Dante Would Consider Voting For John Ellis 'Jeb' Bush in 2016

[Pogo]

False.

Senator Kennedy was a good president.
Senator Johnson was a good president.
Senator Obama is a good president.
Senator Truman was a good president.

False
False
False
False

All four are historic presidents known for advancing American society.

Your partisan butthurt is noted.

It's very unlikely John Kennedy would have been reelected after the Bay of Pigs fiasco.

Lyndon Johnson was a pig, a vulgar petty man who escalated a poorly run war that killed thousands all for nothing. You bitch about Bush going to war for oil? shit man. He had nothing on LBJ

barack obama couldn't manage a one man shoe shine booth at Grand Central. He's incompetent and out of touch with reality. The best part about his administration is what he did for Congress in 2010 and 2014.

Harry Truman? Again. You hate on Bush for bombing a few civilians in Baghdad but overlook Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

Really? Do you know the stats on the 1964 election?

1960 ←
November 3, 1964 → 1968
All 538 electoral votes of the Electoral College
270 electoral votes needed to win
Turnout 61.9%[1]

Nominee Lyndon B. Johnson Barry Goldwater
Party Democratic Republican
Home state Texas Arizona
Running mate Hubert Humphrey William E. Miller
Electoral vote 486 52
States carried 44 + DC 6
Popular vote 43,127,041 27,175,754
Percentage 61.1% 38.5%

United States presidential election 1964 - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

---------------

Bush initiated a war, LBJ did not and btw most Republicans and conservatives were gung ho on LBJ's escalation

your hatred of Obama unhinges you.

Truman was involved in WWII. Bush's war set off the terrorism we have today. I supported the war. I believe Bremer was a creep, bush's or Cheney's creep. Early on in the assault on Baghdad rearguard military officers noted a rag tag group snipping at their heels. They were told by military brass to ignore them and push on -- it was the initial wave of what was later to become the insurgency

I don't hate anyone, Dante, especially barack obama. He's not worthy of any strong emotion.

As for the '64 elections, LBJ won solely on the death of Kennedy.

I pretty much agree. That's how I remember it, being there.

The country was over that by 68 and elected Nixon twice, once by 110 electoral votes and once by 503.

The country was more "over" the JFK assassinations but also swimming in more recent ones (RFK and MLK being that same year) as well as social turmoil of massive cultural shift. The DP was saddled by association with the morass of Vietnam, the aforementioned social turmoil in the streets, born of both Vietnam and Civil Rights; and Nixon ran on a "Law and Order" campaign. Then you had Wallace running to Nixon's right, siphoning southern Democrats.

1968 had little to do with politics and a hell of a lot to do with cultural shift. Nixon was in a position, by default, to market his campaign that way. It was a time of deep division, far deeper than anything we have now.

 

[JakeStarkey]

"As for the '64 elections, LBJ won solely on the death of Kennedy" is indeed the stupidest post of the day. Such posts as that are based on feelings not facts.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

False.

Senator Kennedy was a good president.
Senator Johnson was a good president.
Senator Obama is a good president.
Senator Truman was a good president.

False
False
False
False

All four are historic presidents known for advancing American society.

Your partisan butthurt is noted.

It's very unlikely John Kennedy would have been reelected after the Bay of Pigs fiasco.

Lyndon Johnson was a pig, a vulgar petty man who escalated a poorly run war that killed thousands all for nothing. You bitch about Bush going to war for oil? shit man. He had nothing on LBJ

barack obama couldn't manage a one man shoe shine booth at Grand Central. He's incompetent and out of touch with reality. The best part about his administration is what he did for Congress in 2010 and 2014.

Harry Truman? Again. You hate on Bush for bombing a few civilians in Baghdad but overlook Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

Really? Do you know the stats on the 1964 election?

1960 ←
November 3, 1964 → 1968
All 538 electoral votes of the Electoral College
270 electoral votes needed to win
Turnout 61.9%[1]

Nominee Lyndon B. Johnson Barry Goldwater
Party Democratic Republican
Home state Texas Arizona
Running mate Hubert Humphrey William E. Miller
Electoral vote 486 52
States carried 44 + DC 6
Popular vote 43,127,041 27,175,754
Percentage 61.1% 38.5%

United States presidential election 1964 - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

---------------

Bush initiated a war, LBJ did not and btw most Republicans and conservatives were gung ho on LBJ's escalation

your hatred of Obama unhinges you.

Truman was involved in WWII. Bush's war set off the terrorism we have today. I supported the war. I believe Bremer was a creep, bush's or Cheney's creep. Early on in the assault on Baghdad rearguard military officers noted a rag tag group snipping at their heels. They were told by military brass to ignore them and push on -- it was the initial wave of what was later to become the insurgency

I don't hate anyone, Dante, especially barack obama. He's not worthy of any strong emotion.

As for the '64 elections, LBJ won solely on the death of Kennedy.
The country was over that by 68 and elected Nixon twice, once by 110 electoral votes and once by 503.

That sounds more like wishful thinking in order to prove a partisan point. Nixon won promising to end teh war with a secret plan and help from the anti-war protests, and much more that didn't really register on anyone's radar in 1964.

LBJ was popular in his own right in 1964 and it wasn't only the memory of JFK that propelled LBJ to election victory, the GOP was suffering a nervous breakdown at the time

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

False
False
False
False

All four are historic presidents known for advancing American society.

Your partisan butthurt is noted.

It's very unlikely John Kennedy would have been reelected after the Bay of Pigs fiasco.

Lyndon Johnson was a pig, a vulgar petty man who escalated a poorly run war that killed thousands all for nothing. You bitch about Bush going to war for oil? shit man. He had nothing on LBJ

barack obama couldn't manage a one man shoe shine booth at Grand Central. He's incompetent and out of touch with reality. The best part about his administration is what he did for Congress in 2010 and 2014.

Harry Truman? Again. You hate on Bush for bombing a few civilians in Baghdad but overlook Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

Really? Do you know the stats on the 1964 election?

1960 ←
November 3, 1964 → 1968
All 538 electoral votes of the Electoral College
270 electoral votes needed to win
Turnout 61.9%[1]

Nominee Lyndon B. Johnson Barry Goldwater
Party Democratic Republican
Home state Texas Arizona
Running mate Hubert Humphrey William E. Miller
Electoral vote 486 52
States carried 44 + DC 6
Popular vote 43,127,041 27,175,754
Percentage 61.1% 38.5%

United States presidential election 1964 - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

---------------

Bush initiated a war, LBJ did not and btw most Republicans and conservatives were gung ho on LBJ's escalation

your hatred of Obama unhinges you.

Truman was involved in WWII. Bush's war set off the terrorism we have today. I supported the war. I believe Bremer was a creep, bush's or Cheney's creep. Early on in the assault on Baghdad rearguard military officers noted a rag tag group snipping at their heels. They were told by military brass to ignore them and push on -- it was the initial wave of what was later to become the insurgency

I don't hate anyone, Dante, especially barack obama. He's not worthy of any strong emotion.

As for the '64 elections, LBJ won solely on the death of Kennedy.

I pretty much agree. That's how I remember it, being there.

The country was over that by 68 and elected Nixon twice, once by 110 electoral votes and once by 503.

The country was more "over" the JFK assassinations but also swimming in more recent ones (RFK and MLK being that same year) as well as social turmoil of massive cultural shift. The DP was saddled by association with the morass of Vietnam, the aforementioned social turmoil in the streets, born of both Vietnam and Civil Rights; and Nixon ran on a "Law and Order" campaign. Then you had Wallace running to Nixon's right, siphoning southern Democrats.

1968 had little to do with politics and a hell of a lot to do with cultural shift. Nixon was in a position, by default, to market his campaign that way. It was a time of deep division, far deeper than anything we have now.

you're also wrong on 1964. see last reply to Ernie

 

[JakeStarkey]

Ernie S. is simply irrelevant in most discussions because he ignores evidence or distorts conclusions, as he does above.

Any who come to his support are irrelevant far righties, nothing more, just here for grins and giggles.

 

[Pogo]

"As for the '64 elections, LBJ won solely on the death of Kennedy" is indeed the stupidest post of the day. Such posts as that are based on feelings not facts.

Not "solely" -- that's obviously a stretch, part of it had to do with the caliber of his opposition (like 2008). But it was very very much in the air. I distinctly remember that. Sympathy vote was most definitely in play, big time. And LBJ was certainly more than opportunist enough to milk it.

And yes, it is based on emotions. Emotions sway elections. It cannot be linked but it's part of experiential memory.

 

[Pogo]

All four are historic presidents known for advancing American society.

Your partisan butthurt is noted.

It's very unlikely John Kennedy would have been reelected after the Bay of Pigs fiasco.

Lyndon Johnson was a pig, a vulgar petty man who escalated a poorly run war that killed thousands all for nothing. You bitch about Bush going to war for oil? shit man. He had nothing on LBJ

barack obama couldn't manage a one man shoe shine booth at Grand Central. He's incompetent and out of touch with reality. The best part about his administration is what he did for Congress in 2010 and 2014.

Harry Truman? Again. You hate on Bush for bombing a few civilians in Baghdad but overlook Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

Really? Do you know the stats on the 1964 election?

1960 ←
November 3, 1964 → 1968
All 538 electoral votes of the Electoral College
270 electoral votes needed to win
Turnout 61.9%[1]

Nominee Lyndon B. Johnson Barry Goldwater
Party Democratic Republican
Home state Texas Arizona
Running mate Hubert Humphrey William E. Miller
Electoral vote 486 52
States carried 44 + DC 6
Popular vote 43,127,041 27,175,754
Percentage 61.1% 38.5%

United States presidential election 1964 - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

---------------

Bush initiated a war, LBJ did not and btw most Republicans and conservatives were gung ho on LBJ's escalation

your hatred of Obama unhinges you.

Truman was involved in WWII. Bush's war set off the terrorism we have today. I supported the war. I believe Bremer was a creep, bush's or Cheney's creep. Early on in the assault on Baghdad rearguard military officers noted a rag tag group snipping at their heels. They were told by military brass to ignore them and push on -- it was the initial wave of what was later to become the insurgency

I don't hate anyone, Dante, especially barack obama. He's not worthy of any strong emotion.

As for the '64 elections, LBJ won solely on the death of Kennedy.

I pretty much agree. That's how I remember it, being there.

The country was over that by 68 and elected Nixon twice, once by 110 electoral votes and once by 503.

The country was more "over" the JFK assassinations but also swimming in more recent ones (RFK and MLK being that same year) as well as social turmoil of massive cultural shift. The DP was saddled by association with the morass of Vietnam, the aforementioned social turmoil in the streets, born of both Vietnam and Civil Rights; and Nixon ran on a "Law and Order" campaign. Then you had Wallace running to Nixon's right, siphoning southern Democrats.

1968 had little to do with politics and a hell of a lot to do with cultural shift. Nixon was in a position, by default, to market his campaign that way. It was a time of deep division, far deeper than anything we have now.

you're also wrong on 1964. see last reply to Ernie

No, I'm not. Your reply to Ernie didn't fundamentally disagree with the way I framed it.

 

[nodoginnafight]

"It's very unlikely John Kennedy would have been reelected after the Bay of Pigs fiasco."

John F. Kennedy had the highest average approval rating (70.1) of any president since they began tracking that and his lowest approval rating he EVER got (56) was light years ahead of anyone else's low.

So where do you get your information?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

It's very unlikely John Kennedy would have been reelected after the Bay of Pigs fiasco.

Lyndon Johnson was a pig, a vulgar petty man who escalated a poorly run war that killed thousands all for nothing. You bitch about Bush going to war for oil? shit man. He had nothing on LBJ

barack obama couldn't manage a one man shoe shine booth at Grand Central. He's incompetent and out of touch with reality. The best part about his administration is what he did for Congress in 2010 and 2014.

Harry Truman? Again. You hate on Bush for bombing a few civilians in Baghdad but overlook Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

Really? Do you know the stats on the 1964 election?

1960 ←
November 3, 1964 → 1968
All 538 electoral votes of the Electoral College
270 electoral votes needed to win
Turnout 61.9%[1]

Nominee Lyndon B. Johnson Barry Goldwater
Party Democratic Republican
Home state Texas Arizona
Running mate Hubert Humphrey William E. Miller
Electoral vote 486 52
States carried 44 + DC 6
Popular vote 43,127,041 27,175,754
Percentage 61.1% 38.5%

United States presidential election 1964 - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

---------------

Bush initiated a war, LBJ did not and btw most Republicans and conservatives were gung ho on LBJ's escalation

your hatred of Obama unhinges you.

Truman was involved in WWII. Bush's war set off the terrorism we have today. I supported the war. I believe Bremer was a creep, bush's or Cheney's creep. Early on in the assault on Baghdad rearguard military officers noted a rag tag group snipping at their heels. They were told by military brass to ignore them and push on -- it was the initial wave of what was later to become the insurgency

I don't hate anyone, Dante, especially barack obama. He's not worthy of any strong emotion.

As for the '64 elections, LBJ won solely on the death of Kennedy.

I pretty much agree. That's how I remember it, being there.

The country was over that by 68 and elected Nixon twice, once by 110 electoral votes and once by 503.

The country was more "over" the JFK assassinations but also swimming in more recent ones (RFK and MLK being that same year) as well as social turmoil of massive cultural shift. The DP was saddled by association with the morass of Vietnam, the aforementioned social turmoil in the streets, born of both Vietnam and Civil Rights; and Nixon ran on a "Law and Order" campaign. Then you had Wallace running to Nixon's right, siphoning southern Democrats.

1968 had little to do with politics and a hell of a lot to do with cultural shift. Nixon was in a position, by default, to market his campaign that way. It was a time of deep division, far deeper than anything we have now.

you're also wrong on 1964. see last reply to Ernie

No, I'm not. Your reply to Ernie didn't fundamentally disagree with the way I framed it.

As for the '64 elections, LBJ won solely on the death of Kennedy.

I pretty much agree. That's how I remember it, being there.

LBJ was popular in his own right in 1964 and it wasn't only the memory of JFK that propelled LBJ to election victory, the GOP was suffering a nervous breakdown at the time

All four are historic presidents known for advancing American society.

Your partisan butthurt is noted.

It's very unlikely John Kennedy would have been reelected after the Bay of Pigs fiasco.

Lyndon Johnson was a pig, a vulgar petty man who escalated a poorly run war that killed thousands all for nothing. You bitch about Bush going to war for oil? shit man. He had nothing on LBJ

barack obama couldn't manage a one man shoe shine booth at Grand Central. He's incompetent and out of touch with reality. The best part about his administration is what he did for Congress in 2010 and 2014.

Harry Truman? Again. You hate on Bush for bombing a few civilians in Baghdad but overlook Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

Really? Do you know the stats on the 1964 election?

1960 ←
November 3, 1964 → 1968
All 538 electoral votes of the Electoral College
270 electoral votes needed to win
Turnout 61.9%[1]

Nominee Lyndon B. Johnson Barry Goldwater
Party Democratic Republican
Home state Texas Arizona
Running mate Hubert Humphrey William E. Miller
Electoral vote 486 52
States carried 44 + DC 6
Popular vote 43,127,041 27,175,754
Percentage 61.1% 38.5%

United States presidential election 1964 - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

---------------

Bush initiated a war, LBJ did not and btw most Republicans and conservatives were gung ho on LBJ's escalation

your hatred of Obama unhinges you.

Truman was involved in WWII. Bush's war set off the terrorism we have today. I supported the war. I believe Bremer was a creep, bush's or Cheney's creep. Early on in the assault on Baghdad rearguard military officers noted a rag tag group snipping at their heels. They were told by military brass to ignore them and push on -- it was the initial wave of what was later to become the insurgency

I don't hate anyone, Dante, especially barack obama. He's not worthy of any strong emotion.

As for the '64 elections, LBJ won solely on the death of Kennedy.

I pretty much agree. That's how I remember it, being there.

The country was over that by 68 and elected Nixon twice, once by 110 electoral votes and once by 503.

The country was more "over" the JFK assassinations but also swimming in more recent ones (RFK and MLK being that same year) as well as social turmoil of massive cultural shift. The DP was saddled by association with the morass of Vietnam, the aforementioned social turmoil in the streets, born of both Vietnam and Civil Rights; and Nixon ran on a "Law and Order" campaign. Then you had Wallace running to Nixon's right, siphoning southern Democrats.

1968 had little to do with politics and a hell of a lot to do with cultural shift. Nixon was in a position, by default, to market his campaign that way. It was a time of deep division, far deeper than anything we have now.

you're also wrong on 1964. see last reply to Ernie

which was: "LBJ was popular in his own right in 1964 and it wasn't only the memory of JFK that propelled LBJ to election victory, the GOP was suffering a nervous breakdown at the time"

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

It's very unlikely John Kennedy would have been reelected after the Bay of Pigs fiasco.

Lyndon Johnson was a pig, a vulgar petty man who escalated a poorly run war that killed thousands all for nothing. You bitch about Bush going to war for oil? shit man. He had nothing on LBJ

barack obama couldn't manage a one man shoe shine booth at Grand Central. He's incompetent and out of touch with reality. The best part about his administration is what he did for Congress in 2010 and 2014.

Harry Truman? Again. You hate on Bush for bombing a few civilians in Baghdad but overlook Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

Really? Do you know the stats on the 1964 election?

1960 ←
November 3, 1964 → 1968
All 538 electoral votes of the Electoral College
270 electoral votes needed to win
Turnout 61.9%[1]

Nominee Lyndon B. Johnson Barry Goldwater
Party Democratic Republican
Home state Texas Arizona
Running mate Hubert Humphrey William E. Miller
Electoral vote 486 52
States carried 44 + DC 6
Popular vote 43,127,041 27,175,754
Percentage 61.1% 38.5%

United States presidential election 1964 - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

---------------

Bush initiated a war, LBJ did not and btw most Republicans and conservatives were gung ho on LBJ's escalation

your hatred of Obama unhinges you.

Truman was involved in WWII. Bush's war set off the terrorism we have today. I supported the war. I believe Bremer was a creep, bush's or Cheney's creep. Early on in the assault on Baghdad rearguard military officers noted a rag tag group snipping at their heels. They were told by military brass to ignore them and push on -- it was the initial wave of what was later to become the insurgency

I don't hate anyone, Dante, especially barack obama. He's not worthy of any strong emotion.

As for the '64 elections, LBJ won solely on the death of Kennedy.

I pretty much agree. That's how I remember it, being there.

The country was over that by 68 and elected Nixon twice, once by 110 electoral votes and once by 503.

The country was more "over" the JFK assassinations but also swimming in more recent ones (RFK and MLK being that same year) as well as social turmoil of massive cultural shift. The DP was saddled by association with the morass of Vietnam, the aforementioned social turmoil in the streets, born of both Vietnam and Civil Rights; and Nixon ran on a "Law and Order" campaign. Then you had Wallace running to Nixon's right, siphoning southern Democrats.

1968 had little to do with politics and a hell of a lot to do with cultural shift. Nixon was in a position, by default, to market his campaign that way. It was a time of deep division, far deeper than anything we have now.

you're also wrong on 1964. see last reply to Ernie

No, I'm not. Your reply to Ernie didn't fundamentally disagree with the way I framed it.

I stated you were wrong and asked you to see last post to Ernie: I framed it as this in the other post to Ernie: "LBJ was popular in his own right in 1964 and it wasn't only the memory of JFK that propelled LBJ to election victory, the GOP was suffering a nervous breakdown at the time"

 

[Ernie S.]

"It's very unlikely John Kennedy would have been reelected after the Bay of Pigs fiasco."

John F. Kennedy had the highest average approval rating (70.1) of any president since they began tracking that and his lowest approval rating he EVER got (56) was light years ahead of anyone else's low.

So where do you get your information?

I was there and aware.

 

[Pogo]

Really? Do you know the stats on the 1964 election?

1960 ←
November 3, 1964 → 1968
All 538 electoral votes of the Electoral College
270 electoral votes needed to win
Turnout 61.9%[1]

Nominee Lyndon B. Johnson Barry Goldwater
Party Democratic Republican
Home state Texas Arizona
Running mate Hubert Humphrey William E. Miller
Electoral vote 486 52
States carried 44 + DC 6
Popular vote 43,127,041 27,175,754
Percentage 61.1% 38.5%

United States presidential election 1964 - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

---------------

Bush initiated a war, LBJ did not and btw most Republicans and conservatives were gung ho on LBJ's escalation

your hatred of Obama unhinges you.

Truman was involved in WWII. Bush's war set off the terrorism we have today. I supported the war. I believe Bremer was a creep, bush's or Cheney's creep. Early on in the assault on Baghdad rearguard military officers noted a rag tag group snipping at their heels. They were told by military brass to ignore them and push on -- it was the initial wave of what was later to become the insurgency

I don't hate anyone, Dante, especially barack obama. He's not worthy of any strong emotion.

As for the '64 elections, LBJ won solely on the death of Kennedy.

I pretty much agree. That's how I remember it, being there.

The country was over that by 68 and elected Nixon twice, once by 110 electoral votes and once by 503.

The country was more "over" the JFK assassinations but also swimming in more recent ones (RFK and MLK being that same year) as well as social turmoil of massive cultural shift. The DP was saddled by association with the morass of Vietnam, the aforementioned social turmoil in the streets, born of both Vietnam and Civil Rights; and Nixon ran on a "Law and Order" campaign. Then you had Wallace running to Nixon's right, siphoning southern Democrats.

1968 had little to do with politics and a hell of a lot to do with cultural shift. Nixon was in a position, by default, to market his campaign that way. It was a time of deep division, far deeper than anything we have now.

you're also wrong on 1964. see last reply to Ernie

No, I'm not. Your reply to Ernie didn't fundamentally disagree with the way I framed it.

I stated you were wrong and asked you to see last post to Ernie: I framed it as this in the other post to Ernie: "LBJ was popular in his own right in 1964 and it wasn't only the memory of JFK that propelled LBJ to election victory, the GOP was suffering a nervous breakdown at the time"

I know what it says -- same thing it said the first time I read it.

I agree with Ernie about the (LBJ) sympathy vote; I lived through it, as he did, and I remember exactly the same thing. I don't agree with him about the Bay of Pigs. That's been magnified by the passage of time -- and its role in assassination theories. By 1963 it wasn't a big deal and wouldn't have been much of a factor in '64.

Opinions are not "right" or "wrong" anyway. They simply vary in perspective.

 

[Avatar4321]

All the more reason to oppose him

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

I don't hate anyone, Dante, especially barack obama. He's not worthy of any strong emotion.

As for the '64 elections, LBJ won solely on the death of Kennedy.

I pretty much agree. That's how I remember it, being there.

The country was over that by 68 and elected Nixon twice, once by 110 electoral votes and once by 503.

The country was more "over" the JFK assassinations but also swimming in more recent ones (RFK and MLK being that same year) as well as social turmoil of massive cultural shift. The DP was saddled by association with the morass of Vietnam, the aforementioned social turmoil in the streets, born of both Vietnam and Civil Rights; and Nixon ran on a "Law and Order" campaign. Then you had Wallace running to Nixon's right, siphoning southern Democrats.

1968 had little to do with politics and a hell of a lot to do with cultural shift. Nixon was in a position, by default, to market his campaign that way. It was a time of deep division, far deeper than anything we have now.

you're also wrong on 1964. see last reply to Ernie

No, I'm not. Your reply to Ernie didn't fundamentally disagree with the way I framed it.

I stated you were wrong and asked you to see last post to Ernie: I framed it as this in the other post to Ernie: "LBJ was popular in his own right in 1964 and it wasn't only the memory of JFK that propelled LBJ to election victory, the GOP was suffering a nervous breakdown at the time"

I know what it says -- same thing it said the first time I read it.

I agree with Ernie about the (LBJ) sympathy vote; I lived through it, as he did, and I remember exactly the same thing. I don't agree with him about the Bay of Pigs. That's been magnified by the passage of time -- and its role in assassination theories. By 1963 it wasn't a big deal and wouldn't have been much of a factor in '64.

Opinions are not "right" or "wrong" anyway. They simply vary in perspective.

Of course opinions can be wrong. Ernie negated anything that helped LBJ outside of the sympathy vote

Okay, the supposed facts in Ernie's opinion are hogwash. feel better?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

All the more reason to oppose him

I've always love people who would use a negative vote. so easy to get them to throw theirs away

 

[Pogo]

I pretty much agree. That's how I remember it, being there.

The country was more "over" the JFK assassinations but also swimming in more recent ones (RFK and MLK being that same year) as well as social turmoil of massive cultural shift. The DP was saddled by association with the morass of Vietnam, the aforementioned social turmoil in the streets, born of both Vietnam and Civil Rights; and Nixon ran on a "Law and Order" campaign. Then you had Wallace running to Nixon's right, siphoning southern Democrats.

1968 had little to do with politics and a hell of a lot to do with cultural shift. Nixon was in a position, by default, to market his campaign that way. It was a time of deep division, far deeper than anything we have now.

you're also wrong on 1964. see last reply to Ernie

No, I'm not. Your reply to Ernie didn't fundamentally disagree with the way I framed it.

I stated you were wrong and asked you to see last post to Ernie: I framed it as this in the other post to Ernie: "LBJ was popular in his own right in 1964 and it wasn't only the memory of JFK that propelled LBJ to election victory, the GOP was suffering a nervous breakdown at the time"

I know what it says -- same thing it said the first time I read it.

I agree with Ernie about the (LBJ) sympathy vote; I lived through it, as he did, and I remember exactly the same thing. I don't agree with him about the Bay of Pigs. That's been magnified by the passage of time -- and its role in assassination theories. By 1963 it wasn't a big deal and wouldn't have been much of a factor in '64.

Opinions are not "right" or "wrong" anyway. They simply vary in perspective.

Of course opinions can be wrong. Ernie negated anything that helped LBJ outside of the sympathy vote

Okay, the supposed facts in Ernie's opinion are hogwash. feel better?

That's why I qualified it with "not solely". Clearly it wasn't the only factor.

LBJ for his part was never very popular. Not in terms of a personal connection. The polar opposite of Kennedy in that regard we might say.

Probably one of the reasons for the Kennedy Mystique -- look at the three guys who followed him.

 

[Synthaholic]

Third candidates in the general screw everything up. Pluralities give us very unstable governments -- look at the past 50 years

I agree with everything Dante has said on this thread. The only thing I would add is that Senators (of either party) generally make lousy Presidents. Being Governor of a State is the only relevant job experience.

False.

Senator Kennedy was a good president.
Senator Johnson was a good president.
Senator Obama is a good president.
Senator Truman was a good president.

False
False
False
False

All four are historic presidents known for advancing American society.

Your partisan butthurt is noted.

It's very unlikely John Kennedy would have been reelected after the Bay of Pigs fiasco. Lyndon Johnson was a pig, a vulgar petty man who escalated a poorly run war that killed thousands all for nothing.
You bitch about Bush going to war for oil? shit man. He had nothing on LBJ
barack obama couldn't manage a one man shoe shine booth at Grand Central. He's incompetent and out of touch with reality. The best part about his administration is what he did for Congress in 2010 and 2014.
Harry Truman? Again. You hate on Bush for bombing a few civilians in Baghdad but overlook Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

How fucked up. You live in your own little wingnut bubble, Ernie.

Kennedy would have certainly won re-election based on the Cuban Missile Crisis. He stared down the Soviets when a nuclear confrontation was on the brink. That's real leadership, not reading some speech-writer's work in front of the Berlin Wall.

Johnson gave us the Voting Rights Act, Medicare, and Medicaid. For those alone he should be on Rushmore. Who gives a shit if he was vulgar? The man knew how to twist arms and get things done. An example of leadership.

Obama's accomplishments are quite staggering, even though you know about hardly any of them, due to Right-Wing Media not wanting to advertise them, and Corporate Main Stream Media deciding it's not ratings-worthy.

Look this over, from yesterday:

Obama is unpopular. He's also accomplished an incredible amount - Vox

Truman won WWII in the Pacific. Not MacArthur, not Nimitz. Dropping that bomb saved countless lives. Arguing against Truman exposes the bankruptcy of your values.

 

[Synthaholic]

I tell you what. Watch 2016. The media will try to select the GOP candidate yet again. The more Conservative a primary candidate is, the more dirt will be flung at him.

Hmmm...so you believe that Big Media has a bunch of dirt on all the candidates but only doles it out for the candidates they don't like?

 

[Synthaholic]

They will concentrate on a Right Wing candidate's gaffs like Mitt's 47% and gloss over 57 states.

One was a slip of the tongue, while the other was a candidate telling us his philosophy.

You need more oxygen in that bubble.

 

[Votto]

I don't much like Jeb but he doesn't suck to Dubya's extent.

Fuck Jeb - he's a snake.

Of course Jeb is a snake...nearly all pols are. The problem with you partisan party types is you only recognize snakes in the party you oppose.

Your argument is essentially Ds good Rs bad....duh!

Bullshit. I recognize all the snakes in the Democratic Party. Some are snakes for only one particular issue, like Chuck Schumer and Wall St., or Jane Harmon on Defense issues. Then there are the snakes who talk a good game but vote with Republicans way too often: Bill Nelson, Mary Landrieu, Joe Lieberman (yes, I know he's gone), Blanche Lincoln, Gary Condit, Billy Tauzin, Sanford Bishop, Loretta Sanchez, Jim Cooper, Henry Cuellar...I could list another 20 names easily.

You tend to find snakes in a snake pit.