Quantcast

Jump to content

» «
Photo

When did American conservatives lose their minds?

72 replies to this topic
Melchior
  • Melchior

    Big Homie

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 16 May 2009
  • China

#1

Posted 21 November 2013 - 03:29 PM

The US has always had more intense conservatives than other Western nations. It's not just further right as a whole, the hardline conservatives have always been a bit nutty. But a few years ago there was an equal amount of vitriol on both sides and when right wingers got into a debate they called their opponent "sir." But then at some point during the Obama election they all lost their f*cking minds. They used to be apart of the mainstream public sphere (read:Buckley) but they've all retreated into this fantasy land where America is becoming a "European entitlement society" where dole bludgers are literally bankrupting the country and failed liberal policies have all but destroyed America.

 

Thing is, the tea party wasn't even that insane when it first started. I remember witnessing its formation first hand on the internet. It wasn't a response to Obama, it was a response to to the bank bailouts. Conservatives, until that point, were generally pro-establishment but I remember getting the impression that they felt somewhat betrayed by the bailout- learning that the government aren't pro-capitalism, they're pro-rich people. But over time it seems to have descended into a blatantly racist circle jerk that paints itself a bizarre fantasy view of the outside world. They've gotten rude and hostile.

 

What gives?

  • Jornereanty likes this

sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Empty Pleasures and Desperate Measures since 1994

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2013, 2012, 2011

#2

Posted 21 November 2013 - 03:38 PM

I think it's an extension of the downward trajectory the religious right started taking at the end of GWB's second term. They rallied around the financial crisis but existed in one form or another before that.

Either that or someone in the Republican headquarters suddenly started reading too much Ayn Rand.
  • Mr. House likes this

Mr. House
  • Mr. House

    Lucky 38

  • The Precinct
  • Joined: 18 Oct 2013
  • United-States

#3

Posted 21 November 2013 - 03:51 PM

I think it's an extension of the downward trajectory the religious right started taking at the end of GWB's second term. They rallied around the financial crisis but existed in one form or another before that.

Either that or someone in the Republican headquarters suddenly started reading too much Ayn Rand.

Any Ayn Rand is too much Ayn Rand.

  • Moonshield, BrownBear, Finn 7 five 11 and 3 others like this

Max
  • Max

    The Port Vila Killa.

  • Zaibatsu
  • Joined: 01 Mar 2009
  • Vanuatu
  • Contribution Award [Sports]

#4

Posted 21 November 2013 - 03:57 PM

Whatever sparked it, it is certainly a worrying trend in American politics. I'd be interested to see how our American members regard this Conservative splinter group? And how much traction have they gained in middle-American society? In my head I have them as a more vitriolic U.S. version of UKIP.


RoadRunner71
  • RoadRunner71

    Try to Run, Try to Hide

  • Members
  • Joined: 11 Mar 2012
  • None

#5

Posted 21 November 2013 - 04:05 PM

Same is happening in Europe. The amount of fascists, ultranationalists and racists is increasing... Radicalism is always a great way to distract the society from the real problems these who instigate it are responsible.


sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Empty Pleasures and Desperate Measures since 1994

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2013, 2012, 2011

#6

Posted 21 November 2013 - 04:26 PM


I think it's an extension of the downward trajectory the religious right started taking at the end of GWB's second term. They rallied around the financial crisis but existed in one form or another before that.

Either that or someone in the Republican headquarters suddenly started reading too much Ayn Rand.

Any Ayn Rand is too much Ayn Rand.
The mere existence of Ayn Rand is too much Ayn Rand.
  • Moonshield, Finn 7 five 11, Luna Fortuna and 1 other like this

Melchior
  • Melchior

    Big Homie

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 16 May 2009
  • China

#7

Posted 21 November 2013 - 04:32 PM

Same is happening in Europe. The amount of fascists, ultranationalists and racists is increasing... Radicalism is always a great way to distract the society from the real problems these who instigate it are responsible.

The same thing is not happening in Europe though. There's been a rise in right-wing extremism, no doubt, but it hasn't seeped into the mainstream.


theadmiral
  • theadmiral

    Founder And Opening Batsman: Vinewood Cricket Club

  • The Precinct
  • Joined: 26 Sep 2013
  • Trinidad-and-Tobago

#8

Posted 21 November 2013 - 05:11 PM Edited by theadmiral, 21 November 2013 - 05:12 PM.

They lost their mind when they were going nuts trying to prevent Obama from being elected, for multiple very obvious reasons, and once they failed, it just sent them into absolute overdrive.


Frank Brown
  • Frank Brown

    Big Homie

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 01 Oct 2013
  • United-States

#9

Posted 21 November 2013 - 06:30 PM

I don't know if it's the entire conservative movement that has lost their mind, just the loudest voices in the movement. The Tea Party is usually the group used as an example when talking about the downfall of conservative politics in the U.S. but they're not the majority by far, just a very loud minority (and that is probably what most mainstream media viewers see and imitate) which has members in the U.S. Senate and Congress (Five Senators out of 100, and 48 Congresspeople out of 435). The worst, in my opinion, being Senator Rand Paul, seeing as how he had so much potential to carry on his father's legacy, he could've probably made a White House run. There are sane Republicans/Conservatives, but their voices are constantly overshadowed by the minority of Tea Partiers/Far-Right Conservatives.

 

The problem, in my opinion, with the entire Republican Party is that they're no different than the Democratic Party except on a few issues, mainly Obamacare, Gay Rights, and Abortion.


Typhus
  • Typhus

    OG

  • $outh $ide Hoodz
  • Joined: 11 Sep 2007

#10

Posted 21 November 2013 - 06:44 PM

The American right has been on a downward slope since Nixon resigned. Far from being a crook, he was an incredibly progressive, diplomatic leader and what I would class as a 'liberal'.

I believe his ousting still casts a big shadow over the Republicans, and contributed to their gradual shift in values, making them far more partisan than they perhaps were before.


Mr. House
  • Mr. House

    Lucky 38

  • The Precinct
  • Joined: 18 Oct 2013
  • United-States

#11

Posted 21 November 2013 - 07:10 PM

The American right has been on a downward slope since Nixon resigned. Far from being a crook, he was an incredibly progressive, diplomatic leader and what I would class as a 'liberal'.

Dead.


theadmiral
  • theadmiral

    Founder And Opening Batsman: Vinewood Cricket Club

  • The Precinct
  • Joined: 26 Sep 2013
  • Trinidad-and-Tobago

#12

Posted 21 November 2013 - 07:13 PM

The American right has been on a downward slope since Nixon resigned. Far from being a crook, he was an incredibly progressive, diplomatic leader and what I would class as a 'liberal'.

 

 

Have you heard the tapes of , among other things, him suggesting that they spread rumours that certain people are homosexuals to discredit them? Hardly progressive, diplomatic, and liberal, and far from honest.

 

And that is just one problem of many that Nixon had.


Typhus
  • Typhus

    OG

  • $outh $ide Hoodz
  • Joined: 11 Sep 2007

#13

Posted 21 November 2013 - 07:17 PM

 

The American right has been on a downward slope since Nixon resigned. Far from being a crook, he was an incredibly progressive, diplomatic leader and what I would class as a 'liberal'.

 

 

Have you heard the tapes of , among other things, him suggesting that they spread rumours that certain people are homosexuals to discredit them? Hardly progressive, diplomatic, and liberal, and far from honest.

 

And that is just one problem of many that Nixon had.

 

His personal bigotry is not reflective of his policies as President.


theadmiral
  • theadmiral

    Founder And Opening Batsman: Vinewood Cricket Club

  • The Precinct
  • Joined: 26 Sep 2013
  • Trinidad-and-Tobago

#14

Posted 21 November 2013 - 07:18 PM Edited by theadmiral, 21 November 2013 - 07:18 PM.

 

His personal bigotry is not reflective of his policies as President.

 

 

His policies as president included breaking into places and intentionally using government officials to spread rumours about people being  homosexual.

 

We are not talking about someone who just disliked gays in his home. We are talking about someone who actively used it as a tool to smear opposition.


John Smith
  • John Smith

    Cynical Prick

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 06 Jun 2012

#15

Posted 21 November 2013 - 07:20 PM

This is why I prefer the American liberals. The Michael Moore's and Rosie O'Donnell's are much more sane and trustworthy.


Mr. House
  • Mr. House

    Lucky 38

  • The Precinct
  • Joined: 18 Oct 2013
  • United-States

#16

Posted 21 November 2013 - 07:21 PM

 

 

The American right has been on a downward slope since Nixon resigned. Far from being a crook, he was an incredibly progressive, diplomatic leader and what I would class as a 'liberal'.

 

 

Have you heard the tapes of , among other things, him suggesting that they spread rumours that certain people are homosexuals to discredit them? Hardly progressive, diplomatic, and liberal, and far from honest.

 

And that is just one problem of many that Nixon had.

 

His personal bigotry is not reflective of his policies as President.

 

Do you just make a habit of making contrarian views with no substance to back it up and ignore any facts opposing you? Because I'll be honest man, I'm seeing a trend here.


Frank Brown
  • Frank Brown

    Big Homie

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 01 Oct 2013
  • United-States

#17

Posted 21 November 2013 - 07:25 PM

 

The American right has been on a downward slope since Nixon resigned. Far from being a crook, he was an incredibly progressive, diplomatic leader and what I would class as a 'liberal'.

 

 

Have you heard the tapes of , among other things, him suggesting that they spread rumours that certain people are homosexuals to discredit them? Hardly progressive, diplomatic, and liberal, and far from honest.

 

And that is just one problem of many that Nixon had.

 

 

Forgive my ignorance, but wasn't he instrumental in opening up diplomatic negotiations with the People's Republic of China? He also created the EPA and was pro-solar/geothermal energy, he was a supporter of Keynesian economics and of Affirmative Action. I don't see how that's not classified as liberal, diplomatic, or progressive?


Melchior
  • Melchior

    Big Homie

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 16 May 2009
  • China

#18

Posted 21 November 2013 - 07:29 PM

I don't know if it's the entire conservative movement that has lost their mind, just the loudest voices in the movement. The Tea Party is usually the group used as an example when talking about the downfall of conservative politics in the U.S. but they're not the majority by far, just a very loud minority (and that is probably what most mainstream media viewers see and imitate) which has members in the U.S. Senate and Congress (Five Senators out of 100, and 48 Congresspeople out of 435). The worst, in my opinion, being Senator Rand Paul, seeing as how he had so much potential to carry on his father's legacy, he could've probably made a White House run. There are sane Republicans/Conservatives, but their voices are constantly overshadowed by the minority of Tea Partiers/Far-Right Conservatives.

Considering that 100% of Republican presidential hopefuls last election screeched endlessly about entitlements and how the Affordable Care Act was basically a Marxist revolution, I don't think what you say is true. They may have nominated Romney- a moderate- but he had to pretend he was a far-right loon.

 

 

 

The problem, in my opinion, with the entire Republican Party is that they're no different than the Democratic Party except on a few issues, mainly Obamacare, Gay Rights, and Abortion.

How about guns, taxes, climate change, economic regulation, defense spending welfare and pretty much all issues relating to women and minorities?


theadmiral
  • theadmiral

    Founder And Opening Batsman: Vinewood Cricket Club

  • The Precinct
  • Joined: 26 Sep 2013
  • Trinidad-and-Tobago

#19

Posted 21 November 2013 - 07:31 PM

 

 

 

 

Forgive my ignorance, but wasn't he instrumental in opening up diplomatic negotiations with the People's Republic of China? He also created the EPA and was pro-solar/geothermal energy, he was a supporter of Keynesian economics and of Affirmative Action. I don't see how that's not classified as liberal, diplomatic, or progressive?

 

Do you consider hating homosexuals, planning to spread rumours that certain people are homosexuals to discredit them, hating jews, and going on anti-semitic rants in the white house about how you cant trust any jewish bastard while sitting in the oval office liberal and progressive? How about using the FBI, CIA, and IRS to intentionally harass people that are opponents? What about bugging offices and breaking and entering?

 

All of this is on record and documented and it certainly does not paint the picture of a progressive liberal, regardless of a couple of positions that were taken for the sake of popularity.


Typhus
  • Typhus

    OG

  • $outh $ide Hoodz
  • Joined: 11 Sep 2007

#20

Posted 21 November 2013 - 07:44 PM

Do you just make a habit of making contrarian views with no substance to back it up and ignore any facts opposing you? Because I'll be honest man, I'm seeing a trend here.

Rating Nixon well is not a contrarian opinion at all. Many people rightly give him credit for his accomplishments in office, I'm hardly alone in that regard.

Is it my fault if you chose to focus more on his racism, homophobia and malignant paranoia than the things he actually did right?

 

I maintain that his resignation created a shift in the Republican Party that still influences them today.


theadmiral
  • theadmiral

    Founder And Opening Batsman: Vinewood Cricket Club

  • The Precinct
  • Joined: 26 Sep 2013
  • Trinidad-and-Tobago

#21

Posted 21 November 2013 - 07:46 PM

 

Do you just make a habit of making contrarian views with no substance to back it up and ignore any facts opposing you? Because I'll be honest man, I'm seeing a trend here.

Rating Nixon well is not a contrarian opinion at all. Many people rightly give him credit for his accomplishments in office, I'm hardly alone in that regard.

Is it my fault if you chose to focus more on his racism, homophobia and malignant paranoia than the things he actually did right?

 

I maintain that his resignation created a shift in the Republican Party that still influences them today.

 

Is being a racist, homophobic, anti semite progressive? Especially when it is happening during policy discussions in the oval office and being used as a tool, via government agencies, to harass and slander people?

 

I'm not saying he did not do anything good. I just think calling him a progressive is way out there. Certainly you could make the liberal claim for certain positions, but not the presidency as a whole.

 

It would be like saying George Bush is a liberal progressive because he bailed out the banks.


Frank Brown
  • Frank Brown

    Big Homie

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 01 Oct 2013
  • United-States

#22

Posted 21 November 2013 - 08:10 PM

 

 

 

 

 

Forgive my ignorance, but wasn't he instrumental in opening up diplomatic negotiations with the People's Republic of China? He also created the EPA and was pro-solar/geothermal energy, he was a supporter of Keynesian economics and of Affirmative Action. I don't see how that's not classified as liberal, diplomatic, or progressive?

 

Do you consider hating homosexuals, planning to spread rumours that certain people are homosexuals to discredit them, hating jews, and going on anti-semitic rants in the white house about how you cant trust any jewish bastard while sitting in the oval office liberal and progressive? How about using the FBI, CIA, and IRS to intentionally harass people that are opponents? What about bugging offices and breaking and entering?

 

All of this is on record and documented and it certainly does not paint the picture of a progressive liberal, regardless of a couple of positions that were taken for the sake of popularity.

 

No, I don't consider it liberal and progressive, but to discount someone's achievements in office because of personal issues is idiotic, in my opinion. You can't disregard him as a liberal/progressive/whatever because of that. Harry Truman made racist remarks and FDR took it a step further by putting Japanese-Americans (y'know, legal citizens) in internment camps (the equivalent of putting all Muslims in a camp because they could attack the U.S.), but he's still hailed a hero by liberals and progressives.

 

Kennedy, FDR, and possibly Clinton also used the IRS to harass political rivals as well. And most people would consider FDR/Clinton liberal/progressive, would they not? Kennedy being progressive/liberal is debatable, however.

 

 

I don't know if it's the entire conservative movement that has lost their mind, just the loudest voices in the movement. The Tea Party is usually the group used as an example when talking about the downfall of conservative politics in the U.S. but they're not the majority by far, just a very loud minority (and that is probably what most mainstream media viewers see and imitate) which has members in the U.S. Senate and Congress (Five Senators out of 100, and 48 Congresspeople out of 435). The worst, in my opinion, being Senator Rand Paul, seeing as how he had so much potential to carry on his father's legacy, he could've probably made a White House run. There are sane Republicans/Conservatives, but their voices are constantly overshadowed by the minority of Tea Partiers/Far-Right Conservatives.

Considering that 100% of Republican presidential hopefuls last election screeched endlessly about entitlements and how the Affordable Care Act was basically a Marxist revolution, I don't think what you say is true. They may have nominated Romney- a moderate- but he had to pretend he was a far-right loon.

 

The people who ran, Huntsman, Romney, Santorum, Cain, Paul, and Johnson didn't. (Unless you're talking about Senate/Congressional elections?) With Santorum, Cain, and Romney, I did see a bit of screeching regarding entitlements and the ACA, but the other half, Huntsman, Paul, and Johnson were more level-headed in their approach and didn't try to pander to any one group. Huntsman was (I think, don't quote me) a moderate, Paul was a right-Libertarian, and Johnson was a left-Libertarian. And they didn't 'screech' about anything. It was more like 50%, if that.

 

 

 

 

The problem, in my opinion, with the entire Republican Party is that they're no different than the Democratic Party except on a few issues, mainly Obamacare, Gay Rights, and Abortion.

How about guns, taxes, climate change, economic regulation, defense spending welfare and pretty much all issues relating to women and minorities?

 

 

Fair point, but the difference isn't significant in a lot of those areas. Republicans aren't arguing for fully-automatic rifles and no taxes, they just have different ways of approaching it. Also, defense spending hasn't really changed all that much between the Obama Administration (Democrat) and the Bush Administration (Republican), it's stayed fairly stagnant, with only minor growth under Obama.


Melchior
  • Melchior

    Big Homie

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 16 May 2009
  • China

#23

Posted 21 November 2013 - 08:16 PM

The people who ran, Huntsman, Romney, Santorum, Cain, Paul, and Johnson didn't. (Unless you're talking about Senate/Congressional elections?) With Santorum, Cain, and Romney, I did see a bit of screeching regarding entitlements and the ACA, but the other half, Huntsman, Paul, and Johnson were more level-headed in their approach and didn't try to pander to any one group. Huntsman was (I think, don't quote me) a moderate, Paul was a right-Libertarian, and Johnson was a left-Libertarian. And they didn't 'screech' about anything. It was more like 50%, if that.

Man, have you ever heard Rand Paul open his mouth? You are clearly in fantasy land.

 

 

 

Fair point, but the difference isn't significant in a lot of those areas. Republicans aren't arguing for fully-automatic rifles and no taxes, they just have different ways of approaching it.

The Republicans entire economic strategy is basically "low taxes for the rich." They don't really go for regulations, stimulus or nurturing industry they just think "the more money in the hands of rich people the more the economy prospers... somehow." Also they oppose any gun control measure tooth and nail.

 

Are we talking about the same Republican party?


theadmiral
  • theadmiral

    Founder And Opening Batsman: Vinewood Cricket Club

  • The Precinct
  • Joined: 26 Sep 2013
  • Trinidad-and-Tobago

#24

Posted 21 November 2013 - 08:19 PM

Again Vlynor, we are not talking about "personal issues" , we are talking about abusing the power of the president of the united states to harass and discredit people based on these "personal issues". We are not talking about off the cuff remarks at the country club to a good friend.


El Diablo
  • El Diablo

    "Not Santa's balls!"

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 03 Aug 2002
  • Mars

#25

Posted 21 November 2013 - 08:28 PM

you guys are getting really off-track with the Nixon debate.

but since we're in the middle of it, I have to say; Typhus is right. you guys need to relax on bashing him for it.

 

Nixon might have been a douchebag personally, but his policies as acting president were Centrist at best. in today's GOP he would be described as Liberal.

you have to look @ what Nixon did as PUBLIC POLICY, not just his paranoid rants against fags and Communists.

 

he normalized relations with China and the USSR, opening up diplomatic channels that had been closed for decades.

he created the EPA. that's right kids; without Nixon there is no Environmental Protection Agency before the 70's.

he put an end to the military draft.

he was a champion for the Title IX law which allows women's collegiate sports to receive equal treatment as men's sports in terms of funding, safety, scholarships, etc

he enforced further desegregation of public schools in the South.

he signed the Paris Peace Accords ending American involvement in the Viet Nam war.

he was influential in the signing of SALT I and the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty helping to reduce the world stockpile of nuclear arms.

 

I could go on...

Nixon was not as crazy conservative as you guys are making him out to be.


theadmiral
  • theadmiral

    Founder And Opening Batsman: Vinewood Cricket Club

  • The Precinct
  • Joined: 26 Sep 2013
  • Trinidad-and-Tobago

#26

Posted 21 November 2013 - 08:31 PM

No one said he was a crazy conservative. I'm just saying he is not a "liberal progressive" . Sure, he's a progressive guy if you exclude the racist , homophobic, anti-Semitic rants in the white house, ordering the CIA, FBI, and IRS to harass opponents and bully people, bugging and breaking into buildings, and generally acting like a tough guy.

 

I don't know any progressives that would hold an advisory meeting in the oval office and open up with "Damn Jewish bastards, you cant trust any of them" or "Oh, he said that about me? Ok, send the CIA to spread a report that he's a fag".

 

No one is doubting that some policies of his were not of the traditional republican platform. To say he is a progressive is just out there in la la land.


El Diablo
  • El Diablo

    "Not Santa's balls!"

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 03 Aug 2002
  • Mars

#27

Posted 21 November 2013 - 08:32 PM

I think you're missing the context of the original statement.

 

Nixon would be labeled progressive by his own party today.

it doesn't mean he's progressive in principle.


Frank Brown
  • Frank Brown

    Big Homie

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 01 Oct 2013
  • United-States

#28

Posted 21 November 2013 - 08:38 PM Edited by Vlynor, 21 November 2013 - 08:39 PM.

 

The people who ran, Huntsman, Romney, Santorum, Cain, Paul, and Johnson didn't. (Unless you're talking about Senate/Congressional elections?) With Santorum, Cain, and Romney, I did see a bit of screeching regarding entitlements and the ACA, but the other half, Huntsman, Paul, and Johnson were more level-headed in their approach and didn't try to pander to any one group. Huntsman was (I think, don't quote me) a moderate, Paul was a right-Libertarian, and Johnson was a left-Libertarian. And they didn't 'screech' about anything. It was more like 50%, if that.

Man, have you ever heard Rand Paul open his mouth? You are clearly in fantasy land.

 

 

Rand Paul didn't run in 2012, Ron Paul, his father, did. He was a more intelligent politician than Rand.

 

 

 

Fair point, but the difference isn't significant in a lot of those areas. Republicans aren't arguing for fully-automatic rifles and no taxes, they just have different ways of approaching it.

The Republicans entire economic strategy is basically "low taxes for the rich." They don't really go for regulations, stimulus or nurturing industry they just think "the more money in the hands of rich people the more the economy prospers... somehow." Also they oppose any gun control measure tooth and nail.

 

Are we talking about the same Republican party?

 

 

We are. They don't oppose any gun control measure, just recent ones like background checks. There hasn't been a bill brought into question (to my knowledge) regarding magazine capacity, type of firearm (fully/semi-automatic/bolt) on the federal level to the House of Representatives, where the majority of Republicans are. Taxes, again, not all that different. Both the Republicans and Democrats are fairly similar in regards to taxes for the middle/lower classes, they only really differ on taxes for the rich.

 

I don't disagree with you that they're different, but it's just not all that different. You don't have an extremely radical right-wing vs. an extremely radical left-wing. It's mostly a center-left vs. center-right debate on most issues, (Tax the rich a bit more or not, background checks or not, abortion limits or not, etc.). The Republican party just has a few nutjob far-right-wing party members, but as I said before, nowhere near a majority.

 

 

Again Vlynor, we are not talking about "personal issues" , we are talking about abusing the power of the president of the united states to harass and discredit people based on these "personal issues". We are not talking about off the cuff remarks at the country club to a good friend.

 

Right, and as I've said, many politicians considered liberal/progressive have done the same: FDR, Kennedy, Clinton. Harry Truman has made racist remarks. What I'm trying to get at is, you're discounting someone's achievements based on racial/homophobic/whatever remarks and not based on their actions. If you were arguing purely on achievement, you wouldn't have brought up his antisemitism/homophobia.


theadmiral
  • theadmiral

    Founder And Opening Batsman: Vinewood Cricket Club

  • The Precinct
  • Joined: 26 Sep 2013
  • Trinidad-and-Tobago

#29

Posted 21 November 2013 - 08:54 PM

 

 

Right, and as I've said, many politicians considered liberal/progressive have done the same: FDR, Kennedy, Clinton. Harry Truman has made racist remarks. What I'm trying to get at is, you're discounting someone's achievements based on racial/homophobic/whatever remarks and not based on their actions. If you were arguing purely on achievement, you wouldn't have brought up his antisemitism/homophobia.

 

Is ordering the CIA to harass people and fabricate rumours about their sexuality , in his capacity of President of the United States, not an achievement that can be discussed as a part of his record?

 

Is having a traditional Republican anti communist position (Meetings with China only done to counter the Soviet Union) not something that is a valid part of his record?

 

What about actively suppressing left wing regimes around the world via covert operations? Is that not a valid part of his record that can be considered? (Partially leading to the rise to power of one of the most notorious strongman, right wing , genocidal butchers of South America?)

 

How about a traditional Republican outlook on financial matters within the United States?

 

I can go on for a while, but i'll just summarize by saying that he is a very moderate Republican in my opinion, by no means is he a liberal or progressive unless you are comparing him to a tea party nutjob of today's era.


Mr. House
  • Mr. House

    Lucky 38

  • The Precinct
  • Joined: 18 Oct 2013
  • United-States

#30

Posted 21 November 2013 - 08:57 PM

Classing a person a 'liberal compared to...' is stupid anyway. By that logic it's perfectly fine to say Batista was more Liberal than Hitler.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users