all 82 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 106 points 1 month ago (22 children)

Last military leader with military experience and the only one since to earnestly speak out against the military industrial complex.

He's a legitimately interesting dude.

  • source
  • hideshow 22 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 1 month ago (7 children)

    He was not the last; JFK also had military experience.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 18 points 1 month ago (5 children)

    Jfk was al not a military leader in the military, he was a serviceman in a minor role. Eisenhower was a literal general and was in leadership roles from 1918 to 1945ish iirc. ≠ jfk had a military understanding whereas Eisenhower had military leadership experience which is why I phrased it the way I did.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 month ago (4 children)

    Okay I see now what you meant. However, what you said was "last military leader with military experience". JFK was commander in chief as the president (I.e., military leader) and was in the military (I.e., military experience).

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 1 month ago (3 children)

    Sure but then every president is a military leader and it would be meaningless but i get the confusion, i do phrase things oddly fairly often.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago (2 children)

    Right but they would not all have had military experience. I thought that was the distinction you were making.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 1 month ago

    Kennedy won a medalmof Honor for his service. George HW Bush was shot down in WWII.

    But neither were military leaders, which is what I think he was referring to. Ike was the commander of the largest military alliance in the history of the world prior to becoming President. When he spoke out against the MIC, he did it from a position of absolute understanding.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 1 month ago

    I don't know a lot about him, and I'm fairly confident that I'd think he was an imperialist chud, but I rember his fairwell address being kinda based in a lot of ways:

    In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -27 points 1 month ago (11 children)

    Also whipped his junk out every chance he got. Heft of a duraflame log.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 52 points 1 month ago (9 children)

    You’re thinking of Lyndon Johnson

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 18 points 1 month ago (5 children)

    Ah, shoot, you’re right. I’m a dummy.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 1 month ago (4 children)

    However, you raise an important point.

    How big was Eisenhower's johnson?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 1 month ago

    When phonetically treating his name as German it would be written "Eisenhauer" which would become "beater of iron" when translating it back to English. So basically Smith, but that's not the topic we're currently pursuing ;p

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 35 points 1 month ago (20 children)

    Perfect example of why the political party system is pointless. I’d argue if anything it’s a tool used to undermine the whole democratic process

  • source
  • hideshow 20 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 1 month ago

    The town of Cheran in Mexico got rid of their corrupt mayor who is in the pocket of cartels. They also got rid of political parties because they believe it only cause divisions. The town then adopted an anarchist system whereby they elect a leader once a year. They set up their own militia patrols. So far, they've been successful.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 8 points 1 month ago* (17 children)

    Haha yeah we should have a single party compose only of workers with representatives paid only as much as their average constituant and subject to instant recall 👀

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 17 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 month ago (16 children)

    That would be AuThOrItArIaN!

    Anyway, you have to Vote Blue NO MATTER WHO!!!

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 16 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 month ago (15 children)

    You believe in an authoritarian state. Yes it would be authoritarian if you install a dictator. It doesn't matter how communist the state is. Like, that's your whole mo.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 15 child comments
  • [–] -3 points 1 month ago (14 children)

    You trust in the dictatorship of capital, and it has convinced you to worship at its feet.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago (13 children)

    Riddle me this. When the USSR collapsed and the state assets were sold off to private entities. Who were those entities?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 1 month ago (12 children)

    Did you reply to the wrong comment?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shock_therapy_(economics)

    In post-Soviet Russia and other post-Communist states, neoliberal reforms based on the Washington Consensus resulted in a surge in excess mortality and decreasing life expectancy, along with rising economic inequality, corruption, and poverty.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago (11 children)

    You did not answer my question.

    The Russian government believed that the open sale of state-owned assets, as opposed to the voucher program, would have likely resulted in the further concentration of ownership among the Russian mafia and the nomenklatura, which they sought to avoid. Nevertheless, contrary to the government's expectations, insiders managed to acquire control over most of the assets, which remained largely dependent on government support for years to come.

    Because most people were not well-informed about the nature of the program or were very poor, they were quick to sell their vouchers for money, unprepared or unwilling to invest.[18] Most vouchers—and, hence, most shares—wound up being acquired by the management of the enterprises. Although Russia's initial privatization legislation attracted widespread popular support given its promise to distribute the national wealth among the general public and ordinary employees of the privatized enterprises, eventually the public felt deceived, with most people selling their vouchers to survive the economic collapse following the soviet dissolution.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privatization_in_Russia

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 1 month ago* (10 children)

    I don't understand your point. The process of privatization had terrible results. It was managed by pro-capitalists and facilitated the corruption and rise in mafia power.

    In the months before the dissolution of the Soviet Union in December 1991, soon-to-be president Boris Yeltsin began assembling a team of economic reformers led by Yegor Gaidar, then a young reformist economist, and including Anatoly Chubais. The reform team initially considered Swedish social democracy as a model for Russia, but Gaidar opted instead to study Hungary as a template and was influenced by Poland's use of shock therapy. Both Gaidar and Chubais were convinced that despite Russia's uniquely non-capitalist economic history, a market economy could successfully take hold in the country. Following the August 1991 coup d'état attempt, the economic situation in the country dramatically worsened and an acute food shortage emerged. In October, Yeltsin delivered a speech in which he declared that price controls would be lifted on January 1, 1992, over Gaidar's recommendation that no specific date for the freeing of prices be given.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatoly_Chubais

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yegor_Gaidar

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago (9 children)

    My point it was transfered exactly to the people already in positions of power...

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 1 month ago (8 children)

    That's what happens when you have liberals in charge of reforming the economy. And the results really speak for themselves.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (7 children)

    But they were 'elected' by the communist party... how can they be liberals?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (6 children)

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boris_Yeltsin

    The dissolution of the USSR was led by liberals gaining power.

    He later stood as a political independent, during which time he was viewed as being ideologically aligned with liberalism.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perestroika

    The purported goal of perestroika was not to end the planned economy, but rather to make socialism work more efficiently to better meet the needs of Soviet citizens by adopting elements of liberal economics.

    Literally liberals doing a transition to liberalism under the guidance of the Washington Consensus, and you think the terrible results are the fault of socialism? Read some history please.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Consensus

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 month ago (5 children)

    You are blabbering about the 'terrible results' no shit, the government was shattered into choas. No economic ideology going to prevents choatic economics. Its not what i am arguing.

    Im litterally saying all the self claimed communists that were in position took advantage of the choas and grasped their own empire. You point to one man. I point to them all.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 month ago (4 children)

    If you read any of the links to the people responsible for the implementation, you will see they were all liberal reformers, not communists. But you don't care, you just want to blame someone else for the inherent failures of liberalism.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago (3 children)

    Nah. I blame oligarchs to always be oligarchs.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 month ago (2 children)

    LMAO, they were created via the liberalization of the USSR economy. You are making my point for me.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_oligarchs

    The Russian oligarchs first emerged as entrepreneurs under Mikhail Gorbachev (General Secretary, 1985–1991), exploiting various loopholes during the economic liberalisation of his perestroika programme. Boris Berezovsky, a mathematician and former researcher, became the first widely recognised Russian business oligarch.

    The oligarchs became increasingly influential in Russian politics during the presidency of Boris Yeltsin (1991–1999), a period often referred to as the wild nineties; they helped finance his re-election in 1996. Well-connected oligarchs such as Roman Abramovich, Mikhail Khodorkovsky, Boris Berezovsky and Vladimir Potanin acquired key assets at a fraction of their value at the loans for shares scheme auctions conducted in the run-up to the election. Defenders of the oligarchs who later fell out of favour have argued that the companies they acquired were not highly valued at the time because they continued to operate on Soviet principles, with non-existent stock control, huge payrolls, no financial reporting and scant regard for profit.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 49 points 1 month ago (7 children)

    These Republicans were actually Liberals, this was the "Party of Lincoln". The democrats at the time were conservatives.

    The political poles literally flipped around 1965.

  • source
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 1 month ago (2 children)

    The political poles literally flipped around 1965.

    How would you reconcile that statement with the Democratic Party under FDR (well before 1965?)

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

    The conservative Democratic Party base in the south absolutely hated FDR. He won the conservative Dem vote in the north because he promised to bring them out of poverty. But, he was a progressive in conservative clothes when it came to human rights. Conservatives absolutely despised him for being a dedent human, but he did save them (and the rest of the nation) from poverty.

    FDR winning as a Dem was the beginning of a 40 year trend of conservative candidates leaving the Dem party in disgust and running as Republicans, especially in the south where a Republican could normally never win (because Republicans were historically the progressives).

    Conservatives were stealing the Republican party from the progressives and simultaneously punishing the (normally conservative) Democratic party for not being bigoted enough. These confusing election fights happened throughout the south (and eventually the north) for decades.

    By the 60's, conservatives couldn't hide all their deception in elections and just started doing it in the open, calling it their "Southern Strategy" as if they were clever strategists and not lying, racist traitors trying to confuse voters and steal an entire political party.

    The party swap was fully complete by the late 60's. Conservatives immediately started taking credit for freeing the slaves, because all conservatives are pathological liars. Always have been and always will be.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 12 points 1 month ago (2 children)

    For those wondering, it wasn't some quick, clean swap. It lasted from the 30's through the 60's, so when conservatives say "oh yeah, but what about...", their tiny rat brains can't imagine that it took conservatives over 30 years to steal the Republican Party from the progressives. They called their theft The Southern Strategy and made little secret of it.

    Conservatives have always been evil and will always be evil. Always.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 47 points 1 month ago (5 children)

    Isn't this before the Southern strategy?

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 27 points 1 month ago (2 children)

    Yup, the flip happened around 1965 after the civil rights act.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    I mean it's implied so I can see why you might have missed it with out the context but every one of those points in the OP has the * - for white people

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 22 points 1 month ago

    The same president who warned of the rise of the military-industrial complex.

  • source
  • [–] 51 points 1 month ago* (2 children)
  • [–] 14 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    Before the Southern Strategy

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 8 points 1 month ago

    Banana republic man. Love to see some great party switch content.

    At some point in time both parties were equally racist, blood-thirsty and anti-communist, then the Republican party went above and beyond for more votes.

  • source
  • [–] 5 points 1 month ago*

    During the great depression the US of pedos even toyed with the idea of "technocratism". Alas.

  • source
  • [–] 3 points 1 month ago

    White* low-income families

  • source
  • [–] 3 points 1 month ago (1 child)
  • [–] 4 points 1 month ago*

    "Lost the plot" would suggest there was an accident or mistake at some point. They tied the plot up and left it gagged in a disused gas station restroom off the freeway in the middle of nowhere, after assaulting it with a rusty tire iron.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 1 month ago

    A wild Richard Nixon carrying a bucket of watergate and liberal elitism appears

  • source
  • [–] 2 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    Wow. What was DNC promise at time?!

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 1 month ago

    One of our top 5 presidents, in my barely educated opinion.

  • source
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago*

    Just shows how ignorant it is to sum up a whole decade as Leave It To Beaver.

  • source
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago (5 children)

    The President that literally saved the World, but he's too woke.

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 month ago (2 children)

    He's responsible for planning and controlling the group that would eventually cause the current GOP to lose their beloved leader.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago (1 child)

    Interesting. Can you elaborate on that?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 1 month ago
    • The current GOP are mostly Nazis and idolize Hitler.
    • Eisenhower was the General in command of the US military and coordinated with allies.
    • The US military, along with allies, caused Hitler to kill himself as they closed in on Berlin.
    • I was being purposely vague.
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago

    Because the greatest generation would have threw out the gov if a partial collective welfare state wasn't installed.

    U.S gov have treated vets like garbage ever since.

  • source