John McCain instead of George W Bush
- Thread starter PMN1
- Start date
You obviously not only do not understand what Fascism is, you don't even understand what the word moderate means in American political parlance. A Republican who is to the left on his party's center on issues such as abortion, illegal immigration, global warming is by definition a moderate. Just as a Democrat who is to the right of his party's center on those issues is by definition a moderate. By labeling these issues "wedge issues" and thus artificial you insult the tens of millions of voters on both sides for whom they are vitally important. If you simply dismiss abortion or illegal immigration as important political issues in the American context it merely demonstrates your own ignorance.
Many right-wingers/conservatives fear that Clinton and Obama are dangerous socialists. Interestingly, by European standards both are centrist, and Hillary Clinton, at least, is a moderate conservative. Granted Western Europe is more socialistic than the US. (I refer to the Democratic Party as the American Center Party and the Republican Party as center-right, focusing of course on economic issues, on the (economically based) left-right spectrum.) Unfortunately, neither Obama nor Clinton can be trusted to fall back on a non-interventionist foreign policy, to avoid all war, or to end the Iraq War soon enough. However, at least I do not fear either of them starting WWIII. At least the Democrats have a plan to withdraw from Iraq eventually. With Clinton or Obama you can expect an expanded budget and increasing taxes. Unfortunate but with the already over-sized federal budget, more taxes are needed. Might as well tax us because this deficit spending will continue to raise the national debt and promote inflation.
Hirohito was reigning emperor of Japan over time, or presiding over the Japanese Empire, if you will. Yes he was a figurehead, but...
You know what I mean!
But it is an uncontroversial fact that Imperial Japan adopted a fascist ideology, as the government was ideologically aligned with Mussolini's Italy and the Nazis leading to the Axis Pact of WW2.
I should probably be using words like near fascist, proto-fascist, quasi-fascist, semi-fascist, etc. for better clarification. People like McCain and his hero, T Roosevelt belong in the category of authoritarian, usually right-wing statesmen who are not necessarily fascist, at least not in the sense of Mussolini, Metaxas, Hitler, Franco, Pol Pot, Saddam Hussein, etc. A better comparison would be between proto-neocons like McKinley, TR, and Wilson and their modern offshoots (McCain) and statesmen like Pilsudski, Ataturk, Shah Reza Pahlavi, the Perons, etc. For instance, the Perons are often considered fascists, though they are perhaps best described as authoritarian populists.
(Consults Dictionary.com looks up "fascism")...
Random House Unabridged Dictionary:
–noun 1.(sometimes initial capital letter) a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism. 2.(sometimes initial capital letter
) the philosophy, principles, or methods of fascism. 3.(initial capital letter) a fascist movement, esp. the one established by Mussolini in Italy 1922–43.
American Heritage Dictionary:
Kernerman English Multilingual Dictionary:
I admit that this next definition is very broad.
WorldNet:
Now at least that definition definitely applies!
On the other hand the next definition is extremely specific.
American Heritage New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy (Third Edition):
While John McCain is not Mussolini, he is an authoritarian (though not totalitarian) who supports authoritarian positions from both the right (flag burning amendment) and the left (McCain-Feingold). Of course, he would not meet the autocratic dicatator criterion because the Constitution limits presidential power, but there is no reason why he might not try to find a loophole. George Bush is not a fascist, though he tried to push the limits of presidential power to near dictatorial levels. Mac thinks that the individual ought to serve the state.
Why should Timmy811 be the final arbiter on who is a moderate and who is not? I was not aware that abortion, illegal immigration, and global warming are the only three issues! I would have figured that taxes, spending, budget, debt and deficits, cash value, industry regulation, air and water quality, education, international relations, diplomacy, health, security, national defense, constitutional issues, crime and punishment, terrorism, etc. were all issues. There are PLENTY of issues. A conservative who is moderate or even liberal on one or two issues is not a moderate! John McCain is liberal on environmental issues and little else. He is therefore a "green conservative". He is also pro-amnesty, but even Bush was in favor of amnesty for illegal immigrants. On all issues pertaining to national defense, military, international relations, foreign policy, etc. he is a staunch neoconservative.
Also, see the graphs in this link to determine how "moderate" he really is.
http://www.thetalentshow.org/2005/06/02/scientific-proof-that-john-mccain-sucks/
Which they are, for the most part.
I agree that illegal immigration is an issue, but the mainstream is content with the status quo (i.e. being nominally against illegal immigration while doing nothing about it, even granting amnesty to illegal aliens). Personally I have no problem at all with immigrants. I am in favor of legal immigration, but I believe that border security is important. (How can McCain be trusted to guard the border when he is so busy with empire-building.) I am against illegal immigration, and think we should stop people from entering illegally and securing US borders and coasts (in the short term), but I also favor immigration reform and in the long term immigration should be liberalized so more people can enter legally.
Global warming is a very real phenomenon. To deny that it is happening is quite frankly idiotic, and global warming deniers are in the same camp as creationists and Holocaust deniers. However, there is plenty of hysteria on the other side of the aisle as well. While many loonies deny that average temperatures are increasing or that human activities have an effect on the climate, people like Al Gore often slightly exaggerate the problem, often to advance their own political agenda. Likewise, abortion is a sensitive matter, but ill suited to political discourse. No matter how important some people consider the issue, it will be exploited for political reasons.
Tough shit! Most of those voters do not matter. How many of them make policy decisions? If they are smart, they will think about policy decisions that will impact their life in some way and vote based on that.
Why? Because I see through bullshit? In America the issue of homosexual and lesbian marriages is considered a serious political matter!
The sanctity of marriage issue CLEARLY is a wedge issue to exploit the whimsical fears of some, even when the nation faces serious problems and matters of real importance. So what if gays marry? Just as some Democrats use fear of global warming (which is a real issue, but this exploitation has the effect of crying wolf and undermining credibility), many Republicans use cultural and religious issues to fleece the reactionary elements of the American electorate. Abortion, on the other hand, is a real issue to some people, but at least I understand the controversy about it. The people who care most about abortion often are the least likely to notice the controversy. Those of us on the sideline see both sides from a detached perspective. Personally I am pro-choice, but then unless the Supreme Court overrules Roe v. Wade, there is nothing that pro-life people can do about it. Ideally the matter should be left to the states, not the federal government, but as long as Roe v. Wade is in effect there is nothing the President or Congress can do about it. Therefore, it is a bad idea to select a president based on their personal views on abortion. Again illegal immigration is a serious matter, but it is clear that no major party provides an alternative to the status quo.So Timmy811, please, cry me a river! Single issue voters suck!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zajir
And Theodore Roosevelt a fascist?
TemporalRenegade Quote:
I should probably be using words like near fascist, proto-fascist, quasi-fascist, semi-fascist, etc. for better clarification. People like McCain and his hero, T Roosevelt belong in the category of authoritarian, usually right-wing statesmen who are not necessarily fascist, at least not in the sense of Mussolini, Metaxas, Hitler, Franco, Pol Pot, Saddam Hussein, etc. A better comparison would be between proto-neocons like McKinley, TR, and Wilson and their modern offshoots (McCain) and statesmen like Pilsudski, Ataturk, Shah Reza Pahlavi, the Perons, etc. For instance, the Perons are often considered fascists, though they are perhaps best described as authoritarian populists.
Whoever wrote this claearly doesn't know what he is talking and knows little about American government and history. Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson do even remotely compare to the likes of Pilsudski, Attaturk, the Shah or even Juan Peron. They don't even come close to authoritariansim. In fact they could even be compared the PRI presidents of Mexico from the 1920's the begining of the millenium The 1904, 1908,1912, and 1916 presidential elections were relatively free and competive. and were certainly not marked by voter fraud. More importantly, the winner of these elections did not the 70-95% vote margins as one would normally get in authoritarian regimes. Presidents Roosevelt and Wilson never suspended the Constitution to rule by decree. Not even during the height of WWI! You're comparing apples with oranges.
Originally Posted by Zajir
And Theodore Roosevelt a fascist?
TemporalRenegade Quote:
I should probably be using words like near fascist, proto-fascist, quasi-fascist, semi-fascist, etc. for better clarification. People like McCain and his hero, T Roosevelt belong in the category of authoritarian, usually right-wing statesmen who are not necessarily fascist, at least not in the sense of Mussolini, Metaxas, Hitler, Franco, Pol Pot, Saddam Hussein, etc. A better comparison would be between proto-neocons like McKinley, TR, and Wilson and their modern offshoots (McCain) and statesmen like Pilsudski, Ataturk, Shah Reza Pahlavi, the Perons, etc. For instance, the Perons are often considered fascists, though they are perhaps best described as authoritarian populists.
Whoever wrote this claearly doesn't know what he is talking and knows little about American government and history.
Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson do even remotely compare to the likes of Pilsudski, Attaturk, the Shah or even Juan Peron. They don't even come close to authoritariansim. In fact they could even be compared the PRI presidents of Mexico from the 1920's the begining of the millenium The 1904, 1908,1912, and 1916 presidential elections were relatively free and competive. and were certainly not marked by voter fraud. More importantly, the winner of these elections did not the 70-95% vote margins as one would normally get in authoritarian regimes. Presidents Roosevelt and Wilson never suspended the Constitution to rule by decree. Not even during the height of WWI! You're comparing apples with oranges. John Cain's response to 9/11 attacks would more quicker than GWB and he maybe confront Pakistan and then he will make an alliance with India.
In terms of social and environmental issues, McCain would be sightly moderate and he will compromise on some issues unlike GWB.
In terms of social and environmental issues, McCain would be sightly moderate and he will compromise on some issues unlike GWB.
Pardon me, Mr. Standard X, but are you on crack? First off, authoritarian, as with its antonym, libertarian, is a relative term denoting the degree of state power or governmental authority over the individual or society, orthogonal to the economic left-right axis. Basically, I am using the Political Compass terminology as even liberals and small-government conservatives would be "authoritarian" relative to an anarchist, though they are libertarian relative to the center. But even in the sense that authoritarianism includes but is not limited to totalitarianism, many of those statesmen would certainly qualify.Originally Posted by Standard X
Whoever wrote this claearly doesn't know what he is talking and knows little about American government and history.
Authoritarian societies existed since the dawn of human civilization. The iron fist of Hammurabi or the repressive society prescribed in the Old Testament come to mind. The concept of totalitarianism, of the total state, is something related but distinct. Yet even totalitarianism predates Marxism-Leninism and Italian Fascism. The idea of a total state can be traced back to Plato and Hegel. Plato can properly be called the Father of Fascism. Don't believe me? Try reading On the Open Society and its Enemies by Karl Popper. That is, assuming of course that you are literate enough to do so...
Perhaps the only regimes which could be considered Fascist were Benito Mussolini's Italy (the original Fascists), Germany under Adolf Hitler's Third Reich (Nazism being modeled off of fascism), Imperial Japan under the Tojo military dictatorship (why I mistakenly identified Emperor Hirohito as the fascist leader when he was a figurehead, I am not sure), Spain under Generalissimo Francisco Franco, and Greece under Ioannis Metaxas.
[Metaxas was clearly a Fascist, as his regime was virtually identical to Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany. It seems to be that the only reason why Metaxas did not align Greece with the Axis Powers was because in the interwar years Greece was a protectorate or client state of the British Empire and just as the Brits made a puppet dictator out of the idiot Venizelos, they made a similar puppet out of Metaxas. For this and other reasons, most notably the Metaxas regime's murderous ethnic cleansing of Albanians and Chams, who sought Fascist Italy's protection, Benito Mussolini perceived Greece as an enemy nation, invaded, and failing miserably called on Nazi Germany for assistance. The standing Greek government (Metaxas regime) resisted both Axis nations, but under German occupation, they did not merely surrender like Denmark, but they actively collaborated with the Nazis. It was the Greek Left who provided real resistance during Nazi occupation, just as the Spanish Left fought Franco's Fascist coalition in the Spanish Civil War. The reason why Greece fought with the Allies was more due to petty politics than any ideological difference between the Metaxas regime and the Axis Powers.]
Other regimes which may qualify as fascist include Ba'athist Iraq under Sadaam Hussein, Taliban Afghanistan, Cambodia under Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge (who were totalitarians but who were in no meaningful way socialist considering that they attempted to reinstall feudalism), Zimbabwe under Robert Mugabe, the regime of Idi Amin, as well as some other "Islamo-fascist" regimes. One might also include Cuba under Fulgencio Batista, but that was more about gangster kleptocracy than WW2-style fascism. Augosto Pinochet is often included because he is the only "free-market fascist" dictator to achieve power as every other Fascist dictator and regime was either Keynesian or neo-feudalist.
Of course, not all fascists have attained state power. There were Fascist parties in France during the 20th century, as well as in Belgium, Switzerland, Ukraine, Romania, and Yugoslavia, all of whom collaborated with Nazis during WWII. Even today, in the United Kingdom, a relatively enlightened 1st world liberal democracy, there exists a Fascist party called the British National Party (BNP). Ayn Rand certainly could qualify as a "petty fascist." While Rand was not, by all indications, a Fascist in the WW2 sense, if the definition of fascism is broadened to include right-totalitarianism (as opposed to left-totalitarianism, i.e. Communism) Ayn Rand certainly qualifies as fascist in ideology, being idelogically alligned with Pinochet, but not in practice as the "Objectivist" cult never attained state power. [However, Randian ideology beneath the libertarian smokescreens and window dressings was thoroughly totalitarian. Read The Ayn Rand Cult by Jeff Walker for more info.]
So to be clear, the United States was NEVER fascist in the original WW2 sense of the term, nor was there ever anyone like Sadaam Hussein, or Robert Mugabe in charge. However, there were some despotic, militaristic, and nationalistic men elected to the highest office.
I find it interesting that Standard X has no problem calling Ataturk, Pilsudski, or the Shah fascist when Theodore Roosevelt and especially Woodrow Wilson fit the bill much better.
If you ask a Greek, Armenian, or Syriac (Assyrian or Chaldean), they might tell you that Mustafa Kemal Ataturk was indeed a fascist. They would likely equate Ataturk to Hitler and the Young Turk Party to the NSDAP while drawing parallels between the Armenian genocide and the Holocaust. Ask a Turk, and they will declare Kemal Ataturk a national hero. They would consider him the Turkish equivalent of the 17th century French revolutionaries, a classical liberal who brought the Enlightenment to Turkey, who established a secular republic and emancipated women. The Turks will point out that Ataturk was no more fascist than George Washington, who, though somewhat dictatorial in his centralization of power and perhaps more statist than he should have been, sought only to safeguard a fledgling young nation recovering from a revolutionary war for independence from Great Britain. How can the same man be regarded as a proto-Nazi by some and a progressive hero by others? Perhaps Mustafa Kemal Ataturk is the only person in history to fit Jonah Goldberg's oxymoronic term, "liberal fascism."
Likewise, Pilsudski was a military dictator, but perhaps interwar Poland needed such a leader (as opposed to interwar Greece, which fell to Metaxas and his Fascist ambitions and designs). Yes he may have been somewhat aggressive, but Poles seem to view him in a positive light. To say nothing of Polonazis such as Molobo, HurganPL and his avatars, Shade2 from PoliticsForum and TheHistoryForum (who denied being a Slav and is likely an avatar of Hurgan), and other Polish trolls on AH.com, Wikipedia, and other online forums. [Interestingly, they all ascribe to the "Germany sucks, Russia sucks, but Germany sucks even more! Poland is teh awesome! I hate teh Germans!" philosophy, yet their hero Pilsudski allied with Germany and the Austro-Hungarian Empire against Russia during World War 1. Clearly Pilsudski saw the Germans as a lesser, tolerable evil against the greater evil of Russia.] But these Polish trolls and other online Polonazis are not the only ones to admire Pilsudski. Many normal Polish people view him as a first leader and defender of modern Poland.
[In my experience, Poles are generally a pleasant people and do not live a paranoid fantasy nor feel the need to paint Germans as perpetual Nazis out to devour the Polish based on an out-of-context, poorly translated Otto von Bismarck quote; an obviously fabricated Wolfgang von Kries quote from a US propaganda document; revisionist history wherein Poles were the sole targets of Bismarck's kulturkampf (despite the fact that the kulturkampf was aimed at Catholicism, with the goal of weakening its political power and that Polish subjects, being Catholic, were incidentally victims), where the kingdom of Prussia/Imperial Germany had all sorts of (vaguely described) laws against Poles having homes or speaking Polish with their only evidence being a self-hating German named Immanuel Geiss, and where Poles and not Jews or Gypsies were the key victims of the Holocaust.]
Just as Turks admire Ataturk, and Poles admire Pilsudski, I would imagine many Persians admired the last Shah. For all his flaws, Shah Reza Pahlavi was at least a constitutional monarch. Yes he was a bit despotic and repressive in a time of crisis, but the Shah would be infinitely preferable to the Islamo-fascist regime established by Ayatollah Khomeini. I would expect the neocon retards not to be so eager to go to war with the Shah's Iran has they are to attack Iran under the Shi'ite theocracy led by Mahmoud Amahdinejad.
Last edited:
General Zod
Banned
Ouch. Things goes political. Long debate on prez Harding.
At least LBJ got some very important domestic reforms enacted that, whatever feelings one may have for welfare states, at least ameliorated significantly USA's racial problem. Also he helped pass one very important consitutional amendment, which helped a lot to settle Watergate. GWB's domestic record is very, very, very far from being this good.
As a matter of fact, I think GWB's record is far worse than Harding. The latter did little lasting harm to the country. IMO a better comparison may be to say that GWB is the worst POTUS since James Buchanan. They compare: inept, divisive, partisan, arrogant, and terrible Commander in Chiefs. And Buchanan was a Southern Democrat, so I'm not taking party sides.
I find it funny, Standard X, that you would say I know little about Amercan government and history then your stupid ass makes a moronic statment like, "Wilson never suspended the Constitution to rule by decree. Not even during the height of WWI!" even though that can not be more incorrect. You remind me of my morbidly obese cousin who will argue a point even though it is dead wrong, but insist she is correct, though never providing a logical reasoning (which is beyond her limited capabilities), instead claiming it should be believed while providing, at best an incoherent attempt at argument or a non-sequitur. She reminds me of Rush Limbaugh or a fat Ann Coulter, especially the way she gets all worked up and excited, talking loudly, rapidly, and repetitively, flapping her fat mouth, but never knowing what the fuck she is talking about.Originally Posted by Standard X
Whoever wrote this claearly doesn't know what he is talking and knows little about American government and history.
I find it perplexing, Mr. Standard X, that you argue that a president is not authoritarian because he did not get 70-95% of the vote. Wouldn't that make him extremely popular and therefore not authoritarian? Or are you saying that such elections are rigged? By the way, how could you consider Woodrow Wilson demoratically elected when he did not win over 42% of voters? George W. Bush failed to win a plurality in 2000, but at least he was close. Likewise, you mention the elections of 1904, 1908, 1912, and 1916 in conjunction with TR and Wilson, when the date 1908 does not belong because Taft was elected.
Theodore Roosevelt may not have suspended the Constitution or ruled by decree, but he certainly tested the limits of presidential power. The Spanish-American War (which was started by the proto-neocon William McKinley, not the proto-neocon TR) may have been Congressionally declared in accordance with the Constitution, but that did not prevent Roosevelt from launching foreign military inventerventions (read: small wars) not declared by Congress, including a bloody suppression of an uprising in the Philippines. Not to mention that TR coined the phrase bully pulpit, as he sought extra power as president, wishing for legislative authority. Theodore Roosevelt's Progressives were unsatisfied with Lincoln's more centralized federalism. The Progressives wanted an all-powerful national government contrary to the wishes of the Framers.
Woodrow Wilson also believed that the presidential powers as defined in the Constitution were insufficient. Wilson, influenced by his reactionary Calvinist beliefs, believed that God wanted him to be president (sound familiar?) and combined fanatical Christian beliefs with Hegel's dialectical conception of history and belief in the total state to support his ideology. Like Teddy Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson despised the noninterventionism and decentralism of the Founding Fathers. Also, Wilson started wars without Congressional declaration, in clear violation of the Constitution, prior to entry into WWI. But as TR used the bully pulpit to push for "Progressive" legislation, Wilson used sneakier tactics, such as calling for, then signing into law, unpopular legislation when most of Congress left for their homes, most notably that awful Federal Reserve Act.
In 1916, Woodrow Wilson campaigned on the misleading slogan, "He Kept Us Out Of War!" when he had plans to do otherwise. Leading up to, and during American involement in Europe's Great War, Wilson asked Congress to delegate extra-constitutional "emergency powers," which to this day the presidents reserve. Though technically constitutional, American entry into the European Great War was done by manipulating Congress into declaring war (much as T. Roosevelt, McKinley, and others did during the Spanish-American War). Everything from assuring Americans it was safe to sail on the Lusitania and other British ships carrying weapons and ammunition, so as to provoke a disaster, to reading exerpts of the Zimmerman note out of context (suggesting that Germany wanted an alliance with Mexico to preemptively attack America, when in fact the Germans only wanted such a deal in the event America declared war first), and creating other scary events to frighten Congress into declaring war. Remaining members of Congress were intimidated into going along with the vote.
How can Standard X honestly say that Wilson did not suspend the Constitution or rule by decree? Is he retarded? Oh wait, never mind... During the war, Woodrow Wilson nationalized industry beyond the limitations of the commerce clause, continuing to demand more presidential powers. HE PUT THE ENTIRE FUCKING NATION UNDER MARTIAL LAW! No government should ever have such control over the citizenry because of a foreign war, particularly when that war has nothing to do with American national interests. Woodrow Wilson's assault on civil liberties makes George W. Bush with his minor intrusions on civil liberties seem like president of the ACLU as well as the USA! Obviously, Stantard X has never heard of the Espionage and Sedition Act. Whatever happened to the FIRST AMENDMENT? People like Eugene Debs were imprisoned for speaking out against the war. Even criticizing the YMCA (which was assisting in the war effort) was an offense. Woodrow Wilson is to blame for the draft. German-Americans were withdrawn protection as citizens under the law. If there was any real reason for American involvement in WWI, would such repressive actions even be needed?
On top of that, Woodrow Wilson was a disgusting racist who supported Jim Crow segregation, Confederate revisionist history, and the Ku Klux Klan. Wilson resegregated the federal government to keep out African-Americans.
Ian the Admin will probably try to ban me for insulting comments directed at Standard X. BAN AWAY, IAN! I'm sick of this discussion board anyways! How many times do I have to explain why Woodrow Wilson sucks? This board is filled with Fergusonian imperialists, neconservatards, Polonazis, and a self-hating German. For instance, apparently, I am some kind of whacko German nationalist because of a fondness for Central Powers victory scenarios. (Nevermind that I am an ethnic Greek, and an American by birth. Note also that Germany and Austria at the turn of the twentieth century had problems and were not exactly utopias completely devoid of racism, nationalism, ethnocentricism, imperialism, or anti-Semitism, but they were certainly no worse than their rivals in any of those respects.)
I should also point out that TR and Woodrow Wilson have a share of the blame for the dreadful 18th Amendment and Federal Prohibition. [The 16th Amendment provided for the federal income tax, which together with the unconstitutional Fed Reserve Act financed America's imperial army and entry into the European War. The federal income tax in turn made alcohol taxes and excises unneeded, removing financial incentives to resist caving in to the demands of religious lunatics, including undersexed old hags with PMS, who demanded nationwide bans on alcohol. Prohibition also owes its passage to the Anti-Saloon League, who Wilson supported for their racism directed at Germans during the war. The Progressive Era concept of unlimited federal government may be blamed for making the idea of Prohibition possible.] Needless to say, my morbidly obese dimwit cousin believes Prohibition was a success because she did a research project about it for her crappy overpriced parochial school run by Opus Dei and the (obviously revisionist) sources said alcoholism was reduced (she claimed by a factor of 120% despite the fact that it is logically impossible for a quantity to decrease by more than 100%). Nevermind that actual statistics reveal that the frequency of alcoholism actually doubled in some places during Prohibition, and that consumption of beer, wine, and spirits actually increased by a large multiple, or the fact that even history textbooks and criminology textbooks authored, sponsored, or endorsed by the establishment admits that federal prohibition of alcohol was an abysmal failure, or that not even the religious nutcases who lobbied legislators to pass the Prohibition Amendment had the same enthusiasm to continue Prohibition, testifying that even the religious nuts saw that their precious tyranny was not working.
Some links about how much Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson suck:
Bully Boy: The Neocons' Favorite President
http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo106.html
American Mussolini
http://www.lewrockwell.com/denson/denson9.html
The very worst president
http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/articles/0803/0803worstpres.htm
(the above comes from a neocon site no less! Even they seem to dislike Woodrow Wilson even though Wilson was one of the original neocons.)
The Presidents, and Why They Suck: #28: Woodrow Wilson
http://suckypresidents.blogspot.com/2006/07/28-woodrow-wilson.html
Excerpt
Call Me Unaccountable: Woodrow Wilson and George W. Bush
http://www.lewrockwell.com/roberts/roberts100.html
Wilson's Raiders
http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard100.html
Remembering With Astonishment Woodrow Wilson's Reign of Terror in Defense of "Freedom"
http://www.lewrockwell.com/stromberg/stromberg18.html
What We Can Learn From Woodrow Wilson's Great Blunder
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig4/powell-jim5.html
Claremont vs. The Founding Fathers
http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo38.html
Paving the Road to Hell
http://www.lewrockwell.com/bonner/bonner87.html
The United States and World War I
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig3/dwyer3.html
The IASWTGDTOV* Theory of Modern Geopolitics
http://www.liberalavenger.com/2006/11/26/the-iaswtgtov-theory-of-modern-geopolitics/
GLOBOCOPS WITH GUILLOTINES
http://www.antiwar.com/chu/c091799.html
P.S. If Ian the Admin wishes to ban me, so be it! I only checked back for updates, but the AH.com discussion community got so boring, it is not even worth it anymore!
Last edited:
Hendryk
Banned
And to think that a perfectly good TL is being written, which explores the very issue of John McCain becoming president in 2001, with none of the flaming and the ideological biases. Why on earth resurrect this old one?
I'm not providing a link, though. The last thing that thread needs is a spillover of the argument going on in this one.
I'm not providing a link, though. The last thing that thread needs is a spillover of the argument going on in this one.
Well, that's a particularly vile collection of insults and miscellaneous misanthropy. People on this board should be above that. You're kicked for a week.
But what do I get in return?
HueyLong
Banned
I think John Mccain will have problems winning in 2000.
2000 had very low turnout and Dubya's pull on evangelicals helped him get his win (that and finagling at the highest levels, but I digress)
McCain, meanwhile, will have lost that very important base by the time of the election.
2000 had very low turnout and Dubya's pull on evangelicals helped him get his win (that and finagling at the highest levels, but I digress)
McCain, meanwhile, will have lost that very important base by the time of the election.
He would have won with alot of independent support. His stock with them was very high at the time. Also McCain's problems with Evangelicals has been overplayed by the media. Once he wins the nomination they'll get behind. Just look at how well he performed at Saddleback last week.
I agree with all this except for the environmental thing. Also: a larger invading force of Afghanistan would have lead to the capture of Osama bin Laden at Tora Bora in December 2001. I doubt the Iraq invasion would have happened at all, however - remember that this is McCain circa 2000 and not the present-day McBush pod person.
I think alt-McCain would have invaded Iraq. OTL McCain has, at various points, called for land invasions of Serbia, Russia, Sudan, Iran, and Afghanistan -- and that's just off the top of my head. He is a hawk through and through.
But he would have completely dispensed with Bush's farcical, months-long buildup of lies and doctored evidence. McCain would have just said, "My fellow Americans, we're going to invade Iraq. Iraq currently poses little threat to the United States, and it had nothing to do with 9/11. But I bet 9/11 gave Saddam a lot of sneaky ideas, and I'm willing to see a few people die in battle to avoid the off chance that Saddam does something." And you know what? Half the Democrats in Congress would have gone along with it.
But he would have completely dispensed with Bush's farcical, months-long buildup of lies and doctored evidence. McCain would have just said, "My fellow Americans, we're going to invade Iraq. Iraq currently poses little threat to the United States, and it had nothing to do with 9/11. But I bet 9/11 gave Saddam a lot of sneaky ideas, and I'm willing to see a few people die in battle to avoid the off chance that Saddam does something." And you know what? Half the Democrats in Congress would have gone along with it.
Not as many, though. And it's very likely you'd have President John Kerry being sworn in January 20th 2005 if that happened.
Though many Iranians do not like President Amahdinejad and the Islamic theocratic regime few Iranians would want to restore the Shah to power.
A promotion in the Series, perhaps?
In any case, this thread should be moved to Chat.
No, assuming no butterflies and reelection in their 2010/2011 elections, Sarah Palin and Bobby Jindal both have buzz for vice presidential candidates in 2012.