“JFK USED McCarthy to get elected. When it came time for JFK to reciprocate when McCarthy was in need, he was out of there. A no-class user of people. The whole damn family were entitled users. You have to get over your hero worship for the guy. He was truly rotten. As for Nixon, he was playing the Cold War game by driving a wedge between two rival countries. It worked, at least in the short run.”
I’ve seen plenty of far worse guys get elected without so much as even invoking support for McCarthy. Just ask Lodge, for example, who if I recall correctly was also the same guy who single-handedly got Diem assassinated (and based on what I’ve read up on I think the Politically Incorrect Guides, either that or This Time We Won, JFK actually had barely any involvement in Diem’s assassination, and in fact, he specifically requested they discuss it BEFORE officially greenlighting it). I can also cite George McGovern, who actually had the gall to claim that Diem was “popularly elected”, which even JFK and Eisenhower knew was a load of crap. I’m pretty darn certain that JFK wouldn’t have needed McCarthy to get elected (if anything, his war record would have been enough).
And as far as Nixon, I have a different strategy for getting rid of Communism, to be honest: I’d launch nukes at the USSR AND at China, do so at the first possible opportunity to make sure they CAN’T build up their nuclear arsenal, also launch enough nukes at them and the Eastern Bloc to outright exterminate any and all lives in the area, certainly all Communists. Then, I’d move on to Western Europe and even major American cities such as New York City (heck, even minor American towns), launch nukes there, again, to destroy all the Communist members (not even caring if I outright DIE as a result of my launching nukes, and if anything fully brace for it outdoors). To quote Aliens, it’s the only way to be sure, especially after Communism already infiltrated far too many countries outside the Eastern Bloc, including our so-called Western Allies to such an extent that they’re parroting Soviet propaganda, heck, in the case of France during May 1968, they even did protests about American involvement in the Vietnam War despite not having any real skin in the game due to France no longer fighting Vietnam in any capacity during that point. Heck, we even have a Communist Pope in charge currently, after two cases of Popes that were thoroughly anti-Communist (JPII and Benedict XVI), and even more before then. I’d prefer an outright extermination campaign than even working for ONE of them, period. I don’t care if it’s China, the USSR, or heck, even France for that matter since they’re essentially the reason why Communism exists.
“A ficus plant running in opposition to Zero could’ve gotten as much as Terry did. The last remnant of old-line Democrats that were sick of the full-on Stalinazi takeover of the party. More than likely those same folks voted Republican in the general.”
Maybe so, but it still proved there were still some old-school Democrats who definitely didn’t like the direction Obama was taking the party in (and some of them most certainly would have been old enough to vote for Kennedy).
“Except it did.”
You and I clearly have different ideas of what actually qualifies as “abandonment.” For me, it requires actual, undeniable agency in the decision, not allowing for any outside variables to your decision-making, and being sent to the hospital doesn’t exactly allow for full agency in deciding to abandon someone. It’s like saying I abandoned my Final Exams during High School because I had to go through a pneumothorax and undergo surgery for it (and BTW, that actually happened, and I clearly wasn’t happy about it. Fortunately, the school understood and allowed me to take the exam after I was cleared from the hospital.).
“Eisenhower was never a fan of McCarthy. He tiptoed around him when McCarthy was still overwhelmingly popular, but was more than happy to see him destroyed by the media. Ike never did a thorough cleaning of the government after 2 decades of Soviet infiltration under FDR & Truman. I don’t have a high opinion of Ike, as he destroyed the GOP as a national majority party for decades.”
Maybe so, but he’s still considered among GOP circles to be ultimately the better choice. And personally, I think the likes of Ronald Reagan failed to do all of that AND failed to demolish the United Nations and/or stop Nelson Mandela (I won’t count al Qaeda regarding this, as the 9/11 commission report made it clear they were never funded by us, heck, Bin Ladin’s own #2 made it far too clear in one of his works that he never saw even a cent of American money go to their operations against the Soviets).
“Whatever works.”
Actually, I’m pretty sure it’s more the default position, while “whatever works” is more they do it if there’s no ideal solution in hand. To put it another way, their reaction would be “there’s a more beneficial solution that won’t harm anyone, but we’ll hurt everyone anyways simply because we find it fun to do so.”
“You give JFK credit he neither deserves nor earned. As I said, you have a very peculiar hero worship for him. He doesn’t deserve it. Worshipping politicians is often a foolhardy exercise. Better to save that for Jesus.”
“And, again, as for Nixon, he didn’t abandon anti-Communism by reaching out to China, he was working to undermine the Soviets. Quite brilliant, actually. He deserves the credit you erroneously give to JFK.”
I never gave JFK credit for getting rid of China, if that’s what you are implying, I was saying that JFK actually DID attempt to fight Communism (and I’m not dissing on Nixon at all. Far from it, I actually have a lot of respect for him for taking out Alger Hiss AND doing a far better job at fighting Vietnam than LBJ did, or for that matter JFK). And for the record, I’d consider getting the USSR to get rid of the missiles at all to be a victory overall, even though I definitely preferred it if JFK actually went further and actually went out of his way to end Soviet control over Cuba, and for that matter, ended Castro’s control. At least there, there’s no chance at a missile strike (and I’m not even sure if removing the missile silos at Turkey was an actual loss for us either, as even the Politically Incorrect Guide to the 1960s made it very clear that we were already planning to get rid of the silos before then due to nuclear subs making them obsolete, and bear in mind the author of that book was not at all fond of JFK either, so he wasn’t saying that because he liked him). And for the record, him being anti-Communist enough to support McCarthy at all is the ONLY reason I have any respect for the guy (well, that, and cutting taxes, which even Conservapedia noted was a conservative trait of his). If it weren’t for that, I’d view him as trash and a disgrace to my Catholic views. So it’s not “hero worship”, it’s giving credit where it’s due. If you tell me about his extramarital affairs, his drug problems, or anything like that, guess what, I’d probably bash him to Hell far more than you’ve been doing. Heck, I’d even bash him for his stupid “Missile Gap” thing as well, especially when Eisenhower knew they didn’t overtake us. And like I said, my idea of a strategy for getting rid of Communism is closer to an outright extermination campaign, especially when I outright refuse to support ANY Communist groups, not even to get rid of another. I’d rather fight both. In fact, if I had existed during World War II, I’d be more like Patton and try to exterminate both the Nazis AND the Soviets.
“Reagan was under enormous pressure to denounce apartheid, and if he had failed to do so, would’ve been painted as a racist. Mandela, of course, was an execrable Communist, worshipped as a saint by the left. He only opened the doors for persecution of White South Africans, and it is predictably now, a hellhole.”
Me, I would have ignored said pressure, and if anything if they told me to denounce apartheid, I’d blatantly shoot those guys in the face in response, or at the very least shove a machine gun stock into it. Like I said, not willing to listen to the left and would prefer to outright get rid of them, ESPECIALLY after what they’ve done back then and now, so I’d have absolutely NO reason to listen to them, no matter what the pressure. Don’t care if it makes me look like a dictator, I am NOT going to cave to leftist demands, and would rather kill leftists en-masse than cave to them.
“For which JFK failed to act on freeing.”
Yeah, agreed with that, and I also made it clear it was a shame that JFK didn’t actually free them. However, at least we don’t have Soviet missiles pointed at us from then until the USSR’s collapse (and make no mistake, Khrushchev could have just as easily decided after getting everything he wanted from JFK to just keep the missiles there anyways as a further attempt at rubbing salt on the wound, and based on what Ion Mhai Pacepa stated, he was NOT happy about having to remove the missiles from Cuba despite getting everything he wanted from JFK, and if Politically Incorrect Guide to the 1960s by Jonathan Leaf is of any indication, it’s not even clear if the removal of the Missile Silos from Turkey was an actual loss for us, especially when if anything the nuclear subs actually made us even MORE dangerous to the Soviets than the silos ever did due to not actually being traced easily.).
“For which Truman was responsible. Same for losing China to the Communists under Mao.”
I don’t think we were ever in disagreement there. Heck, Vinegar Joe and even George Marshall played a huge role regarding China falling to Mao, bragged about disarming several anti-Communists if New American is to be believed. However, my idea is if we are to get rid of Communism, we must do it in one fell swoop, and more than just bankrupting the USSR.
“It’s not Communist. It is authoritarian and would like to rebuild the old empire (Russian, as opposed to Soviet) with him as a de facto Czar. However, there is popular sentiment in Russia for the old leaders when the Soviets were equal (at least on paper) to the Americans. Putin has also approved and supports the proliferation of the Eastern Orthodox Christian religion and rebuilding of destroyed churches. He also opposes perversion (sodomite agenda), which was pushed by the left in order to destabilize nations (as it has in America). We’re far better off with the Russians as they are now under Putin than under the old Communist thugs.”
I’d beg to differ there. There’s been plenty of sources, some of whom are even posted by several Freepers on here, that indicate that Putin is still very much a Communist (even comparing Lenin’s artifacts and heck, Communist doctrine as a whole, to those of saints artifacts and Christian doctrine, respectively), not to mention actually using Stalin’s image and rehabilitating that monster, and pretty much backing Communist allies, including Venezuela. Also, being against homosexuality in his home nation or being for rehabilitating Christian Churches isn’t exactly an anti-Communist sentiment, either. Let’s not forget that even the likes of Stalin often put homosexuals into GULAGs, and actually helmed the ROC during World War II (and in fact, there’s even evidence to suggest he took the opportunity to install NKVD/KGB agents into the roles of various religious figures afterward, up to and even including the Primarch). In fact, here’s a couple of articles making it very clear that Putin’s still an unrepentant Communist:
*https://www.trevorloudon.com/2017/12/is-vladimir-putin-a-communist/
*https://www.dw.com/es/la-alianza-estrat%C3%A9gica-de-maduro-y-putin/a-46618225
*https://www.infobae.com/america/venezuela/2019/06/06/vladimir-putin-volvio-a-respaldar-a-maduro-y-dijo-que-sus-asesores-militares-cumpliran-las-obligaciones-de-rusia-en-venezuela/
I strictly limited it to articles that come strictly from Conservative-based sites (or at least, what I think are Conservative-based sites. Christian News Monitor might be in the gray area however, but I’m DEFINITELY not citing LA Times or Newsweek even when I most certainly could do so if I wished).
And for the record, a restoration of Tsarist Russia (the one helmed by the Russian Tsars, aka, people like Nicholas II) would actually be better off for America, Christendom as a whole in fact, than letting Putin run around. And so far, Putin’s solely showing interest in trying to restore the USSR, not Tsarist Russia. Besides, I’m pretty sure if he truly wanted to get rid of Communism as a whole, he would have made sure to have that Karl Marx statue in Teatralyana Square torn down and broken apart, not to mention bulldoze the Soviet Mausoleum/Lenin’s Tomb while having Lenin’s corpse hung from a lamppost for all to see. That’s certainly what I would have done in his shoes. Heck, during 19th World Festival of Youth and Students, he helmed it and even gave a glowing speech of solidarity to them. Were it me in his position, I’d outright BAN that World Festival, and even go so far as to state that anyone who dares attend that festival will end up shot.
“Socialism should be outlawed, yes. It has caused more oppression, misery and death than any other political ideology. A demonstrable failure, yet diseased, disturbed individuals still push it because they want absolute control over people’s lives.”
Fully agreed on that front, and as you can notice from my more extreme strategies of getting rid of it, I see it as something that simply cannot be allowed to be practiced. We really wasted a good opportunity to do a Nuremberg-style tribunal against the heads of the Soviet Union when it collapsed, not to mention other Communist leaders.
“Libertine “freedom” vs. freedom with responsibilities. Usually what leftists promote in the way of “freedom” is strictly done to undermine a given establishment political system. Once deposed, then you have your French Revolution style-madness and mass-murder. Of course, it ultimately consumes itself.”
Yeah, and in the case of the French Revolution, they tried to continue getting rid of any government at all even when they clearly held all the cards by that point and could continue the government their way if they so wished, and clearly tried to continue their freedom of licentiousness even when it was very obviously not working (sort of like the Wild West or at least how media tended to portray the Wild West as literally lawless). Ironically, Napoleon’s probably the only reason France is just barely still Catholic instead of a full-on Atheist state, not to mention why France even had ANY law and order afterward, and he’s the one deemed a dictator by the left (and to a certain degree the right). On a side note, it really distresses me when I see fellow Conservatives sing praises for Voltaire and quote his “I don’t agree with what you say, but I would die to the death for your right to defend it” (which is actually pretty out of character for Voltaire since he actually used the courts and freedom of speech to SILENCE Christians and exile the Jesuit order, via SJW-type tactics).
“Then they would vote Republican to stop them. We shall know how many have in short order.”
Yeah, we shall. Good thing Florida went for Trump, and a Black Republican won a House seat.
“I was never a big Jefferson fan. Too much a hypocrite. I prefer the Conservative John Adams, who’d have gotten rid of that “peculiar institution” at the Declaration of Independence.”
Fully agreed there, not to mention came the closest to being a Big Government ogre among the Founding Fathers. I do find it a shame that Dinesh D’Souza seems to think the rot in the Democrat Party started with Andrew Johnson, though. If you ask me, it was started as early as Jefferson. All Jackson did was continue it. The only respect Jefferson has from me is the formation of the Navy and the Louisiana Purchase. That’s it. Well, that, and the Declaration of Independence, but then again, considering he played a role in drafting the infamous Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, I’d say in that particular case we narrowly dodged a bullet. Not sure what you meant by “peculiar institution” that Adams got rid of, though, other than it clearly had something to do with Jefferson. More of a fan of Adams and Hamilton (and I really hate how Lin Manuel Miranda tarnished him and the founding fathers with that stupid musical).
And in case you’re wondering about that Marx statue that I alluded to: https://web.archive.org/web/20111114084716/http://www.lindsayfincher.com/potd-the-last-karl-marx-monument-in-moscow.html
I've never fully looked in to the Diem business and who ordered the hit, but from what I have heard on the subject, JFK was to blame for it and it was just another thing he effed up in a long line of things. Yet another reason he should never have been President.
"I’m pretty darn certain that JFK wouldn’t have needed McCarthy to get elected (if anything, his war record would have been enough)."
Lodge was the incumbent Senator and was popular in his state. JFK most certainly did need to use the popularity of McCarthy, who was the premiere Irish Catholic politician in America at that time. There was a book I read, the name escapes me, which detailed that Senate contest. The family, led by Joe, Sr., was trying to navigate a road to power by center-right means, and to acquire allies. They backed Nixon for Senator in 1950 against the leftist Helen Gahagan Douglas (an Irish-American pol), for example. No doubt expecting a return on their investment in the long run.
"And as far as Nixon, I have a different strategy for getting rid of Communism, to be honest: I’d launch nukes at the USSR AND at China"
When ? In 1961 ? The time to have gone against China was a dozen years earlier. No sane politician or elected official could've won on a platform of massive nuclear bombardment of these nations. The whole point was to avoid such a horror that would've resulted in tens of millions of casualties, perhaps hundreds of millions. You'd be ending civilization as we know it. Even the Soviets didn't really want to provoke that even if they enjoyed sabre-rattling. Lunatics like Che Guevera, however, did want a nuclear war to ensue in order to satisfy his bloodlust. He'd prefer (to quote Milton) to rule in hell rather than serve in heaven.
"You and I clearly have different ideas of what actually qualifies as “abandonment.”"
Apparently. I remain baffled at your hero worship of JFK. He was neither the leader nor the hero this nation needed. It's like seeing a piece of cake with a thin layer of yummy frosting, but when you bite into the cake, it's utterly rotten and disgusting.
"Maybe so, but he’s still considered among GOP circles to be ultimately the better choice."
The better candidate lost in 1952. Taft should've been nominated (with Gen. MacArthur as his running mate). Eisenhower would've been better off having been the Democrat nominee. The GOP would've been preserved as a viable national majority party, for which it ceased to be thanks to him, after 1958.
"I never gave JFK credit for getting rid of China, if that’s what you are implying, I was saying that JFK actually DID attempt to fight Communism"
No, I said you hero worship the guy and he isn't worthy of it. His administration helped put this country on a rapid downward spiral from which we haven't ever recovered. Politically, socially, ethically, morally. You look at 1960 vs. 2020. It is simply astounding. We may have better technology, but our culture and government are as rotten and corrupt as at any time in our history. We may have had differences on some issues, but we were far more united as a people and the culture wasn't sick. We may have won the Cold War over the Soviets in the short term, but the left has destabilized us as a country, society and people in the long run. That we now, as of this writing, see a very frightening attempt by the corrupt Derp State left to steal the Presidency and countless other offices to install a corrupt, senile, child molester and puppet of America's enemies shows just how far we have fallen. It's curious that just as in 2020 that JFK's media and pop culture allies in 1960 installed "their guy" by lying about who he truly was (a physically ill, drug dependent sex addict). Add murderer to the mix, because I absolutely believe he and RFK had Marilyn Monroe permanently quieted when she threatened to expose her sexual affairs with them both, and on the brink of the midterm elections.
"And for the record, him being anti-Communist enough to support McCarthy at all is the ONLY reason I have any respect for the guy (well, that, and cutting taxes"
He didn't cut taxes, he only proposed doing so. That was a no-brainer regardless, since tax rates had been punitive for decades, and kept economic growth rates down. It ought to be in the Constitution that taxes cannot be higher than 10% for persons. If 10% is good enough for God, it's good enough for America. Conversely, if you're a Demonrat, I favor a 90% tax rate. You want Socialism, you pay for it.
"I’d be more like Patton and try to exterminate both the Nazis AND the Soviets."
Ideally, they should've wiped each other out. How we ever sided with the Soviets, who were worse than the Nazis, boggles the mind. Up until FDR, we did not even maintain diplomatic relations with the Soviet Union and did not recognize them after they deposed the Russian Czar. I'd have maintained such a policy of non-recognition.
"Me, I would have ignored said pressure (on apartheid)"
Easier said than done. Sometimes you have to deal with pesky issues you'd rather not as President. Reagan didn't really want to because of the situation with Communist support of Mandela. Unfortunately, the South African government there created the problem and should've found a way to resolve it without keeping clear racial discrimination laws.
"Yeah, agreed with that, and I also made it clear it was a shame that JFK didn’t actually free them."
That's what you get for not having put the 1960 winner in the White House. Nixon would've.
"Khrushchev could have just as easily decided after getting everything he wanted from JFK to just keep the missiles there anyways as a further attempt at rubbing salt on the wound"
Khrushchev agreed to a nothingburger "removal." JFK gave away the store. Khrushchev also couldn't renege on such deals, because it would be tantamount to a declaration of war.
"However, my idea is if we are to get rid of Communism, we must do it in one fell swoop, and more than just bankrupting the USSR."
All-out nuclear war was not a serious option.
"I’d beg to differ there. There’s been plenty of sources, some of whom are even posted by several Freepers on here, that indicate that Putin is still very much a Communist"
There's some FReepers who think Putin is the boogeyman. I don't. Strongman and authoritarian, yes. Not a Communist. He knows that economic system was a total failure. The Russians want to dominate the planet again as they did in the pre-1991 days, but not under that Communist system. They are our opponents, of course, not strictly allies. Putin may cut deals with America's enemies (such as Venezuela), but it's not about rebuilding a Communist network, but to build up a network of dependent allies (and that VZ has a lot of oil plays a part, too).
"On a side note, it really distresses me when I see fellow Conservatives sing praises for Voltaire and quote his “I don’t agree with what you say, but I would die to the death for your right to defend it” (which is actually pretty out of character for Voltaire since he actually used the courts and freedom of speech to SILENCE Christians and exile the Jesuit order, via SJW-type tactics)."
I'm more partial to saying that one is entitled to their own OPINION, but they are NOT entitled to their own FACTS. I see a lot of nitwits running around saying they're "living their own TRUTHS." "Truth" as they define it, might mean believing they're a dolphin trapped in a human woman's body. Too much insanity in the culture.
"Not sure what you meant by “peculiar institution” that Adams got rid of, though, other than it clearly had something to do with Jefferson"
Slavery was the "peculiar institution." Sadly, too many states were so CULTURALLY attached to it that they couldn't rid our nation as a whole from it. Jefferson and many other slaveowning men were personally attached to the benefits of it (sexual domination of slaves). One other FReeper flipped his lid on a vigorous discussion of the slave issue when I brought that up, as if I was airing his personal dirty laundry. But imagine a situation where, as a slaveowning man, if your wife turns you down, he can go and satisfy his lustful desires with his property who cannot refuse their advances. You can see why the slaveowning class did NOT want to give this arrangement up.