American Politics

[EihTooms]

Here are the total number of USA Casualties in the 20th and 21st centuries, in major wars that Democratic Presidents chose to enter. I'm defining "major" as any war that resulted in more than 50,000 USA Casualties:

World War I: 320,518.

World War II: 1,076,245.

Korean War: 128,650.

Vietnam War: 211,454.

Total: 1,736,867 casualties.

Here's the total number of casualties in "major" wars started by Republicans, in the 20th and 21st centuries:

0.

This shows that Democratic Presidents have a very callous attitude about the lives and well being of our servicemen.

Now I know what Tooms response will be. "So what, Trump killed a lot of people with COVID." Well, yes, he killed about 370,000 people with COVID, until he left office. But Biden killed more, 700,000 so far! and he's still killing 500 a day! There's no telling how many people Biden's going to end up killing with COVID.

Disclaimer: While my numbers are correct, I don't believe this. Democrats aren't any bigger war mongers than Republicans. This is part of an intervention, to try to help Tooms recognize spurious correlations and Double Think, and to cure his Stockholm Syndrome.

Japan attacked our military base at Pearl Harbor and then Germany declared war on America in WWII. Do you really think that meant America "chose" to go to war with them?

Eisenhower committed America to the Vietnam War by word, deed and treaty:

Southeast Asia and the Vietnam War

https://media.defense.gov/2019/Feb/2...ology%20v1.pdf

1959
May 25: With authorization from the White House, Adm. Harry Felt, the
CINCPAC, told General Williams that U.S. advisors with the ARVN could
accompany Vietnamese troops on operations, provided they do not become
involved in actual combat. Historian Fredrik Logevall called this new order
highly significant. To this point, U.S. troops had been confined to corps
and division headquarters, training commands, and logistic agencies and
had been obligated to remain behind whenever their units were on patrol.
Now they would be in the field, in harms way, their advising duties greatly
expanded. U.S. personnel had been participating in patrols before this time,
unofficially, including Williams himself on occasion.59

July 8: Six Vietnamese communist guerrillas attacked the quarters of the
thirteen-man U.S. advisory detachment at Bien Hoa. Two U.S. soldiers,
Maj. Dale R. Buis and MSgt. Chester M. Ovnand, died in the assault,
the first U.S. servicemen killed in action in Vietnam since Lt. Col. Peter
Dewey in 1945 (see Sept. 26, 1945). Buis and Ovnard are the first two
names that appear on the Vietnam Veterans Memorial in Washington.63

USA military body bags were being returned from Vietnam long before Kennedy was elected. The change Kennedy made was in allowing our troops to shoot back.

[EihTooms]

Here are tax cuts from the Republican's 2017 TCJA, calculated as (1- (marginal rate after tax cut)/(marginal tax rate before tax cut)), for single filers at particular levels of income:

$30,000 - 20% tax cut.

$50,000 - 12% tax cut.

$100,000 - 14% tax cut.

$250,000 - 6% tax increase.

$400,000 - 6% tax increase.

$1,000,000 - 6. 5% tax cut.

https://taxfoundation.org/historical...ates-brackets/

The tax cut was not disproportionately directed to higher income earners. In fact, it made the tax system more progressive.

I take issue with your statement: "Then the beauty of Dem leadership is you get the superior economic results without invading Poland and creating the Holocaust. " Strictly speaking this is true, as no Democratic President has invaded Poland. Yet. However, please see my post below about the correlation between Democratic Presidents and major wars. The Democrats are a bloodthirsty lot, disposed to sacrifice many lives so they can juice the economy and get more votes come election time.

Disclaimer: I actually don't believe this, the part about bloodthirsty Democrats. This is part of an intervention, to try to help Tooms recognize spurious relationships and Double Think, and to cure his Stockholm Syndrome.

HOWEVER, In general, GDP growth during wars and their aftermath when Democrats were president was very good -- there were a few years with 18%+ GDP growth. Does this deserve consideration if you're trying to show that Republicans are worse than Hitler at managing the economy? Why of course not.

I'm sure you just forgot about the phase outs, catch up increased taxes and cleverly concealed and delayed costs to the lower and middle income earners in order to "pay for" those disproportionately high tax cuts for corporations and top margins, the ones that wouldn't phase out, diabolically timed to kick in after certain subsequent midterm and general elections as I recall. Even Hitler wouldn't have done that. But it was in all the news at the time. That was one of the reasons "retiring" Senator John McCain slammed it. However, being a Repub he signed it anyway.

Nice try though.

A Year After the Middle Class Tax Cut, the Rich Are Winning.
December 18, 2018

https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2...-consequences/

Distribution of Trump Tax Cuts Favors Wealthiest
On average, in 2018, taxes declined for everyone, but top groups got the biggest benefit
Income group (Average income)

Percent change in after-tax income

Lowest quintile ($14,170) - 0.4%

Second quintile ($36,450) - 1.2%

Middle quintile ($65,640) - 1.6%

Fourth quintile ($114,370) - 1.9%

Top quintile ($347,940) - 2.9%

Source: Tax Policy Center estimates
Note: Average federal tax (includes individual and corporate income tax, payroll taxes for Social Security and Medicare, the estate tax, and excise taxes) as a percentage of average expanded cash income.

Once the tax bill is paid for, low- and middle-income households will be worse off.
January 2, 2018

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-fr...-be-worse-off/

The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) will cut taxes by almost $1.5 trillion over the next decade, largely benefiting corporations, pass-through businesses such as partnerships, and people who inherit large estates. The bill will also provide modest tax reductions for most wage and salary earners.

Though some households will do better than others, it sounds like almost everyone is a winner at first glance. But tax cuts are not free; they eventually have to be financed with higher taxes or lower spending. And once those financing requirements are taken into account, most low- and middle-income households are likely to be worse off than they would have been without the tax cut in the first place.

Previous TPC analysis shows that households in every income group will be better off on average due to the direct provisions of the tax cut. However, after accounting for a plausible financing mechanismin which the tax cuts would be paid for with equal-per-household increases in taxes or reductions in benefitsmany low- and middle-income households will lose more than what they gain from the tax cuts themselves.

(and more)

Remember when Trump proclaimed he was going to be the "most job-creating president in the history of the universe" or some such nonsense? He sold that god-awful waste of $2. 5+ Trillion in taxpayers' money on that premise and on his prediction that it would drive Real Annual GDP growth up to "3%, 4%, 5%, some people say 6% LOL. It never hit 3%.

Did Trumps tax cuts boost hiring? Most companies say no.
January 28, 2019

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/economy...mpanies-say-no

The vast majority of American businesses havent boosted hiring or investment as a result of the Republican tax law, according to a survey by the National Association for Business Economics.

Eighty-four percent of businesses said they didnt accelerate hiring because of the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, which President Donald Trump hailed as a bill for the middle class and a bill for jobs. Only 6 percent said they had more hires because of the law and 10 percent said they accelerated investments, according to the survey.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure if those tax cuts had benefitted the lower and middle income earners as much or more than they did corporations and the top margins and not made those lower and middle income earners "pay for" Trump's Classic Repub tax cuts for the rich, the Trump economy would not have produced 1. 5 Million fewer jobs with those $2. 5 Trillion cuts than without the cuts.

But they didn't.

Actually, Biden and the Dems "extending" them as they were originally set DID cut taxes for lower and middle income earners since allowing them to do what they were destined to do re increasing costs for those marginal earners instead of cutting costs for them.

Dems, the Party of Meaningful Tax Cuts, Strike Again!

[Spidy]

...And your insistence that the Dems have done a better job than the Reps is very poor rationale...

It isn't my "insistance" that gives Dems the notable edge in producing better economic results than Repubs. It's the data.

You have any quotes or examples for your accusations about what I assert when there is a gain for Repubs and all that? I suspect I provide plenty of substantiation for what I assert about what

actually happened and why. But I am willing to review your linked quotes to give it some consideration. ...

Yep, I've said it before, about the "bothsidesist". The dude does not put in the work, to provide support to substantiate any of his claims / arguments. Next he'll tell ya to go read "book xyz" from "Joe Author", that'll explain all my "say so".

And now he's piggy-backing and riding on Tiny 12 "data / evidence" coat tails, and pawning off the work, as if its his own findings, as if he did the work.

[Spidy]

I don't see where you're disagreeing with me ....

BTW, I will say this however, you do, do the work and unlike the arch "bothsidesist", you do provide actual evidence, data and information to substantiate, support or refute said opinions / claims.

[Spidy]

I don't see where you're disagreeing with me, except to say the Spidy and Tooms tribe is always clearly right. Well, someday Joe Biden is going to say that all the Democrats will be raptured and go to heaven. And all the Republicans will stay behind on earth. And he's going to set a date. And all the Democrats are going to say Biden is clearly right. And when that day passes and you're still here, I wonder what you and Tooms are going to say. It's going to be the Democrat Tribe's "January 6 moment. " I can't wait!

What are you talking about??? Not that there is anything wrong with being a right-wing evangelist, but that rant just sound like one. Just saying!

Look just because any BM here, in this discussion/opinion forum, is in disagreement with the arguments you put forth, be it, a Dem, Repub, QAnon, Bothsidesist, left, right or otherwise, is not a case IMHO about being "right".

Any political discourse, counterpoints or information I present is meant to frame and/or support my POV. I don't really care if you think, I'm simply trying to be "right".

You, Tiny 12 and the arch "bothsidesist", who stands for nothing and falls for everything, seem to think, we somehow need to accept/agree the arguments you put forth. WE DON'T!

Let me put it to you like this:

One BM here, thinks Donnie "the Devil" J. Dummkopf (aka. the 45th pres. aka.Agent Orange) is a god, meanwhile I personally think he's a devil.

Is he right, I am I right? He'll continue to provide whatever opinions/evidence to support his claims and so will I.

While I may find his opinions/claims distasteful, I reserve the right for him to make them. The only "right(s)" that I'm concerned with is, equal rights, people's rights, human rights, civil rights, voting rights...etc

For me it's that simple. I am not here to be "right", as you see it. I'll provide my counterpoints, arguments and opinions and let them stand or fall on their own.

If you have an opinion on said topics and provide arguments to support your POV and not just here to BM bash or bash America, then I welcome your input.

[EihTooms]

So you honestly think that Democrats are the Party of small government and lower taxes? In the words of our Commander In Chief, "Come on man!"

For every article you trot out from a left of center New York Times opinion columnist arguing for the superiority of Democratic governance, I could trot out two from right of center Wall Street Journal columnists if I weren't so damn lazy. When Leonhardt writes off Congressional control as a factor he loses credibility in my eyes. And when you look at his list of presidents, the top one, FDR, came to power in the aftermath of the worst depression in modern USA History, while the person in last place, Trump, had the misfortune to be in office when COVID hit.

At the risk of sounding immodest, my post #10362 in this thread makes more sense and is less biased than Leonhardt's article.

Oh, sorry, but if you don't like FDR (or JFK / LBJ, Carter, Clinton, Obama and now Biden) getting credit for pulling us out of serious economic downturns and catastrophes, the fix is for the American electorate to prevent the Repubs that preceeded them from producing serious economic downturns and catastrophes.

And from all available historic evidence the only way to prevent them from doing that is to vote all Dem down every ballot every time. Once in, Repubs apparently can't help but produce those results. And a vote for a Third Party candidate or not voting typically results in Repubs winning. So those last two are not options for America avoiding the next Great Repub Depression / Recession, Massive Jobs Destruction and Catastrophe.

Hoover famously exacerbated the Great Repub Depression with his Smoot-Hawley Tariffs and his Classic Repub mistake of providing Supply-Side / Trickle-Down government aid and spending on the exact wrong people. The Great Repub Depression didn't just "hit" or "happen" on Hoover's watch.

Coronavirus was another endemic viral spread that very likely could have been contained or at least significantly damage reduced had the leaders of the proven Pandemic Prevention and Response teams not gone missing where they were needed most for more than a year by Trump contrary to all expert warnings not to do something so dangerous and stupid. And especially had Trump not compounded that disastrous decision by spending critical year 2020 doing, lying and saying everything a World Leader could do, lie about and say to make sure it would become the historically deadly economy and global supply-chain-destroying and Inflation producing Trump's Pandemic it became.

Those were Trump economic decisions. Trump's Pandemic didn't just "hit" or "happen" on his watch.

[Tiny 12]

I forget, did Hitler cut taxes disproprotionately high on the top income margins / the wealthy, give shit tax cuts to the middle and lower income margins to help pay for those top margin tax cuts and ignore or cut regulations, particularly on banks and financial institutions and have a Department of Thrift Supervision in his Treasury Department that didn't supervise or monitor a damn thing while billions in Liar Loans were being floated for years like notable USA Repub presidents did to produce their Great Repub Recessions and crap economic results?

If so then Hitler's great economic success was indeed a unicorn. But if not, then no wonder he produced better economic results than most Repubs of the past century.

Actually, reading your link I see Hitler most definitely focused on creating jobs, improving conditions for workers, utilizing government spending to stimulate the German economy and create even more and better jobs.

So even a lunatic like Hitler can produce better economic results than Repubs as long as he avoids like the plague duplicating the idiotic economic policies of the Repub Party.

Then the beauty of Dem leadership is you get the superior economic results without invading Poland and creating the Holocaust.

LOL. Great post and link! Thanks for that.

Here are tax cuts from the Republican's 2017 TCJA, calculated as (1- (marginal rate after tax cut)/(marginal tax rate before tax cut)), for single filers at particular levels of income:

$30,000 - 20% tax cut.

$50,000 - 12% tax cut.

$100,000 - 14% tax cut.

$250,000 - 6% tax increase.

$400,000 - 6% tax increase.

$1,000,000 - 6. 5% tax cut.

https://taxfoundation.org/historical...ates-brackets/

The tax cut was not disproportionately directed to higher income earners. In fact, it made the tax system more progressive.

I take issue with your statement: "Then the beauty of Dem leadership is you get the superior economic results without invading Poland and creating the Holocaust. " Strictly speaking this is true, as no Democratic President has invaded Poland. Yet. However, please see my post below about the correlation between Democratic Presidents and major wars. The Democrats are a bloodthirsty lot, disposed to sacrifice many lives so they can juice the economy and get more votes come election time.

Disclaimer: I actually don't believe this, the part about bloodthirsty Democrats. This is part of an intervention, to try to help Tooms recognize spurious relationships and Double Think, and to cure his Stockholm Syndrome.

HOWEVER, In general, GDP growth during wars and their aftermath when Democrats were president was very good -- there were a few years with 18%+ GDP growth. Does this deserve consideration if you're trying to show that Republicans are worse than Hitler at managing the economy? Why of course not.

[EihTooms]

So you honestly think that Democrats are the Party of small government and lower taxes? In the words of our Commander In Chief, "Come on man!"

For every article you trot out from a left of center New York Times opinion columnist arguing for the superiority of Democratic governance, I could trot out two from right of center Wall Street Journal columnists if I weren't so damn lazy. When Leonhardt writes off Congressional control as a factor he loses credibility in my eyes. And when you look at his list of presidents, the top one, FDR, came to power in the aftermath of the worst depression in modern USA History, while the person in last place, Trump, had the misfortune to be in office when COVID hit.

At the risk of sounding immodest, my post #10362 in this thread makes more sense and is less biased than Leonhardt's article.

Yes, Carter's reduction of the Capital gains tax from 35% to 28% along with his guidance to require companies to offer the tremendous tax-deferred long term retirement investment advantage of 401 k accounts to their rank and file employees and not just their top executives and Clinton's exemption of $500,000 for marrieds and $250,000 for singles on the equity of their primary residence sale every few years, just to name two, were far and away greater "wealth generating" tax and economic policy results for many, many more Americans than all of the piddling Repub 3-5% marginal tax cuts dangled over the heads of middle and lower income margin earners while those utterly useless disproportionately high tax cuts for the wealthy stood by slack-jawed stupid and useless during the following next Great Repub Recession and Massive Jobs Destruction.

You know, the Great Repub Recessions that always require a huge influx of deficit spending, government intervention and government expansion to pull us out of them because those brave free market top marginal income "job creators" who got the big tax cuts can't be coaxed out from under their beds without it?

Of course, that comes right before "smaller government" Repubs start repealing decades long precedent Rights To Privacy in order to invade our bedrooms, bathrooms, up asses, vaginas and around penises to outlaw sex for pleasure and restrict it for the purpose of procreation only.

[EihTooms]

My goodness! You have Stockholm Syndrome! Ryan, McConnell and Trump cut the federal corporate income tax and regulations on business. That increased the after tax income of the companies you own through your funds. Biden on the other hand wanted to increase the corporate tax and, depending on your tax bracket, increase the federal tax you pay on dividends to as high as 43.4%.

I hope you haven't already "drunk the Kool Aid. " I shall pray for you, and do what I can in the way of intervention.

I already posted the link and report for what those Spineless Ryan, Moscow Mitch and Traitor Trump tax cuts accomplished; costing American taxpayers $2. 5+ Trillion just so corporate executives could buy their own company stocks.

Other than that, nothing. That is a Classic Repub tax policy result going back to Coolidge / Hoover. Well, that is, if we generously ignore the infrastructure projects, real jobs creation, border control and crime prevention investment opportunities lost by flushing all that money down the shitter as another Classic Repub tax and economic policy "accomplishment. ".

Yes, that helped keep Trump's stock market record afloat. So what? The stock market is not "the economy. " The reason the stock market also performs notably better under Dem stewardship than Repub stewardship is precisely because of those numbskull Repub tax and economic policy and agenda decisions and results that no Dem did nor should have supported and voted for.

[Tiny 12]

If you take some time to look up the definition, you should be absolutely know how the term "bothsidesism" is used.

There are those lazy posters/BMs that want to equate all of American politics from both sides of the aisle, as all the same "shit". Nothing could be further from the truth (as EihTooms, neatly explains below). Hence my use of "bothsidesism", to identify a group of lazy poster(s) and thinkers that believe and think accordingly.



Well said, EihTooms! I'll add one important detail that is key to the definition of "bothsidesism" and that is the following:

"When a person tries to make you believe that both sides are equally responsible for something even though one is really, clearly, at fault."

Worth repeating: "...even though one is really, clearly, at fault"

Sanctimonious rant aside, I use it as a term of endearment, much like the use of "Dems" or "Repubs", when addressing those posters/BMs, who "fit the bill", with whom I'm sharing my opinions/arguments.

So "bothsidesism" much like the word "neoliberalism", perhaps one should take the time to understand these words being used, without the sanctimonious bluster.

I don't see where you're disagreeing with me, except to say the Spidy and Tooms tribe is always clearly right. Well, someday Joe Biden is going to say that all the Democrats will be raptured and go to heaven. And all the Republicans will stay behind on earth. And he's going to set a date. And all the Democrats are going to say Biden is clearly right. And when that day passes and you're still here, I wonder what you and Tooms are going to say. It's going to be the Democrat Tribe's "January 6 moment. " I can't wait!

[Paulie97]

If you take some time to look up the definition, you should be absolutely know how the term "bothsidesism" is used.

There are those lazy posters/BMs that want to equate all of American politics from both sides of the aisle, as all the same "shit". Nothing could be further from the truth (as EihTooms, neatly explains below). Hence my use of "bothsidesism", to identify a group of lazy poster(s) and thinkers that believe and think accordingly.

Well said, EihTooms! I'll add one important detail that is key to the definition of "bothsidesism" and that is the following:

"When a person tries to make you believe that both sides are equally responsible for something even though one is really, clearly, at fault."

Worth repeating: "...even though one is really, clearly, at fault"

Sanctimonious rant aside, I use it as a term of endearment, much like the use of "Dems" or "Repubs", when addressing those posters/BMs, who "fit the bill", with whom I'm sharing my opinions/arguments.

So "bothsidesism" much like the word "neoliberalism", perhaps one should take the time to understand these words being used, without the sanctimonious bluster.

The term is clearly used by individuals like Tooms as an ad hominem against those who aren't on board with his cherry picking and Dems are light / Repubs are darkness interpretive framework. Online definitions of the term involve the accusation that one is unjustifiably giving equal validity to two sides of an argument, but such an error hardly of necessity follows from questioning some of Toom's simplistic, dubious and blustery claims or his far left sources. Tiny is correct, responsible economic and historical analysis is more complicated than "Democrat good, Republican bad. " End of story.

[Spidy]

I don't know what the deal is with "bothsiderism" here. I'm not sure what it means, but suspect it's a derogatory term used for people who aren't tribal. You've got to join up with the Trump tribe or the Sanders tribe, and heaven forbid you think for yourself.

If you take some time to look up the definition, you should be absolutely know how the term "bothsidesism" is used.

There are those lazy posters/BMs that want to equate all of American politics from both sides of the aisle, as all the same "shit". Nothing could be further from the truth (as EihTooms, neatly explains below). Hence my use of "bothsidesism", to identify a group of lazy poster(s) and thinkers that believe and think accordingly.

As I use it, "Bothsiderism" is only a derogatory term or a pejorative if one sees being identified as "pro-Repub" as an insult. Bothsiderism and False Equivalencies are generally meant to elevate the slackers, bring them up a notch or two, and denigrate the performers, bring them down a notch or two so as to suggest "both sides" are more or less "equally" responsible for good or bad outcomes. Sure, that can be a fun exercise. But it can be quite damaging when it comes to elections and who is handed the levers of control for serious matters like money, jobs, national security, etc. ...

Well said, EihTooms! I'll add one important detail that is key to the definition of "bothsidesism" and that is the following:

"When a person tries to make you believe that both sides are equally responsible for something even though one is really, clearly, at fault."

Worth repeating: "...even though one is really, clearly, at fault"

Is that how it works? If so, God help us. I fear that's what's happening to America.

Sanctimonious rant aside, I use it as a term of endearment, much like the use of "Dems" or "Repubs", when addressing those posters/BMs, who "fit the bill", with whom I'm sharing my opinions/arguments.

So "bothsidesism" much like the word "neoliberalism", perhaps one should take the time to understand these words being used, without the sanctimonious bluster.

[Tiny 12]

Interesting that your 1 and 2 reasons for favoring Repubs are among the many reasons I favor Dems and have only voted for Dems without voting for a Repub since Reagan's first term in office. I don't vote based on repeatedly unfulfilled campaign promises. I vote based on what actually happens when each of the two major Parties is in the White House. Factoring in the Repub penchant for never meeting an opportunity to plunge America into a Great Recession they didn't embrace, those piddling tax cuts for the vast majority of Americans they dangle before us on the campaign trail and sometimes plant into legislation pale in comparison to the massive jobs destruction, skyrocketing debt and deficits spent during and to pull us out of them that must be paid for by somebody eventually.

Yes, that pattern began even before FDR. But it didn't stop there. It continued right through to Trump less than two years ago. Even Trump's pre-Trump's Pandemic years underperformed on "greater prosperity" if prosperity has anything to do with jobs creation, earned income and GDP growth and "smaller federal government" if by that you mean less government spending with virtually nothing to show for it. And, of course, by the end of Trump's disastrous four year economic stewardship it is certain more people and businesses did not find themselves with "more money in their pockets".

Now, I didn't live, work, invest, buy things and pay taxes in Switzerland, Singapore or any of those other countries. So while it is interesting to note how they did over time, what matters more to me in terms of those very 1 and 2 factors you mentioned as well as many others is what happened in the USA over time.

Why Are Republican Presidents So Bad for the Economy?
G.D.P., jobs and other indicators have all risen faster under Democrats for nearly the past century.
Feb. 2, 2021


https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/02/o...s-economy.html

So you honestly think that Democrats are the Party of small government and lower taxes? In the words of our Commander In Chief, "Come on man!"

For every article you trot out from a left of center New York Times opinion columnist arguing for the superiority of Democratic governance, I could trot out two from right of center Wall Street Journal columnists if I weren't so damn lazy. When Leonhardt writes off Congressional control as a factor he loses credibility in my eyes. And when you look at his list of presidents, the top one, FDR, came to power in the aftermath of the worst depression in modern USA History, while the person in last place, Trump, had the misfortune to be in office when COVID hit.

At the risk of sounding immodest, my post #10362 in this thread makes more sense and is less biased than Leonhardt's article.

[JustTK]

Now I know what Tooms response will be. "So what, Trump killed a lot of people with COVID." Well, yes, he killed about 370,000 people with COVID, until he left office.

Right! And why? Why does everything need to be a dick measuring competition against the Reps? Why can't a performance simply be assessed for what it is? If the Dems did shlt, saying they did better than the Reps, does not excuse them.

[Tiny 12]

Here are the total number of USA Casualties in the 20th and 21st centuries, in major wars that Democratic Presidents chose to enter. I'm defining "major" as any war that resulted in more than 50,000 USA Casualties:

World War I: 320,518.

World War II: 1,076,245.

Korean War: 128,650.

Vietnam War: 211,454.

Total: 1,736,867 casualties.

Here's the total number of casualties in "major" wars started by Republicans, in the 20th and 21st centuries:

0.

This shows that Democratic Presidents have a very callous attitude about the lives and well being of our servicemen.

Now I know what Tooms response will be. "So what, Trump killed a lot of people with COVID." Well, yes, he killed about 370,000 people with COVID, until he left office. But Biden killed more, 700,000 so far! and he's still killing 500 a day! There's no telling how many people Biden's going to end up killing with COVID.

Disclaimer: While my numbers are correct, I don't believe this. Democrats aren't any bigger war mongers than Republicans. This is part of an intervention, to try to help Tooms recognize spurious correlations and Double Think, and to cure his Stockholm Syndrome.