Hot, Bad & Unpopular Takes

[afleitch]

The lack of legal protections of the rights of children to live independently from the religion of their parents is a one of the most serious moral shortcomings of society as it currently exists.

I agree in that a parent does not have the right to make medical decisions based on the religion they have assumed for their child. I'm happy to extend that to non-religious belief systems too.

[Badger]

I think the 1965 immigration act was the worst mistake this country ever made. Why change our culture and fundamentally change the make up of a country that is successful?

You could have said that just as easily in 1865, or even 1835, and been just as wrong then.

[America Needs a 13-6 Progressive SCOTUS]

People who use toss ups when predicting elections or who always start off every election cycle with the assumption of a pure neutral national environment, a strongly pro-incumbent national environment, or a combination of such are lazy and need to put more thought and effort into their predictions.

[courts]

Affirmitve action programs are classist and racist in nature. They help enrich a black elite and allow black students to try less and discriminate against the Asian population, even if the Asian child might have been a first generation immigrant from a working-class background.

Admission based on interviews/holistic education are also all about favouring people that go to anglo- private school to go into their universities.

what would you prefer as an alternative then? automatic admissions?

[courts]

i mean i'm not entirely sure what to think about the issue, it's something i've been studying more as of late. actually more employment discrimination in general

[Co-Chair Bagel23]

George Wallace would get my vote before Nixon.

[Some of My Best Friends Are Gay]

George Wallace would get my vote before Nixon.

No.... just no.


Nixon wasn't bad at all in terms of policy, at least for a Republican. He was to the left of some modern Democrats - of course he was also a crook, but still.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

George Wallace would get my vote before Nixon.

No.... just no.


Nixon wasn't bad at all in terms of policy, at least for a Republican. He was to the left of some modern Democrats - of course he was also a crook, but still.

Wrong.

[Sirius_]

This website has far more moderate derangement syndrome than progressive derangement syndrome and most of the people who talk about "progressive derangement syndrome" are massive hypocrites.

[Co-Chair Bagel23]

George Wallace would get my vote before Nixon.

No.... just no.


Nixon wasn't bad at all in terms of policy, at least for a Republican. He was to the left of some modern Democrats - of course he was also a crook, but still.

Yeah he would, sorry.

Hubert Humphreys as a first, and it's not close though. Wallace a distant second, and Nixon in the back.

[Sirius_]

George Wallace would get my vote before Nixon.

No.... just no.


Nixon wasn't bad at all in terms of policy, at least for a Republican. He was to the left of some modern Democrats - of course he was also a crook, but still.

He literally used false information on drugs to lock up people he didn't like and sparked a destructive era of "tough on drugs" policy that has done much more harm than good. I'm not inclined to agree with his policies.

[Boobs]

FDR fetishism on the left is the equivalent of Reagan fetishism on the right, and both are pretty stupid.

[RINO Tom]

George Wallace would get my vote before Nixon.

No.... just no.


Nixon wasn't bad at all in terms of policy, at least for a Republican. He was to the left of some modern Democrats - of course he was also a crook, but still.

Assuming you are meaning nationally relevant Democrats (not remaining Demosaur Bubbas in a rural state legislative seat) ... care to name a few?  Lol

[Some of My Best Friends Are Gay]

George Wallace would get my vote before Nixon.

No.... just no.


Nixon wasn't bad at all in terms of policy, at least for a Republican. He was to the left of some modern Democrats - of course he was also a crook, but still.

Assuming you are meaning nationally relevant Democrats (not remaining Demosaur Bubbas in a rural state legislative seat) ... care to name a few?  Lol

Joe Manchin and Krysten Sinema, and yes, I realize they're way to the right of the vast majority of Democrats in Congress.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

This was my answer to the Nixon question four years ago, and, barring some of the run-on sentences and poor grammar, I by-and-large stand by it.

His "conservatism" was more in the interest of taking liberal elites and social workers, while his "liberalism" was largely in the interest of getting ahead of and/or coercing liberal ideas so they couldn't campaign on them. His presidency, in retrospect, has few things policy-related that should appeal to either a liberal or a conservative, this in the political success, he contributed greatly to the rightward bent of the nation, though he can hardly be attributed with having triggered such a thing. Even discussing his personal views is a difficult task, as different aides and recordings will tell you different things. His racial policy is itself a strange phenomenon. He advanced agencies like the Office of Minority Business Enterprise, somehow became the "greatest school desegregator in history", and according to Buchanan and others had genuine concern for African-Americans, while at the same time scuttling busing, advancing various "tough on crime" tactics that would affect blacks, and is on record saying that he preferred abortion in the case of a mixed-race child. He as well signed legislation in 1974 that would be viewed favorably by proponents of "community-oriented policing". It's ironic, of course, that conservatives rebelled against Ford and not him, since Ford, while likely personally more liberal, presided over a more conservative economic approach and started rolling back detente under the guidance of Rumsfeld and Cheney, though one could reason that, regardless of who held office by 1976, conservatives would have attempted to oust him. It's as well ironic that a man who had been able to churn such vitriol and hatred from the left nevertheless almost won the presidency in 1960 and won a landslide in 1972. This irony is as well at the crux of Nixonism, pitting all sides against each other to win vast swaths of the middle and the right. Hell, in 1960, you could've stated, with history on your side, that Nixon was the candidate more favorable to civil rights. His presidency is a good example of the triumphs and failues of both ideologies on the American political scene. He was able to placate New Deal liberalism enough to not offend a good deal of its benficiaries, while also doing so in the name of a middle class conservatism. Someone to his right would have threatened the New Deal benefits that many Americans were attached to, someone to his left would have threatened the cultural sensibilities of middle America. He adopted several personas, and pursued policies to the detriment of each of them. The man who was endorsed by unions in his re-election nevertheless pursued free trade; the man who had friends in the business world and was backed by them signed into law the EPA and other environmental protections; the anti-communist who would protect you from the Soviets sought detente; the centrist who didn't threaten the status quo made himself the bedfellow of Dixiecrats and spoke to anti-war protesters at the Lincoln Memorial. My "conclusion" would be that he simply was a conservative interested in co-opting the liberal policies that were in vogue, while also taking up the mantle of the conservative rhetoric that was becoming popular. However, he goes well beyond a simple one-word or even one-sentence explanation. If you examined the presidencies of any other president after him, you might run into a similar debate, but the causes for question about their ideologies were exceptions. For Nixon, the contradictions were the rule. 

[💥💥 brandon bro (he/him/his)]

Like, 50% of what is interpreted as serious "Bernie derangement syndrome" on this board is whimsical memeing/trolling by people who are between lukewarm and mildly unimpressed by Sanders who aren't so much anti-Sanders as they are trying to provoke Berniebros who they find more annoying and caustic than Sanders himself. (for the record they're doing a good job)

[America Needs a 13-6 Progressive SCOTUS]

There is no moral difference between genocide denial and climate change denial.

[Some of My Best Friends Are Gay]

There is no moral difference between genocide denial and climate change denial.

I diasgree pretty strongly.

Climate change denier is not nessecarily driven by hate or bigotry, where as in most cases, genocide denial is driven by racism or ethnic hatred such as people that deny the Holocaust.

[Lord Admirale]

I like Ronald Reagan and I always have. His foreign policy was good for America and good for the world.

[Xing]

People who unironically use the term “Bernie Bros” are likely much more obsessed with (hating) Bernie than 95+% of his supporters.

[Deblano]

The media is annoyingly obsessed with generational divisions (i.e. Boomers vs. GenX vs. Millennials vs. GenZ)

[Big Abraham]

The media is annoyingly obsessed with generational divisions (i.e. Boomers vs. GenX vs. Millennials vs. GenZ)

The "generation war" between millennials and boomers is stupid as hell and based on entirely incorrect assumptions.

Looks like we've found some common ground.

[Grassroots]

As a Gen Z, Gen Z is going to kill us all.

[Some of My Best Friends Are Gay]

Tupac and Biggie are very overrated, although their music is still good obviously.

[Ban my account ffs!]

As a Gen Z, Gen Z is going to kill us all.

As a Millennial, Gen Z is going to kill us all.