Most likely AMTRAC JOE will not be watching his wife being raped by an illegal while other people take cell phone pictures. I can't say that Joe is lookin' out for you, but he is lookin' out for himself and his family so that's a start right? - because Joe is special. DHS pays over $455K to build ‘security fencing’ around Biden’s beach home https://nypost.com/2021/10/22/dhs-455k-for-security-fencing-around-bidens-beach-home/
I know I am not the most objective person on this, but Obama is lookin' more like a re-tread here than McCauliffe. He was supposed to be Mr. Dyno-Mite to turbocharge the flaccid situation. Maybe when Biden campaigned there- and I think he is going again- he will be able to counter that a bit and put some sizzle on the steak. Then again.
I started it's own thread, but I was actually gonna ask you as an "off-topic" within a thread. Instead I just gave it its own thread. Did you see my question about Eisenhower? https://www.elitetrader.com/et/threads/was-eisenhower-a-good-president.362400/ I wanted to hear your opinion.
Eisenhower was well liked and had solidly demonstrated competence in at least one huge arena. He was republican when he ran in 52 but it was always rumored that Truman tried to get him to run on the ticket with him as a dem in 48. Down the road when Truman's family turned over his diary to the national archives, turned out that true. So he was well liked by both dems and pubs and the country had just come through years of watching (no TV) newsreels of Eisenhower, Patton, Nimitz, and MacArthur. Like most presidents some of his successes were also considered to be failures by his critics. He ended the war in Korea and saved the country from an early VietNam scenario and possibly a war with China but his opponents considered that to be a failure. Still subject to debate. Probably - my view and some others- is that his biggest failure was just the fact that the Cold War got worse every day he was in office for two terms. So the country was just on a dreary, jittery, quasi-wartime footing for an entire era. On the other hand his supporters rightfully argued that he handled it in a way that prevented war. It's not unlike where we/Joe are with China right now. Avoiding war is a good thing but there is a feeling in the air that there is a Cold War shaping up that could be jittery and dreary for a decade. So he might want to study up on that period, if he was not previously awake when he went through it. Eisenhower was sort of "caretaker president" in that he took care of bidness without a lot big drama, major blunders, and considered the fact that there was no big news to be a desirable thing. And indeed the country was not looking for any more action. Unless it was producing babies. His was criticized because he was not a hard core state's right guy as it was in those days and the liberals criticized him for not really taking a stand on things but just watching things play out. That is sort of true because he was not hard core southern states rights guy but he also did not think the feds had a role in a lot of the things that were shaping up. He did help pass a voting rights bill of some sort- not the 1964 one but some earlier one- and he did send federal troops into Little Rock to enforces desegregation but tried as best he could to not get involved in that type of thing. He also was sort of just a bystander on all of that McCarthyism. People thought he could have provided some leadership there, from what I have read. He definitely was the right man for the era though I think. He reflected what the country wanted. They did not want to be drawn deeper into war, wanted to work, have families, make babies, and not be nuked by the Soviets if possible while doing that. Ike accompiished all that but he did not send any tingle up anyone's leg, although he did in the newsreels from Europe and they remembered that. He did not do much memorable in some ways but if he had handled himself poorly he could have easily have created some more memorable events. But as a prison warden in Maine said: "My job is to keep exciting things from happening." Probably quoting a line from someone else. History always undervalues that. Ike was sort of the last pre-TV president. TV was around but the big city newspapers still ruled the day. After that, and to this day- the country was/is wall to wall with people who have direct perceptions and views based on their own TV watching. TV destroyed Nixon, created JFK, destroyed LBJ in the end, lifted Jimmy up, took him down. Lifted Regan up because he was made for TV, etc. etc. and so it goes. No theme there. Just some things that shook out of the tree on Eisenhower.
Thanks for that. I knew I'd get an intelligent answer from you lol. I don't care what Ocho says about ya. I had been watching some (more) WW2 documentaries, and my impression was he was pretty even keeled and liked by everyone, accept maybe a few of the Brits like Monty, who was a tactical train-wreck. Building our interstate system though... that must have been a huge friggin' deal at the time. Visionary af, and no way he could have done that without what he learned in Europe. I think I have new subject I want to read up on. What went in to all of that.
Yup. Eisenhower's thinking on the interstate system was definitely rooted in his experience in europe and people don't realize that it was also connected to the Soviet military threat. The autobahn/sp system in Germany was already in place and Eisenhower was impressed with that and it got his attention. Less pretty was the fact that based on his military experience he did not think that troops and military equipment could be easily moved around the country with the existing road system AND (gets ugly here) he did not think American roads were capable of rapidly evacuating cities when/if the Soviets nuked us. Yeh, welcome to the cold war. Just as quick aside, if you do study up on that a bit. At some point, have a coffee or a beer and google or youtube around on the building of the Alcan (now more commonly called the Alaska Highway). That is also very much a military highway in origin too. Frigging Japanese bombed the Aleutians, took Akatan Island and were coming our way. Hard for me to believe that the nightmare of trying to put that thing together on a emergency basis did not enter Eisenhower's thinking about the value of the interstate system. Git er done beforehand.
How low can you go Joe? Prepare to dive. Heh. I did notice that the tard love object Psnarki got schooled recently and is working with her lesson. Hey, learning is good. I refer to the earlier post I made wherein I recounted how Joe and Psnarki had been following a script of repetitively saying that Biden "is focused on his job and the work of the American people and pays no attention to the polls." Whereupon I also recounted that I heard a hard-core dem pundit (I think it was Jennifer Tarlov/sp) say that "as a democrat consultant I would advised against just being dismissive like that. Instead he should take a lesson out of Clinton's playbook and say that Americans are going through hard times and he feels their pain and understands why they feel the way they do." Well, I noticed today- might have happened another day but this is when I saw it- that Psnarki is now fully using and embracing that rap. You are late to the party there Miss Clairol but you got schooled out of necessity and now you have a clue. You are welcome. And indeed she needs some higher quality bullshiite to work with. Today's news looks a lot like last weeks news and the week before. Biden average approval rating dips to new low: FiveThirtyEight President Biden’s approval rating has dipped to a new low of 43.4 percent in FiveThirtyEight’s average of polls as he works through a legislative logjam on Capitol Hill involving two spending bills that are key to his agenda. Biden’s disapproval rating as president also reached an all-time high in FiveThirtyEight’s average, coming in at 50.7 percent on Friday. https://thehill.com/homenews/admini...proval-rating-tips-to-new-low-fivethirtyeight