What will impact be with voters if Trump is forced to take a mug shot?

[Dill]

(09-03-2023, 01:12 AM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: You flat out said it was nothing more than a myth twice even after psf said it did to his dad.
PSF never said it was common, only that it did happen to some. You are the one that used the term "common"

OtherMike, seems like you are taking SSF accusations at face value, without reading my actual posts on the Ramaswamy thread.
You are the second person to do that.
SSF did not say protestors spit on his dad. He claimed some of his father's friends were spit on, and a teacher called his father a "baby killer"(#33). (For the record, my disagreement with SSF began when he disputed my claim that liberals supported--and directed--the Vietnam War.)
In response, I posted two editorials and a book reference to people arguing that the overwhelming number of vets were welcomed back by their peers, not spit on (#52). I noted that this is a discussion in college history courses as there seems to be no film or photographic evidence of such occurring, and the vast majority say they were not spit on. This is not a claim that NO VET EVER claimed to be or was spit on.

In post #60, SSF said he allowed spitting might not have been the common experience, but claims I said NONE were; this was addressed to Dino who had just properly explained that I had NOT claimed no one was ever spit on.

To conclude my post #64, I borrow the term "common experience" from SSF to say this.

I still "flat out say it was a myth" that being spit on was the "common experience" (a term I borrowed from SSF).
Part of the "news legs" this issue gets is, it seems to me, derives from the ideological club it provides for revisionist history. If there are vets who were spat upon and otherwise disrespected when they returned, they'd have to experience this question as one more act of disrespect. Can't question the right wing revision of the war, then, without questioning those personal experiences--so "attacking the troops" yet again. No one who seriously wants to know what happened will treat the question that way, but there are strong ideological motivations here to keep the issue hot and muddled, in hopes the villains in U.S. history continue to be the people who wanted us out of such disastrous wars, not the people/policies that got  Americans into them.

So my argument was, and still is, that it was "myth" that being spat on was a common experience. I am using the term "myth" as Jerry Lembcke uses it in his book Spitting Image.The MYTH is not that it NEVER EVER occurred, but that it was a COMMON experience. My interest in the matter, as stated above, is in why the myth appeared during Bush I's term, and came to to be framed as a big personal insult to vets when questioned. So anyone who questions this right wing revision of history is then cast as "attacking the troops" to stop the discussion. Nevermind that the majority of Vietnam vets polled agree they were not spit on or mistreated, but welcomed by their "liberal" peers.  And that's how I regard my difference with SSF over this--his complaints are just another attempt to stop the questioning of revisionist history.

What is your interest in continuing the misrepresentation? Do you buy into the revision? Why bring this up on another thread and out of the blue?

(09-03-2023, 01:12 AM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: What wasn't uncommon was for the soldiers to return home and find protesters carrying posters with anti-war slogans, referring to them as war-mongers, baby killers and so on. In Rare instances, SOME did get spat on but i'm willing to bet that more were spit AT, as in protesters spiting at their feet than necessarily spat ON. There is also probably many that felt spit on metaphorically because they felt the Gov turned their back on them.
It was a very unpopular war the way the boys were drafted as well.
1/4 were drafted. 
The drafting was nothing more than social warfare. Rich Kids could get out of it via college deferments, or if you were married with kids or only Boy in the family. The drafting board was criticized for possibility of preferential treatment by the members over certain individuals with in the community.
Which led to public draft on TV with a capsule for each day of the year (1 thru 365). The capsule that was selected would be the ones conscripted at that point. But again, rich kids getting out of it via college deferments or married with kids.
After the war, it was changed again, now if drafted, if you are in college, you finish your current semester then report. No more college deferments and no more marriage deferments.
All i can tell you is that my father hated the way the military was treated by people when they got home.

You are explaining all this to someone who was in that public draft in 1969.

Also, the draft ended during the war, not after, in 1973.