More than one freeper has posted the bs line “he would be a Republican today”. Candy land nonsense. The man was a leftist and genuine scumbag.
A liberal Democrat? yes... but if only liberal democrats were more like him:
1. Life member (honorary) of the NRA
2. War hero/pro military (not a particularly good officer but who did act heroically under fire.
3. Ran on a platform to “end the missile gap” i.e. raise military spending.
4. Was “anti-communist”.
5. Cut taxes to simulate the economy.
While he may not be as conservative as some say he “was” more conservative than what you imply...
100% agree.
Sadly I've seen several posts on this thread gushing over JFK. Post #4 (gushing over JFK's speech about going to the moon) demonstrates why our side is hurt by history revisionism and loses the PR battle to the liberal media. JFK gave a speech in 1960 saying we should go to the moon. 9 years later, under Nixon, we got there. According to the media, JFK deserves 100% of the credit. The opposite is true with Bin Laden. In 2001, George W. Bush launched the war on terror, fought for "enhanced interrogation techniques" like water-boarding against constant liberal opposition, and vowed to get Bin Laden. 10 years later, under Obama, we finally took out Bin Laden. But NOW, according to the liberal media, Obama deserved 100% of the credit. In either case, it's the Democrat President who is given full credit, regardless of whether their involvement is at the beginning or the end of the landmark event. Our side is all too happy to perpetuate that propaganda.
>> We even have a freeper who worships JFK as a conservative <<
With people on the right and left constantly worshiping JFK as a deity when he accomplished nothing, he gets my vote for most overrated president ever. The "he was assassinated so of course he's going to be elevated as larger than life" excuse doesn't hold water either. That's yet another example of out side losing the PR battle. When's the last time you heard a Democrat OR a talking head in the media gush over the Presidency of James A. Garfield or William McKinley? Both of them were assassinated, and I would argue McKinley did far more in his presidency than JFK did.
>> Even if Illinois went to Nixon JFK still would have won because he carried Texas because of LBJ. So he did not steal the election. <<
JFK did not "win" Texas because of LBJ. Even with an enormously powerful heavyweight Texas pol on the ticket, he was barely competing with Nixon in Texas. JFK carried Texas by a razor thin margin because he got tons of "undocumented" immigrants to vote for him on the border counties. He overwhelmingly won the "Hispanic" vote in Texas in 1960, and it's extremely doubtful that those votes all came from legal Texas citizens. You can go back and look at a county-by-county election map of Texas in 1960 to verify this. Nixon won the votes of lawful Texas citizens. Yet another example of Democrats winning elections with illegally cast votes.