Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 09-24-2019, 12:23 PM
 
776 posts, read 392,309 times
Reputation: 672

Advertisements

Republicans are nationalists and Democrats are internationalists. Nationalists include both isolationists and neocons and internationalists include both Trumanites and hippies.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-24-2019, 12:25 PM
 
12,268 posts, read 6,442,637 times
Reputation: 9418
Quote:
Originally Posted by travis t View Post
Yes, both Truman (D,MO) and Ike(R,KS) sent 'advisory' military troops. The real ramping up of troop deployment did not begin until 1963 under President Kennedy (D,MA). It was a bipartisan project.

The partisan backbiting and historical revisionism really gets to be tiresome.
Kennedy had been dead for quite a while before the ground troops were sent. No revisionism.
https://www.thoughtco.com/1965-u-s-s...ietnam-1779379

Last edited by gmagoo; 09-24-2019 at 12:26 PM.. Reason: not finished
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-24-2019, 12:31 PM
 
Location: Clyde Hill, WA
6,061 posts, read 2,000,729 times
Reputation: 2167
Quote:
Originally Posted by craigiri View Post
After Ike saw and warned against the Military Industrial Complex....the powers of industry did not listen. Republicans in the 1960's first became the party of "NO CIVIL OR VOTING RIGHTS" and had to align with power and money. The MIC and Religious Right were the two keys to the city for them.

Americans are also, by and large, a violent people who can be whipped up into paranoia and unlimited spending on "Security". Republicans like unlimited money from fear.
Nope, wrong answer. The 'religious right' did not become a force until the mid to late-70s, more than a decade after Ike was off the scene. Nixon was not religious right; he was to the left of Obama, and was very strong on civil rights. In 1968 when he took office, 70% of black students in the South were in entirely segregated schools (even though this had been ruled unconstitutional in 1954). When he left office, the 70% figure had declined to 8%.

Military spending as a percentage of the federal budget was over 40% under JFK. Today it's under 20%.

The one point you get correct is about people being "whipped up into paranoia...." You nailed that one.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-24-2019, 12:39 PM
 
Location: Clyde Hill, WA
6,061 posts, read 2,000,729 times
Reputation: 2167
Quote:
Originally Posted by gmagoo View Post
Kennedy had been dead for quite a while before the ground troops were sent. No revisionism.
https://www.thoughtco.com/1965-u-s-s...ietnam-1779379
Overview of Vietnam War, Swarthmore College Peace Collection

Quote:
Chronology:
"1961 - Newly elected President John F. Kennedy continues aid to South Vietnam.
1963 - 16,000 American military personnel in South Vietnam, up from Eisenhower's 900 advisors. Kennedy assassinated. Vice President Johnson becomes president.
You can play partisan games by splitting hairs over 'advisory troops,' 'ground troops,' etc. The actual fact is that we were involved in Vietnam going back to the Truman admin, and it was a BI-PARTISAN affair. If anything, it was more of a D project than an R project.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-24-2019, 02:56 PM
 
Location: Long Island
32,816 posts, read 19,434,384 times
Reputation: 9618
Quote:
Originally Posted by gmagoo View Post
Kennedy had been dead for quite a while before the ground troops were sent. No revisionism.
https://www.thoughtco.com/1965-u-s-s...ietnam-1779379
false


FDR stupidly agreed during the Yalta talks to split the country in two (along with Korea)
the talks at Yalta, FDR, Churchill and Stalin, divided up the war booty ...and what you got was N/S Korea, N/S Vietnam (which the south was given back to the French), E/W Germany


Ike, send troops top help the French evacuate, and then advisors and support troops... we helped the French withdraw in 54, and our first American casualty was in 57
Kennedy escalated it with trickle in troops, Kennedy was afraid after the bay of pigs (lost his balls)
LBJ's hands were tied by the time he was appointed..(I think his hands were very dirty)
Nixon finally brought us home (after trying for a few years to win)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-24-2019, 03:48 PM
 
776 posts, read 392,309 times
Reputation: 672
In the 1790s, (18)00s, and 1810s, the Federalists wanted war with France and peace with Britain while the Democratic-Republicans wanted war with Britain and peace with France. In other words, the parties have always disagreed on which wars to support, but not on war or peace as principles.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-24-2019, 04:30 PM
 
20,955 posts, read 8,632,436 times
Reputation: 14050
Quote:
Originally Posted by travis t View Post
Nope, wrong answer. The 'religious right' did not become a force until the mid to late-70s, more than a decade after Ike was off the scene. Nixon was not religious right; he was to the left of Obama, and was very strong on civil rights. In 1968 when he took office, 70% of black students in the South were in entirely segregated schools (even though this had been ruled unconstitutional in 1954). When he left office, the 70% figure had declined to 8%.

Military spending as a percentage of the federal budget was over 40% under JFK. Today it's under 20%.

The one point you get correct is about people being "whipped up into paranoia...." You nailed that one.
I think perhaps you are young? Or wrong?

BARRY GOLDWATER
"“Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the [Republican] party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them.”

Now, Travis, you'd have to have the opinion that Barry picked up this out of thin air well over a decade before.
He didn't.

The Religious Right has come in many forms. Most tied that in with the "Southern Strategy", both of which appealed to racism and fundamentalism.

"Richard Nixon brought evangelicals into the Republican Party by focusing his campaigns on cultural issues and by using Billy Graham as a liaison to conservative Protestants. The growth of the heavily evangelical suburban Sunbelt increased evangelicals’ political power and induced the Nixon administration to make a special appeal for their vote. Nixon used White House church services, evangelical events, and interference in the internal politics of the Southern Baptist Convention to win the support of conservative Protestants."
(Certainly you know when Nixon was POTUS, right?)

A Rose by Any other name...is the same.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy
"the Southern strategy was a Republican Party electoral strategy to increase political support among white voters in the South by appealing to racism against African Americans"

"the Republican Party had served as the "vehicle of white supremacy in the South", particularly during the Goldwater campaign and the presidential elections of 1968 and 1972, made it difficult for the Republican Party to win back the support of black voters"


It sure appears as if facts and history might dispute your claims...but I ask you to read more and think.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-24-2019, 04:36 PM
 
20,955 posts, read 8,632,436 times
Reputation: 14050
Quote:
Originally Posted by travis t View Post
Overview of Vietnam War, Swarthmore College Peace Collection

You can play partisan games by splitting hairs over 'advisory troops,' 'ground troops,' etc. The actual fact is that we were involved in Vietnam going back to the Truman admin, and it was a BI-PARTISAN affair. If anything, it was more of a D project than an R project.
It was neither as you are correct - IKE was perhaps the biggest warmonger in this case and strongly considered using Nuclear Weapons against budding Commie countries in the early 1950's.

TO HIS CREDIT, he didn't - but there are transcripts of his being fully involved in Vietnam.

After that it really had a mind of its own - like our current wars. No one wants to admit defeat, so they throw good money after bad. No one wants to admit a mistake.

One truism - for sure - 100%.

DEMOCRATS AND LIBERALS protested the War and, in fact, put peace way ahead of politics (which is why McGovern and Dove Democrats gave up a few elections!).....

It's nice when a party actually has a stance. Muskie and McGovern and others in 1972 on the Dem. side were fully Anti-War.

Politically speaking there was only one part that made Anti-War a full part of their platform. Nixon, of course, won re-election by promising to get out of Vietnam in 1968 with "honor and victory".

"a campaign promise Nixon made in 1968: "I pledge to you that we shall have an honorable end to the war in Vietnam." ... According to the plan, within sixty days of the ceasefire, the North Vietnamese would release all U.S. prisoners, and all U.S. troops would withdraw from South Vietnam."

Well, being as we left in 1974=1975 and not on good terms (after Nixon resigned), I don't think anyone can say he kept his promise.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-24-2019, 04:54 PM
 
Location: Inland Empire
472 posts, read 322,333 times
Reputation: 1013
Says here that Republicans are the party of freedom and common sense.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hxiloUSdY0E
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-24-2019, 06:17 PM
 
Location: Pine Grove,AL
29,471 posts, read 16,449,350 times
Reputation: 5975
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winterfall8324 View Post
I know everything about the Zimmerman telegram, the Lusitania, and everything else.

The idea that the Germans wanted to go after the US is beyond insane, us helping the British and French win destroyed the middle east and central asia, and lead to the majority of the problems we face today.

The reason we joined was to become an imperial power, it had nothing to do with protecting ourselves.
Not only did the Germans bomb an american ammunitions factory, they planted military vessels off the US coast along the Atlantic and Gulf coast and attacked American ships as well as French and British ships with plenty of US citizens on them.

If you dont like the end result of war, fine, but please stop saying we had "no reason" to be in it. We absolutely did.

again, a history book would help you, but honestly, it seems your problem is the end result, not the act of going to war.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:45 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top