No it isn't. They just found two metrics that both correlated with mindless Republican loyalty.This is just a "No True Scotsman" fallacy.
No it isn't. They just found two metrics that both correlated with mindless Republican loyalty.This is just a "No True Scotsman" fallacy.
And I told you that was a bullshit stretch of a hypothesis then, and it's even more of a bullshit hypothesis now, given subsequent revelations from John Bolton.Do you not remember when like 6 days into the controversy I said "wait, what if Trump was being fed the information from Ukraine rather than vice versa", and months later we found out that the Prosecutor General of Ukraine was feeding the information to Giuliani, and Trump asking the Ukrainians to look into it was basically him saying "you're telling me these things, figure it out yourselves."
Yes, it is. There is clear evidence that the Tea Party had internal conflicts, and some early adherents felt it had been hijacked. But that is what evolution is. The early, more purist libertarian Tea Party begat the small government, social conservative Republican Tea Party and that begat Trumpers. A child may grow into an adult, but it's still the same person.No it isn't. They just found two metrics that both correlated with mindless Republican loyalty.
Cursing at the truth doesn't make it less true.And I told you that was a bullshit stretch of a hypothesis then, and it's even more of a bullshit hypothesis now, given subsequent revelations from John Bolton.
So modern Democrats are really still the same segregationist party then, right? Still the same group, right?Yes, it is. There is clear evidence that the Tea Party had internal conflicts, and some early adherents felt it had been hijacked. But that is what evolution is. The early, more purist libertarian Tea Party begat the small government, social conservative Republican Tea Party and that begat Trumpers. A child may grow into an adult, but it's still the same person.
Making up absurd speculation doesn't make anything true at all.Cursing at the truth doesn't make it less true.
Yes, correct, the modern Democratic Party evolved from the segretationist Democratic party of yesteryear.So modern Democrats are really still the same segregationist party then, right? Still the same group, right?
But not even I connect the motivations of the two. I don't think AOC is some natural outgrowth of Lyndon Johnson.Yes, correct, the modern Democratic Party evolved from the segretationist Democratic party of yesteryear.
You don't think there's any link between AOC and stuff like the "war on poverty" the civil rights movement? Well, that's up to you.But not even I connect the motivations of the two. I don't think AOC is some natural outgrowth of Lyndon Johnson.
There's no meaningful difference between Lyndon Johnson and Donald Trump. If you want say AOC is basically Trump, feel free.You don't think there's any link between AOC and stuff like the "war on poverty" the civil rights movement? Well, that's up to you.
I wouldn't like to say where you got that idea from, but it's clearly a load of bobbins.There's no meaningful difference between Lyndon Johnson and Donald Trump.
Even were the preamble to that true, have you never heard of divergent evolution?If you want say AOC is basically Trump, feel free.
Well, in terms of personality they’re probably the two most similar presidents in history give that they were both aging narcissists but politically they were obviously very different men, especially considering that, realistically speaking, LBJ’s entire political platform was “win the Cold War” while Trump’s was “become richer and make people love me.” LBJ was also not as much of a legacy or popularity guy, so he comes off as less of a narcissist at a glance.I wouldn't like to say where you got that idea from, but it's clearly a load of bobbins.
If the limit of similarity is that Trump is the most narcissistic president ever and LBJ is the second most narcissistic, that's something, but yes, it's hardly grounds to say that there's politically little difference between Trump and LBJ. And I agree, one might point out that those two ambitions almost automatically reveal quite a gulf in the level of narcissism between Johnson and Trump.Well, in terms of personality they’re probably the two most similar presidents in history give that they were both aging narcissists but politically they were obviously very different men, especially considering that, realistically speaking, LBJ’s entire political platform was “win the Cold War” while Trump’s was “become richer and make people love me.” LBJ was also not as much of a legacy or popularity guy, so he comes off as less of a narcissist at a glance.
Absolutely. Maybe one of the 19th century guys was as bad as him, but he’s the clear winner of 20th century presidents.Out of interest, was LBJ all the way the 2nd most narcissist President that the US has ever had, or at least widely regarded as such? Not heard that before.
Shall I throw some fun anecdotes at you?If the limit of similarity is that Trump is the most narcissistic president ever and LBJ is the second most narcissistic, that's something, but yes, it's hardly grounds to say that there's politically little difference between Trump and LBJ. And I agree, one might point out that those two ambitions almost automatically reveal quite a gulf in the level of narcissism between Johnson and Trump.
And that whole civil rights thing Trump never respected and wouldn't have signed. Or LBJ never once sending an angry mob loose on the capitol.The biggest difference between the two is foreign policy, and I think any sane person prefers Trump's foreign policy.
LBJ was a sincerely racist man. He once called a black man "boy", and was offered the man's name in response. His reaction:And that whole civil rights thing Trump never respected and wouldn't have signed. Or LBJ never once sending an angry mob loose on the capitol.
LBJ was supposedly a very unpleasant person but he seemed to have done the right thing in the end domestically.
You may as well not have bothered.Shall I throw some fun anecdotes at you?
You can't possibly believe that. He literally cheated his way into the senate.LBJ may have been a coarse, crude, self-aggrandising racist, but he did have a moral centre.
LBJ deserves credit for nothing. He capitalized on the political will cultivated by Kennedy, and stuck his name on it.Look at what LBJ achieved and what Trump did, that LBJ had the drive, diligence and conviction to achieve.
And in a prior run, he was literally cheated out of it, too. This is because the party primaries in Texas of that era were pretty much institutionally fraudulent. Secondly, there's a general fallacy here of assuming that a person who is bad in one way must be bad in another: as if someone who sneaks a dollar out of his mother's purse must therefore also be willing to commit murder.You can't possibly believe that. He literally cheated his way into the senate.
And he didn't have to put his name on it and pursue it so energetically, did he? Nor did he have to add a load of his own on top of it afterwards, either.LBJ deserves credit for nothing. He capitalized on the political will cultivated by Kennedy, and stuck his name on it.