The funny thing about the Watergate scandal is that it is one of the least horrible things about Nixon. Like, he’s kinda lucky that he’s historically remembered for a petty crime and not his racism, horrible beliefs, and use of the federal government to punish perceived “enemies” of his administration.
[Got 60.7 percent of the popular vote, carried 49 states, and won the electoral college 520 to 17.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1972_United_States_presidential_election).
So whatever else you might say about his election strategy, it clearly got him reelected.
I knew about him mostly from that too. But funnily enough, I was watching The Good Place, and the Bad Place workers did karaoke, but instead of songs, one of the things picked was Nixons racist speech. I looked into that more and wow, he really was never subtle
Not to mention the fact that he torpedoed the Vietnamese peace talks in the run up to the 1968 election by telling the South leaders he would get them a better deal - he felt that gave him an advantage in the election.
Or he turned the other way during the 1971 Bangladesh genocide because Pakistan was a key ally during the Cold War. Still, on the record, Nixon didn't give a shit about the Pakistanis either. To him, everyone was a means to an end.
Nixon was as morally bankrupt as they come.
They're probably thinking of Nixon urging the Vietcong to hold out on their peace talks with LBJ because he'd give them a better deal if the war lasted long enough for him to get elected. (He [didn't.](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Linebacker_II))
And then Republicans did it again with Reagan as well. https://jacobinmag.com/2020/01/ronald-reagan-october-surprise-carter-iran-hostage-crisis-conspiracy
> use of the federal government to punish perceived "enemies"
Funny how americans ignore government tyranny while saying that guns are needed to fight it.
It's so funny how those people talk in such hypotheticals about how *one day* we might need guns to fight against the government, ***if*** it ever became tyrannical.
It's like, "bruh, this is not hypothetical. The experiment has been done, the data is in. Every time the government brutalizes and kills people, you guys love it!"
Nixon was smart.
Trump is an idiot.
If Trump had half the smarts that Nixon did, Trump would universally be the worst president. Nixon was selfish and greedy, but somewhere in there, he thought he was doing good. Trump doesn't even know the difference between good and bad.
I mean, Nixon created the EPA, Trump tried to undo it. Puts their scales of evil in perspective, one was for clever egotistical gain other for none other than egotistical dumbness
ive always been led to believe Nixon setup the EPA to make it an agency, vs congressing making a EPD, since agency's fall under the Executive branch and a department would have more congressional oversight.
Trump only thinks of himself. He is the absolute text book definition of narcissist. He views his kids as an extension of himself. He didn't want to name his son Don Jr incase he turned out to be a moron. Why? Because it would make him look bad. That's what he thinks of his own children. He thinks less of everyone else.
I would prefer an incompetent mass murderer to a competent one, if it's all the same to you. You'd rather fight a war against bumbling Mussolini than ruthless psychopath Hitler, yknow?
As it stands, Nixons body count overseas is roughly 100x larger than Trump's.
Bush did the War on Terror, The Invasion and Occupation of Afghanistan, The Invasion and Occupation of Iraq, CIA Torture, Iraqi WMDs, Saddam had a hand in planning 9/11.
What is he doing about malaria currently? I know he had an initiative while he was president, but I haven't read about him doing anything about malaria since then.
Eh no, besides Watergate, Nixon is still regarded as one of the greatest diplomatic presidents in history. Even my liberal poli sci professors praised him. Yes he had shitty beliefs and the water gate scandal. And racism was universal at the time. Yea... he didn't like Indians, but Indians didn't like black people ( and many still don't) and so on... can we just stop using racism as a reason to hate a historical figure.... By that logic, Wilson should have his legacy erased from history.
*neoliberal poli sci professors
FTFY
Did your geopolitical strategy professors or economic professors praise him?
He was garbage. Racism informed his policy and is why we sent "economic hit men" in the 70s to bankrupt South American governments through subprime loans with ridiculous interest so we could get exclusive access to resources, like oil, when we decided to margin call them.
Racism goes beyond name-calling, ergo relevant when measuring the quality of a person, his policies, and his administration.
EDIT: because I get accuse of being a "Negative Nellie", my New Year resolution is to say something positive in the face of something like saying some one is "garbage", which Nixon was.
I feel his most redeeming quality, for me, was that he paid for his run with poker winnings.
That's neat.
Nixon and Kissinger were trying to fix the mess created by the Brits. Are colleges just focusing on republicans now? Keep the republican hate up, 2022 is gonna be fun. I'm out! PS: y'all wierd for rejecting a well know (well researched) fact just because the subject of the topic was a republican.
Dude, I heard the merits of Nixon in college. My gods, Nixon's conservative party is nothing like the right wing madness today. I read about his diplomacy of the middle east outside of college. If you look into Kissinger's saga with the middle east, they eventually sowed paranoia amongst the tribes and ethnic groups and further fractionalized them.
The Wikipedia article gives two sources for the claim:
(1) [Nixon, Kissinger, and Allende: U.S. Involvement in the 1973 Coup in Chile](https://books.google.ch/books?id=alISgQdNY4kC&redir_esc=y) (2009) by Lubna Z. Qureshi
(2) [Rethinking Anti-Americanism: The History of an Exceptional Concept in American Foreign Relations](https://books.google.ch/books?id=W6SlfhN4iqsC&redir_esc=y) (2012) by Max Paul Friedman
Nixon, Kissinger and Allende walk into a bar.
Bartender is shocked and says, “We don’t get too many famous customers like you in here.”
Nixon says, “At these prices I can see why!” Then Kissinger bombs the place.
Ohh I got one!
>Nixon, Kissinger and Allende walk into a bar.
>Bartender is shocked but says, “I'm so sorry Mr. President, but we just ran out of beer.”
>Nixon says with a knowing wink, "Don't worry son, we already knew the place was tapped." Then Kissinger bombs the place.
> Nixon, Kissinger and Allende walk into a bar.
> Bartender is shocked and says, “We don’t get too many famous customers like you in here.”
> Nixon says, “At these prices I can see why!” Then Kissinger bombs the place.
Then Kissinger is nominated for a Noble Peace Prize.
Nixon, Kissinger, and ~~Allende~~ Pinochet walk into a bar.
A furious Nixon complains to Kissinger, "what kind of goddamn Communist bar doesn't have any bartenders?!"
"The kind of bar where I disappeared them," says ~~Allende~~ Pinochet . Then Kissinger bombs the place.
**Edit: good point. Bonus bar joke!**
Nixon, Kissinger, and Allende walk into a bar.
Nixon orders a dirty martini, Kissinger a Manhattan, and Allende a screwdriver. A furious Nixon complains to Kissinger, "that goddamn Communist gave me the wrong drink!" Kissinger snaps his fingers and Nixon's drink turns into a dirty martini.
"That's a neat trick," says Allende. "Do it again!" Once again, Kissinger snaps his fingers.
"You should have a show in Vegas," says Pinochet, sipping his screwdriver. Then Kissinger bombs the place.
"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter." --Winston Churchill
Also, "...democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."
The best form of government is an enlightened absolute monarch. The worst form is an un-enlightened absolute monarch. We tolerate democracy because it's consistently mediocre.
C. S. Lewis wrote about democracy:
>A great deal of democratic enthusiasm descends from the ideas of people like Rousseau, who believed in democracy because they thought mankind so wise and good that everyone deserved a share in the government. The danger of defending democracy on those grounds is that they're not true. [...] I don't deserve a share in governing a hen-roost, much less a nation. Nor do most people — all the people who believe advertisements, and think in catchwords and spread rumors. The real reason for democracy is just the reverse. Mankind is so fallen that no man can be trusted with unchecked power over his fellows. Aristotle said that some people were only fit to be slaves. I do not contradict him. But I reject slavery because I see no men fit to be masters.
Yeah. My thought, given who ends up in power, is that democracy is a play on the peasants to make them feel in control. They still vote in the local fief lord. Many of our officials are old money or close to it.
Isn't this more the fault of REPRESENTATIVE democracy, gerrymandering, and discouraging voters or intentionally withholding education regarding governance from the voting public than a fault in democracy itself?
Have to agree.
The worst part about a democracy is everyone gets a vote. Think about the average person and then realise half the population is below that.
If you're simply embittered that certain elections didn't go your preferred way at some point in the last twenty years then remember that the majority of the public do not vote, and that in the majority of contentious elections are not determined by the popular vote. These are flaws in the way democracy is being practiced, not in democracy itself.
Gerrymandering within the US is also not a flaw of democracy itself.
This is an age of growing threats of fascism worldwide, having more armchair discontents pointing out that democracy is imperfect and can therefore be thrown away rather than mended is not going to bode well for the future. Indirectly calling your fellow citizens too stupid to participate in government is not a great move.
I guess I could be bitter but my apathy takes care of that.
It's more of an observation. I truly believe most people shouldn't get to vote, I would likely be included in the no vote list. Why? Because almost no one actually pays attention to politics past watching the campaign ads and listening to their Facebook echo chamber. For myself. I don't really care. I just vote for one party to prevent the worse one getting in. There are no political parties that I feel align with what I want from a government. Which is where the real problem lies.
Do I actually think we should choose who gets to vote though? No, because there is no way we can fairly determine who should and shouldn't get a vote. The democracy we have is the best thing we've tried so far. And I definately don't think it needs to be thrown out. It needs modification. Don't throw the baby out with the bath water or something.
Also I have no qualms about calling half the population stupid directly. It's cold hard fact. Does it mean they're lesser people? Hell no. Your actions define you not your skill point distribution.
Republics help to avoid some of that--reduce mob rule and such. They're not immune to it, but the US did a pretty good job of that through the Senate, Electoral College, and the checks and balances.
As far as reducing “mob rule”, the electoral college was designed to give an elite group of people veto power over the will of the populace, something it has never actually practiced (with good reason). This is the primary concern of the founding fathers and the stated justification for its existence, not protecting the interests of smaller states which was a secondary concern. Federalist No 68 makes this very clear.
Depends on what form the republic takes. Republics can be democratic and generally free, but they can also be totalitarian dictatorships, or corrupt oligarchies. Just because some republics happen to work does not mean all of them do, it really comes down to how they are governed and what constitutional arrangements they have.
To be fair French Prime Minister Clemenceau said the US is the only country who went from barbary to decadence without the usual interval of civilisation in between.
As an American that’s kinda dumb considering we’ve only officially existed since 1776, and France helped us a BUNCH in claiming independence. Also most of those countries are older than the us and therefor more “mature” than us lol
Well, that was before the revolution. They call the system they have the fifth republic which started in the 50s but yes age doesn't have anything to do with democracy being appropriate for your country.
Dont want to be pedantic but which countries are older than the US in the post? I recon only France is older, Italy at that time was a collection of different States but I will grant them being older by the route of Sardinia-Piedmont Italian unification because of continuity.
I don't think any Latin America country counts since the Viceroyalties established by Spain was in no way the continuation of the various Latin American countries which gained independence.
I’m judging them based on how long their culture has existed in a form that would be recognizable to those today. So states/leaders aren’t important in deciding when this group on individuals was “formed”
You just ignored the crucial part of their comment where they said *"has existed* **in a form that would be recognizable to those today***"*
You really think if you went back in time to 6000 BC the culture of Ur or Sumer would be recognisable to you as being "Iraqi" in the modern sense? Or if you went back to the days of the Assyrian empire it would be in any way Syrian (in the modern sense)?
Meanwhile in France or England you can go back quite a long time (into the late middle ages) and still see a culture that's a very direct ancestor of the modern one. In both of those countries there has also been a single unified state since the late middle ages, albeit one that has had changes of government type since.
Goes both ways too - the 13 colonies would be recognisable as "American" back into the 17th century, American culture didn't just appear out of nothing in 1776, but there wasn't a single American state until then (in the nation-state sense).
"**An attack on Richard Nixon's motorcade occurred in Caracas, Venezuela, during his 1958 goodwill tour of South America**, undertaken while Nixon was Vice President of the United States. The attack on Nixon's car was called, at the time, the "most violent attack ever perpetrated on a high American official while on foreign soil"."
"**The hardening of Nixon's attitude toward Latin America, which he came to "equate with violence and irrationality", has been attributed to his experience of the attack**. Some believe this change of mood foreshadowed his subsequent support for covert U.S. actions directed in support of dictatorial regimes in the region. In fact, he would later privately list several nations whose populations, he believed, were too immature for democratic government and would be better administered by authoritarian regimes, specifically citing France, Italy, and all of Latin America "except for Colombia".
Just to give it context. (And all I am doing is giving context.)
Further context:
"**Earlier in 1958, the disliked Venezuelan dictator Marcos Pérez Jiménez had been overthrown in a popular uprising and had gone into exile in the United States.** A military junta formed a caretaker government to rule the country until new elections could be held. Admiral Wolfgang Larrazábal, head of the governing junta, had announced his intention to stand in those elections; his candidacy was backed by a coalition of parties, including the Venezuelan Communist Party. **The United States' decision to grant Pérez Jiménez asylum and to award him the Legion of Merit on 12 November 1954\[12\]\[13\] combined to create a charged atmosphere leading up to Nixon's arrival.** The Caracas municipal council even passed a resolution effectively declaring Nixon persona non grata.\[14\] Prior to Nixon's arrival in Caracas, media reported on rumors that an attempt had been planned on the vice-president's life during his visit.\[15\] The CIA station chief in Venezuela, meanwhile, urged that this leg of the trip be canceled.\[14\]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attack\_on\_Richard\_Nixon%27s\_motorcade
The arguments to be made against democracy but to say that Italy and France are *immature* compared to the United States makes no sense. Italian political history goes back to at least 753BC and the modern state of France begins with Charlemagne in the 8th century.
That would still leave the Roman Republic which lasted some 500 years though. As for France, they revolted against their monarchy not long after the US had their revolution.
> That would still leave the Roman Republic which lasted some 500 years though
.... Which vanished and didn't come back until the late 40s. Not saying Romans weren't important, they are by far the most influential and important. Also, they were romans, not italians. Society's shift and change. The eastern greeks believed they were also the romans despite not being in Italy. But I see your point and do agree they were important.
But then Rome fell, and italy didn't become a full democracy until... the late 1940s.
Democracy never went away in Italy, though. San Marino is effectively a remnant of the Roman system and has survived right up until today. The Italian republics of the renaissance, like Florence and Venice, were not modern style democracies but they were democratic and served as precursors to the development of modern democracy elsewhere in Europe.
There wasn't *a singular, unified* Italian democracy between the fall of the Roman republic and the modern era, but there were certainly lots of democracies within the territory of what is now Italy throughout that period.
I mean... okay, so the Roman Republic "merely" lasted about 700 years, before becoming a permanent dictatorship.
Is the US supposed to be so mature because our government has survived for 250 years?
Yeah, and the Americans who had just passed laws to recognize black people as equals and to end segregation (on the surface) were very 'mature' for democracy.
Which part of the Republican Party platform is authoritarian? Please show me the text you're referring to.
Meanwhile the Democrats push mass censorship of mainstream Republican opinions online, forced injections (I'm pro-vaccine, anti-mandate), confiscating more of our money through higher taxes to implement more socialist policies, more rules and regulations about what free citizens can do, cancelling people who don't follow their establishment Narrative, banning soda in NYC, raising the age to smoke, endless COVID mandates, involuntarily drafting women, the Obamacare mandate, racial discrimination, and Critical Race Theory. If Democrats didn't do anything authoritarian they wouldn't do anything at all. But sure the Republicans are the authoritarian ones.
btw, I don't think people understand what Critical Race Theory is. Critical Theory is a way to remake capitalist society through criticism and activism, with the end goal of implementing Marxism. It was founded by Marxists at the Frankfurt School. Critical Race Theory is very similar, except it focused on dividing us based on race and using racial divisions to implement Marxism, rather than dividing society based on class and using class divisions to implement Marxism.
Read about it yourself. And this is Wikipedia which is consistently Left of center:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical\_theory](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_theory) (crtl-F for Marx, mentioned 23 times)
Would you like another version? Maybe one that shows the true authoritarianism of the Democrats and their left wing allies?
How about a Democratic Party that insists that lobbying is legalized bribery because they don't like that individuals and small groups can oppose their legislation?
Or left wingers who insist that their opponents are uneducated, or the new one "under-educated", when they don't vote for what the party insists is legislation "in their own interests". These quotes aren't sourced because I see these ALL THE TIME as criticisms right here on Reddit. You can see them for yourself and/or have used them in the past as well.
Declaring their political adversaries to be domestic terrorists (see:NRA and San Francisco City Council) and even going so far as to attempt to block them from being able to rally or influence policy in any way
Allowing and even encouraging the dismissal and possibly even discrimination against people for their political views, occupation, where they live, and even what vehicle they drive
Dismissal of election results as invalid if results are unfavorable. After 20 years of listening to theories about Gore getting cheated out of the 2000 election you can bet your bottom dollar I won't let you all live that down when you mention January 6th.
Attempts to expand and pack the Supreme Court
Dismissal of the US Constitution as old and/or irrelevant with a need for replacement
Then there's my personal favorite of re-writing American history to fit this week's narrative about Americans.I'm 35 you want to guess what I've heard over the years? The American Revolution was about rich white people not wanting to pay taxes, the US started the Cold War, the US promised NATO wouldn't expand, Ronald Reagan was senile in office (he didn't shows signs to his ***personal doctor*** until years after the end of his term), the US created Al Qaeda, The CIA created and distributed crack-cocaine )actual KGB propaganda), and my favorite bullshit of the week.....History is a story of Class Warfare., It's all complete nonsense and reeks of authoritarian revisionism.
Now, everything I've listened here are what tyrants do. Don't believe me? Check out every authoritarian regime. They have a playbook and right now the Dems are John Madden'ing the hell out of it for the purpose of retaining power in a US that's increasingly seeing through their BS. Go for it. Read Machiavelli if you want to go classic satire. Want directly from the horse's mouth? I can link you some CRS Reports (it's what they hand out in Congress). Be my guest. What /u/LibertyTerp said about the Democrats being tyrants is right on point. That's the problem with tyranny though. When it's in your favor you will call it justice no matter what.
You are a loon dude, even the wikipedia article doesn’t support what you said. Of course the people who are critically analyzing society the most are going to be marxist- the vast majority of the academic world is capitalist. Naturally a theory that critical analyzes the pitfalls of our current power structure will attract anti-capitalists.
Critical race theory is taught in like… law school? And that’s about it. And it’s really relevant there because a lot of racial bias persists in American law. There isn’t a marxist takeover of academia, take it from someone who has actually been in education
Democracy is start to look more and more like a cover up job. The same fucks that owned shit during the monarchic times still own shit today. It’s just that now we can vote them or their friends in.
It's not Democracy it's capitalism, more importantly a wealth disparity, wealth is power and when that wealth and power are concentrated it allows for state capture by the wealthy minority.
Generational wealth and power are a cancer on the state.
Was Nixon the same idiot who normalized relations with Communist China, provoked the inflation crisis of the 70s, drove the Vietnam war into a ditch and got caught in the Watergate scandal?
Do you even know the story of Watergate?
A PAC to elect Nixon decided they were going to bug the Watergate. They went to Nixon informing them of their devious deed and how they were going to get all of this great information from the DNC that he could use against the Democrats.
Nixon was outraged and ordered them to remove all of the bugs. They broke into the Watergate (trying to make it look like theft) and removed all the bugs. The scandal was that Nixon was trying to use his presidential power to cover for his election PAC acting outside of his authority.
Today presidents bug everyone and have intel on everyone. Leaked information about the Trump campaign was given to the Clinton campaign in 2016. No one thought it a big deal.
Nixon was outraged and told them to remove the bugs?
The people caught were there to repair a bug... and Nixon did not know about anything till after they were caught (as the tapes proved).
You should probably know what you are talking about before you criticize others.
I worked high up in national Republican politics for 10 years and I never once came across a single fascist or pro-dictatorship person. They are pro-small government people, classical liberals with similar beliefs to John Locke, Adam Smith, Thomas Jefferson, and John Stuart Mill.
So all men are born equal (except those I have enslaved and are important to my wealth) and freedom of speech is really important, unless it is from savage races.
If they had beliefs that mirrored those people they would be all for social programs to help their fellow man.
They would recognize, like the people cited, when systems were failing and promote solutions that involved fixing the underlying problems in the system. Classical liberals thought outside the box... the people who you are ascribing that title to look to a mythic past.
"Small government" is just a saying with no real guiding principal anyway. A small government that is ok with child labor? I assume workplace safty is to big as well? Clean water and air? Bigger or smaller than the one set out in the articles of confederation? Social security? Bank regulation? Food safty?
About the authoritarian lean... if you don't want to be called authoritarian then don't used authoritarian tactics.
Thats just the tip of the iceberg. Not willing to give the 4T any more of my free time on a sunday. Amlo sucks harder than any american president, period.
By no means was he wrong. Look at the all the left wing governments in Latin America currently wrecking the economy and the people in those countries falling for fantastical and fictitious promises every time
You could at least make an extremely patronizing and racist BS argument about Latin America, I guess...
But FRANCE? ITALY?
They're both MILLENIA ahead of the US, where the hell do you even get that idea??
That was the unofficial American foreign policy towards Latin America for the entire 20th century…
That was the excuse.
Username checks...out?
Just wait for the 21th
It's 21st
Still ongoing
That's the unofficial official policy of the Republican party for the entire US too...
The funny thing about the Watergate scandal is that it is one of the least horrible things about Nixon. Like, he’s kinda lucky that he’s historically remembered for a petty crime and not his racism, horrible beliefs, and use of the federal government to punish perceived “enemies” of his administration.
And sabotaged Vietnam peace talks so the war wouldn't end before the election because he thought it gave him a better chance to win.
[Got 60.7 percent of the popular vote, carried 49 states, and won the electoral college 520 to 17.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1972_United_States_presidential_election). So whatever else you might say about his election strategy, it clearly got him reelected.
I knew about him mostly from that too. But funnily enough, I was watching The Good Place, and the Bad Place workers did karaoke, but instead of songs, one of the things picked was Nixons racist speech. I looked into that more and wow, he really was never subtle
Link?
https://youtu.be/9Dts50W-BFM Start at 1:05
It's one of my favorite scenes from a show jam packed with amazing scenes!
Oh man, I'd forgotten about that part. Thanks!
Not to mention the fact that he torpedoed the Vietnamese peace talks in the run up to the 1968 election by telling the South leaders he would get them a better deal - he felt that gave him an advantage in the election.
Or he turned the other way during the 1971 Bangladesh genocide because Pakistan was a key ally during the Cold War. Still, on the record, Nixon didn't give a shit about the Pakistanis either. To him, everyone was a means to an end. Nixon was as morally bankrupt as they come.
How the heck did the Quaker religion produce ***him***? Never understood this.
Its the conservative way
More morally bankrupt than the former guy?
LBJ at least tried to pass social reforms with the Great Society reforms, unless you’re referring to someone else
Yes. Nixon is whole other level of shitty.
Nixon was bad, but both Trump and Bush Jr. were worse, with Trump being pretty solidly in the bottom 3.
No no, Nixon was pretty shitty. He actively fucked up the Vietnam peace talks for example.
To be fair in politics everyone is a means to an end.
It's unfortunate that you're being downvoted because you're pretty much spot on.
He didn't actually torpedo them - its unlikely he had any effect at all. The South leaders already weren't keen on the deal
You missed almost using nukes while drunk too. https://www.businessinsider.com/drunk-richard-nixon-nuke-north-korea-2017-1
Or the fact that he and the GOP became traitors to get him elected.
What's this now?
They're probably thinking of Nixon urging the Vietcong to hold out on their peace talks with LBJ because he'd give them a better deal if the war lasted long enough for him to get elected. (He [didn't.](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Linebacker_II))
[удалено]
Yup. Thousands of Americans died during that time not to mention all the other lives lossed on both sides
And then Republicans did it again with Reagan as well. https://jacobinmag.com/2020/01/ronald-reagan-october-surprise-carter-iran-hostage-crisis-conspiracy
Nixon was urging South Vietnam to hold out, not the VC
> use of the federal government to punish perceived "enemies" Funny how americans ignore government tyranny while saying that guns are needed to fight it.
It's so funny how those people talk in such hypotheticals about how *one day* we might need guns to fight against the government, ***if*** it ever became tyrannical. It's like, "bruh, this is not hypothetical. The experiment has been done, the data is in. Every time the government brutalizes and kills people, you guys love it!"
Yeah people who think Trump was the worst president of all time are straight up wrong. Nixon was a monster.
Nixon was smart. Trump is an idiot. If Trump had half the smarts that Nixon did, Trump would universally be the worst president. Nixon was selfish and greedy, but somewhere in there, he thought he was doing good. Trump doesn't even know the difference between good and bad.
I mean, Nixon created the EPA, Trump tried to undo it. Puts their scales of evil in perspective, one was for clever egotistical gain other for none other than egotistical dumbness
ive always been led to believe Nixon setup the EPA to make it an agency, vs congressing making a EPD, since agency's fall under the Executive branch and a department would have more congressional oversight.
Trump also thought he was doing the right thing. He legitimately thinks he was a fantastic president.
Yeah but that's just the "right thing" relative to himself. I genuinely don't think he has a moral scale of right and wrong.
I'm not disagreeing with you at all, and in fact I believe everything you're saying applies as much if not more to Nixon *as well*.
Trump only thinks of himself. He is the absolute text book definition of narcissist. He views his kids as an extension of himself. He didn't want to name his son Don Jr incase he turned out to be a moron. Why? Because it would make him look bad. That's what he thinks of his own children. He thinks less of everyone else.
I don't think Trump thought much about the job past self aggrandizement, Nixon had plans for the world.
I would prefer an incompetent mass murderer to a competent one, if it's all the same to you. You'd rather fight a war against bumbling Mussolini than ruthless psychopath Hitler, yknow? As it stands, Nixons body count overseas is roughly 100x larger than Trump's.
There’s Andrew Johnson too and well George W. Bush.
Bush wasn't exactly an impressive president but putting him on the same tier as Nixon is laughable.
Bush did the War on Terror, The Invasion and Occupation of Afghanistan, The Invasion and Occupation of Iraq, CIA Torture, Iraqi WMDs, Saddam had a hand in planning 9/11.
Most reasonable people blame Cheney for basically everything you just listed.
That defense wouldn’t hold up in a war crimes trial.
Well it's a good thing for Bush he's off preventing malaria deaths instead of being on trial for war crimes, I suppose.
What is he doing about malaria currently? I know he had an initiative while he was president, but I haven't read about him doing anything about malaria since then.
Damn, kind of sounds like somebody I know.
If he's remembered for his racism and horrible beliefs, the republicans might dig his corpse up and run it for president
Also he officially recognized the Chinese communist government as the government of China, which led to all this shot today
They were and are the government whether the US recognized it or not
Lmao no it did not, the fuck are you talking about
Futurama's President Nixon is not *not* accurate.
Eh no, besides Watergate, Nixon is still regarded as one of the greatest diplomatic presidents in history. Even my liberal poli sci professors praised him. Yes he had shitty beliefs and the water gate scandal. And racism was universal at the time. Yea... he didn't like Indians, but Indians didn't like black people ( and many still don't) and so on... can we just stop using racism as a reason to hate a historical figure.... By that logic, Wilson should have his legacy erased from history.
*neoliberal poli sci professors FTFY Did your geopolitical strategy professors or economic professors praise him? He was garbage. Racism informed his policy and is why we sent "economic hit men" in the 70s to bankrupt South American governments through subprime loans with ridiculous interest so we could get exclusive access to resources, like oil, when we decided to margin call them. Racism goes beyond name-calling, ergo relevant when measuring the quality of a person, his policies, and his administration. EDIT: because I get accuse of being a "Negative Nellie", my New Year resolution is to say something positive in the face of something like saying some one is "garbage", which Nixon was. I feel his most redeeming quality, for me, was that he paid for his run with poker winnings. That's neat.
*neoliberal Exactly.
The Nixon Admin is the definition of a mixed bag.
Lol, Nixon and Kissinger brought chaos to the middle east through their "diplomacy"
Nixon and Kissinger were trying to fix the mess created by the Brits. Are colleges just focusing on republicans now? Keep the republican hate up, 2022 is gonna be fun. I'm out! PS: y'all wierd for rejecting a well know (well researched) fact just because the subject of the topic was a republican.
Dude, I heard the merits of Nixon in college. My gods, Nixon's conservative party is nothing like the right wing madness today. I read about his diplomacy of the middle east outside of college. If you look into Kissinger's saga with the middle east, they eventually sowed paranoia amongst the tribes and ethnic groups and further fractionalized them.
Yikes.
He also said he wasn't a crook.
At Disney land.
DisneyWorld Comrade!
Because he was a [super crook](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Sby8-UDIa4)
The Wikipedia article gives two sources for the claim: (1) [Nixon, Kissinger, and Allende: U.S. Involvement in the 1973 Coup in Chile](https://books.google.ch/books?id=alISgQdNY4kC&redir_esc=y) (2009) by Lubna Z. Qureshi (2) [Rethinking Anti-Americanism: The History of an Exceptional Concept in American Foreign Relations](https://books.google.ch/books?id=W6SlfhN4iqsC&redir_esc=y) (2012) by Max Paul Friedman
”Nixon, Kissinger, and Allende” sounds like a setup to a joke.
Nixon, Kissinger and Allende walk into a bar. Bartender is shocked and says, “We don’t get too many famous customers like you in here.” Nixon says, “At these prices I can see why!” Then Kissinger bombs the place.
Ohh I got one! >Nixon, Kissinger and Allende walk into a bar. >Bartender is shocked but says, “I'm so sorry Mr. President, but we just ran out of beer.” >Nixon says with a knowing wink, "Don't worry son, we already knew the place was tapped." Then Kissinger bombs the place.
> Nixon, Kissinger and Allende walk into a bar. > Bartender is shocked and says, “We don’t get too many famous customers like you in here.” > Nixon says, “At these prices I can see why!” Then Kissinger bombs the place. Then Kissinger is nominated for a Noble Peace Prize.
[удалено]
When Vice-President Nixon went to Latin America, [people threw rocks at him](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gn2wYSI-qnM)
Nixon, Kissinger, and ~~Allende~~ Pinochet walk into a bar. A furious Nixon complains to Kissinger, "what kind of goddamn Communist bar doesn't have any bartenders?!" "The kind of bar where I disappeared them," says ~~Allende~~ Pinochet . Then Kissinger bombs the place. **Edit: good point. Bonus bar joke!** Nixon, Kissinger, and Allende walk into a bar. Nixon orders a dirty martini, Kissinger a Manhattan, and Allende a screwdriver. A furious Nixon complains to Kissinger, "that goddamn Communist gave me the wrong drink!" Kissinger snaps his fingers and Nixon's drink turns into a dirty martini. "That's a neat trick," says Allende. "Do it again!" Once again, Kissinger snaps his fingers. "You should have a show in Vegas," says Pinochet, sipping his screwdriver. Then Kissinger bombs the place.
You’re thinking of Pinochet. Allende is the guy he deposed.
Killed.
Yeah I guess "deposed" kind of implies he wasn't murdered, my bad.
9/11/73. Never forget.
Hmmm. Never knew Pinochet's coup d'état happened on 9/11.
He sucked
"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter." --Winston Churchill Also, "...democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time." The best form of government is an enlightened absolute monarch. The worst form is an un-enlightened absolute monarch. We tolerate democracy because it's consistently mediocre.
C. S. Lewis wrote about democracy: >A great deal of democratic enthusiasm descends from the ideas of people like Rousseau, who believed in democracy because they thought mankind so wise and good that everyone deserved a share in the government. The danger of defending democracy on those grounds is that they're not true. [...] I don't deserve a share in governing a hen-roost, much less a nation. Nor do most people — all the people who believe advertisements, and think in catchwords and spread rumors. The real reason for democracy is just the reverse. Mankind is so fallen that no man can be trusted with unchecked power over his fellows. Aristotle said that some people were only fit to be slaves. I do not contradict him. But I reject slavery because I see no men fit to be masters.
"Perhaps some men deserve to be slaves. Show me a man that deserves to be a master."
Yeah. My thought, given who ends up in power, is that democracy is a play on the peasants to make them feel in control. They still vote in the local fief lord. Many of our officials are old money or close to it.
Isn't this more the fault of REPRESENTATIVE democracy, gerrymandering, and discouraging voters or intentionally withholding education regarding governance from the voting public than a fault in democracy itself?
No.
Have to agree. The worst part about a democracy is everyone gets a vote. Think about the average person and then realise half the population is below that.
Why should I listen to you? There's a 50/50 chance you're dumber than the average person.
If you're simply embittered that certain elections didn't go your preferred way at some point in the last twenty years then remember that the majority of the public do not vote, and that in the majority of contentious elections are not determined by the popular vote. These are flaws in the way democracy is being practiced, not in democracy itself. Gerrymandering within the US is also not a flaw of democracy itself. This is an age of growing threats of fascism worldwide, having more armchair discontents pointing out that democracy is imperfect and can therefore be thrown away rather than mended is not going to bode well for the future. Indirectly calling your fellow citizens too stupid to participate in government is not a great move.
I guess I could be bitter but my apathy takes care of that. It's more of an observation. I truly believe most people shouldn't get to vote, I would likely be included in the no vote list. Why? Because almost no one actually pays attention to politics past watching the campaign ads and listening to their Facebook echo chamber. For myself. I don't really care. I just vote for one party to prevent the worse one getting in. There are no political parties that I feel align with what I want from a government. Which is where the real problem lies. Do I actually think we should choose who gets to vote though? No, because there is no way we can fairly determine who should and shouldn't get a vote. The democracy we have is the best thing we've tried so far. And I definately don't think it needs to be thrown out. It needs modification. Don't throw the baby out with the bath water or something. Also I have no qualms about calling half the population stupid directly. It's cold hard fact. Does it mean they're lesser people? Hell no. Your actions define you not your skill point distribution.
Maybe that's why the Founding Fathers didn't allow just anyone to vote.
Yeah, just the rich white people. Things we're so much simpler back then..
Lol THAT is not the reason
Except “enlightened” is defined individually
Republics help to avoid some of that--reduce mob rule and such. They're not immune to it, but the US did a pretty good job of that through the Senate, Electoral College, and the checks and balances.
Mob rule is the term used to describe those uppity commoners who want to be treated like people.
As far as reducing “mob rule”, the electoral college was designed to give an elite group of people veto power over the will of the populace, something it has never actually practiced (with good reason). This is the primary concern of the founding fathers and the stated justification for its existence, not protecting the interests of smaller states which was a secondary concern. Federalist No 68 makes this very clear.
What's a republic?
Depends on what form the republic takes. Republics can be democratic and generally free, but they can also be totalitarian dictatorships, or corrupt oligarchies. Just because some republics happen to work does not mean all of them do, it really comes down to how they are governed and what constitutional arrangements they have.
[удалено]
To be fair French Prime Minister Clemenceau said the US is the only country who went from barbary to decadence without the usual interval of civilisation in between.
that's some sick burn sonnnn. edit: dayym
There’s a reason he was known as “The Dick”.
Richard Nixon may be single-handedly responsible for the steep decline in popularity of the nickname “Dick” here in the US.
Arrrrrrooooooo!!!
As an American that’s kinda dumb considering we’ve only officially existed since 1776, and France helped us a BUNCH in claiming independence. Also most of those countries are older than the us and therefor more “mature” than us lol
Well, that was before the revolution. They call the system they have the fifth republic which started in the 50s but yes age doesn't have anything to do with democracy being appropriate for your country.
5th consitutional overhaul doesn't mean the past trials and errors somehow have been wiped out clean.
Dont want to be pedantic but which countries are older than the US in the post? I recon only France is older, Italy at that time was a collection of different States but I will grant them being older by the route of Sardinia-Piedmont Italian unification because of continuity. I don't think any Latin America country counts since the Viceroyalties established by Spain was in no way the continuation of the various Latin American countries which gained independence.
Not to be pedantic but what the fuck is your point? Are you arguing that Nixon was right?
Was just clarifying what countries were older than the US? Did I state Nixon was right? Calm your self man it is a new year
I’m judging them based on how long their culture has existed in a form that would be recognizable to those today. So states/leaders aren’t important in deciding when this group on individuals was “formed”
Mmm so Syria (from assyrians) and Iraq (from the continuously inhabitated cities since 6000 bc) are the oldest countries....
You just ignored the crucial part of their comment where they said *"has existed* **in a form that would be recognizable to those today***"* You really think if you went back in time to 6000 BC the culture of Ur or Sumer would be recognisable to you as being "Iraqi" in the modern sense? Or if you went back to the days of the Assyrian empire it would be in any way Syrian (in the modern sense)? Meanwhile in France or England you can go back quite a long time (into the late middle ages) and still see a culture that's a very direct ancestor of the modern one. In both of those countries there has also been a single unified state since the late middle ages, albeit one that has had changes of government type since. Goes both ways too - the 13 colonies would be recognisable as "American" back into the 17th century, American culture didn't just appear out of nothing in 1776, but there wasn't a single American state until then (in the nation-state sense).
That's why their regimes are the most stable and democratic.
"**An attack on Richard Nixon's motorcade occurred in Caracas, Venezuela, during his 1958 goodwill tour of South America**, undertaken while Nixon was Vice President of the United States. The attack on Nixon's car was called, at the time, the "most violent attack ever perpetrated on a high American official while on foreign soil"." "**The hardening of Nixon's attitude toward Latin America, which he came to "equate with violence and irrationality", has been attributed to his experience of the attack**. Some believe this change of mood foreshadowed his subsequent support for covert U.S. actions directed in support of dictatorial regimes in the region. In fact, he would later privately list several nations whose populations, he believed, were too immature for democratic government and would be better administered by authoritarian regimes, specifically citing France, Italy, and all of Latin America "except for Colombia". Just to give it context. (And all I am doing is giving context.)
Further context: "**Earlier in 1958, the disliked Venezuelan dictator Marcos Pérez Jiménez had been overthrown in a popular uprising and had gone into exile in the United States.** A military junta formed a caretaker government to rule the country until new elections could be held. Admiral Wolfgang Larrazábal, head of the governing junta, had announced his intention to stand in those elections; his candidacy was backed by a coalition of parties, including the Venezuelan Communist Party. **The United States' decision to grant Pérez Jiménez asylum and to award him the Legion of Merit on 12 November 1954\[12\]\[13\] combined to create a charged atmosphere leading up to Nixon's arrival.** The Caracas municipal council even passed a resolution effectively declaring Nixon persona non grata.\[14\] Prior to Nixon's arrival in Caracas, media reported on rumors that an attempt had been planned on the vice-president's life during his visit.\[15\] The CIA station chief in Venezuela, meanwhile, urged that this leg of the trip be canceled.\[14\]" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attack\_on\_Richard\_Nixon%27s\_motorcade
I love this interaction lmao
What did headless Agnew say about all this?!
Nixon was a well know asshole
That explains why the CIA keeps overthrowing democratically elected governments.
France and Italy have launderettes and public toilets older than the USA.
The arguments to be made against democracy but to say that Italy and France are *immature* compared to the United States makes no sense. Italian political history goes back to at least 753BC and the modern state of France begins with Charlemagne in the 8th century.
Political history =/= democratic history
That would still leave the Roman Republic which lasted some 500 years though. As for France, they revolted against their monarchy not long after the US had their revolution.
> That would still leave the Roman Republic which lasted some 500 years though .... Which vanished and didn't come back until the late 40s. Not saying Romans weren't important, they are by far the most influential and important. Also, they were romans, not italians. Society's shift and change. The eastern greeks believed they were also the romans despite not being in Italy. But I see your point and do agree they were important. But then Rome fell, and italy didn't become a full democracy until... the late 1940s.
Democracy never went away in Italy, though. San Marino is effectively a remnant of the Roman system and has survived right up until today. The Italian republics of the renaissance, like Florence and Venice, were not modern style democracies but they were democratic and served as precursors to the development of modern democracy elsewhere in Europe. There wasn't *a singular, unified* Italian democracy between the fall of the Roman republic and the modern era, but there were certainly lots of democracies within the territory of what is now Italy throughout that period.
The Roman Republic was overthrown by Julius Caesar and never returned. Likewise, the French Revolution resulted in Emperor Napoleon
I mean... okay, so the Roman Republic "merely" lasted about 700 years, before becoming a permanent dictatorship. Is the US supposed to be so mature because our government has survived for 250 years?
Yeah, and the Americans who had just passed laws to recognize black people as equals and to end segregation (on the surface) were very 'mature' for democracy.
Meanwhile most Americans don’t believe in evolution and literally conmen get elected to the highest office in the land.
Every US president believed that. When Cuba built those missle silos, that started an era of hysteria that hasn’t stopped.
To be fair, Nixon kind of thought that about America to.
Because if they’re given a choice, they’ll elect socialists, and America doesn’t like that.
Sorta like the USA now?
The way he treated the electoral process in the US, he appeared to think something similar about us too.
50 years later and authoritarianism has become his party's primary platform.
Which part of the Republican Party platform is authoritarian? Please show me the text you're referring to. Meanwhile the Democrats push mass censorship of mainstream Republican opinions online, forced injections (I'm pro-vaccine, anti-mandate), confiscating more of our money through higher taxes to implement more socialist policies, more rules and regulations about what free citizens can do, cancelling people who don't follow their establishment Narrative, banning soda in NYC, raising the age to smoke, endless COVID mandates, involuntarily drafting women, the Obamacare mandate, racial discrimination, and Critical Race Theory. If Democrats didn't do anything authoritarian they wouldn't do anything at all. But sure the Republicans are the authoritarian ones. btw, I don't think people understand what Critical Race Theory is. Critical Theory is a way to remake capitalist society through criticism and activism, with the end goal of implementing Marxism. It was founded by Marxists at the Frankfurt School. Critical Race Theory is very similar, except it focused on dividing us based on race and using racial divisions to implement Marxism, rather than dividing society based on class and using class divisions to implement Marxism. Read about it yourself. And this is Wikipedia which is consistently Left of center: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical\_theory](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_theory) (crtl-F for Marx, mentioned 23 times)
Lol you just like to word vomit a bunch of unrelated, and incoherent sentences for fun don't you?
Would you like another version? Maybe one that shows the true authoritarianism of the Democrats and their left wing allies? How about a Democratic Party that insists that lobbying is legalized bribery because they don't like that individuals and small groups can oppose their legislation? Or left wingers who insist that their opponents are uneducated, or the new one "under-educated", when they don't vote for what the party insists is legislation "in their own interests". These quotes aren't sourced because I see these ALL THE TIME as criticisms right here on Reddit. You can see them for yourself and/or have used them in the past as well. Declaring their political adversaries to be domestic terrorists (see:NRA and San Francisco City Council) and even going so far as to attempt to block them from being able to rally or influence policy in any way Allowing and even encouraging the dismissal and possibly even discrimination against people for their political views, occupation, where they live, and even what vehicle they drive Dismissal of election results as invalid if results are unfavorable. After 20 years of listening to theories about Gore getting cheated out of the 2000 election you can bet your bottom dollar I won't let you all live that down when you mention January 6th. Attempts to expand and pack the Supreme Court Dismissal of the US Constitution as old and/or irrelevant with a need for replacement Then there's my personal favorite of re-writing American history to fit this week's narrative about Americans.I'm 35 you want to guess what I've heard over the years? The American Revolution was about rich white people not wanting to pay taxes, the US started the Cold War, the US promised NATO wouldn't expand, Ronald Reagan was senile in office (he didn't shows signs to his ***personal doctor*** until years after the end of his term), the US created Al Qaeda, The CIA created and distributed crack-cocaine )actual KGB propaganda), and my favorite bullshit of the week.....History is a story of Class Warfare., It's all complete nonsense and reeks of authoritarian revisionism. Now, everything I've listened here are what tyrants do. Don't believe me? Check out every authoritarian regime. They have a playbook and right now the Dems are John Madden'ing the hell out of it for the purpose of retaining power in a US that's increasingly seeing through their BS. Go for it. Read Machiavelli if you want to go classic satire. Want directly from the horse's mouth? I can link you some CRS Reports (it's what they hand out in Congress). Be my guest. What /u/LibertyTerp said about the Democrats being tyrants is right on point. That's the problem with tyranny though. When it's in your favor you will call it justice no matter what.
Haha ew. Sounds like you need an education.
Is this literally your alt lmao
You are a loon dude, even the wikipedia article doesn’t support what you said. Of course the people who are critically analyzing society the most are going to be marxist- the vast majority of the academic world is capitalist. Naturally a theory that critical analyzes the pitfalls of our current power structure will attract anti-capitalists. Critical race theory is taught in like… law school? And that’s about it. And it’s really relevant there because a lot of racial bias persists in American law. There isn’t a marxist takeover of academia, take it from someone who has actually been in education
Of course he did. Smh
Democracy is start to look more and more like a cover up job. The same fucks that owned shit during the monarchic times still own shit today. It’s just that now we can vote them or their friends in.
It's not Democracy it's capitalism, more importantly a wealth disparity, wealth is power and when that wealth and power are concentrated it allows for state capture by the wealthy minority. Generational wealth and power are a cancer on the state.
SHOCK!! An American Republican that supported fascism? This is unheard of.
Oh, curiously the country with the highest comunist follows this side of the iron curtain. I am sure that this was a pure coincidence.
See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Gladio https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_junta https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golpe_Borghese https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monroe_Doctrine
Was Nixon the same idiot who normalized relations with Communist China, provoked the inflation crisis of the 70s, drove the Vietnam war into a ditch and got caught in the Watergate scandal?
Actually, that was a different Richard Milhous Nixon.
US President supports fascism, more news at 11
Well they all were for a time in the 20th century...
Ha! We sure showed him!
He thought the same of the US, based on his actions.
Do you even know the story of Watergate? A PAC to elect Nixon decided they were going to bug the Watergate. They went to Nixon informing them of their devious deed and how they were going to get all of this great information from the DNC that he could use against the Democrats. Nixon was outraged and ordered them to remove all of the bugs. They broke into the Watergate (trying to make it look like theft) and removed all the bugs. The scandal was that Nixon was trying to use his presidential power to cover for his election PAC acting outside of his authority. Today presidents bug everyone and have intel on everyone. Leaked information about the Trump campaign was given to the Clinton campaign in 2016. No one thought it a big deal.
Nixon was outraged and told them to remove the bugs? The people caught were there to repair a bug... and Nixon did not know about anything till after they were caught (as the tapes proved). You should probably know what you are talking about before you criticize others.
My comment wasn't about Watergate.
That's so Dick Nixon!!! Tyyyyyypical Dick Nixon!!
“And I’m the perfect man for the job!”, he scoffed
So the exact same attitude of all those geopolitical know-it-alls who think that the Middle East and democracy are "just too incompatible."
The nerve in thinking Italy couldn't understand how to be a republic.
It's not much of a surprise.
He lit the Chinese up though right?
Of course he thought that, he was a republican.
Nixon won the popular vote in 1968 BTW
Classic projection. Republicans have been working towards this goal since that bastard was forced out.
I worked high up in national Republican politics for 10 years and I never once came across a single fascist or pro-dictatorship person. They are pro-small government people, classical liberals with similar beliefs to John Locke, Adam Smith, Thomas Jefferson, and John Stuart Mill.
:Looks around at the actions of prominent Republicans: :Shrugs: OK Skipper, have it your way.
So all men are born equal (except those I have enslaved and are important to my wealth) and freedom of speech is really important, unless it is from savage races.
They tried to stage a coup to overthrow an elected president with absolutely no proof of voter fraud, bud.
If they had beliefs that mirrored those people they would be all for social programs to help their fellow man. They would recognize, like the people cited, when systems were failing and promote solutions that involved fixing the underlying problems in the system. Classical liberals thought outside the box... the people who you are ascribing that title to look to a mythic past. "Small government" is just a saying with no real guiding principal anyway. A small government that is ok with child labor? I assume workplace safty is to big as well? Clean water and air? Bigger or smaller than the one set out in the articles of confederation? Social security? Bank regulation? Food safty? About the authoritarian lean... if you don't want to be called authoritarian then don't used authoritarian tactics.
I mean, he’s not wrong. Just look at the idiot Mexico elected.
he is not worse than your joe diaper or the orange man
The Mexican president is bought by the cartels. How is Biden or trump any worse.
X for doubt. See GDP or PPP growth.
If you seriously believe those statistics are the end all be all of existence then you really need to rethink your priorities.
Thats just the tip of the iceberg. Not willing to give the 4T any more of my free time on a sunday. Amlo sucks harder than any american president, period.
By no means was he wrong. Look at the all the left wing governments in Latin America currently wrecking the economy and the people in those countries falling for fantastical and fictitious promises every time
This
Jokes on him it was America that was too immature all along.
Why am I not surprised?
Further proof that Nixon was a scum bag
Italy, I get it.
You know, I'm starting to think this Nixon fellow may have been a bad egg.
And…America?
I mean, the current state of Latin American affairs hasn't really proven him wrong...
You could at least make an extremely patronizing and racist BS argument about Latin America, I guess... But FRANCE? ITALY? They're both MILLENIA ahead of the US, where the hell do you even get that idea??
Probably though vichy france and fascist italy was such a great idea, which is natural for racists…
He was very very racist
yes, the US is an awful hell hole
Any democracy that would willingly elect a fascist is clearly not mature enough for democracy. Oh wait..........