How fast will Republicans turn on Trump?

Dans La Lune · Sep 1, 2019

So, usually when I have this debate with Trump fans, they insist that nothing he has ever said was racist, and then, when things he has said that were racist are pointed out to him, change their definitions of racism in order to argue that Those Things Don't Count.

Yeah, well, you're not having a debate with a Trump fan. Lets focus.

So, as a ground rule, if you'd like examples, I'd like to know if you are willing to accept the State Department definition of Anti-Semitism?

Nope. We're going to use the actual definition, from the dictionary.

an·ti-Sem·i·tism
/ˌan(t)ēˈseməˌtizəm,ˌanˌtīˈseməˌtizəm/
noun
noun: anti-Semitism; noun: antisemitism

hostility to or prejudice against Jews.

Because, if I were to point out - as an example - that two members of the squad recently chose to ally themselves with an organization that has pushed the Blood Libel (that Jews use the blood of gentile children for their passover meal) and re-publishes anti-Jewish propaganda from American neo-nazi organizations.... and your response is going to be that "that doesn't count as anti-semitic because Jews really do use the blood of gentile children for their passover meals", or some such nonsense, then we are just going to have to agree to disagree.

The organization, Miftah, apologized for that article and stated that it was posted erroneously by a junior staffer. Are you suggesting that Ilhan Omar associating with this organization, which apologized for the article, makes her an anti-semite? Is that how loose your connection to the term is? Would you also say that one of the leading progressive Palestinian activists, Hanan Ashrawi, is an anti-semite? Would you say that the BDS movement is based on anti-semitism? I just want to see where you're coming from and what your motivations are.

cpwill · Sep 1, 2019

Dans La Lune said:
Yeah, well, you're not having a debate with a Trump fan.

Oh, that's interesting. By cutting me out of your reply, you ensured I wouldn't get a notification.

Nope. We're going to use the actual definition, from the dictionary.

hostility to or prejudice against Jews.

Ah. So you wish to keep it as flexible and vague as possible so that later you can wriggle out of anything actually said by claiming That's Not About Jews, It's Just About... Something Else (or It's Not Hostile), or some other such.

No thanks. I've played that game with the Trump people enough to know you have no interest in actually figuring this out, but instead simply want to find an excuse to defend Your Team. Have a good night.

The organization, Miftah, apologized for that article and stated that it was posted erroneously by a junior staffer

Uhuh. And was that for the blood libel, or the Neo-Nazi propaganda? Because either of them are okay? How about when they honor terrorists who, yes, are terrorists, because they deliberately target and massacre innocent civilians, including children?

Later edit - I went back and looked. They first claimed that criticism of the blood libel was a "smear" against them, and then claimed it had only been "briefly addressed" (just a light smattering of blood libel, ya'll!) and took it down.... but only in English. Arabic, not so much. Neo-Nazis, massacring Jewish children, and blood libel in Arabic, apparently, is still cool :thumbs:

Are you suggesting that Ilhan Omar associating with this organization, which apologized for the article, makes her an anti-semite?

I would say that championing organizations defined by anti-semitism is pretty close to it. Hard to think of (for example) someone in the United States arguing that they really appreciate and want to champion the KKK without having to deal with that. Imagine the uproar if (for example) a GOP Congresscritter were to go to New Zealand in order to champion an organization that honored the ChristChurch shooter as someone who "fought back against Muslims, who don't belong in this region of the world".

Would you also say that one of the leading progressive Palestinian activists, Hanan Ashrawi, is an anti-semite?

As the founder of Mifta, it certainly seems pretty dang likely.

Would you say that the BDS movement is based on anti-semitism?

Yup. That meets the international definition, which our State Department has agreed to, and mirrors earlier racist campaigns that featured boycotts against Jews. The maps that BDS organizations publish don't have Israel on them. Of two major founders here in the U.S., one - Omar Barghouti - has said that he is working for "Israel's Euthenasia", and the other - Hatem Bazian - puts out antisemitic tropes so over the line that even UC Berkely has called him out for it, and spreads around a modern day variation of the Blood Libel (that Jewish soldiers come capture and kill Palestinian children for their organs).

I just want to see where you're coming from and what your motivations are.

My motivations are irrelevant - data and honesty matter.

I would say I'm worried about the racism in both parties, especially as both parties fall deeper into tribalism, which makes it harder for them to clean house internally, protecting the slime, and ensuring that it will have a larger voice in the future as tribalists (again, on both parties) find ways to either excuse it, pretend it isn't happening, or argue that but-its-not-as-bad-as-the-other-guys. Republicans, for example, will often go to lengths to try to insist Trump isn't racist, just as Democrats will go to lengths to insist that Tlaib et. al. aren't anti-semitic.

Dans La Lune · Sep 1, 2019

cpwill said:
Oh, that's interesting. By cutting me out of your reply, you ensured I wouldn't get a notification.

Sorry, that wasn't intentional. I'm new here.

Ah. So you wish to keep it as flexible and vague as possible so that later you can wriggle out of anything actually said by claiming That's Not About Jews, It's Just About... Something Else (or It's Not Hostile), or some other such.

I'm not sure what your point is here. The definition is very clear and not vague. It refers to Jews and not Israel, a far right-wing nationalist government. Seems to me that if criticism of Israel is antisemitism, that leaves you vague boundaries and room to wriggle. Which you display below:

Later edit - I went back and looked. They first claimed that criticism of the blood libel was a "smear" against them, and then claimed it had only been "briefly addressed" (just a light smattering of blood libel, ya'll!) and took it down.... but only in English. Arabic, not so much. Neo-Nazis, massacring Jewish children, and blood libel in Arabic, apparently, is still cool :thumbs:

They've addressed it fully.

I would say that championing organizations defined by anti-semitism is pretty close to it. Hard to think of (for example) someone in the United States arguing that they really appreciate and want to champion the KKK without having to deal with that. Imagine the uproar if (for example) a GOP Congresscritter were to go to New Zealand in order to champion an organization that honored the ChristChurch shooter as someone who "fought back against Muslims, who don't belong in this region of the world".

Well, a GOP Congressman quoted Hitler on the floor of Congress recently. How many mentions have there been in the media?

Further:

1) Are Evangelicals anti-semitic? They support Israel at the expense of Jews.

2) If so, how often have you called out Evangelical Republicans in Congress or in general?

3) Is National Review a pro-Apartheid and pro-Segregationist group?

As the founder of Mifta, it certainly seems pretty dang likely.

I think Peter Beinart, an orthodox Jew, summed it up pretty nicely. And I'll wait for your to apply the same standards to the National Review and Evangelicals in your next reply.

Peter Beinart v. Rich Lowry

Yup. That meets the international definition, which our State Department has agreed to, and mirrors earlier racist campaigns that featured boycotts against Jews. The maps that BDS organizations publish don't have Israel on them. Of two major founders here in the U.S., one - Omar Barghouti - has said that he is working for "Israel's Euthenasia", and the other - Hatem Bazian - puts out antisemitic tropes so over the line that even UC Berkely has called him out for it, and spreads around a modern day variation of the Blood Libel (that Jewish soldiers come capture and kill Palestinian children for their organs).

I don't see any of this here:

Omar Barghouti - Wikipedia

These are not obviously not all-encompassing, but if you could direct me towards the actual citation and sourcing I would appreciate it.

My motivations are irrelevant - data and honesty matter.

You haven't provided any data.

I would say I'm worried about the racism in both parties

I'm worried about actual racism.

especially as both parties fall deeper into tribalism, which makes it harder for them to clean house internally, protecting the slime, and ensuring that it will have a larger voice in the future as tribalists (again, on both parties) find ways to either excuse it, pretend it isn't happening, or argue that but-its-not-as-bad-as-the-other-guys. Republicans, for example, will often go to lengths to try to insist Trump isn't racist, just as Democrats will go to lengths to insist that Tlaib et. al. aren't anti-semitic.

I've yet to see any proof of antisemitism from Tlaib or Omar. Just a very loose association with a group which apologized for one anti-semitic article, and for supporting the BDS movement which seeks to change Israel's behavior through economic leverage.

The real problem isn't racism, it's the whataboutism and egregious false equivalence people like you engage in. It's designed to make Trump and Ilhan Omar equal, thus protecting Trump, slamming Omar, and muddying the waters so no real issues (like Israel's behavior) can even be discussed. This debate so far is certainly proof of that, isn't it?

Show me ACTUAL antisemitism displayed by 'The Squad'. Not friends of friends of associates of them, which may or may not qualify to the last link in the chain.

cpwill · Sep 2, 2019

Dans La Lune said:
Sorry, that wasn't intentional. I'm new here.

No worries.

However, you also then in your reply here:

cpwill said:
cpwill said:

Later edit - I went back and looked. They first claimed that criticism of the blood libel was a "smear" against them, and then claimed it had only been "briefly addressed" (just a light smattering of blood libel, ya'll!) and took it down.... but only in English. Arabic, not so much. Neo-Nazis, massacring Jewish children, and blood libel in Arabic, apparently, is still cool

Click to expand...

They've addressed it fully.

cut out the other things I pointed you towards about Mifta - namely, that they have also hosted neo-Nazi propaganda (about how the Jews were trying to destroy other races by encouraging homosexuality and racial mixing), and that they celebrate terrorists, who murder Jewish people, including Jewish Children.

So, I hope you understand that, that sort of makes it look like you are deliberately cutting things out of your reply.

Out of curiosity, do you think that celebrating terrorists who mass-murder children is acceptable, and do you think that neo-nazi propaganda about how the Jews are trying to destroy other races by encouraging homosexuality and racial mixing is anti-semitic?

I'm not sure what your point is here. The definition is very clear and not vague.

To the contrary, it basically means "bad things". One of the reasons the State Department definition is useful is because it lays out concrete items, so that, for example, people can't go around claiming that things like Blood Libel aren't anti-Semitic, because Jews really do that, so it's not disparaging to them to describe them so.

It refers to Jews and not Israel, a far right-wing nationalist government.

Israel is not "a far right wing nationalist government". Israel is a Jewish Nation. The current Prime Minister may be conservative within the political norms of that country, which in no way changes what Israel Is.

Seems to me that if criticism of Israel is antisemitism,

I wouldn't say that criticism of Israel is necessarily antisemitic, though certainly many antisemites cover for their attacks by claiming they are just "anti-zionist".

Manifestations [of antisemitism] might include the targeting of the state of Israel, conceived as a Jewish collectivity. However, criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic. Antisemitism frequently charges Jews with conspiring to harm humanity, and it is often used to blame Jews for “why things go wrong.” It is expressed in speech, writing, visual forms and action, and employs sinister stereotypes and negative character traits.

Well, a GOP Congressman quoted Hitler on the floor of Congress recently. How many mentions have there been in the media?

Interesting. The only incident I'm aware of recently was Mo Brooks using a quote from Hitler as a warning and a criticism - do you have a link to a GOP congressman speaking approvingly of him?

But I can't help but notice you also didn't answer the actual point. If a GOP congresscritter were to ally himself with an organization that lionized Hitler, or go on a trip sponsored by the KKK, the uproar would be instantaneous and well-deserved. Just as the pushback to Omar and Tlaib partnering with an anti-semitic organization was here.

1) Are Evangelicals anti-semitic? They support Israel at the expense of Jews.

:shrug: this is projecting your assessment of the good of Jews as a collective onto both others and them, similar to what President Trump and Ilhan Omar have both done.

Some Evangelicals are anti-semitic. As a group, no. Support of Israel's right to exist is no more anti-semitic than support of Germany's right to exist is anti-German.

how often have you called out Evangelical Republicans in Congress or in general?

LOTS.

3) Is National Review a pro-Apartheid and pro-Segregationist group?

Nope. Not that that really changes what Mifta did one way or the other, mind.

cpwill · Sep 2, 2019

Dans La Lune said:
I think Peter Beinart, an orthodox Jew, summed it up pretty nicely. Peter Beinart v. Rich Lowry

:lol: that guy looked a wee bit hyper-emotional

. It was not a good argument, on his side.

Generally, if your response to "yes, but this person supports terrorism is" BUT LOOK AT THIS OTHER THING OVER HERE, then you are,

A) Implicitly acknowledging that the person supports terrorism (which, she does, because, well, her organization celebrates terrorists), and
B) Attempting to avoid discussing that fact.

So, when Beinart responds to "Her organization is clearly anti-semitic and supports terrorists" with "But she herself engages in non-violent protests" And "Yes, but are you saying she doesn't have control over her organization" with "Look, the real question here is how much foreign aid the U.S. gives to Israel", he is implicitly conceding that:

1. She has control over her own organization and publication, which
2. Supports antisemitic terrorism.

....which is probably why he started off by saying he didn't agree with Mifta and didn't agree with Terrorism, and then trying to change the subject. Because he is more politically sympathetic to Tlaib and Omar, it's a lot more difficult to discuss their decision here, and it's a lot easier to go to ground he is more comfortable with, which is talking about his emotional reaction to interacting with Palestinians.

Trump fans do the same thing when they try to change the subject from his latest outrage to But What About This Awful Democrat!!!. They are much more psychologically comfortable in the space where they are lambasting a member of the other tribe than being forced to confront an abusive act by one of their own, and so they seek to shift the conversation from the latter to the former.

I don't see any of this here:

Omar Barghouti - Wikipedia

These are not obviously not all-encompassing, but if you could direct me towards the actual citation and sourcing I would appreciate it.

A fair request.

That (the BDS being based in anti-semitism) meets the international definition, which our State Department has agreed to, and mirrors earlier racist campaigns that featured boycotts against Jews. The maps that BDS organizations publish don't have Israel on them. Of two major founders here in the U.S., one - Omar Barghouti - has said that he supports Israel's "Euthenasia" (he's also claimed the Jews are not a people, and repeated some of the same trops about how you know they kill children for fun), and the other - Hatem Bazian - puts out antisemitic tropes so over the line that even UC Berkely has called him out for it, and spreads around a modern day variation of the Blood Libel (that Jewish soldiers come capture and kill Palestinian children for their organs).

I'm worried about actual racism.

Me too. Which is what I said that started this discussion betwixt us

I've yet to see any proof of antisemitism from Tlaib or Omar.

Sure. And Trump Fans insist he's not racist, too. Tribalism is a helluva drug :-/.

Just a very loose association with a group which apologized for one anti-semitic article, and for supporting the BDS movement which seeks to change Israel's behavior through economic leverage.

No, the BDS movement seeks to eliminate Israel alltogether. I fully expect that many of its adherents (most, perhaps; we live in a foolish age) aren't aware of that, and probably wouldn't actually call for the elimination of Israel necessarily.

The real problem isn't racism, it's the whataboutism and egregious false equivalence people like you engage in.

I thought you just said you were worried about racism?

But no. Whataboutism attempts to excuse the sins of one actor by pointing to the sins of another. What I am doing here is saying that racism is wrong regardless of which party is doing it. You are arguing that only one is, because you like the other one.

marke · Sep 2, 2019

Dans La Lune said:
The machine that stokes white grievance, while it picks the pockets of Republican voters, only cares about making money. Everything else is a means to achieve this end. If and when the economy tanks, how fast will this machine turn on Trump?

If this question doesn't work for you, try this one: What will the Republican party look like post-Trump? Will it be like after Bush, where the Republican party transforms over night into libertarians concerned about debt/deficit? My thinking is that there really isn't any ideology left to the Republican party. They've burned through all of the conservative brands in the space of ~20 years. It's really quite amazing. Is the destiny of the Republican party to go the way of the Whigs and Know-Nothings?

It does seem that most Americans vote the dollar and not their conscience. Republicans and democrats alike will vote for the candidate who shows promise of providing them the most in benefits and income, regardless of the overall effect any policy may have on the entire economy. Democrats know this, which is why they are tripping over one another in offering trillions of dollars in new government benefits for poor people. For the most part the candidates must know they will never be able to fulfill those expensive promises, but their goal is to get elected, not fulfill campaign promises.

Dans La Lune · Sep 2, 2019

cpwill said:
Out of curiosity, do you think that celebrating terrorists who mass-murder children is acceptable

Certainly not. Do you think when Israel mass-murders children and civilians it's acceptable?

and do you think that neo-nazi propaganda about how the Jews are trying to destroy other races by encouraging homosexuality and racial mixing is anti-semitic?

I think such rhetoric if it exists in its modern publications would be absolutely unacceptable.

To the contrary, it basically means "bad things". One of the reasons the State Department definition is useful is because it lays out concrete items, so that, for example, people can't go around claiming that things like Blood Libel aren't anti-Semitic, because Jews really do that, so it's not disparaging to them to describe them so.

The definition you're using, conveniently not from the dictionary, states that criticism of Israel is anti-semitic. Which, again conveniently, would automatically cede the argument to you -- since the main accusations against 'The Squad' is that they are critical of Israel. So lets stick with the dictionary, especially since 'The State Department' has a vested interest in Israel.

Israel is not "a far right wing nationalist government".

Actually, it is. The Likud party is an anti-peace, nationalist party. Netanyahu is cartoonishly corrupt, racist demagogue.

Israel is a Jewish Nation.

Cool story. About 25% of the Israeli population is non-Jewish. And growing.

The current Prime Minister may be conservative within the political norms of that country, which in no way changes what Israel Is.

Israel, Jew, and Judaism are not synonymous no matter how badly you want them to be.

I wouldn't say that criticism of Israel is necessarily antisemitic, though certainly many antisemites cover for their attacks by claiming they are just "anti-zionist".

How about this: Criticism of ANY government is acceptable. You should dispense entirely with the 'necessarily antisemitic' stipulation. In addition, support of Israel tends to lean TOWARDS anti-semitism in America, not away from it.

Manifestations [of antisemitism] might include the targeting of the state of Israel, conceived as a Jewish collectivity. However, criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic. Antisemitism frequently charges Jews with conspiring to harm humanity, and it is often used to blame Jews for “why things go wrong.” It is expressed in speech, writing, visual forms and action, and employs sinister stereotypes and negative character traits.

We've already covered this. You'll never convince me in a million years to accept this definition, because it's not a definition.

Interesting. The only incident I'm aware of recently was Mo Brooks using a quote from Hitler as a warning and a criticism - do you have a link to a GOP congressman speaking approvingly of him?

Well, in his analogy, Democrats were the Jews.

But I can't help but notice you also didn't answer the actual point. If a GOP congresscritter were to ally himself with an organization that lionized Hitler, or go on a trip sponsored by the KKK, the uproar would be instantaneous and well-deserved. Just as the pushback to Omar and Tlaib partnering with an anti-semitic organization was here.

I'm still waiting for sourcing.

:shrug: this is projecting your assessment of the good of Jews as a collective onto both others and them, similar to what President Trump and Ilhan Omar have both done.

Please explain. I'm citing Evangelical canon, not projecting anything.

Some Evangelicals are anti-semitic.

Sorry, I meant Evangelicals who want Biblical Israel seized to fulfill the prophecy of Armageddon, which ends in the extermination of Jews. Which is about 100% of the Trump-supporting Evangelicals.

As a group, no. Support of Israel's right to exist is no more anti-semitic than support of Germany's right to exist is anti-German.

I support Israel's right to exist. So does The Squad. Do you have proof otherwise?

LOTS.

Show me.

Nope. Not that that really changes what Mifta did one way or the other, mind.

Well, you're saying one-time articles and viewpoints, even when apologized for, condemn an organization to that viewpoint eternally and is all-encompassing to anyone even remotely associated with them. I'm trying to see if you're an honest actor. I'm very, very skeptical at this point. National Review supported Apartheid and Segregation. I'll ask you again, is National Review a pro-Apartheid pro-Segregationist organization.

I asked you once, you failed the test. I'll ask you again because I believe in redemption.

Dans La Lune · Sep 2, 2019

cpwill said:
:lol: that guy looked a wee bit hyper-emotional . It was not a good argument, on his side.

It was an AMAZING argument, so we'll agree to disagree. Rich Lowery was pathetic. But he comes from the National Review, a pro-Apartheid, pro-Segregationist publication.

Generally, if your response to "yes, but this person supports terrorism is" BUT LOOK AT THIS OTHER THING OVER HERE, then you are,

I think we should both agree that Israeli and Palestinian acts of terrorism is bad. And we should both acknowledge that they occur. It's just that Israel is in the infinitely superior offensive and defensive position, and it's incumbent on such a position -- since it holds ALL THE CARDS -- to not slaughter hundreds of civilians every few years and call it 'Cutting the Grass'.

A fair request.

Sorry to repeat myself, but could you provide sources? You kind of didn't.

1) The BDS movement is not antisemitism, so that's not even a source.
2) The Tower doesn't provide sourcing for the quote.
3) The Jewish Journal doesn't provide sourcing.
4) The Tweet, which you referenced, points to a conservative Twitter Account which makes those accusations.

No offense, but you're very, very reckless with your sourcing. Please clean up the sourcing and try again.

No, the BDS movement seeks to eliminate Israel alltogether.

No, it seeks to change Israel's behavior through economic leverage. Please stop with this nonsense. BDS would save Israel.

Dans La Lune · Sep 2, 2019

Just to correct this one:

4) The Tweet, which you referenced, points to a conservative Twitter Account which makes those accusations.

I was mistaken on this point, but I didn't make the edit time-limit when I re-checked my post. Apparently this is a legit point, but he later apologized for re-tweeting it. Which, while it doesn't absolve him of culpability, isn't proof of antisemitism. It would be proof if he defended it, stood by it, etc.

Mr Person · Sep 2, 2019

Dans La Lune said:
The machine that stokes white grievance, while it picks the pockets of Republican voters, only cares about making money. Everything else is a means to achieve this end. If and when the economy tanks, how fast will this machine turn on Trump?

If this question doesn't work for you, try this one: What will the Republican party look like post-Trump? Will it be like after Bush, where the Republican party transforms over night into libertarians concerned about debt/deficit? My thinking is that there really isn't any ideology left to the Republican party. They've burned through all of the conservative brands in the space of ~20 years. It's really quite amazing. Is the destiny of the Republican party to go the way of the Whigs and Know-Nothings?

I find the bolded puzzling. The GOP did not transform into libertarians concerned about debt/deficit. In each of the following administrations they blew up both: Reagan, Dubya', Trump. They only made noises about it when a D was in office. They haven't cared about debt/deficit in several decades

Dans La Lune · Sep 2, 2019

Mr Person said:
I find the bolded puzzling. The GOP did not transform into libertarians concerned about debt/deficit. In each of the following administrations they blew up both: Reagan, Dubya', Trump. They only made noises about it when a D was in office. They haven't cared about debt/deficit in several decades

You're correct. My point was that the shift in the rhetoric was towards libertarianism, towards fiscal responsibility, towards lowering the debt and deficit the second Obama took office. That was the point of the Tea Party, which was immediately co-opted by corporate donors, and is now almost laughable in retrospect. I'm certainly not dismissing the fundamental truth that the modern Republican party is simply a vehicle for corruption and special interests, and is utterly devoid of problem-solving ability or the capacity to generate new ideas.

Moderate Right · Sep 9, 2019

Dans La Lune said:
The machine that stokes white grievance, while it picks the pockets of Republican voters, only cares about making money. Everything else is a means to achieve this end. If and when the economy tanks, how fast will this machine turn on Trump?

If this question doesn't work for you, try this one: What will the Republican party look like post-Trump? Will it be like after Bush, where the Republican party transforms over night into libertarians concerned about debt/deficit? My thinking is that there really isn't any ideology left to the Republican party. They've burned through all of the conservative brands in the space of ~20 years. It's really quite amazing. Is the destiny of the Republican party to go the way of the Whigs and Know-Nothings?

You obviously have a biased view of the world.

bongsaway · Sep 9, 2019

Dans La Lune said:
The machine that stokes white grievance, while it picks the pockets of Republican voters, only cares about making money. Everything else is a means to achieve this end. If and when the economy tanks, how fast will this machine turn on Trump?

If this question doesn't work for you, try this one: What will the Republican party look like post-Trump? Will it be like after Bush, where the Republican party transforms over night into libertarians concerned about debt/deficit? My thinking is that there really isn't any ideology left to the Republican party. They've burned through all of the conservative brands in the space of ~20 years. It's really quite amazing. Is the destiny of the Republican party to go the way of the Whigs and Know-Nothings?

In my eyes, the GOP will always be the GOP. Support the rich and corporate america while screwing their constituents who vote republican. Dems evil, taxes evil, government evil, vote republican or america will turn into a socialist wasteland. And they do, election after election. When will they learn the GOP does not care about the working individual?

Dans La Lune · Sep 9, 2019

bongsaway said:
In my eyes, the GOP will always be the GOP. Support the rich and corporate america while screwing their constituents who vote republican. Dems evil, taxes evil, government evil, vote republican or america will turn into a socialist wasteland. And they do, election after election. When will they learn the GOP does not care about the working individual?

Remember that it was not always the case. Nixon was a conservative Republican, largely corrupt and racist, and he was still to the left of the modern Democratic party.

Nixon oversaw a 70% tax rate, created the EPA, championed universal healthcare and even sought to implement a guaranteed income of 10k (current dollars) for every American.

These were mainstream ideas until corporations bought both parties.

Blue Dog · Sep 9, 2019

When the economy goes into a recession the GOP will disown Trump. He will be an anathema.

How fast will Republicans turn on Trump?

Dans La Lune

Do you read Sutter Cane?

cpwill

Dans La Lune

Do you read Sutter Cane?

cpwill

cpwill

marke

Dans La Lune

Do you read Sutter Cane?

Dans La Lune

Do you read Sutter Cane?

Dans La Lune

Do you read Sutter Cane?

Mr Person

A Little Bitter

Dans La Lune

Do you read Sutter Cane?

Moderate Right

bongsaway

Dans La Lune

Do you read Sutter Cane?

Blue Dog

Mugwump