Ok, but he made the USA a worse place. The Great Society almost all failed, the few that "succeeded" are causing all of our current societies greatest economic woes (insane medical prices, inflated student debt, etc), Vietnam traumatized an entire generation, and I believe worse than anything, he started an era of fearmongering politics that continues to this day.
Thank you, sir.
I think this argument is entirely moot at this point.
More like "pointless", but I obivously thought he referred to Trump. The key attribute of his being that he was a corrupt politician and the subject of that thread, not that he was a Republican, meaning there was no "reminder of how corrupt Republicans are", only as much as required for the post not to venture off topic. And Ag3ma's answer has not really changed my view. But he can feel free to correct me.
Okay I'm not going through this argument again. I'm just going to point out that you are attempting to dispute the general consensus of experts in politics and history who compile these polls/surveys of best president. That's your prerogative, but I'm just saying that it's relatively hard to credit you're right and they are so wrong.
I don't think he did at all. He's not the breaking of a dam that held back an unstoppable torrent, he's just a stretch of an already-flowing river. Fearmongering long predates LBJ (McCarthyism, anyone?). Negative campaigning has always existed (they were hardly nice to each other in the 1800s); you can argue it has got worse since the 1960s, but you can't hold one person responsible for both their contemporaries (as it was much wider), and the decision by countless successive campaigners to take it further. All those subsequent campaigners, they all chose that. They chose it because it worked, the public let it work, and that was always going to be exploited.
There's an entire preceding stream of discussion about Trump being corrupt in that thread that stands all on its own. In that context, I don't think a linking "in similar news..." style comment moving on to Menendez can reasonably qualify as some sort of deflection onto or sideswipe at the Republicans. And I suspect that's what Bednisis is pointing out.
The same set of people who praise Johnson for how great his presidency was are also the historians that would tell you that the political ad Daisy was a watershed moment in at least American politics, if not world politics. You can value their opinions, or you can not value their opinions, but no matter which way you cut it, the historical experts find themselves elevating a man they credit as the pioneer of sleazy attack ads.
Tough. That's the sort of decision a thorough, adult analysis just has to deal with.
That is a textbook false dichotomy combined with poor counterfactual analysis. You can have the good things without the bad.
No.
So what? It was done by LBJ. He invested the time, effort and political capital to drive it through, so he gets the credit. Presidents ultimately get measured on their achievements, not the shouldas, couldas, wouldas of what didn't happen. Speculation that JFK might have pushed it through, or a later president, is thus meaningless. LBJ did it, and so to him the credit.
Ok, then start crediting Trump for everything that went well from 2017-2020. He was the one who was there, he did those things. You're not allowed to even speculate that any of it might have happened without him.
Not just 'things that went well at that time', remember-- there has to be an actual causative relationship with his actions.
Would Goldwater have brutalized Vietnam? He wasn't exceptionally hawkish, he campaigned in part on less involvement in Vietnam, he just also took the position that if you involve yourself in a war you commit to winning the war rather than throw people senselessly into a perpetual meat grinder.
Barry Goldwater on Vietnam: "And I support, before anyone gets the wrong idea, as does my party, as do all Americans, the President's firm action in response. But I must point out that it was just that, I must point out that it was just that a response--an incident not a program or a new policy; a tactical reaction, not a new winning strategy.
www.britannica.com
If you objectively look at Roe v Wade, it's factual that it didn't make legal or logical sense.
No, that would be an opinion.
This whole paragraph is meaningless waffle. They had access to the service, legally unimpeded, before the ruling. Afterwards they lost it. That's unequivocally what people mean when they talk about this issue.
To clarify, we should credit a president for what they did, but not necessarily for what happened. Although that is perhaps an ideal, and in many cases presidents will end up being better or worse received because a lot happened to go right or wrong for a country during their time in office. Just as a note, I also think a president can't claim credit just for slapping their signature on the bottom of legislation, because that's a routine job expectation. They can claim some credit depending on their active involvement in drafting or supporting bills.
Trump is the kind of person that if he had a large penis he would look for any excuse to whip it out and brag about it. That's how we all know that he has a small dick.
Why is an abortion OK at say 10 weeks (according to Roe) but not allowed at 30 weeks because of right to privacy? How would it be any less private at 30 weeks than it is at 10 weeks? It never made sense.
abcnews.go.com
