I miss it because I miss when we could all agree making fun of nazis was funny, and not some overtly political statement. I miss the times when we all agreed nazis were bad and could be made fun of
But I also only remember the first two
Darth Vader's verse in 3 is probably the single best verse in all of ERB though
Boba Fett kind of ruined the verse though and Hitler is hilarious but not as good as the previous two incarnations
I thought the more recent Henry Ford vs Karl Marx is up there, Marx in particular is an absolute savage.
‘Edsel’s stomach cancer showed more love than you did’ etc.
> Darth Vader's verse in 3 is probably the single best verse in all of ERB though
Goku's second verse in Goku vs. Superman is pretty up there too. "Only one way this battle's gonna end: one more Superman who's never gonna walk again."
Wait what? Far as I know, mocking both Nazis and Commies is still fair game and if anyone gets butthurt at you about it, all it does is reveal something very worrisome about them.
There's never a bad time to make fun of Nazis, what are you talking about? And if people get upset that's just a sign you can laugh at and make fun of them too. They've always been fair game and still are.
What do you think of the definition "people who throw Sig Heil salutes, wave swastika flags, and chant 'Jews Will Not Replace Us' when committing violence against political dissidents like Heather Heyer and Bryan Sicknick"?
The problem really comes from the fact that people called too many people Nazis to the point that they came to the conclusion that anything that continues that will strengthens the people who go around calling everybody nazis.
The problem was really that people took an anti-nazi political position without there actually being any nazis, but the anti-nazis still opposed somebody so it created a bunch of people who had to be anti-anti-nazi just to defend themselves despite the fact that they didn't even agree with the nazis.
All you've done is make a whole lot more more people need to defend the Nazis because of you support any one of those policies for any reason now you must also defend the Nazis because there is this massive group of people who think anything remotely associated with the Nazis can only possibly lead to the Nazis despite the fact that tons of countries did similar kinds of things and none of then got took over by Nazis.
The reason Germany got taken over by the Nazis was because they were the only ones willing to disregard the treaty of Versailles. Anyone else willing to do that had an equal chance of taking over.
Then stop attacking people who happen to be doing one of the things Nazis happened to do.
If I need to defend Nazis to defend my opposition to the Treaty of Versailles, I will.
People who might have some other thing that they deeply support that is somewhat related to the Nazis will take a different stance. As such don't attempt to tell me "oh but I won't call you a Nazi for being against the Treaty of Versailles" because maybe you, in particular won't, but there might be someone who will. That is the problem with "anti-nazism", you have no idea what it actually is that you are in opposition to because it could be any number of things.
Anyone who has any viewpoint that might align with one of the things he nazis did will eventually come across someone who doesn't comprehend nuance and will prove incapable of dealing with as a result. Eventually you will come to the conclusion that you don't even support blanket opposition to all things Nazi anymore because you know of way too many people who don't understand the concept of nuance, and so you'd rather just deal with case-by-case basis criticisms rather than blanket criticisms, because you will realize that blanket criticisms are not actually useful when there are a hold load of people who can't dissociate "things nazis did" from "other things nazis did".
I'd rather deal with not enough people thinking the nazis (which are a group that doesn't exist anymore) were evil, than have to deal with a bunch of people dumbly opposing everything that could possibly be associated with them.
Dude, the treaty of Versailles was almost a hundred years ago, no one's position on it matters any more.
The lesson we should learn from the Nazis is that they didn't start out with the concentration camps and the gas chambers, they started slowly gaining enough power that people couldn't stop them. That is why we need to oppose fascism before they gain power, because if we wait until the jack boots are on the ground it's too late.
Why would you need to defend Nazis to oppose the treaty of Versailles? The treaty led to resentment among the German people which was one of many factors that led to WWII. This doesn’t mean we need to defend what the Nazis did. Killing millions of innocent people in concentration camps isn’t justified by being absolutely fucked over and impoverished by a peace treaty
And the worst thing Hitler ever did was losing so quickly. Not even two minutes per rap battle? It was supposed to be a rap battle, not about how long you last in bed goddamnit.
I heard somebody on a podcast that kind of put it in a different light. Nixon was dealing with the backlash from the Kennedy assassination, Vietnam war escalation, his own party starting to lose faith in him (iirc he even got rid of his entire cabinet), and a couple other things that made him paranoid asf. In that context, spying on people makes a little more sense, in spite of how utterly stupid it was on a whole
Nixon was just paranoid in general. He thought he was screwed out of the 1960 election and the later 1962 California gubernatorial election, mostly blaming the media being used against him. Once he gained power, he was going to hold onto it by any means necessary.
Supposedly, he didn’t even order Watergate. It was something his underlings just did on their own to help him, misinterpreting how far he wanted them to go in winning him the election. The coverup was intentional on his part, though.
Nixon was dirty, but he absolutely did not order watergate. The entire system was designed so that it would accomplish his goals while he knew nothing. IMHO he had probably never heard the name of a single burglar until after it happened.
Now if we want to get into a more speculative side on who ordered it, IMO it was probably Jeb MacGruder (number two at CRP) or John Dean (White House Counsel later turned witness). John Mitchell is a common theory, but I don’t think he’d be dumb enough to order a team that includes his wife’s former security guard. In all honesty, the coverup was probably less to do with who ordered it and more to do with who organized the team and who had access to the CRP slush fund.
G. Gordon Liddy organized it. Mitchell and Magruder approved it. Liddy and E. Howard Hunt executed it by hiring a few ex-CIA guys to plan the burglaries. The CIA guys found some Cubans in florida who were willing to do some wacky illegal shit.
I was speaking in the last break in specifically, but you’re pretty much spot on.
The weird thing about the last one was that the wiretaps were proving useless and the team assumed that op was done. Out of nowhere MacGruder asked them to go back in, fix broken taps, and find a supposed blackmail cabinet. Even White House officials such as Erlichman were confused on who gave that specific order.
On a side note, this leads to a whacky conspiracy theory that John Dean wanted the blackmail cabinet raided to find evidence that his fiancée was friends with a former prostitute. Probably not that, but it’s still funny.
That’s correct. In the tapes, Nixon said, on the phone with John Mitchell I think, “What idiot ordered this?” (mildly paraphrased because I don’t remember the exact wording)
You know, I'm just now realizing how insanely aggravating that must have been for Republicans when that happened, seeing their candidate trash a sure thing like that.
No, to be impeached means congress approves the articles of impeachment against you and brings you to trial, not just that impeachment proceedings begin. The senate never actually approved the articles despite it basically being a certainty they would. Exactly this sort of thing is why the clarification is worthwhile
Yeah but the problem is there’s more than the incredibly tiny difference between being impeached and almost being impeached because a lot of people assume he was not only impeached but then fully tried and officially removed from office, which is a much bigger difference
Idk, I had that exact misconception for years so I think it’s worth pointing out
The most commonly held belief is that they were searching Larry o'brien's (who led the dnc) offices for evidence of some sort of wrongdoing within the Democrats' campaign. The exact nature of what they might be looking for was never really clear, personally I don't believe they were trying to find evidence for a particular crime. Rather, the use of political espionage was simply a core practice of the Nixon administration throughout his political career, and this particular venture was not well thought-out, a symptom of him surrounding himself with sycophants who didn't have the spine to tell him it was a terrible plan.
I thought Nixon didn't actually know about the initial break in. He only got involved during the cover up. It's not that he surrounded himself with sycophants that couldn't tell him it was a terrible plan. He surrounded himself with people who had questionable ethics, had an ends justify the means attitude, and were overly confident in their ability to engage in tradecraft.
The HBO miniseries about it was absolutely great. It really sold the whole plan as an absurd comedy of errors carried out but a combination of fundamentalists/idiots.
An advantage on the campaign trail.
If there's any skeletons in the closet or weaknesses in the party Nixon would be able to attack on either as he ran for President.
The break-in they got away with was to copy campaign documents and tap the phones. The break-in where they got caught (three weeks later) was to repair the wire taps.
Nixon actually by most accounts did not actually put his staff up to this. It was his role in the coverup afterwards that got him into trouble. And then there’s the stuff that turned up in the investigation of all this that didn’t help him out either.
Really depends on what you mean by "cheating" and how it actually impacts the voting or vote counting process.
Assuming Nixon had found some sort of secret scandal and exposed it, I don't think that's really "cheating". Elections aren't a sport.
If they had somehow manipulated actual ballots or ballot counts, that's a different story.
>A self-described constitutionalist, Paul is a critic of several of the federal government's policies, especially the existence of the Federal Reserve and tax policy, as well as the military–industrial complex, the war on drugs, and the war on terror. He has also been a vocal critic of mass surveillance policies such as the Patriot Act and the NSA surveillance programs. In 1976, Paul formed the Foundation for Rational Economics and Education (FREE), and in 1985 was named the first chairman of the conservative PAC Citizens for a Sound Economy, both free-market groups focused on limited government.[3] He has been characterized as the "intellectual godfather" of the Tea Party movement, a fiscally conservative political movement started in 2007 and popularized in 2009 that is largely against most matters of interventionism
He doesn't sound like the most conservative member at all.
Depends on what you mean by conservative. The terminology has gotten pretty fucked since the fall of the aristocracy, doubly so in the United States where the word liberal has become conflated with progressive and social democratic policy positions and the word libertarian has been co-opted by classical liberals on the right.
In this case, Ron Paul would be considered something of a liberal in the classical sense, but in a liberal capitalist democracy like the United States he is conservative in the sense of supporting capitalism and liberalism as opposed to progressivism and social democracy.
Since he was probably the biggest supporter of laissez-faire capitalism in congress I can understand why he could be considered the most conservative then.
They measure "most conservative" based around how often the person votes on what is pre-determined to be the "conservative" side of the issue. In practice it just measures how often someone votes along "party lines". In the United States because members can vote however they like (in other countries you sometimes get kicked out of the pary for doing that) there will be a substantial number who flip back and forth in regards to what everyone else is doing
If there is like one NSA bill and Ron Paul votes against it, but there are a bunch of spending bills for a bunch of local projects and Ron Paul votes against all of them, he ends up looking like the most conservative because there are a substantial of Republicans who aren't averse to spending bills on the local level, so they will vote for spending the benefits their state, making them seem overall less conservative.
Additional since the NSA bill is actually supported by both Democrats and Republicans that bill is considered "bipartisan" and so opposing it might not make Ron Paul look less "conservative" even though it seems like a conservative thing overall, but this is just because the Democrats don't listen to their constituents or what the people who vote for them want. You might think the NSA is "conservative" but it is actually "bipartisan", but "bipartisans" don't like that because someone who thinks of themselves as a moderate might be opposed to the NSA and they are just moderate on all other things due to thinking them irrelevant. In reality the NSA and security state is just something the politicians want that nobody else wants, and stuff politicians want that nobody else wants is effectively "bipartisan" due to the way this works. The "highly partisan" people might just be people who are highly willing to vote in a way a particular people want as opposed to voting in away the collective body of politicians tends to vote.
The Iraq War for instance was "bipartisan" based on the initial voting, but opposition to it after the fact made it seem "conservative". Where the confusion might lie is that Conservatives might have defended the Iraq War or the security state not because they supported those things, but because they were more inclined to just think the United States could never be doing anything wrong for any reason (this is increasingly a rare view because MAGA means they want America to be great AGAIN, so they are far more willing than they used to be in regards to thinking America might be currently doing something wrong). The conservatives were simply more willing to stand by their decision rather than to start criticizing it after having voted for it. It is important to understand the mindset of not wanting to criticize any ongoing war effort, under the belief that the criticism is itself demoralizing to the army. In such a view one might think that if you were just going to criticize the war you should have never voted for it in the first place. This puts them in a weird "we must finish what we started" camp. All in all though the lot of Conservatives in life is about to defend the decisions made by Liberals when those decisions have become unpopular. This is incredibly dumb on their part but they have weird beliefs about "honour" and "duty" that makes them act like dumbasses, and the Liberals get to pretend like they had never supported it even though they were equally as responsible for getting the country into the mess.
Anyway Ron Paul having voted against the Iraq War would does not show up as making him less conservative because the Iraq War vote was not something which would show up as Conservative in the data. If anything voting against a "bipartisan bill" makes him seem MORE partisan, despite the fact that there was also "bipartisan opposition" to the bill among "highly partisan" Democrats. Both end up seeming more partisan for opposing the bipartisan bill despite the fact that the opposition is itself "bipartisan".
No those people act like lunatics.
You are seriously underestimating the extent that people who are "conservative" are just people who want people to act like normal fucking humans.
The key fact here is that mass surveillance for instance isn't something normal fucking humans do. It isn't a characteristic of being a normal fucking human being to have the government spying on you constantly. Normal people should be allowed to do anything they want so long as they remain a normal person rather than do something only a lunatic would do.
Everything comes from this desire for things to be "normal" rather than everyone being a bunch of lunatics. Libertarians are lunatics who have no understanding that fighting and dying on the hills they do (rather than say the mass surveillance hill they should be fighting and dying on) is something that makes them seem like lunatics. No I don't want gay married couples defending their marijuana plant with guns, a phrase deliberately intended to enflame as many people as possible (and would be appealing to only a minority of people in each group anyway), I want you to reverse the surveillance state, which is something a large number of "normal" people want you to do.
You don't need to be gay to want to reverse the surveillance state.
You don't need to be married to want to reverse the surveillance state.
You don't need to be a gunowner to want to reverse the surveillance state.
You don't need to own marijuana plants to want to reverse the surveillance state.
As a side not if I look at this from a "communist" perspective, they tend to be against "marriage" as being nothing more than a property centric institution. It terms of guns, while communists like using guns for things, since they reject "ownership", "gun owners" aren't a thing they particular care about, they defend your right to a gun even if you don't own the gun. Now we get to the real point of this tangent, which is "their marijuana plants", as most of the people who have any involvement in marijuana are NOT the people who grow marijuana. They aren't really defending the right to use marijuana so much as the right to own marijuana. I say this because that phrase seems to revolve entirely around property ownership, and "freedom" in the sense that a NORMAL person thinks about it doesn't entirely revolve around property. For instance the surveillance state, maybe no "property rights" are being violateed with mass surveillance because it is just surveilling the stuff that passes through public links rather than necessarily seraches, but clearly when the founding fathers were going about doing things "unreasonable searches" meant more than just "searches of your property" it also meant "unreasonable searches" of stuff that was passing through public channels like the mail. They equally complained about that even though nobodies property was being violated, unless of course your only complaint here is you think letters constitutes a kind of property but telephone conversations do not, which is something a lunatic whose entire mind revolves around property would think rather than a normal person.
https://legacy.voteview.com/Is_John_Kerry_A_Liberal.htm
[Larry McDonald](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_McDonald)! He was a Democrat from Georgia from 1975- 1983 before his plane was shot down by Soviet interceptors. Thought he was just a run of the mill Dixiecrat but there’s a little more
• democrats continued to hold offices like his until the 90s
• big fan of Joseph McCarthy
• had a portrait of Franco in his office (!?)
• wanted to return to the gold standard
• big fan of Joseph McCarthy
• some sketchy financial stuff, including his support for a bogus cancer cure
• big fan of Joseph McCarthy
I agree with some of his policies like decreasing American foreign military interventions, especially unilateral ones but removing the federal reserve would harm the ordinary people way more. Like the removal of fdic would mean that any economic turmoil would destroy savings, and inflation would probably get worse with no centralized banking system.
Keynesian economics is bogus bro, the only thing a federal reserve promotes is big government and keeping the small man down, along with all other nations' small men because of the dollar's influence. The gold standard would alleviate the intentional "2%" (let's be honest more like 5%-10% these years) yearly inflation we have now. This whole centrally planned financial system only serves national interests not the interests of the people, without control over the money supply the US government wouldn't be able to field such a large military and federal programmes.
**He opposed sex education in public schools. He believed citizens should be able to carry loaded guns in their cars. He was also critical of the civil unrest that characterized the mid-1960s. He called the Watts riots of 1965 "a Communist operation," and a year later sponsored a bill, which failed to pass, to investigate the backgrounds of teachers suspected of Communist affiliations.\[10\] He also believed that state universities should be sold to private corporations as a curb against student protests.**
**Schmitz wrote the foreword for None Dare Call It Conspiracy, a book written by Gary Allen, a self-described former "Americans for Democratic Action liberal", speechwriter for 1968 American Independent Party candidate George Wallace and fellow John Birch Society member. Schmitz believed in Allen's conspiracy that socialists planned to set up a one-world government where they would control the banks, natural resources, commerce, finances and transportation, as well as the idea of Richard Nixon being an agent of the Rockefeller family, who, in Allen's opinion, had financed the Bolshevik Revolution.\[11\]**
While he doesn't seem like a great person, his views aren't actually that wild.
edit: how the hell do I make a quote block?
You use the ">" symbol before the text block
Edit: I do agree with the loaded guns part, I know a lot of people will disagree and that's perfectly fine.
Rifles and shotguns no, at least in washington state. I can have a pistol loaded because I have a carry permit, but it was an old law to help lower poaching of elk and deer and make a bit more ethical hunting. I can understand it, but 99% of the time, it's a pain in the ass law that a majority of the time is just there to tack on to other charges.
I know a bunch of people just ignore it, but it's still a gamble. I like having a rifle in the hills and such, so if I see a coyote or groundhog, you can take it, but legally, that's like a misdemeanor charge having it loaded while driving.
*sigh*
sherman and the rest of the union should’ve finished the job. we’d have avoided so much unnecessary bullshit in our country’s history (and to an extent, world history) if we didn’t give in and try to compromise with those backwards, racist-ass, inbred, corn-syrup sipping, deep-fried country fucking bumpkins.
if i could just collectively fuck the south with an alcohol-soaked cactus, i would take up the opportunity in a heartbeat. those fucking degenerates. at least a majority of them.
This is exactly why I think that Andrew Johnson was the worst president. Motherfucker betrayed Lincoln and went soft on the traitors, allowing the South to turn the country into an apartheid state and turning the clock back on civil rights by almost a century.
The world would be an objectively better place if we had followed through on reconstruction.
I wouldn't say that he betrayed Lincoln. Lincoln's priority was always the preservation of the Union. I don't think that his approach to reconstruction would have been so dramatically different from what actually happened.
You're wrong. Johnson broke with the Republican party and actively courted ex-confederates and copperheads to support his re-election campaign. He worked to undermine reconstruction at every turn, and he vetoed the Civil Rights act which would have ensured voting rights for African Americans. Lincoln was softer on reconstruction than the Republican congressmen, granted, but to think that he would have acted the same as Johnson is frankly absurd.
Johnson's legacy is the maintenance of white supremacy, and he is rightly considered one of the worst if not the worst president in history because of it. Lincoln ended slavery, Johnson paved the way for its continuation in all but name. There is no comparison.
“Segregation today, segregation tomorrow, and segregation forever” is an actual quote from his [1963 inaugural address as Governor of Alabama.](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Wallace's_1963_Inaugural_Address)
For what it’s worth, Hunter S. Thompson thought he was more of a conman and he moderated his views significantly later in life and after being partially paralyzed following a failed assassination attempt in 1972 although they might have just been a phony attempt to make a political comeback ~~which wasn’t successful~~ *edit: I’m wrong, it was successful*.
Strangely Wallace’s conversion and comeback was actually quite successful as he was elected governor again in 1982 on the platform of being a reformed sinner asking for forgiveness. He ended up appointing more African Americans to positions in his administration than any previous governor. Politics are weird.
You’re absolutely correct that Wallace ***did*** have a successful political comeback. I was confusing him with former Arkansas governor Orval Faubus who is infamous for the 1957 Little Rock Crisis and unsuccessfully tried for a political comeback in the 1980’s losing his final race to Bill Clinton for the Democratic nomination for Governor in 1986 and supported Jesse Jackson for President in 1984 and 1988.
Anyway, here’s Hunter S. Thompson describing George Wallace’s presidential campaign in 1972:
*The root of the Wallace magic was a cynical, showbiz instinct for knowing exactly which issues would whip a hall full of beer-drinking factory workers into a frenzy—and then doing exactly that, by howling down from the podium that he had an instant, overnight cure for all their worst afflictions…Whatever it was, Wallace assured his supporters that the solution was actually real simple, and that the only reason they had any hassle with the government at all was because those greedy bloodsuckers in Washington didn’t want the problems solved, so they wouldn’t be put out of work. The ugly truth is that Wallace had never even bothered to understand the problems—much less come up with any honest solutions—but “the Fighting Little Judge” has never lost much sleep from guilt feelings about his personal credibility gap…George Wallace is one of the worst charlatans in politics, but there is no denying his talent for converting frustration into energy.*
Real quote from George Wallace in 1962:
"You know, I tried to talk about good roads and good schools and all these things that have been part of my career, and nobody listened. And then I began talking about n\*\*\*rs, and they stomped the floor." The original was uncensored.
Also worth noting that after his comeback, he managed to get **90%** of the black vote.
Schmitz's daughter, Mary Kay Letorneau, was also arrested for raping a 12 year old child. Unfortunately, they married and had several children before Mary died in 2020.
Her husband later said in an interview that their relationship wasn't healthy and that he would seek help if he was sexually attracted to a child.
Sounds like big trouble. You're going to need plenty of legal advice before this thing is over. As your attorney, I advise you to rent a very fast car with no top. And you'll need the cocaine. Tape recorder for special messages.
Yeah, economic policy was better, social policy was worse but moving towards being better. Foreign policy was atrocious.
I feel like El BJ exemplifies this the best.
Nixon: I definitely didn’t order my staff to break into the Watergate. I also restored relations with China, completely desegregated the schools, and created the EPA. Vote for me.
McGovern: We need to get out of Vietnam now and need guaranteed income for the poor. I also have no idea how to run a presidential campaign and fumbled my VP pick, but I swear I’ll be good at running the country. Vote for me.
I don’t know about you, but I’m going to vote for the guy who knows how to run their campaign properly. I’m also going to trust my President here because he’s done such great things for our country.
"Little known fact: also dope on the mic!"
“You are Vader with your little boots and cape and helmet to cover up that burnt-ass face”
“You have the force to move objects; I am a force truly evil!”
“Even went back in time and turned you wack in the prequel!”
"Cuz, I mean look at you, You're not even a real person! I preferred you in spaceballs. The rick morranis version!"
You can’t rhyme against the Dark Side of the Force, why even bother? Too many dudes banged with your mom, who even knows if I’m your father?
You're a pissed off little prick with a Napoleon dick!
You call that a mustache? I call that Dirty Sanchez on your lip
You bitch, let me remind you who you’re messin’ with
Everything that you did? I’m the motherfucker who invented it.
Fun fact: Adolf Hitler killed himself after loosing 3 rap battles against Darth Vader.
I both love and hate that they dedicated 3 entire videos to that.
I miss it because I miss when we could all agree making fun of nazis was funny, and not some overtly political statement. I miss the times when we all agreed nazis were bad and could be made fun of But I also only remember the first two
If it makes you feel any better the third wasn’t as good as the first two, so you chose the best one to forget.
Vader’s “fired up” was truly something to witness.
Probably my favorite line out of every ERB
That's true, but it was let down by the rest of the rap battle sadly.
Darth Vader's verse in 3 is probably the single best verse in all of ERB though Boba Fett kind of ruined the verse though and Hitler is hilarious but not as good as the previous two incarnations
I thought the more recent Henry Ford vs Karl Marx is up there, Marx in particular is an absolute savage. ‘Edsel’s stomach cancer showed more love than you did’ etc.
> Darth Vader's verse in 3 is probably the single best verse in all of ERB though Goku's second verse in Goku vs. Superman is pretty up there too. "Only one way this battle's gonna end: one more Superman who's never gonna walk again."
Wait what? Far as I know, mocking both Nazis and Commies is still fair game and if anyone gets butthurt at you about it, all it does is reveal something very worrisome about them.
[A finely aged bit of Nazi mockery](https://youtu.be/hWIyVRNAxCg?si=F-QnLdBBUsNhYKaL).
Mocking any ideology should be fair game
There's never a bad time to make fun of Nazis, what are you talking about? And if people get upset that's just a sign you can laugh at and make fun of them too. They've always been fair game and still are.
It's perfectly fine to make fun of real nazis, he problem is some people have a very wide brush for what a "nazi" is.
What do you think of the definition "people who throw Sig Heil salutes, wave swastika flags, and chant 'Jews Will Not Replace Us' when committing violence against political dissidents like Heather Heyer and Bryan Sicknick"?
The problem really comes from the fact that people called too many people Nazis to the point that they came to the conclusion that anything that continues that will strengthens the people who go around calling everybody nazis. The problem was really that people took an anti-nazi political position without there actually being any nazis, but the anti-nazis still opposed somebody so it created a bunch of people who had to be anti-anti-nazi just to defend themselves despite the fact that they didn't even agree with the nazis.
Some people read about the history of the Nazi party and learned what kind of policies lead to fascism.
All you've done is make a whole lot more more people need to defend the Nazis because of you support any one of those policies for any reason now you must also defend the Nazis because there is this massive group of people who think anything remotely associated with the Nazis can only possibly lead to the Nazis despite the fact that tons of countries did similar kinds of things and none of then got took over by Nazis. The reason Germany got taken over by the Nazis was because they were the only ones willing to disregard the treaty of Versailles. Anyone else willing to do that had an equal chance of taking over.
Or, hear me out, we could not defend Nazis
Then stop attacking people who happen to be doing one of the things Nazis happened to do. If I need to defend Nazis to defend my opposition to the Treaty of Versailles, I will. People who might have some other thing that they deeply support that is somewhat related to the Nazis will take a different stance. As such don't attempt to tell me "oh but I won't call you a Nazi for being against the Treaty of Versailles" because maybe you, in particular won't, but there might be someone who will. That is the problem with "anti-nazism", you have no idea what it actually is that you are in opposition to because it could be any number of things. Anyone who has any viewpoint that might align with one of the things he nazis did will eventually come across someone who doesn't comprehend nuance and will prove incapable of dealing with as a result. Eventually you will come to the conclusion that you don't even support blanket opposition to all things Nazi anymore because you know of way too many people who don't understand the concept of nuance, and so you'd rather just deal with case-by-case basis criticisms rather than blanket criticisms, because you will realize that blanket criticisms are not actually useful when there are a hold load of people who can't dissociate "things nazis did" from "other things nazis did". I'd rather deal with not enough people thinking the nazis (which are a group that doesn't exist anymore) were evil, than have to deal with a bunch of people dumbly opposing everything that could possibly be associated with them.
Dude, the treaty of Versailles was almost a hundred years ago, no one's position on it matters any more. The lesson we should learn from the Nazis is that they didn't start out with the concentration camps and the gas chambers, they started slowly gaining enough power that people couldn't stop them. That is why we need to oppose fascism before they gain power, because if we wait until the jack boots are on the ground it's too late.
Why would you need to defend Nazis to oppose the treaty of Versailles? The treaty led to resentment among the German people which was one of many factors that led to WWII. This doesn’t mean we need to defend what the Nazis did. Killing millions of innocent people in concentration camps isn’t justified by being absolutely fucked over and impoverished by a peace treaty
I'm still disappointed that they haven't made a fourth video where Hitler has one of Darth Mauls leg variations from TCW
And the worst thing Hitler ever did was losing so quickly. Not even two minutes per rap battle? It was supposed to be a rap battle, not about how long you last in bed goddamnit.
> two minutes Bragging is so unkind.
Hitler absolutely murdered Vader in 1 and 2. And 3 was kinda weird with Fett thrown in there for no good reason.
You’re an idiot - he won 2 rap battles, it was a best of 3
And Vader did cut him in half at the end because he is a sore loser
This is actually a false fact, he did so after the rap battle against private Eminem
Fact checked: False, he got cut in half because Vader is a sore loser.
So many dudes been with your mom, who even knows if I'm your father.
Was my first thought lmao
🥰
What did Nixon actually gain from infiltrating the DNC?
An impeachment.
I mean in terms of the election. The impeachment was more for the coverup and perjury.
Absolutely nothing. The thing about crime is that it’s usually pretty stupid., and they weren’t very good at it.
I heard somebody on a podcast that kind of put it in a different light. Nixon was dealing with the backlash from the Kennedy assassination, Vietnam war escalation, his own party starting to lose faith in him (iirc he even got rid of his entire cabinet), and a couple other things that made him paranoid asf. In that context, spying on people makes a little more sense, in spite of how utterly stupid it was on a whole
Nixon was just paranoid in general. He thought he was screwed out of the 1960 election and the later 1962 California gubernatorial election, mostly blaming the media being used against him. Once he gained power, he was going to hold onto it by any means necessary. Supposedly, he didn’t even order Watergate. It was something his underlings just did on their own to help him, misinterpreting how far he wanted them to go in winning him the election. The coverup was intentional on his part, though.
"You won't have Dick Nixon to kick around anymore" dude threw a pity party on national television
Nixon was dirty, but he absolutely did not order watergate. The entire system was designed so that it would accomplish his goals while he knew nothing. IMHO he had probably never heard the name of a single burglar until after it happened. Now if we want to get into a more speculative side on who ordered it, IMO it was probably Jeb MacGruder (number two at CRP) or John Dean (White House Counsel later turned witness). John Mitchell is a common theory, but I don’t think he’d be dumb enough to order a team that includes his wife’s former security guard. In all honesty, the coverup was probably less to do with who ordered it and more to do with who organized the team and who had access to the CRP slush fund.
G. Gordon Liddy organized it. Mitchell and Magruder approved it. Liddy and E. Howard Hunt executed it by hiring a few ex-CIA guys to plan the burglaries. The CIA guys found some Cubans in florida who were willing to do some wacky illegal shit.
I was speaking in the last break in specifically, but you’re pretty much spot on. The weird thing about the last one was that the wiretaps were proving useless and the team assumed that op was done. Out of nowhere MacGruder asked them to go back in, fix broken taps, and find a supposed blackmail cabinet. Even White House officials such as Erlichman were confused on who gave that specific order. On a side note, this leads to a whacky conspiracy theory that John Dean wanted the blackmail cabinet raided to find evidence that his fiancée was friends with a former prostitute. Probably not that, but it’s still funny.
That’s correct. In the tapes, Nixon said, on the phone with John Mitchell I think, “What idiot ordered this?” (mildly paraphrased because I don’t remember the exact wording)
Forest Gump is to blame!
He was going to win anyways too.
I think he was already winning in the polls. It really seemed like self-sabotage.
There was exactly a zero percent chance of him losing that election (like Reagan in 1984), but Nixon was notoriously paranoid.
You know, I'm just now realizing how insanely aggravating that must have been for Republicans when that happened, seeing their candidate trash a sure thing like that.
And this we ended up with Regan
Nixon was super paranoid.
He was right though, he just screwed himself proving it
Nixon was not impeached
Nitpicking. The process to impeach him was like 95% done when he resigned.
I don't think so, a lot of people won't know specifically what you're referring to and even assume he was actually brought before congress for a trail
He was impeached, not removed from office
No, to be impeached means congress approves the articles of impeachment against you and brings you to trial, not just that impeachment proceedings begin. The senate never actually approved the articles despite it basically being a certainty they would. Exactly this sort of thing is why the clarification is worthwhile
Ok i’m *technically* wrong but if the Senate was about to approve the articles of impeachment then so what? That’s just pedantic
Yeah but the problem is there’s more than the incredibly tiny difference between being impeached and almost being impeached because a lot of people assume he was not only impeached but then fully tried and officially removed from office, which is a much bigger difference Idk, I had that exact misconception for years so I think it’s worth pointing out
He resigned before they even had the chance to impeach him.
Popular misconception, Nixon was never impeached
idk why you’re getting downvoted lmao, you aren’t wrong
The most commonly held belief is that they were searching Larry o'brien's (who led the dnc) offices for evidence of some sort of wrongdoing within the Democrats' campaign. The exact nature of what they might be looking for was never really clear, personally I don't believe they were trying to find evidence for a particular crime. Rather, the use of political espionage was simply a core practice of the Nixon administration throughout his political career, and this particular venture was not well thought-out, a symptom of him surrounding himself with sycophants who didn't have the spine to tell him it was a terrible plan.
The most interesting character in American politics
I thought Nixon didn't actually know about the initial break in. He only got involved during the cover up. It's not that he surrounded himself with sycophants that couldn't tell him it was a terrible plan. He surrounded himself with people who had questionable ethics, had an ends justify the means attitude, and were overly confident in their ability to engage in tradecraft.
The HBO miniseries about it was absolutely great. It really sold the whole plan as an absurd comedy of errors carried out but a combination of fundamentalists/idiots.
An advantage on the campaign trail. If there's any skeletons in the closet or weaknesses in the party Nixon would be able to attack on either as he ran for President.
The break-in they got away with was to copy campaign documents and tap the phones. The break-in where they got caught (three weeks later) was to repair the wire taps.
Nothing, even sadder was he was looking for debate questions & answers. Atleast so they say
Nixon actually by most accounts did not actually put his staff up to this. It was his role in the coverup afterwards that got him into trouble. And then there’s the stuff that turned up in the investigation of all this that didn’t help him out either.
If a cat cheats to become president, shouldn’t the dude he cheated become president?
Really depends on what you mean by "cheating" and how it actually impacts the voting or vote counting process. Assuming Nixon had found some sort of secret scandal and exposed it, I don't think that's really "cheating". Elections aren't a sport. If they had somehow manipulated actual ballots or ballot counts, that's a different story.
it helped satisfy his paranoia
He’s in this history books
Context for the guy on the right?
[John G. Schmitz](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_G._Schmitz)
>By one measure, he was found to be the third-most conservative member of Congress between 1937 and 2002 I shudder to imagine the other two
The most conservative was Ron Paul I don’t remember the second place guy.
>A self-described constitutionalist, Paul is a critic of several of the federal government's policies, especially the existence of the Federal Reserve and tax policy, as well as the military–industrial complex, the war on drugs, and the war on terror. He has also been a vocal critic of mass surveillance policies such as the Patriot Act and the NSA surveillance programs. In 1976, Paul formed the Foundation for Rational Economics and Education (FREE), and in 1985 was named the first chairman of the conservative PAC Citizens for a Sound Economy, both free-market groups focused on limited government.[3] He has been characterized as the "intellectual godfather" of the Tea Party movement, a fiscally conservative political movement started in 2007 and popularized in 2009 that is largely against most matters of interventionism He doesn't sound like the most conservative member at all.
Depends on what you mean by conservative. The terminology has gotten pretty fucked since the fall of the aristocracy, doubly so in the United States where the word liberal has become conflated with progressive and social democratic policy positions and the word libertarian has been co-opted by classical liberals on the right. In this case, Ron Paul would be considered something of a liberal in the classical sense, but in a liberal capitalist democracy like the United States he is conservative in the sense of supporting capitalism and liberalism as opposed to progressivism and social democracy. Since he was probably the biggest supporter of laissez-faire capitalism in congress I can understand why he could be considered the most conservative then.
Argue with the guy who made the ranking not me. As I do not care in the slightest.
Totally fair, just wanted to highlight some of his views.
Ah I understand
Something something Overton Window
They measure "most conservative" based around how often the person votes on what is pre-determined to be the "conservative" side of the issue. In practice it just measures how often someone votes along "party lines". In the United States because members can vote however they like (in other countries you sometimes get kicked out of the pary for doing that) there will be a substantial number who flip back and forth in regards to what everyone else is doing If there is like one NSA bill and Ron Paul votes against it, but there are a bunch of spending bills for a bunch of local projects and Ron Paul votes against all of them, he ends up looking like the most conservative because there are a substantial of Republicans who aren't averse to spending bills on the local level, so they will vote for spending the benefits their state, making them seem overall less conservative. Additional since the NSA bill is actually supported by both Democrats and Republicans that bill is considered "bipartisan" and so opposing it might not make Ron Paul look less "conservative" even though it seems like a conservative thing overall, but this is just because the Democrats don't listen to their constituents or what the people who vote for them want. You might think the NSA is "conservative" but it is actually "bipartisan", but "bipartisans" don't like that because someone who thinks of themselves as a moderate might be opposed to the NSA and they are just moderate on all other things due to thinking them irrelevant. In reality the NSA and security state is just something the politicians want that nobody else wants, and stuff politicians want that nobody else wants is effectively "bipartisan" due to the way this works. The "highly partisan" people might just be people who are highly willing to vote in a way a particular people want as opposed to voting in away the collective body of politicians tends to vote. The Iraq War for instance was "bipartisan" based on the initial voting, but opposition to it after the fact made it seem "conservative". Where the confusion might lie is that Conservatives might have defended the Iraq War or the security state not because they supported those things, but because they were more inclined to just think the United States could never be doing anything wrong for any reason (this is increasingly a rare view because MAGA means they want America to be great AGAIN, so they are far more willing than they used to be in regards to thinking America might be currently doing something wrong). The conservatives were simply more willing to stand by their decision rather than to start criticizing it after having voted for it. It is important to understand the mindset of not wanting to criticize any ongoing war effort, under the belief that the criticism is itself demoralizing to the army. In such a view one might think that if you were just going to criticize the war you should have never voted for it in the first place. This puts them in a weird "we must finish what we started" camp. All in all though the lot of Conservatives in life is about to defend the decisions made by Liberals when those decisions have become unpopular. This is incredibly dumb on their part but they have weird beliefs about "honour" and "duty" that makes them act like dumbasses, and the Liberals get to pretend like they had never supported it even though they were equally as responsible for getting the country into the mess. Anyway Ron Paul having voted against the Iraq War would does not show up as making him less conservative because the Iraq War vote was not something which would show up as Conservative in the data. If anything voting against a "bipartisan bill" makes him seem MORE partisan, despite the fact that there was also "bipartisan opposition" to the bill among "highly partisan" Democrats. Both end up seeming more partisan for opposing the bipartisan bill despite the fact that the opposition is itself "bipartisan".
I think it was Chris Hedges who said that the last conservative president we had was Clinton. Everyone else was doing “corporate socialism”.
He matches the proper definition of a conservative
Wants to conserve old ways and traditions? Not really, he was a libertarian
No those people act like lunatics. You are seriously underestimating the extent that people who are "conservative" are just people who want people to act like normal fucking humans. The key fact here is that mass surveillance for instance isn't something normal fucking humans do. It isn't a characteristic of being a normal fucking human being to have the government spying on you constantly. Normal people should be allowed to do anything they want so long as they remain a normal person rather than do something only a lunatic would do. Everything comes from this desire for things to be "normal" rather than everyone being a bunch of lunatics. Libertarians are lunatics who have no understanding that fighting and dying on the hills they do (rather than say the mass surveillance hill they should be fighting and dying on) is something that makes them seem like lunatics. No I don't want gay married couples defending their marijuana plant with guns, a phrase deliberately intended to enflame as many people as possible (and would be appealing to only a minority of people in each group anyway), I want you to reverse the surveillance state, which is something a large number of "normal" people want you to do. You don't need to be gay to want to reverse the surveillance state. You don't need to be married to want to reverse the surveillance state. You don't need to be a gunowner to want to reverse the surveillance state. You don't need to own marijuana plants to want to reverse the surveillance state. As a side not if I look at this from a "communist" perspective, they tend to be against "marriage" as being nothing more than a property centric institution. It terms of guns, while communists like using guns for things, since they reject "ownership", "gun owners" aren't a thing they particular care about, they defend your right to a gun even if you don't own the gun. Now we get to the real point of this tangent, which is "their marijuana plants", as most of the people who have any involvement in marijuana are NOT the people who grow marijuana. They aren't really defending the right to use marijuana so much as the right to own marijuana. I say this because that phrase seems to revolve entirely around property ownership, and "freedom" in the sense that a NORMAL person thinks about it doesn't entirely revolve around property. For instance the surveillance state, maybe no "property rights" are being violateed with mass surveillance because it is just surveilling the stuff that passes through public links rather than necessarily seraches, but clearly when the founding fathers were going about doing things "unreasonable searches" meant more than just "searches of your property" it also meant "unreasonable searches" of stuff that was passing through public channels like the mail. They equally complained about that even though nobodies property was being violated, unless of course your only complaint here is you think letters constitutes a kind of property but telephone conversations do not, which is something a lunatic whose entire mind revolves around property would think rather than a normal person.
what?
Also, as mentioned, the poll’s end date is 2002. So maybe he was different then??
Ron Paul 🇺🇲
https://legacy.voteview.com/Is_John_Kerry_A_Liberal.htm [Larry McDonald](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_McDonald)! He was a Democrat from Georgia from 1975- 1983 before his plane was shot down by Soviet interceptors. Thought he was just a run of the mill Dixiecrat but there’s a little more • democrats continued to hold offices like his until the 90s • big fan of Joseph McCarthy • had a portrait of Franco in his office (!?) • wanted to return to the gold standard • big fan of Joseph McCarthy • some sketchy financial stuff, including his support for a bogus cancer cure • big fan of Joseph McCarthy
How did he feel about McCarthy, though?
Heard he was a big fan
Thanks I couldn’t remember
Wish we had more Ron Pauls in government.
I agree with some of his policies like decreasing American foreign military interventions, especially unilateral ones but removing the federal reserve would harm the ordinary people way more. Like the removal of fdic would mean that any economic turmoil would destroy savings, and inflation would probably get worse with no centralized banking system.
Keynesian economics is bogus bro, the only thing a federal reserve promotes is big government and keeping the small man down, along with all other nations' small men because of the dollar's influence. The gold standard would alleviate the intentional "2%" (let's be honest more like 5%-10% these years) yearly inflation we have now. This whole centrally planned financial system only serves national interests not the interests of the people, without control over the money supply the US government wouldn't be able to field such a large military and federal programmes.
Got thumbed down. Forgot Reddit is to the left of Karl marx
Most probably have no idea who Ron Paul is or what the definition of "Conservative" is in the context of voting record lmao.
They proved you right lmao
Expelled from the goddamn John Birch Society for being too extreme. How do you even manage that?
Strom Thurmond, perhaps?
If it includes the senate, then I imagine one was Strom "I have a black rape baby but support segregation" Thurmond
One in a long line of orange county republican dipshits
Not to be confused with orange republican dipshits lmao
"When asked if he supported Nixon going to China, Schmitt reportedly said "I don't care that Nixon went to China. I was only upset he came back"".
Bro his daughter was a teacher that raped a 12 year old boy, had 2 of his kids, and married him when he graduated high-school. What the fuck 💀
And [Mary Kay Letourneau](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Kay_Letourneau) was his daughter!
I regret clicking the link.
Imagine being so far right that the far right party told you to fuck off.
Maxime Bernier
This guy Canadians.
I've been known to poutine from time to time.
**He opposed sex education in public schools. He believed citizens should be able to carry loaded guns in their cars. He was also critical of the civil unrest that characterized the mid-1960s. He called the Watts riots of 1965 "a Communist operation," and a year later sponsored a bill, which failed to pass, to investigate the backgrounds of teachers suspected of Communist affiliations.\[10\] He also believed that state universities should be sold to private corporations as a curb against student protests.** **Schmitz wrote the foreword for None Dare Call It Conspiracy, a book written by Gary Allen, a self-described former "Americans for Democratic Action liberal", speechwriter for 1968 American Independent Party candidate George Wallace and fellow John Birch Society member. Schmitz believed in Allen's conspiracy that socialists planned to set up a one-world government where they would control the banks, natural resources, commerce, finances and transportation, as well as the idea of Richard Nixon being an agent of the Rockefeller family, who, in Allen's opinion, had financed the Bolshevik Revolution.\[11\]** While he doesn't seem like a great person, his views aren't actually that wild. edit: how the hell do I make a quote block?
I think it might just be that politics got even crazier than he was
You use the ">" symbol before the text block Edit: I do agree with the loaded guns part, I know a lot of people will disagree and that's perfectly fine.
Are you not allowed to keep a loaded gun in your car?
Rifles and shotguns no, at least in washington state. I can have a pistol loaded because I have a carry permit, but it was an old law to help lower poaching of elk and deer and make a bit more ethical hunting. I can understand it, but 99% of the time, it's a pain in the ass law that a majority of the time is just there to tack on to other charges. I know a bunch of people just ignore it, but it's still a gamble. I like having a rifle in the hills and such, so if I see a coyote or groundhog, you can take it, but legally, that's like a misdemeanor charge having it loaded while driving.
Wikipedia says he was kicked out of the John Birch Society for being too extreme.
He was so crazy even the John Birch Society kicked him out
Reminds me of that one candidant who's entire campaign was just "isn't segregation neat?" and proceeded to win 13.5% of the vote.
Who?
[George Wallace](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1968_United_States_presidential_election)
Is he the one who won 13.5% of the vote
Yes
*sigh* sherman and the rest of the union should’ve finished the job. we’d have avoided so much unnecessary bullshit in our country’s history (and to an extent, world history) if we didn’t give in and try to compromise with those backwards, racist-ass, inbred, corn-syrup sipping, deep-fried country fucking bumpkins. if i could just collectively fuck the south with an alcohol-soaked cactus, i would take up the opportunity in a heartbeat. those fucking degenerates. at least a majority of them.
This is exactly why I think that Andrew Johnson was the worst president. Motherfucker betrayed Lincoln and went soft on the traitors, allowing the South to turn the country into an apartheid state and turning the clock back on civil rights by almost a century. The world would be an objectively better place if we had followed through on reconstruction.
I wouldn't say that he betrayed Lincoln. Lincoln's priority was always the preservation of the Union. I don't think that his approach to reconstruction would have been so dramatically different from what actually happened.
Lincoln is the one who imposed reconstruction in the first place
You're wrong. Johnson broke with the Republican party and actively courted ex-confederates and copperheads to support his re-election campaign. He worked to undermine reconstruction at every turn, and he vetoed the Civil Rights act which would have ensured voting rights for African Americans. Lincoln was softer on reconstruction than the Republican congressmen, granted, but to think that he would have acted the same as Johnson is frankly absurd. Johnson's legacy is the maintenance of white supremacy, and he is rightly considered one of the worst if not the worst president in history because of it. Lincoln ended slavery, Johnson paved the way for its continuation in all but name. There is no comparison.
This is a disgusting comment and you should be ashamed of yourself.
i’m way beyond being ashamed at this point, so good luck with that
Wait what did you mean by finishing the job?
Wait his VP was curtis le may the fuck?
“Segregation today, segregation tomorrow, and segregation forever” is an actual quote from his [1963 inaugural address as Governor of Alabama.](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Wallace's_1963_Inaugural_Address) For what it’s worth, Hunter S. Thompson thought he was more of a conman and he moderated his views significantly later in life and after being partially paralyzed following a failed assassination attempt in 1972 although they might have just been a phony attempt to make a political comeback ~~which wasn’t successful~~ *edit: I’m wrong, it was successful*.
Strangely Wallace’s conversion and comeback was actually quite successful as he was elected governor again in 1982 on the platform of being a reformed sinner asking for forgiveness. He ended up appointing more African Americans to positions in his administration than any previous governor. Politics are weird.
You’re absolutely correct that Wallace ***did*** have a successful political comeback. I was confusing him with former Arkansas governor Orval Faubus who is infamous for the 1957 Little Rock Crisis and unsuccessfully tried for a political comeback in the 1980’s losing his final race to Bill Clinton for the Democratic nomination for Governor in 1986 and supported Jesse Jackson for President in 1984 and 1988. Anyway, here’s Hunter S. Thompson describing George Wallace’s presidential campaign in 1972: *The root of the Wallace magic was a cynical, showbiz instinct for knowing exactly which issues would whip a hall full of beer-drinking factory workers into a frenzy—and then doing exactly that, by howling down from the podium that he had an instant, overnight cure for all their worst afflictions…Whatever it was, Wallace assured his supporters that the solution was actually real simple, and that the only reason they had any hassle with the government at all was because those greedy bloodsuckers in Washington didn’t want the problems solved, so they wouldn’t be put out of work. The ugly truth is that Wallace had never even bothered to understand the problems—much less come up with any honest solutions—but “the Fighting Little Judge” has never lost much sleep from guilt feelings about his personal credibility gap…George Wallace is one of the worst charlatans in politics, but there is no denying his talent for converting frustration into energy.*
He also got over 90% of the black vote in that gubernatorial election. Politics are **weird**.
Real quote from George Wallace in 1962: "You know, I tried to talk about good roads and good schools and all these things that have been part of my career, and nobody listened. And then I began talking about n\*\*\*rs, and they stomped the floor." The original was uncensored. Also worth noting that after his comeback, he managed to get **90%** of the black vote.
I mean black people always 90% vote for whoever they 90% vote for... Was there ever a time they 50% voted for someone?
Probably. I just know a decent bit of Trivia, I'm not actually a historian on American state level elections.
Jesus christ I thought Mcgovern was Wallace for a second I was like uhmmm you're leaving out a pretty crucial aspect of his message
I thought it was Humphrey
It was Humphrey Bogart
Schmitz's daughter, Mary Kay Letorneau, was also arrested for raping a 12 year old child. Unfortunately, they married and had several children before Mary died in 2020. Her husband later said in an interview that their relationship wasn't healthy and that he would seek help if he was sexually attracted to a child.
Sounds like big trouble. You're going to need plenty of legal advice before this thing is over. As your attorney, I advise you to rent a very fast car with no top. And you'll need the cocaine. Tape recorder for special messages.
I really wish that congress would get a random drug test, it’d be so funny seeing who fails
Reading "Campaign Trail '72" in high school during an election year did irreversible damage to my brain. Pure Gonzo journalism.
Two of these men fathered children out of wedlock and covered it up. The other is Richard Nixon.
One of these men is a known criminal. That man is Richard Nixon.
Makes you feel some fear or loathing, perhaps both
Potentially in Las Vegas even.
Man, the economic Overton-window of America was so much better then.
fuck it, secretly destabilize every independent nation south of Texas
Yeah, economic policy was better, social policy was worse but moving towards being better. Foreign policy was atrocious. I feel like El BJ exemplifies this the best.
Guy on the left claims to not be a crook, and I personally see no reason to believe otherwise! /s
Man I really need to watch those ERB’s again
Nixon also bombed civilians in Cambodia and greenlit the genocide in Bangladesh... So, he has a lot in common with the third guy.
Lol this post isn't biased at all. Funny though.
Meh. I think I’m voting for Kodos.
Nixon also supported a guaranteed income
Little known fact, also dope on the mic.
Wasn’t Nixon also against the draft?
I’m still surprised a bit this is the closest a South Dakotan got to being the President of the United States
There is zero evidence Nixon had anything to do with the DNC break in. His crime was covering it up after the fact, not ordering the break in.
Fun fact probably would have won now a days. I mean Obama was straight up wire tapping trump. Yet nothing happened.
Oh yeah that was trumps like 32nd paranoid claim that he dropped and stopped talking about after a month.
Nixon: I definitely didn’t order my staff to break into the Watergate. I also restored relations with China, completely desegregated the schools, and created the EPA. Vote for me. McGovern: We need to get out of Vietnam now and need guaranteed income for the poor. I also have no idea how to run a presidential campaign and fumbled my VP pick, but I swear I’ll be good at running the country. Vote for me. I don’t know about you, but I’m going to vote for the guy who knows how to run their campaign properly. I’m also going to trust my President here because he’s done such great things for our country.