LOVE THE TRUMP DOCTRINES AND POLICIES

[alaskanseminole]

Ak, to test the validity of those polls, where did each rank LBJ, the dem icon responsible for 55,000 US deaths in a pointless war, and 2-3 million south Asians?

fair question. Looks like LBJ ranked highly in both surveys despite Vietnam. C-SPAN had him #11 in 2021 and the 2024 Presidential Greatness Project had him #9. So clearly the scholars aren't ignoring Vietnam. In fact, C-SPAN ranked LBJ 39th out of 44 in international relations, which was easily one of his worst categories.

https://www.c-span.org/presidentsurvey2021/

Presidential Greatness Project

presidentialgreatnessproject.com

BEst I can gather is they're weighing the entire presidency. Vietnam was an YUGE failure but LBJ also gets very high marks for the Civil Rights Act, Voting Rights Act, and Medicare/Medicaid. So I'd say LBJ maybe reinforces my point...these rankings are subjective assessments of an entire presidency, not a determination that everything a president did was good. That's kinda the subtle point I was making to Scrubbers...too many people put Trump on this god-like pedistal (he can do no wrong) and I'm not sure (with him) if it's a game of trigger the liberals or if he truly admires Trump like the OP.

 

[Riveting]

fair question. Looks like LBJ ranked highly in both surveys despite Vietnam. C-SPAN had him #11 in 2021 and the 2024 Presidential Greatness Project had him #9. So clearly the scholars aren't ignoring Vietnam. In fact, C-SPAN ranked LBJ 39th out of 44 in international relations, which was easily one of his worst categories.

https://www.c-span.org/presidentsurvey2021/

Presidential Greatness Project

presidentialgreatnessproject.com

BEst I can gather is they're weighing the entire presidency. Vietnam was an YUGE failure but LBJ also gets very high marks for the Civil Rights Act, Voting Rights Act, and Medicare/Medicaid. So I'd say LBJ maybe reinforces my point...these rankings are subjective assessments of an entire presidency, not a determination that everything a president did was good. That's kinda the subtle point I was making to Scrubbers...too many people put Trump on this god-like pedistal (he can do no wrong) and I'm not sure (with him) if it's a game of trigger the liberals or if he truly admires Trump like the OP.

Those rankings show the intrinsic racism of the liberal academic hacks who voted highly for LBJ. Upwards of 3 million nonwhites die in a pointless war but yet LBJ isn't ranked last?

They were just anonymous brown-skinned people so why does it matter, right?

 

[Jerome Silberman]

Those rankings show the intrinsic racism of the liberal academic hacks who voted highly for LBJ. Upwards of 3 million nonwhites die in a pointless war but yet LBJ isn't ranked last?

They were just anonymous brown-skinned people so why does it matter, right?

I think this comment says a whole more about you than the "liberal academic hacks" you're trying to diminish through wild assumptions.

 

[Scrubby]

Scrubs, you've given me a collection of X posts from usernames I've mostly never heard of, making all kinds of various claims, as your proof? X isn't a source...it's just where you go to find claims that then need to be independently verified. Would you say that X is more or less reputable than presidential-scholars? The 2024 Presidential Greatness Project ranked Trump 45th of 45, while C-SPAN's 2021 historians survey put him 41st of 44.

That said, from the few I looked up, it seems you've found a few legit accomplishments (and I support some of those accomplishments), mixed them with some exaggerated claims and questionable numbers and then made this weird sychophant-style leap from "these are things Trump has accomplished" to "therefore he's the best president in modern history." Oh, and the OP is a very odd, cult-like post. Who does that at 4am?

I'm still getting caught up from the weekend, but I think Urohawk's post in the other thread captured another important part of the issue...you can't evaluate a presidency solely by assembling a highlight reel of policies or outcomes you like. The person, the conduct and the consequences matter too. SEE: Urohawk's Post I think @Riveting does the best job of trying to seperate the man (which he claims not to like) from the policies (which he mostly supports). I'm still trying to figure out if you truly believe the over-the-top stuff or if you're just trying to trigger the resident liberals. I hear you're a normal guy on non-political type forums.

"The director of the FBI is not a valid source for crime statistics" is a fascinating take, Alaska. Very fascinating.

The fact that you "haven't heard of" Kash Patel or secretary Doug Burgum is an interesting admission, at least..

 

[Riveting]

I think this comment says a whole more about you than the "liberal academic hacks" you're trying to diminish through wild assumptions.

What assumption is wild from your lib viewpoint? That they discounted 3 million deaths of nonwhites in Asia?

 

[alaskanseminole]

"The director of the FBI is not a valid source for crime statistics" is a fascinating take, Alaska. Very fascinating.

The fact that you "haven't heard of" Kash Patel or secretary Doug Burgum is an interesting admission, at least..

Okay, fair enough. In my defense, I said "mostly," so I probably should have said "some" and any drivel coming from Jesse Water should automatically be disregarded. Can't wait for him to leave Fox like Tucker and then starting telling everyone...well, I was just pandering to my audience. I didn't mean any of that.

I digress, my point stands. An X post isn't evidence simply because somebody posted it on X. Whether it's Kash Patel, Karoline Leavitt or that hack Jesse Watters any claim still needs to be independently verified. I think you should read this: Urohawk's Post

 

[Scrubby]

 

[Jerome Silberman]

What assumption is wild from your lib viewpoint? That they discounted 3 million deaths of nonwhites in Asia?

How do you know that?

 

[dpic73]

Americans LOSING!!

 

[Scrubby]

Americans LOSING!!

View attachment 1405911

You told me there would be endless inflation when trump introduced his tariff policy. At this point in biden's term we were at nearly 10% CPI. Under trump core inflation is floating at roughly 2.5% discounting fuel. Trump is winning massively, both in legislation and in the courts. MAGA!!

 

[dpic73]

You told me there would be endless inflation when trump introduced his tariff policy. At this point in biden's term we were at nearly 10% CPI. Under trump core inflation is floating at roughly 2.5% discounting fuel. Trump is winning massively, both in legislation and in the courts. MAGA!!

I did not tell you that but I am telling you that 50% tariffs on many Canadian products including vehicles, car parts, construction materials, paper, spirits, hockey equipment, baked goods, dairy products, honey, clothing, motorcycles, plants and electronics among many others will cost Americans 50% more than they did before. This is not #WINNING

 

[Scrubby]

I did not tell you that but I am telling you that 50% tariffs on many Canadian products including vehicles, car parts, construction materials, paper, spirits, hockey equipment, baked goods, dairy products, honey, clothing, motorcycles, plants and electronics among many others will cost Americans 50% more than they did before. This is not #WINNING

Fake news dpic. You were wrong last time and you're wrong now. The trump wins will continue.

 

[dpic73]

Fake news dpic. You were wrong last time and you're wrong now. The trump wins will continue.

Careful. You might take over as the boards best deflector from Riveting, harvard boy. You don't wanna be the boards biggest liar, troll AND deflector, do you?

 

[Scrubby]

Why you quoting that loser to me? He literally thought kamala was going to win Iowa



MAGA will continue racking up Ws!

 

[Hawkedup]

Why you quoting that loser to me? He literally thought kamala was going to win Iowa



MAGA will continue racking up Ws!

Where is your link to verify your lies clown boy? And i have no clue what thus Kamala thing is you are referencing but I really couldn’t care less because your are a lying, deflecting piece of human excrement. So kindly go **** yourself dip ****.

 

[Scrubby]

Where is your link to verify your lies clown boy? And i have no clue what thus Kamala thing is you are referencing but I really couldn’t care less because your are a lying, deflecting piece of human excrement. So kindly go **** yourself dip ****.

Why so triggered? I can't link you to a site that no longer exists, my guy.. you know this, but you also know you were in the Ann selzer thread circle jerking the other village idiots over the idea that kamala coconut was on her way to winning Iowa. That poll was only off by 19 or so points BTW

 

[Hawkedup]

View attachment 1406066

Why so triggered? I can't link you to a site that no longer exists, my guy.. you know this, but you also know you were in the Ann selzer thread circle jerking the other village idiots over the idea that kamala coconut was on her way to winning Iowa. That poll was only off by 19 or so points BTW

I wasn’t. And again you dumb mother ******. Not the link I’m looking for liar boy.

 

[Riveting]

.

 

[Riveting]

How do you know that?

Because they didn't rate LBJ as the worst prez.

 

[Jerome Silberman]

Because they didn't rate LBJ as the worst prez.

Are you still having trouble identifying the wild assumption you've made?

 

[Riveting]

Are you still having trouble identifying the wild assumption you've made?

I'm having trouble identifying the wild assumption you mistakenly think I made, so why don't you say it?

 

[Jerome Silberman]

I'm having trouble identifying the wild assumption you mistakenly think I made, so why don't you say it?

Because they didn't rate LBJ as the worst prez.

I think you're a dishonest man riveting.

 

[Riveting]

I think you're a dishonest man riveting.

What is dishonest in your confused viewpoint about saying the academics who didn't rate LBJ the worst prez discounted the deaths of 3 million asian people?

Was any other president responsible for anywhere close to that number of deaths?

 

[Jerome Silberman]

What is dishonest in your confused viewpoint about saying the academics who didn't rate LBJ the worst prez discounted the deaths of 3 million asian people?

Was any other president responsible for anywhere close to that number of deaths?

You're dishonest because you continue the canard. Your assumptions are apparent.

Best of luck dealing with whatever makes a man think and act like you do.

 

[Riveting]

You're dishonest because you continue the canard. Your assumptions are apparent.

If they are apparent, you should be able to list them instead of ducking the question.

You have backed yourself into a corner and can't get out.

 

[alaskanseminole]

@Riveting Again, the C-SPAN survey had LBJ #11 overall, BUT #39 out of 44 in international relations (which was his worst category and pretty clearly reflects the Vietnam failure). Keep in mind, though, the war started under Kennedy...LBJ inherited it and I'll give you he escalated it (significantly). At the same time, LBJ ranked #2 in the cat of "Pursued Equal Justice for All," due to the Civil Rights Act, Voting Rights Act and other accomplishments. So IMO the survey shows historians did heavily penalize LBJ for Vietnam...they just didn't let Vietnam completely erase everything else he accomplished as president.

But this is where your argument goes off the rails, "the rankings show the intrinsic racism of the liberal academic hacks who voted highly for LBJ." What in tarnation is that about? You can argue LBJ's Vietnam policy was catastrophic. You can argue historians should weigh the civilian death toll more heavily. Heck, you can even disagree with the methodology of presidential rankings altogether. But, dude, if you're going to jump from "I don't like how they weighted his record" to "these historians are racist" dontcha think that requires a bit more eviddence? No offense, but you sound like a liberal "that's racist." (or was that the passive point )

For me it's a weird take because you have a legitimate historical criticism buried inside a pretty ridiculous argument.

 

[Riveting]

@Riveting Again, the C-SPAN survey had LBJ #11 overall, BUT #39 out of 44 in international relations (which was his worst category and pretty clearly reflects the Vietnam failure). Keep in mind, though, the war started under Kennedy...LBJ inherited it and I'll give you he escalated it (significantly). At the same time, LBJ ranked #2 in the cat of "Pursued Equal Justice for All," due to the Civil Rights Act, Voting Rights Act and other accomplishments. So IMO the survey shows historians did heavily penalize LBJ for Vietnam...they just didn't let Vietnam completely erase everything else he accomplished as president.

But this is where your argument goes off the rails, "the rankings show the intrinsic racism of the liberal academic hacks who voted highly for LBJ." What in tarnation is that about? You can argue LBJ's Vietnam policy was catastrophic. You can argue historians should weigh the civilian death toll more heavily. Heck, you can even disagree with the methodology of presidential rankings altogether. But, dude, if you're going to jump from "I don't like how they weighted his record" to "these historians are racist" dontcha think that requires a bit more eviddence? No offense, but you sound like a liberal "that's racist." (or was that the passive point )

For me it's a weird take because you have a legitimate historical criticism buried inside a pretty ridiculous argument.

Ak, I was simply using the left's argument that whites have intrinsic racism, such that that the obvious discounting of the lives of 3M nonwhites showed that the voters in those dubious polls were intrinsically racist.

What else could explain the discounting?

What other president caused so much death and suffering - or even came close?

 

[Jerome Silberman]

If they are apparent, you should be able to list them instead of ducking the question.

You have backed yourself into a corner and can't get out.

That's a fairly accurate description of conversing with an idiot. But, it doesn't change the fact that you're either being dishonest or really are too stupid to understand that assuming the intentions and motivations of others to fit your personal worldview is an assumption.


Either way it's not very interesting.

 

[Riveting]

That's a fairly accurate description of conversing with an idiot. But, it doesn't change the fact that you're either being dishonest or really are too stupid to understand that assuming the intentions and motivations of others to fit your personal worldview is an assumption.


Either way it's not very interesting.

Don't be so hard on yourself. I think of you as confused, but not as an idiot.

I said the voters in those polls must be "intrinsically" racist, which means they did not have intentions or motivations, but rather that their racism is part of their worldview and they don't even know it.

How else would you explain their discounting of 3M deaths of Asians?

 

[Jerome Silberman]

Don't be so hard on yourself. I think of you as confused, but not as an idiot.

I said the voters in those polls must be "intrinsically" racist, which means they did not have intentions or motivations, but rather that their racism is part of their worldview and they don't even know it.

How else would you explain their discounting of 3M deaths of Asians?

This is called begging the question Riveting. It's a logical fallacy, usually used by unscrupulous people that think they're clever.

My opinion of you remains the same.

 

[Riveting]

This is called begging the question Riveting. It's a logical fallacy, usually used by unscrupulous people that think they're clever.

My opinion of you remains the same.

I don't care about your opinion of me, but I am interested to know what you think caused the voters in those polls not to list LBJ last given the 3M deaths and immense suffering his pointless war caused. How does that not completely and vastly outweigh any good he might have accomplished?

No other prez comes close to that for death and suffering.

 

[alaskanseminole]

Ak, I was simply using the left's argument that whites have intrinsic racism, such that that the obvious discounting of the lives of 3M nonwhites showed that the voters in those dubious polls were intrinsically racist.

What else could explain the discounting?

What other president caused so much death and suffering - or even came close?

Riv, I still think youre conflating two completely different questions. Was Vietnam a YUGE human catastrophe, and should that weigh more heavily in evaluating LBJ? Absofreakinglutely! But how does that lead (you) to "the historians who ranked LBJ highly are intrinsically racist"???

Seriously, what exactly do you think the C-SPAN survey is "discounting"? LBJ was ranked 39th out of 44 in international relations. Again, that's his worst category by a nile. At the same time he was ranked #2 in "Pursued Equal Justice for All." IMO, that's not ignoring Vietnam. That's literally them accounting for Vietnam while also weighing it against the very successful things he accomplished domestically. Was the Civil RIghts Act not really a big deal? Maybe you're racist for not giving enough credit for passing it. Maybe it's part of your world view.

 

[Riveting]

Riv, I still think youre conflating two completely different questions. Was Vietnam a YUGE human catastrophe, and should that weigh more heavily in evaluating LBJ? Absofreakinglutely! But how does that lead (you) to "the historians who ranked LBJ highly are intrinsically racist"???

Seriously, what exactly do you think the C-SPAN survey is "discounting"? LBJ was ranked 39th out of 44 in international relations. Again, that's his worst category by a nile. At the same time he was ranked #2 in "Pursued Equal Justice for All." IMO, that's not ignoring Vietnam. That's literally them accounting for Vietnam while also weighing it against the very successful things he accomplished domestically. Was the Civil RIghts Act not really a big deal? Maybe you're racist for not giving enough credit for passing it. Maybe it's part of your world view.

I didn't say the CRA was not a big deal. It helped end decades/centuries of dem racist policies including slavery and Jim Crow. It even caused dem icon and mentor Robert KKK Byrd, who filibustered against it, to miraculously stop being a racist after it passed.

But by ranking LBJ 11th, the voters are saying the CRA outweighs 3M+ deaths and immense suffering and ruined lives. I don't think it comes close to outweighing all of that- and I'll be surprised if you do after you think about it.

 

[alaskanseminole]

But by ranking LBJ 11th, the voters are saying the CRA outweighs 3M+ deaths and immense suffering and ruined lives. I don't think it comes close to outweighing all of that- and I'll be surprised if you do after you think about it.

Now we're getting somewhere. Once we remove the unfounded racism claims, we can actually look at this objectively/measurably. The real question is whether LBJ's domestic accomplishments were significant enough to offset what was arguably one of the worst foreign-policy failures in American history. Let's have THAT talk rather than pretending we can infer the racial attitudes of 142 historians.

...that said, I'll have to ponder it a bit, because I'm not sure where I land w/o thinking through the relative magnitude of both. Good thing to think about either way, no?

 

[Riveting]

Now we're getting somewhere. Once we remove the unfounded racism claims, we can actually look at this objectively/measurably. The real question is whether LBJ's domestic accomplishments were significant enough to offset what was arguably one of the worst foreign-policy failures in American history. Let's have THAT talk rather than pretending we can infer the racial attitudes of 142 historians.

...that said, I'll have to ponder it a bit, because I'm not sure where I land w/o thinking through the relative magnitude of both. Good thing to think about either way, no?

I said nothing about the racist "attitudes" of 142 historians. I said they must be intrinsically racist, meaning they don't recognize their own racism.

 

[alaskanseminole]

I said nothing about the racist "attitudes" of 142 historians. I said they must be intrinsically racist, meaning they don't recognize their own racism.

So we're not done with the "racist" stuff. Le sigh...

"Intrinsically racist" doesn't really change the problem. You're still asserting an underlying racial bias that you haven't proved or even given evidence of. And aren't you doing essentially the same thing in reverse by discounting the significance of LBJ's domestic accomplishments? The Civil Rights Act, Voting Rights Act, Medicare, Medicaid, etc. weren't exactly footnotes, riv. C-SPAN ranked him #2 in pursuing equal justice for all for a reason. So are you intrinsically racist?

 

[Jerome Silberman]

So we're not done with the "racist" stuff. Le sigh...

"Intrinsically racist" doesn't really change the problem. You're still asserting an underlying racial bias that you haven't proved or even given evidence of. And aren't you doing essentially the same thing in reverse by discounting the significance of LBJ's domestic accomplishments? The Civil Rights Act, Voting Rights Act, Medicare, Medicaid, etc. weren't exactly footnotes, riv. C-SPAN ranked him #2 in pursuing equal justice for all for a reason. So are you intrinsically racist?

He's not having an honest conversation.