The Partisan Divide on Issues

[Bob Butler 54]

(07-08-2020, 09:29 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: I'd line him up with Teddy Roosevelt or Churchill myself. He won't be FDR or Washington but he could end up being a modern day Republican version of Abe Lincoln.

How can he be against racial equality and be like Lincoln?  How can he suppress voting of people who oppose him and be for democracy?  How can he consider himself above the law and be a law and order person?  I have a quite simple arrow of progress to measure him against.  I am confident that he belongs more with Buchanan and Hoover, though arguably this does more than a little injustice to Hoover.  Hoover was correct in thinking the US government traditionally did not interfere to regulate the economy, but incorrect in thinking this could continue.  His mistake is in not attempting to do what had never been done before.  Racism, voter suppression and acting as if one were above the law has been done before.

(07-08-2020, 09:29 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: So, you are willing to sacrifice or let go of the rule of law, equality, traditional Judeo/Christian values and accept lawlessness and mob rule to keep another not so good Democratic coalition together. So, does that seem about right to you?

No, I distinguish between the protestors and the looters.  In order to repeat your ridiculous claims, you have to be willfully blind to the difference between following the law and not.

(07-08-2020, 09:29 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: Yes, Churchill despite all he did to rally a nation that was badly losing a war and save Great Britain from inevitable defeat by the Axis powers and a divvy up or surrender of its empire and its monarchy or even worse by being invaded and conquered.

Axis victory was not inevitable.  Are we debating who won World War II?  You are aware that the conservative autocratic side lost?  To what degree will you edit your perspective on history to support your warped ideology?