achieved in 64. Outside of Vietnam he presided over one of the most prosperous times in American history in terms of the egalitarian nature of the prosperity.

And yes I believe that Johnson's abuse of executive power led to the conservative backlash in the 1970s. Carter's Crisis of Confidence speech articulates well what Johnson helped start, although the anti-government animus came from far more insidious causes than just Vietnam, like school integration.

 

[Isaac Otherworld]

Never gamble.

I don't "gamble". I'm just right about everything.

Well good for you...

Invoking yeah but you thought Clinton would win as an argument is so lazy.

Claiming more credibility because you totally predicted Trump winning is even lazier.

Predictive capability is literally the point of gathering information.

What were you hoping to achieve here?

I'm trying to point out that Gillibrand is far less electable than the person that lost last time. Gillibrand and Booker will get eaten alive. Harris is a far better person to rally around from the establishment's perspective. Bernie is probably the best choice for the general election but I think Kamala Harris is still viable and likely to win. My advice and expertise falls on deaf ears, as per usual.

Honestly, I'm shocked that pointing out that Gillibrand is a weaker and less electable candidate than Hillary is considered controversial among Hillary diehards. Gillibrand and Booker represent the absolute worst of politicians sucking up the rich doing nothing for anyone else. It's their brand in the popular consciousness. You literally never hear news about her except fluff pieces by Washington insiders glorifying her for the volume of donations from wall street and other rich donors.

You can point out how worse Trump and Republicans as a whole are in that regard but it won't work. Republicans are far better at marketing crushing the poor, middle and working class for the sake of the rich and multinational corporations than Gillibrand and Booker could ever hope to be. They'll die electorally trying to do so.

 

[TiredofWinning]

No one from the coasts please, 2020 will all be about building back up that blue wall in the upper Midwest. Last year showed that even if millions more cosmopolitan liberals loved Hillary and voted for her the Dems can still lose on a constitutional technicality.

Like I said, the Midwest is the new South, either a candidate from Michigan, Ohio, Wisconsin etc. or bust.

 

[Drkirby]

You do realize you still have to actually win the coasts still, right? You can't just pick some person from the midwest, and not have to worry about turning off the majority of your voting base.

 

[TiredofWinning]

You do realize you still have to actually win the coasts still, right? You can't just pick some person from the midwest, and not have to worry about turning off the majority of your voting base.

Yea it's not like the Dems never nominated someone who grew up in Kansas City, worked as a community organizer in the south side of Chicago, and then became a state legislature and Senator from Illinois.

Being from the Midwest was one of Obama's biggest advantages.

That's why I like Al Franken even though I doubt he'll run. He's charismatic, intelligent, a very good politician, and has a good voting record and strong support for labor and the working class. I'm not sure if it'll come to fruition in 2020 but I think his comedic past will serve as a constant annoyance to Trump.

edit: also the northeastern/coastal state that Dems should be worried about losing are NH, PA and Maine. No way the rest of the northeast or Oregon, Washington, or California flip.

 

[Isaac Otherworld]

No one from the coasts please, 2020 will all be about building back up that blue wall in the upper Midwest. Last year showed that even if millions more cosmopolitan liberals loved Hillary and voted for her the Dems can still lose on a constitutional technicality.

Like I said, the Midwest is the new South, either a candidate from Michigan, Ohio, Wisconsin etc. or bust.

I mean, I don't think you literally need a candidate from the midwest. Bernie would have carried those states better than any individual I think. You just can't run a robot who has been recorded at fundraisers saying shit like "Wall Street is the single most important part of the American economy." like Gillibrand.

 

[TiredofWinning]

I mean, I don't think you literally need a candidate from the midwest. Bernie would have carried those states better than any individual I think. You just can't run a robot who has been recorded at fundraisers saying shit like "Wall Street is the single most important part of the American economy." like Gillibrand.

I was impressed by Gillibrand's fight for reform in dealing with sexual assault in the military (she even got Cruz on board!), and the way Harris grilled Sessions, but I just think some people are cut out more for the Senate than the Presidency.

 

[eBay Huckster]

Yea it's not like the Dems never nominated someone who grew up in Kansas City, worked as a community organizer in the south side of Chicago, and then became a state legislature and Senator from Illinois.

but he grew up in Honolulu and Jakarta, went to college in Los Angeles and New York City, and only permanently settled down in Illinois after spending an additional 3 years in yet another coastal city, Boston

Spoiler

and his mom grew up in Wichita, not Kansas City

 

[mo60]

You do realize you still have to actually win the coasts still, right? You can't just pick some person from the midwest, and not have to worry about turning off the majority of your voting base.

Like I don't see trump losing California by less then 30 points in 2020. A candidate from the midwest will likely still appeal to some of the western coastal states.

 

[TiredofWinning]

I mean the main reason Clinton won the popular vote was because of defection from affluent increasingly liberal areas on the west coast like Orange County or the suburbs of Portland and Seattle, so the Dems were right in that Trump would drive college educated moderates away. The only thing is that these votes didn't matter because she had those states on lock anyway.

She did perform a lot better than Obama in the burbs Dallas, Houston, OKC and Omaha so I'd like to see if that's a sign of a new trend.

 

[Spoiled Milk]

You literally never hear news about her except fluff pieces by Washington insiders glorifying her for the volume of donations from wall street and other rich donors.

This part is true. One time people in here were gushing over a puff piece for her placed in NY Magazine. It's in the name of the magazine, people!

 

[Chichikov]

Eh not true at all, the idea that liberals are wimps only really came after Vietnam. Before that they were basically all pretty hawkish.

Spoiler

they're still hawkish

I think it mostly started with Carter.
But the point is that Democrats weren't going attack a Republican president for being a pussy, succumbing to communism etc. for NOPEing out of Vietnam, which you know the GOP had done if we had such pictures like the fall of Saigon under a Democratic president.

Spoiler

I agree of course on the spoiler.

 

[dramatis]

A guy who repeatedly talks about how he is right about everything is either a fool or a liar.

 

[Diablos]

Crossposting from the InspiroBot thread:

Hopefully Trump and his WH remembers this...

 

[Poodlestrike]

Crossposting from the InspiroBot thread:

Hopefully Trump and his WH remembers this...

I see no evidence that this is true.

Countries that have not invaded other countries: Several.

Number of above that have walked on the moon: None.

Checkmake peaceniks.

 

[Diablos]

I see no evidence that this is true.

Countries that have not invaded other countries: Several.

Number of above that have walked on the moon: None.

Checkmake peaceniks.

Yes, historically speaking. But he doesn't need to flex our muscles to do it AGAIN. That's how I see it anyway.

 

[sphagnum]

Gillary is boring and will be easily portrayed as Hillary 2.0.

 

[shinra-bansho]

Hillary would never say Fuck No in a public speech. 2.0 has upgrades. That's why she's 2.0.

 

[chadskin]

I can't

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/881503147168071680

 

[Random Human]

Trump may have made one of his dumbest tweets ever this morning.

What a fucking world we live in.

 

[Got the Shakes]

Well now it appears that DJT is now just tweeting out hashtags with an attached video. He literally just tweeted:

#FraudNewsCNN #FNN

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/881503147168071680

 

[Tamanon]

Man, I miss when a tan suit was the lowlight of a Presidency.

Real talk: Is a GIF of the President of the United States (fake)assaulting someone representing a media company good in any way?

 

[Xando]

I can't

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/881503147168071680

lmao

The president tweeted a gif of himself wrestle in the WWE.

 

[Y2Kev]

I think Gillary has got some cool new features to her but she's literally Gillary so we should probably wait a few cycles.

 

[Diablos]

Well now it appears that DJT is now just tweeting out hashtags with an attached video. He literally just tweeted:

#FraudNewsCNN #FNN

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/881503147168071680

what in the hell...

 

[shinra-bansho]

Modern Presidential.

 

[Plinko]

I can't

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/881503147168071680

Jake Tapper of CNN spends his time retweeting photos and stories of military members who have served our country over the years.

Trump spends his time retweeting this.

Red meat for his base, but this stuff is a huge turnoff to independents--and those are the people that put him in the White House.

 

[nature boy]

Pretty sure it was that Scavino scumbag that tweeted that

 

[Zolo]

Pretty sure it was that Scavino scumbag that tweeted that

Yeah. I don't even know if Trump knows how to tweet out videos.

 

[Emarv]

Pretty sure it was that Scavino scumbag that tweeted that

Scavino has access to the personal account? I thought he just had the POTUS one?

 

[Ithil]

Jake Tapper of CNN spends his time retweeting photos and stories of military members who have served our country over the years.

Trump spends his time retweeting this.

Red meat for his base, but this stuff is a huge turnoff to independents--and those are the people that put him in the White House.

I think his base is increasingly just "4chan posters" at this point.

 

[sphagnum]

Hillary would never say Fuck No in a public speech. 2.0 has upgrades. That's why she's 2.0.

beep boop Millennials want legitimacy, must calculate way to appear authentic beep boop voters like Trump because he speaks his mind therefore must curse

It really just comes off as lame.

 

[Zolo]

I think his base is increasingly just "4chan posters" at this point.

Feels like it. Or people who view politics as a TV show/entertainment.

 

[dramatis]

It really just comes off as lame.

Lame is a word millennials would use

 

[Ithil]

Feels like it. Or people who view politics as a TV show/entertainment.

His base are those that don't view politics as politics, they view it as console wars.

 

[Hubbl3]

Ahh, a new day with new possi...

I can't

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/881503147168071680

Yeah, I'm done with the internet again.

 

[benicillin]

He's really losing it. Like more so than usual.

 

[Zolo]

He's really losing it. Like more so than usual.

Is pissed and probably once again got pissed with people telling him what he should & shouldn't do.

 

[Y2Kev]

beep boop Millennials want legitimacy, must calculate way to appear authentic beep boop voters like Trump because he speaks his mind therefore must curse

It really just comes off as lame.

Maybe that's actually how she talks.

 

[Brawly Likes to Brawl]

He's really losing it. Like more so than usual.

That man's life has been a constant state of losing it.