this post was submitted on 23 Aug 2024
99 points (87.8% liked)

politics

19072 readers
5139 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] xmunk@sh.itjust.works 8 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Nixon gets a lot of shit but I'd much rather have another Nixon than a Bush, Reagan, or fucking Trump... he was actually a mixed bag on most issues (the big exception being the war on drugs) and is lauded as one of the best presidents for Native American rights... that all said, he did still delay and minimize labor rights. You need to get back pre-Eisenhower to start getting into Republicans that actually aren't pieces of shit and then we're basically at the party swap.

[–] Dagwood222@lemm.ee 6 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Nixon started the GOP's destruction of the middle class. When Nixon took office, a high school graduate with a Union job could buy a house and support a family of four. By the time Reagan was elected that was already a rarity.

Here's how it worked. The Vietnam War was like steroids for the US economy. The aging steel mills of the mid-West were running 24/7 to make enough bombs. The demand was so high that it was cheaper for Germany and Japan to build their own steel mills because they couldn't get US steel.

Now comes the Arab Oil Boycott and the energy crisis. Huge demand for small gas efficient cars and no love for big American gas guzzlers. Ever seen pictures of those cool lofts in New York's SoHo district? Those building were full of small factories making shoes/purses/toys etc etc. All those businesses closed and there was a massive migration to non-Union states and eventually China.

Moreover, Nixon had been paying for the War by printing money. He didn't want to raise taxes, and people didn't think about where the money was coming from.

Reagan was the real villain in the piece, but Nixon was the guy who gave him the gun.

[–] the_crotch@sh.itjust.works -1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

"Nixon started this."
Proves it by citing a war started by Kennedy

[–] Dagwood222@lemm.ee 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Actually it was started by Eisenhower.

Maj. Dale R. Buis and Master Sgt. Chester M. Ovnand become the first Americans killed in the American phase of the Vietnam War when guerrillas strike a Military Assistance Advisory Group (MAAG) compound in Bien Hoa, 20 miles northeast of Saigon. The group had arrived in South Vietnam on November 1, 1955, to provide military assistance. The organization consisted of U.S. Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps personnel who provided advice and assistance to the Ministry of Defense, Joint General Staff, corps and division commanders, training centers, and province and district headquarters.

Be that as it may, it was LBJ who ramped up the bombings and it was Nixon who ruined Johnson's chances of getting a peace .

https://www.bing.com/search?q=nixon+sabotaged+the+vietname+peace+talks&PC=U316&FORM=CHROMN

It's always funny to me that the people who claim to love America the most are the most ignorant of the actual hsitory.

It's even funnier when they try to cite history and fail.

[–] the_crotch@sh.itjust.works 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Actually it was started by Eisenhower

Actually it was started by Kennedy. Providing training and logistics isn't the same as actively engaging in a war (or, in this case, "police action"). The US didn't become a combatant until the Gulf of tonkin and that was all Kennedy.

Be that as it may, it was LBJ who ramped up the bombings

This is the only thing you said that isn't nonsense

It's always funny to me that the people who claim to love America the most are the most ignorant of the actual hsitory.

You and your strawman can suck the fattest part of my dick

[–] Dagwood222@lemm.ee 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

The US didn’t become a combatant until the Gulf of tonkin and that was all Kennedy.

The Gulf of Tonkin incident (Vietnamese: Sự kiện Vịnh Bắc Bộ) was an international confrontation that led to the United States engaging more directly in the Vietnam War. It consisted of a confrontation on August 2, 1964,

On November 22, 1963, John F. Kennedy, the 35th president of the United States, was assassinated while riding in a presidential motorcade through Dealey Plaza in Dallas

Better check your pants, because if that's your fact checking I'm not sure you have a wee-wee at all.

[–] the_crotch@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

'64 wasn't the nixon administration either you anatomical diagram

[–] Dagwood222@lemm.ee 0 points 2 months ago

Nixon started the GOP’s destruction of the middle class.

If you improved your reading/thinking skills you might learn something.

I never said Nixon started the Vietnam War. That mistake is 100% you not understanding how to read.