American Politics

[EihTooms]

Who cares. Eisenhower is ancient history. Saying he's representative of the modern Republican Party makes about as much sense as saying the Democrats who held back Civil Rights reforms in the 1950's and 1960's are representative of the Democratic Party today. Maximum marginal tax rates during the Eisenhower administration were 91%, for goodness sake. The economy, coincidentally or not, did take off when Kennedy cut tax rates, to 70% for the top bracket. While I wasn't alive when Eisenhower was president, I suspect he didn't do a bad job compared to the others. According to the history books, you can attribute the recessions to Fed policy, not the fact that the president was a Republican.

In my book the only great president during our adult lifetimes was Ronald Reagan, and Clinton during his second term was the only good one. Again coincidentally or not, GDP grew more during their terms than other modern Presidents. But it's their policies and their abilities to work across the aisle that set them above the rest. George H. W. Bush wasn't bad either. He was handicapped by when he came to the office in relation to the economic cycle.

If course the dragging, poor jobs-creating Eisenhower economy took off after Kennedy's tax cuts. That is one of the main reasons I vote for Dems and have said so many times; I LOVE their tax cuts because they WORK to produce jobs and expand the economy, unlike Repub tax cuts that work quite well to produce Great Depressions / Great Recessions and destroy jobs by the millions.

Here's the deal: Kennedy's tax cuts were not Repub-style Supply-Side / Trickle-Down tax cuts disproportionately high for the top income margin and paid for by everyone else. Far from it. The percent of cuts to the middle and lower income margins was greater than the percentage for the top margin, particularly when you factor in the allowances in the tax code.

That would be the OPPOSITE of what Repubs celebrate and congratulate themselves for with their disproportionately high tax cuts for the wealthy.

LOL. Repubs and Bothsider / Neithersider Repubs always point to Kennedy's cut for the top margin from 90% or so to 70% or so, never mention the rest of it and try to bamboozle anyone who will listen into swallowing that as proof that their beloved tax cuts for the wealthy is the way to create jobs and expand the economy like FDR did, Truman did Kennedy / LBJ did, Carter did, Clinton did, Obama did and Biden has by just putting more money into the pockets of wealthy people and nothing about the far more difficut work on all those other devilishly complicated details.

[The Cane]

Cane, PLEASE READ. And perhaps look up the definitions of "satirical", "spurious correlaton" and "cause and effect" if you don't know what those mean. I said, "I do not believe Democrats are any more responsible for war deaths than Republicans. " I don't know how I could have been clearer.

I made my points, which were also intended to be in part satirical. I see they had the intended effect hehehe! And by the way, those same Democrats were the ones who eventually got onboard with the civil rights movement and passed significant civil rights legislation. This is why the majority of African Americans identify with the Democratic party today. And the southerners who still objected they turned to the Republican party, the party of Lincoln. How ironic. Things, including political parties, can and do change. And truth can be stranger than fiction.

[Tiny 12]

Yours is one of the most disingenuous, intellectually dishonest posts that I have read in a long, long time. Let's have a look at the 10 deadliest wars in American history:

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/am...ars-2014-05-23

1. American Civil War = Republican President: and to say that it doesn't count because it was a different Republican party from a long time ago is a bunch of malarky!

2. World War 2 = Democratic President: America was sucker punched by Japan and Hitler was running amuck around Europe and North Africa. If ever there was a war worth fighting this one was it!

3. World War 1 = Democratic President: we should have dealt with the Hun more appropriately then (was too punitive a peace towards Germany), and had we, then we could have headed off the rise of the Nazis.

4. Vietnam War = Republican President: to be fair this tragic war spanned a number of administrations, but it was a Republican who got us into it (Eisenhower) and a Republican who oversaw our shameful withdrawal in defeat from it (Nixon).

5, Korean War = Republican President: Vietnam wasn't enough no sir so the GOP dragged us kicking and screaming into another east Asian war (excuse me "police action" that would be).

6. Mexican-American War = Democratic President: this war of aggression against Mexico goes even further back than the American Civil War so, if in your view the latter doesn't count against a changed Republican party, how in the world can you hold with a straight face that this one should count against a Democratic party that too has changed over time?

7. Iraq War (there were actually two) = Republican President: need I really say more (the GOP started this mess in search of weapons of mass destruction mission accomplished)?

8. Revolutionary War = Non-partisan President: no comment other than this one goes way, way back!

9. Spanish-American War = Republican President: the GOP was in the White House when this "yellow journalism" fueled war allowed one of the most disgusting Republican war mongers of all time Theodore Roosevelt to rise to fame and eventually seize the Oval Office himself.

10. Afghanistan War = Republican President: well old Georgie boy was at it again, and Donald Chump left Biden standing there holding a stinky bag of shit!

What say ye now my fellows?

Cane, PLEASE READ. And perhaps look up the definitions of "satirical", "spurious correlaton" and "cause and effect" if you don't know what those mean. I said, "I do not believe Democrats are any more responsible for war deaths than Republicans. " I don't know how I could have been clearer:

And this post, like all my others on this topic, is satirical. Like I said, there's no cause and effect. For some reason Tooms feels compelled to argue against what I'm labeling as a spurious correlation. I do not believe Democrats are any more responsible for war deaths than Republicans.

Again, if you're going to illogically hold the modern day Republican Party responsible for the Civil War, then it's only fair that you illogically hold today's Democrats responsible for slavery, Jim Crow and repression of Civil Rights. And it's a little ridiculous to hold Eisenhower responsible for 58,000 deaths in Vietnam, when he was only around for 9 of them. The icing on the cake is that then you criticize Nixon for getting us out of the same war that Eisenhower allegedly got us into!

Vietnam was a bipartisan war, and like I said, I don't see the logic in calling LBJ the responsible party when only two members of the Senate and House voted against the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution.

Please note that the Korean War went from June, 1950, when Truman was president, to July, 1953. Eisenhower took office in January, 1953. FYI, Truman was a Democrat.

Also please note my spurious correlation that showed over 95% of American military deaths in the 20th and 21st centuries were attributable to Democratic Presidents would only apply to wars fought after 1900. If you’ve got a problem with that, please take more time to understand what “spurious correlation” means.

[Tiny 12]

I have no data to back it up? Back what up exactly? TBH I have no idea what you are talking abot there.

Colombia v El Salvador. Again, no idea what claim you are trying to make. Just a random story without any clear purpose.

About the dollar bing a strong currency and others being weak. All of this was bcos of the petrodollar. US economy and dollar has been supported by US bullying of other countries in to mandaory use of dollar to buy oil. Its nothing more than that. But those days are over. Now Saudi is, France, Japan, Brazil, Russia, China, 20 countiries are all chooisng to ditch the dollar. So that USA can no longer bully them.

"Maybe you can name a few where the USA is actually guilty of doing something wrong" - you serious? Whch week? Just this past week I can name 3.

1 USA bulying Mexico bcos govt wants to buy operate state owned power plants. USA wants the Mex energy industry open to US corporate exploitation.

2 USA bullying Saudi bcos Russia and China have brokered peace deals with Syria and Iran. USA does not want peace, it wants constant militray oppression of Iran and Syria.

3. USA bullying UN Sec Council not to open investigation in to casue of Nord Stream pipeline terrorism. Its obvious why USA doesn't want this bcos it committed a gross terrorist action against soverign infrastructure and caused huge environmental and financial damage.

Its every week. It seems ever clearer that the USA is a sinking ship, no different to any other fallen empire. Its is getting desperate to hold on to power, that is clear in its ever more belligerent and authoritarian stance, both domestically and internationally. Yet it can do nothing to change it. The tide has turned. Thank goodness.

I agree with you on "2".

I disagree on "3", as based on what I've read, I believe Ukrainians are responsible for the action against the pipeline. Although it wouldn't surprise me if the USA is covering for the Ukrainians.

I'm not sure about "1. " Normally I'd say that nationalizing Mexican power plants is stupid, especially given how Pemex (the inefficient, corrupt national oil company) has turned out. It's a basket case. But crony capitalism is rampant in Mexico. Look at Cemex and Carlos Slim, who gouge consumers. I suspect it's a bad move on AMLO's part, as the power plants are owned by private Spanish interests, which probably operate more efficiently and in the long run will deliver electricity at cheaper prices than the Mexican state. Unlike the Mexican crony capitalists and the narcotraficantes, the Spanish probably aren't buying off the politicians and bureaucrats. Yes, it does seem like this is a matter for the Mexicans and the Spanish. A little off topic, I believe U.S. investment in Mexico has benefited both countries. Most here would probably disagree with me.

[Tiny 12]

Now, the only thing I recall you providing that suggested those Happy Days under Ike were good for the working man was some opinion piece where the dude who wrote it said so without any linked data to substantiate that opinion.

By stark contrast, I provided links showing the USA suffered through three, not one, not two, but three Recessions during Ike's 8 years in office, that his economy produced one of the worst jobs creating records in the past century and that the working man in America was so opposed to him and his Party that every major labor union in the country endorsed his right hand man's Dem opponent in 1960.

You got anything to refute the actual data, the verifiable record of results and the historical facts about that yet? Or do you only have your recommendation to watch a couple of episodes of Happy Days to see how much fun it looked like Ritchie and The Fonz were having at the time?

Who cares. Eisenhower is ancient history. Saying he's representative of the modern Republican Party makes about as much sense as saying the Democrats who held back Civil Rights reforms in the 1950's and 1960's are representative of the Democratic Party today. Maximum marginal tax rates during the Eisenhower administration were 91%, for goodness sake. The economy, coincidentally or not, did take off when Kennedy cut tax rates, to 70% for the top bracket. While I wasn't alive when Eisenhower was president, I suspect he didn't do a bad job compared to the others. According to the history books, you can attribute the recessions to Fed policy, not the fact that the president was a Republican.

In my book the only great president during our adult lifetimes was Ronald Reagan, and Clinton during his second term was the only good one. Again coincidentally or not, GDP grew more during their terms than other modern Presidents. But it's their policies and their abilities to work across the aisle that set them above the rest. George H. W. Bush wasn't bad either. He was handicapped by when he came to the office in relation to the economic cycle.

[JustTK]

TK, I just showed you that you have no data to back that up.

Take your worker in Colombia versus El Salvador where the dollar is used versus a native currency.
So are you for people being poorer? And then there is this bullshit about USA oppression? The truth is the USA has done a better job of managing its currency than Colombia has and almost all other parts of the world. Only Europe and the Euro can come close.

And BRICS? China is the largest economy in BRICS, and their currency is propped up and pegged to the dollar.

Everything with you is the USA abuses other nations when the truth is so many countries print up money to solve their problems thus devaluing their currency.

The USA has never defaulted on its debt. Your blaming the USA lets those nations and their shitty monetary policies off the hook.

There are plenty of instances of American policy fucking countries up. Maybe you can name a few where the USA is actually guilty of doing something wrong versus just blaming us for everything.

I have no data to back it up? Back what up exactly? TBH I have no idea what you are talking abot there.

Colombia v El Salvador. Again, no idea what claim you are trying to make. Just a random story without any clear purpose.

About the dollar bing a strong currency and others being weak. All of this was bcos of the petrodollar. US economy and dollar has been supported by US bullying of other countries in to mandaory use of dollar to buy oil. Its nothing more than that. But those days are over. Now Saudi is, France, Japan, Brazil, Russia, China, 20 countiries are all chooisng to ditch the dollar. So that USA can no longer bully them.

"Maybe you can name a few where the USA is actually guilty of doing something wrong" - you serious? Whch week? Just this past week I can name 3.

1 USA bulying Mexico bcos govt wants to buy operate state owned power plants. USA wants the Mex energy industry open to US corporate exploitation.

2 USA bullying Saudi bcos Russia and China have brokered peace deals with Syria and Iran. USA does not want peace, it wants constant militray oppression of Iran and Syria.

3. USA bullying UN Sec Council not to open investigation in to casue of Nord Stream pipeline terrorism. Its obvious why USA doesn't want this bcos it committed a gross terrorist action against soverign infrastructure and caused huge environmental and financial damage.

Its every week. It seems ever clearer that the USA is a sinking ship, no different to any other fallen empire. Its is getting desperate to hold on to power, that is clear in its ever more belligerent and authoritarian stance, both domestically and internationally. Yet it can do nothing to change it. The tide has turned. Thank goodness.

[The Cane]

Out of the 623,715 USA military fatalities during the 20th and 21st centuries, 602,450 occurred under Democrat Presidents:

https://www.statista.com/statistics/...-1775-present/

Most of the 21,267 deaths under Republicans occurred in Vietnam, when President Nixon was extracting us from that conflict, which LBJ started.

So Democrat Presidents are responsible for over 95% of the deaths of our young men and women.

Democrats are a bloodthirsty lot. A Democratic president will start a war at the drop of a hat to boost his approval rating and pump money into the economy.

And this post, like all my others on this topic, is satirical. Like I said, there's no cause and effect. For some reason Tooms feels compelled to argue against what I'm labeling as a spurious correlation. I do not believe Democrats are any more responsible for war deaths than Republicans.

Yes, it is curious that Tooms is compelled to label the Civil War as a Republican War. Presumably if he maintains that the present day Republican Party should accept responsibility for the Civil War, then he believes present day Democrats should accept responsibility for slavery and 100 years of Jim Crow and repression afterwards.

Agreed except for the Vietnam War. Only two Congressmen voted against the Gulf of Tonkin resolution, so it's not fair to pin the War entirely on LBJ. However you mischaracterize Eisenhower's role. Only nine out of 58,220 American casualties in Vietnam occurred during the Eisenhower administration.

https://www.archives.gov/research/mi...lty-statistics

Now that I've fessed up, it would be nice if you'd admit that Republican Presidents weren't responsible for recessions in 1981, 1990, and 2008, and the 2020 pandemic.

Yours is one of the most disingenuous, intellectually dishonest posts that I have read in a long, long time. Let's have a look at the 10 deadliest wars in American history:

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/am...ars-2014-05-23

1. American Civil War = Republican President: and to say that it doesn't count because it was a different Republican party from a long time ago is a bunch of malarky!

2. World War 2 = Democratic President: America was sucker punched by Japan and Hitler was running amuck around Europe and North Africa. If ever there was a war worth fighting this one was it!

3. World War 1 = Democratic President: we should have dealt with the Hun more appropriately then (was too punitive a peace towards Germany), and had we, then we could have headed off the rise of the Nazis.

4. Vietnam War = Republican President: to be fair this tragic war spanned a number of administrations, but it was a Republican who got us into it (Eisenhower) and a Republican who oversaw our shameful withdrawal in defeat from it (Nixon).

5, Korean War = Republican President: Vietnam wasn't enough no sir so the GOP dragged us kicking and screaming into another east Asian war (excuse me "police action" that would be).

6. Mexican-American War = Democratic President: this war of aggression against Mexico goes even further back than the American Civil War so, if in your view the latter doesn't count against a changed Republican party, how in the world can you hold with a straight face that this one should count against a Democratic party that too has changed over time?

7. Iraq War (there were actually two) = Republican President: need I really say more (the GOP started this mess in search of weapons of mass destruction mission accomplished)?

8. Revolutionary War = Non-partisan President: no comment other than this one goes way, way back!

9. Spanish-American War = Republican President: the GOP was in the White House when this "yellow journalism" fueled war allowed one of the most disgusting Republican war mongers of all time Theodore Roosevelt to rise to fame and eventually seize the Oval Office himself.

10. Afghanistan War = Republican President: well old Georgie boy was at it again, and Donald Chump left Biden standing there holding a stinky bag of shit!

What say ye now my fellows?

[Tiny 12]

How do you take a post where I am complimenting Bernie freaking Sanders on being anti-war and call that a right winger post?

Indeed.

Bernie Sanders is not a Dem. A pro Repub pretend Bothsider vote for a useless in reality Third Party Socialist candidate Bernie Sanders in a national election might as well be an outright vote for the America-hating Repub candidate.

So say Bernie Sanders, the #2 vote getter in the Democratic primaries in 2016 and 2020, had been running against Trump in the general election, instead of Clinton and Biden respectively. Would a vote for Sanders effectively be an outright vote for Trump?

That said, you are wise to view Sanders with suspicion. Like Elvis, I like Sanders' anti-war stance. But if he had become president I would have high tailed it out of the country. I might have ended up one of your neighbors in the Land of Smiles!

[Tiny 12]

Out of the 623,715 USA military fatalities during the 20th and 21st centuries, 602,450 occurred under Democrat Presidents:

https://www.statista.com/statistics/...-1775-present/

Most of the 21,267 deaths under Republicans occurred in Vietnam, when President Nixon was extracting us from that conflict, which LBJ started.

So Democrat Presidents are responsible for over 95% of the deaths of our young men and women.

Democrats are a bloodthirsty lot. A Democratic Party president will start a war at the drop of a hat to boost his approval rating. Democrats know the best way to win an election or pull the country out of a recession is to start a war.

And this post, like all my others on this topic, is satirical. Like I said, there's no cause and effect. For some reason Tooms feels compelled to argue against what I'm labeling as a spurious correlation. I do not believe Democrats are any more responsible for war deaths than Republicans.

Why did the southern Democrats secede from the Union? "State rights, correct?" State rights to do WHAT? Own slaves. They tell you with their own words, in the minutes of state legislatures concerned with secession and in precise comments from the leaders of the Confederacy. Yea the southern Democrats not only fired the first shot but in all other respects caused the Civil War. Slavery was the very motivation of their actions. No amount of "Democrat good / Republican Bad" posturing day after day even back to 1860 in a hooker forum is going to change that (eyeroll).

https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/...ag-and-slavery

Yes, it is curious that Tooms is compelled to label the Civil War as a Republican War. Presumably if he maintains that the present day Republican Party should accept responsibility for the Civil War, then he believes present day Democrats should accept responsibility for slavery and 100 years of Jim Crow and repression afterwards.

BTW, I'm sure Paulie will jump in any minute now to slam you for all those "falsehoods" and point out that Wilson did not "start" WW1, the same with FDR re WW2, Truman re the Korean War and, of course, LBJ re the Vietnam War, where Ike had already replaced French military boots-on-the-ground with USA boots-on-the-ground by 1954, about a year before the Vietnam War officially began by many historian's assessment.

Agreed except for the Vietnam War. Only two Congressmen voted against the Gulf of Tonkin resolution, so it's not fair to pin the War entirely on LBJ. However you mischaracterize Eisenhower's role. Only nine out of 58,220 American casualties in Vietnam occurred during the Eisenhower administration.

https://www.archives.gov/research/mi...lty-statistics

Now that I've cleared that up, it would be nice if you'd admit that Republican Presidents weren't responsible for recessions in 1981, 1990, and 2008, and the 2020 pandemic.

[EihTooms]

How do you take a post where I am complimenting Bernie freaking Sanders on being anti-war and call that a right winger post?

Oh right, I forgot who I was talking about. There is no such thing as an antiwar and prowar party. Everything HAS to be split into Republicans and Democrats.

And all the prowar Dems (Wilson, FDR, Truman, LBJ) do not count. Only the Bushes count. Sigh. Bagdad Bob strikes again.

Republicans bad, Dems good, and the facts do not matter. Hell, that should be your tag line Tooms.

Bernie Sanders is not a Dem. A pro Repub pretend Bothsider vote for a useless in reality Third Party Socialist candidate Bernie Sanders in a national election might as well be an outright vote for the America-hating Repub candidate. But you already know that.

Your post suggested Trump's Repub Party is antwar. They initiated boots-on-the-ground USA combat maneuvers in all of the past three wars in which the USA fought over the past 35 years. Dems? Zero.

LOL. You even praised Repub Trump for not giving the defense industry a Trillion Dollar blowjob but he sure gave a good imitation of giving it a whopping $750 Billion blowjob. What was that worth in blowjob terms? One less stroke at the finish?

BTW, I'm sure Paulie will jump in any minute now to slam you for all those "falsehoods" and point out that Wilson did not "start" WW1, the same with FDR re WW2, Truman re the Korean War and, of course, LBJ re the Vietnam War, where Ike had already replaced French military boots-on-the-ground with USA boots-on-the-ground by 1954, about a year before the Vietnam War officially began by many historian's assessment.

[Elvis 2008]

It doesn't have to replace the USD, simply offer an alternative for abused countries.

TK, I just showed you that you have no data to back that up.

Take your worker in Colombia versus El Salvador where the dollar is used versus a native currency. You take a worker who saves a $1000 a year in Colombia versus El Salvador. Twenty years later, the guy in El Salvador has double what the guy in Colombia does because the Colombian Peso has gone to shit without even taking into account interest. Toss that in and the guy in El Salvador is on the order of 3 to 4 X richer than the guy in Colombia.

So are you for people being poorer? And then there is this bullshit about USA oppression? The truth is the USA has done a better job of managing its currency than Colombia has and almost all other parts of the world. Only Europe and the Euro can come close.

And BRICS? China is the largest economy in BRICS, and their currency is propped up and pegged to the dollar, and you do not see much of it being exchanged in the currency markets because China does not let out that much of it out. If China let the yuan float, it would be devalued in no time.

Everything with you is the USA abuses other nations when the truth is so many countries print up money to solve their problems thus devaluing their currency. All third world countries are good; it is just the USA is evil.

The USA has never defaulted on its debt. Argentina and Venezuela have gone bankrupt like a combined 20 times, and they have not had any crippling wars like Europe or even Asia has had. Your blaming the USA lets those nations and their shitty monetary policies off the hook.

There are plenty of instances of American policy fucking countries up. Maybe you can name a few where the USA is actually guilty of doing something wrong versus just blaming us for everything.

[Elvis 2008]

My "files" examples were reactions to recent Repub Winger posts.

One Repub Winger, Tiny, recently posted this:

Another Repub Winger, Elvis, even more recently posted this:

How do you take a post where I am complimenting Bernie freaking Sanders on being anti-war and call that a right winger post?

Oh right, I forgot who I was talking about. There is no such thing as an antiwar and prowar party. Everything HAS to be split into Republicans and Democrats.

And all the prowar Dems (Wilson, FDR, Truman, LBJ) do not count. Only the Bushes count. Sigh. Bagdad Bob strikes again.

Republicans bad, Dems good, and the facts do not matter. Hell, that should be your tag line Tooms.

[EihTooms]

Would be nice if it were never necessary, or if we didn't need armed police departments or personal self defense, but that's not the real world. And since when did Republicans "start" the "War in Kuwait?" Lolol This was a multi-national, UN sanctioned response to Iraq's invasion. Iraq was repeatedly warned to get out but refused. Today Kuwait is an important partner in the region, and our relations with them are good and cooperative.

https://mei.edu/publications/beyond-...ty-partnership

It's also worth asking what the future would have looked like had Lincoln not acted to preserve the Union. We likely would not be the great nation we are today. How would the world wars have turned out? Though a "Republican Lolol" (whatever that meant in 1861) Lincoln's place among America's greatest heros is deserved..

My "files" examples were reactions to recent Repub Winger posts.

One Repub Winger, Tiny, recently posted this:

However, in the end, I believe the researchers came up with a spurious correlation, like Tooms' spurious correlations between Republican Presidents and recessions, lower GDP growth, higher unemployment, and a pandemic. Or mine between Democratic Presidents and the number of Americans who've died in wars that started when they were in office. There's no cause and effect.

I notice you, already a highly suspect advertant or inadvertent pro Repub Winger Bothsider / Neithersider, offered no objections to another Repub Winger alluding to dead Americans in wars REGARDLESS whether or not the Dem in the WH had anything whatsoever to do with "starting" it. No problem with you in him doing that, right?

And you will now please notice something you presumably failed to notice or refused to notice in my "files" examples to which you devoted not one but two outraged objections replies; I did not say anything about wars "started" by the POTUS at the time.

Another Repub Winger, Elvis, even more recently posted this:

To me, it is not even Democrat or Republican any more, it is pro or antiwar party presidents. Bernie Sanders is anti-war party and you can be damned sure he will never get a nomination. That is what this is really all about. A trump victory means no more trillion dollar blowjobs to the defense industry.

The clear inference being Dems are "pro war" while Trump's Repub Party is "antiwar". Lololol.

Please note that TWO recent presidents ordered boots-on-the-ground combat by USA military in the THREE most recent wars in which the USA military fought; Kuwait, Afghanistan and Iraq.

Neither of them were Dems.

Biden has not ordered such a thing.

Obama did not order such a thing.

Clinton did not order such a thing.

Carter did not order such a thing.

Again, not one word of objection from you about that mischaracterization of which Party is pro war and which Party is antiwar. Interesting, isn't it?

Next.

Now, the only thing I recall you providing that suggested those Happy Days under Ike were good for the working man was some opinion piece where the dude who wrote it said so without any linked data to substantiate that opinion.

By stark contrast, I provided links showing the USA suffered through three, not one, not two, but three Recessions during Ike's 8 years in office, that his economy produced one of the worst jobs creating records in the past century and that the working man in America was so opposed to him and his Party that every major labor union in the country endorsed his right hand man's Dem opponent in 1960.

You got anything to refute the actual data, the verifiable record of results and the historical facts about that yet? Or do you only have your recommendation to watch a couple of episodes of Happy Days to see how much fun it looked like Ritchie and The Fonz were having at the time?

[Paulie97]

Would be nice if it were never necessary, or if we didn't need armed police departments or personal self defense, but that's not the real world. And since when did Republicans "start" the "War in Kuwait?" Lolol This was a multi-national, UN sanctioned response to Iraq's invasion. Iraq was repeatedly warned to get out but refused. Today Kuwait is an important partner in the region, and our relations with them are good and cooperative.

https://mei.edu/publications/beyond-...ty-partnership

It's also worth asking what the future would have looked like had Lincoln not acted to preserve the Union. We likely would not be the great nation we are today. How would the world wars have turned out? Though a "Republican Lolol" (whatever that meant in 1861) Lincoln's place among America's greatest heros is deserved.

But anyway I got enough going here to keep Tooms scrambling and typing away for the best part of a morning or afternoon, and that's the objective. There's plenty enough hyper-partisan websites and far left anti-war hogwash online for him to come up with something to ramble on about.

[Paulie97]

Why did the southern Democrats secede from the Union? "State rights, correct?" State rights to do WHAT? Own slaves. They tell you with their own words, in the minutes of state legislatures concerned with secession and in precise comments from the leaders of the Confederacy. Yea the southern Democrats not only fired the first shot but in all other respects caused the Civil War. Slavery was the very motivation of their actions. No amount of "Democrat good / Republican Bad" posturing day after day even back to 1860 in a hooker forum is going to change that (eyeroll).

https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/...ag-and-slavery