A Choice of Wallaces

[Boris]

Honestly, George.  Any of his racial policies would've never been allowed, and desegregation would've happen at probably the same rate it did under Nixon.  His economic policies were, at heart, fairly New Deal like, and his foreign policy was somewhat close to JFK/LBJ, so it wouldn't have been too bad.

lol. Dude, imagine what the Bronx or DC or Detroit would have looked like a day after a hypothetical Wallace victory in the House. Or imagination inauguration day 1969. Do you really think Wallace would have even been able to be inaugurated without tanks on the streets of DC?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Wow, so Moderate Heroism entails being a racist-loving piece of sh!t.

[Eraserhead]

George, for the same reasons as px75.

Libertarians for George Wallace!

I never thought I'd see the day!

Anyway, my answer should be obvious by now, fellows.

[Psychic Octopus]

Is suicide an option? If not I have to go with... Actually, both are horrible and I coan't choose. I'd probably vote Henry Wallace, looking from a historical perspective, he couldn't have done THAT much damage. Actually, yes he could.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

Is suicide an option? If not I have to go with... Actually, both are horrible and I coan't choose. I'd probably vote Henry Wallace, looking from a historical perspective, he couldn't have done THAT much damage. Actually, yes he could.

George Wallace would have done a lot less damage than Henry Wallace.

[Rob]

Is suicide an option? If not I have to go with... Actually, both are horrible and I coan't choose. I'd probably vote Henry Wallace, looking from a historical perspective, he couldn't have done THAT much damage. Actually, yes he could.

George Wallace would have done a lot less damage than Henry Wallace.

I don't suppose you'd care to elaborate?

[Kaine for Senate '18]

Is suicide an option? If not I have to go with... Actually, both are horrible and I coan't choose. I'd probably vote Henry Wallace, looking from a historical perspective, he couldn't have done THAT much damage. Actually, yes he could.

George Wallace would have done a lot less damage than Henry Wallace.

I don't suppose you'd care to elaborate?

I already did, earlier in the thread.  Economically, the two men weren't very different, but George Wallace was much better in terms of foreign policy and communism.

[Rob]

George Wallace was much better in terms of foreign policy and communism.

Nuking Vietnam (as per Wallace's running mate, LeMay) sure sounds like a good idea!

[Kaine for Senate '18]

George Wallace was much better in terms of foreign policy and communism.

Nuking Vietnam (as per Wallace's running mate, LeMay) sure sounds like a good idea!

That wasn't Wallace.  That was his running mate.

[Lief 🗽]

Is suicide an option? If not I have to go with... Actually, both are horrible and I coan't choose. I'd probably vote Henry Wallace, looking from a historical perspective, he couldn't have done THAT much damage. Actually, yes he could.

George Wallace would have done a lot less damage than Henry Wallace.

Unless you were a Nigrah or a Messican.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

Is suicide an option? If not I have to go with... Actually, both are horrible and I coan't choose. I'd probably vote Henry Wallace, looking from a historical perspective, he couldn't have done THAT much damage. Actually, yes he could.

George Wallace would have done a lot less damage than Henry Wallace.

Unless you were a Nigrah or a Messican.

Wallace's views on segregation were to gain votes.  Before 1958 and after 1972/76, he was committed to civil rights.

[Landslide Lyndon]

Is suicide an option? If not I have to go with... Actually, both are horrible and I coan't choose. I'd probably vote Henry Wallace, looking from a historical perspective, he couldn't have done THAT much damage. Actually, yes he could.

George Wallace would have done a lot less damage than Henry Wallace.

Unless you were a Nigrah or a Messican.

Wallace's views on segregation were to gain votes.  Before 1958 and after 1972/76, he was committed to civil rights.

I agree. Wallace's sin wasn't racial hatred but blind ambition. The only reason he adopted the most hateful and vile racial rhetoric between 1958 and 1970 was to promote his political career. Otherwise he didn't seem to care much about blacks. When it became politically expedient he moderated his views again and even appointed a great number of African-Americans in his administration.

The following passage from Wikipedia is very revealing of his character:

When a supporter asked why he started using racist messages, Wallace replied, "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 ns, and they stomped the floor.''

[Kaine for Senate '18]

When a supporter asked why he started using racist messages, Wallace replied, "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 ns, and they stomped the floor.''

Exactly.  Prior to that, he had a great record on civil rights, and was endorsed by the NAACP in 1958.

[© tweed]

it can be argued that exploiting issues such as racism and segregation for political gain is worse than actually being a racist or a segregationist.

[jokerman]

it can be argued that exploiting issues such as racism and segregation for political gain is worse than actually being a racist or a segregationist.

Argue it, then.

[War on Want]

Anyone who votes for George Wallace should ideally be deported. That piece of human trash should never have existed.

[© tweed]

it can be argued that exploiting issues such as racism and segregation for political gain is worse than actually being a racist or a segregationist.

Argue it, then.

hah, I phrased it that way for a reason, bro

[Landslide Lyndon]

it can be argued that exploiting issues such as racism and segregation for political gain is worse than actually being a racist or a segregationist.

I could agree with you.
But then again every politician exploits some current wedge issue in order to promote his career.

Just remember what G.H.W. Bush did with crime in 1988 and of course his son with gay marriage in 2004.
I doubt that any of them hated blacks or homosexuals. But when it was convenient they didn't hesitate one minute to demonize them for electoral gains. 

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

it can be argued that exploiting issues such as racism and segregation for political gain is worse than actually being a racist or a segregationist.

Argue it, then.

It's more sociopathic.

[JSojourner]

Mike Wallace!

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Alfred Russel Wallace, I think. But of those two, Henry, of course.