🖕 🍊 🤡 A Continuing Round-Up of Trumpian Events 🖕 🍊 🤡

But every once in a while,

2 Likes

I got to take issue with that. Nixon was very much guilty. In addition to watergate (which is what brought him down), he bombed the hell out of cambodia, spied on American activists, is complicit in the death of Fred Hampton, and created the modern shift in the GOP to the party of racism. Without Nixon, no Trump, I’d argue.

13 Likes

9 Likes

Even here on BB there are people opposed to open borders; I’ve had pushback when suggesting it.

For sure Nixon was a crook – we knew that when he was still VP – and a racist and antisemite and abuser of power and a redbaiter (while at HUAC) and he created the GOP southern strategy that in turn led to the rise of theocratic interference in politics. OTOH we now know (thanks to documents declassified under Clinton) that we were bombing Cambodia years before he took office. Also, without Nixon we’d have no EPA, no OSHA, his federal set-aside program was a precursor to affirmative action, he opened up relations with China, he ended the draft and the war in Vietnam, he signed the ABM treaty, and while VP he had a pretty nice cocker spaniel.

Nixon, while a truly nasty piece of work, was also complicated and smart, and thought the office of president was important and not just another gig, so while unarguably one of the worst people ever to sit in that office his presidency was not a real aberration. I think Reagan is really the guy who started the intentional degradation of the office that eventually made a Trump possible.

5 Likes

Although I’m a “fuck borders” person myself, AOC’s proposal is nowhere near open borders. As suggested by the second tweet, abolishing ICE and the DHS would merely return the USA to the pre-Bush status quo.

12 Likes
12 Likes

It would reduce the “trade deficit,” which is something he cares about if certain advisors are in the room.

They don’t seem too concerned with the actual deficit deficit though.

7 Likes

I suppose you’re right with current usage. The GOP will of course call anything short of a force field “open borders”; Trump accused HRC in 2016 of supporting open borders because she supported the 2013 " Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act" (which didn’t open anything). I tend to think of a no-border-at-all policy (which I support) as “fully open borders”, while simply “open” might include an immigration and travel policy. Conflating the two is part of standard GOP scaremongering, and I didn’t mean to contribute to that.

2 Likes
8 Likes

A FEw peOPLe WhO TypE LIKe THis ON SoCIAL MEdIa about COnspiraCY thEOries, SLAndeR & ThreATen peoPLE ArE UPSeT THey’RE noT INViteD tO moaN abOUt beIng bAnned on SOCIAl MEDia aT ThE WHite houSE

6 Likes

He also ramped it up, though.

There is no knowing that, actually. The pressure for regulation might have led to EPA and OSHA anyway, plus possibly the end of the draft and the war in Vietnam… and reapproachment with China and various detente treaties might have happened anyway, for some of the same reasons, there was just other forces that might have led to that or something similar.

He also beat his wife, so there’s that.

I disagree. Nixon played a role in that as well.

11 Likes

He only cares about it because it sounds scary and ominous when in reality it doesn’t mean much of anything from an economic perspective.

4 Likes

Indeed - I find it hard to believe that Humphrey or McGovern wouldn’t have done the same things - and much more if given the chance.

I mean yeah, Nixon wasn’t all bad - he did do some good things and I’ll give him credit for being a smart and skilled politican. Good for him. I wouldn’t go so far as to say he was good for America, though.

7 Likes

I’ll buy that daylight certainly existed between Nixon and other candidates, but it’s never the president just presiding over events and making decisions in a vacuum. Other things and people play a role in public policy. It’s likely that some of these things would have turned out different, but I suspect that Nixon and Kissinger weren’t the only ones who saw value in detente and reapproachment. History isn’t just made by “great” men, in other words, but is more complicated than that.

8 Likes

Yeah, more or less since Kennedy and maybe a bit before the US and USSR military and diplomatic apparatuses were slowly coming to a realization that any war whether it was nuclear or not couldn’t happen from the simple fact that it would require total mobilization of their populations. Whether it’s the US trying to use NATO as a beachhead or the USSR island hopping near Alaska, there’s no such means to occupy the other to make them relent. They could lob bombs at themselves forever so long as they had launch vehicles and a means to build them but neither would have to surrender.

5 Likes
5 Likes
4 Likes

But equally we can say that we wouldn’t know if the bad policies he promulgated might not have happened under a different president. The difference between a Nixon and a Trump (or Reagan) is that Nixon didn’t actively resist the positive changes; rather, he embraced them or even got ahead of them, and happily added them to his portfolio.

For example, the EPA (for whom I worked for a while) was a White House initiative created by executive order; the first director, Bill Ruckelshaus, already had a long and solid track record of environmental advocacy. Reagan, by contrast, appointed Anne “Neil Gorsuch’s mom” Burford to the job with an explicit brief to tear the agency down.

We’ve had plenty of bad presidents over the centuries, what made Reagan and then Trump different from a Nixon or a Harding was that for the latter the president serves the office, whereas for the former the office serves the man. The resulting damage of that on the structure is far more damaging and enduring.

4 Likes

Hell, compared to Trump, Reagan was downright progressive with some of his policies.

4 Likes

Take a wild guess to which party he’s in?

13 Likes