His presidency was extremely turbulent with the hippie era, and Civil Rights shit, yet LBJ himself is not an especially enshrined figure media wise. Both JFK and Nixon are more "iconic". Why is that?

He had a huge dick but he was a huge asshole.

He sold out the US to foreign hordes

>>17756009 (OP)
>jfk
He was young and handsome. Nothing else matter in American politics.
>Nixon
He was basically Trump to libtards in the 60s and 70s.

>>17756009 (OP)
Often the most influential figures are ones they don't want you to think about

>>17756125
This, though for JFK I'd say it was more due to him having his brains blown out near the end of his first term so anyone can project their political fantasies onto what he "would" have accomplished in his second term.

>>17756128
This

Much like Joe Biden, LBJ is >>17756128 as he personally chose to (at the time) own the Vietnam Failure while ensuring the Civil Rights Act remained law. Nixon would come in and do the same, and subsequently take all the blame when the war effort choked and failed.

And again the comparison to Biden is perfect. Everything Biden did will stand, especially Ukrainian Independence and the European Joint Strategic Standoff Missile Project. Joe Biden is why Poland and Ukraine will have ICBMs capable of disabling Russia by 2030. By 2030, nobody in America will remember Biden. Same for the Afghanistan withdrawal and Fall of Kabul - Biden ended the Global War On Terror, paving the way for a new era defined by Trump's failures.

>>17756173
>Demonrat shilling campaign on 4chud
Come on now

>>17756227
President Biden was betrayed by his own party, who then lost the election by .5% of the vote because of it. I am not shilling Democrats for destroying their only, one single shot at ending Trump because Biden was too white.

The south was die hard democrat for a long time. In fact it was synonymous with southern for a long time.

However a gradual process beginning with FDR began to introduce a more urban and progressive wing of the partly less punctuated by racial politics and by economic and social policies.

Anyways this culminates with the election of JFK- which was seen as a final sign that the progressive faction of the party had usurped the old southern wing. Anyways, JFK gins up a big movement for civil rights which is essentially passed by LBJ in his wake. Anyways this was seen as a betrayal by the south and they defected from the party that had been their identity for over 100 years. They ran a third party in 68 and very nearly sent the election to the House.

Nixon, savvy politician saw this happening and made overtures to the disaffected southerners and eventually lured them out of the wilderness. This combined with the attempt on Wallace in 72 which knocked him out of the democratic primary Jumpstart a long term strategy by the Republicans and a party realignment in general.

The old democratic loyalities didnt shift overnight though, from 72 to Obama, the Dems never won a race if they didn't run a white southerner btw. (An interesting fact no one seems to pick up on) and there is a reason for it thats obvious when you understand the modern history of the parties.

>>17756238

>>17756009 (OP)
>forces kids to go to school with blacks at literal bayonet point

it's Progress time

>>17756173
Trump was the one who gave the order to withdraw from Afghanistan. All Biden did was muck it up by refusing to honor the bargain he struck with the Taliban.

And it's very likely Biden had much say in anything since he was very obviously senile for most of his presidency.

>>17756173
>Everything Biden did will stand, especially Ukrainian Independence
Not a good comparison to the Vietnam war situation. First off, neither Nixon nor LBJ actually started that war nor the US involvement in it, it had all started before their terms. With Biden, he basically allowed things to spiral into the war, because up until 2022 there had been no full-scale invasion yet. That fact is entirely due to him dropping the ball, because he either only cared about optics or didn't even know what was going on at all.

>>17756254
Looking from a value-neutral perspective, the Democrats really seem to be in the wilderness right now. They thought they had the whole demographic destiny narrative where third worlders were going to slowly dilute traditional American voters more and more every year. It turns out not only is that not apparently the case, but even many minorities were flipped against them in the most recent election. That kind of destroyed the "inevitable demographic destiny" narrative that they have had going all the time since LBJ. The big question remains whether they will attempt to revive that fantasy again or shift their focus fully to hypermasculine suburbanite abortionist women who wear yoga pants now.

They have managed to destroy California between then and now though.

>>17756009 (OP)
Vietnam tarnished his legacy unfortunately

JFK isn't more iconic, and Nixon still has the worst reputation of the three. Although LBJ left office with only like a 50% approval rating, his legacy's been improving over time.

The main negative of his legacy is of course Vietnam, but too much blame's thrown on him for that. The Republicans started America's military presence in Vietnam and were constantly screaming at the Dems for "not fighting communism hard enough" (making the Dems pussies at best or secret commies at worst.) Unlike Eisenhower and JFK, LBJ didn't actually want to fight the war, and was mostly fighting it with one eye always on domestic reactions to it. The goal was simply to avoid getting yelled at for "losing Indochina" (to the people living there) the same way Truman "lost China" (to the Chinese.) Although Nixon reduced US troop presence (at a painfully slow rate,) he drastically increased America's air campaign, including the secret bombings of Cambodia which began under LBJ.

In summary:
>LBJ is superior to Nixon, Nixon is superior to JFK
>The Republicans bear most of the responsibility for Vietnam. The war started under Ike and the Republicans basically screamed at everyone until the country was fighting in the rice fields.
>Had JFK lived, although his intended policies were less insane than those of the GOP, he was still someone who genuinely wanted to fight the war, and would've waged Vietnam with far more carnage than the war played out under LBJ.

>>17756505
>The Republicans started America's military presence in Vietnam and were constantly screaming at the Dems for "not fighting communism hard enough" (making the Dems pussies at best or secret commies at worst.)
>secret commies
You act like we don't know this already, anon. Uncovered documents following the collapse of the USSR show that Ted Kennedy in 1984 agreed to sell out the USA if the Soviets helped him win the election against Reagan. See: https://www.forbes.com/2009/08/27/ted-kennedy-soviet-union-ronald-reagan-opinions-columnists-peter-robinson.html

Nowadays the same Dems largely support the People's Republic of China, through manchurian candidates like Beijing Joe. This is done through globalism and deliberate weakening of America by instruments like climate change initiatives that only affect our economy and not China. I thought this was fairly well known.

>>17756433
Reagan's amnesty paved the way for the destruction of California I'd argue.
The Democrats spent too long courting the far far left and what they have now is them reaping what they sowed.

>>17756173
>>17756238
Exceedingly based takes

>>17756401
>the bargain he struck with the Taliban.
So """negotiating""" with terrorists is cool as long as it's your guy doing it?
Conservatives are the most pathetic fucking "people" ever jfc

It's really weird because his 1965 Immigration and Nationality Act is the most important piece of legislation congress passed in the 20th century. Current America is very much the product of that act and yet LBJ remains relatively secondary compared to other presidents.

>>17756009 (OP)
That nigger lover ruin society giving us civil rights and no kerner commission plan, burn in hell.

>>17756009 (OP)
jfk was assassinated, nixon resigned due to scandal
lbj was just ordinary president

>>17757299
They don't want to draw attention to what he (and the Republicans) did

>>17756173
They hated him because he told the truth

>>17756505
>JFK isn't more iconic
meds