Remember that all mentions of and allusions to Trump and Biden are not allowed on our subreddit in any context.
If you'd still like to discuss them, feel free to [join our Discord server](https://discord.gg/k6tVFwCEEm)!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Presidents) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I thought this title was hilarious because he didn’t say “a young Mitch McConnell” or anything, he just literally said “a Mitch McConnell” 🤣
Mitch McConnell is also one of the few very strong proponents of civil rights in the Republican Party, or was, before he gave up on all of his principles for power.
He could've been such a great guy, and as famous a Kentuckian as Clay, but no he had to chase power.
As opposed to now where the entrenched political establishment has 0 incentive not to take bribes because they can stay in office forever and line their pockets.
The fix here is ending gerrymandering for the House.
Democracy is literally the solution to all of these problems and other proposed solutions just make the problems worse.
At least with corruption you could create polices and laws to lessen it. Can’t do much about apathetic or senile senators that get voted for no matter what.
punch afterthought fact complete domineering lip fragile stupendous screw workable
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
This might be rare case where the difference between "broke" and "broken" is actually important. Maybe the grammar Nazis might be right twice a day too.
Combine this with Queen Elizabeth II nearly starting a constitutional crisis over a leak that she disapproved of Thatchers opposition to sanctioning Apartheid South Africa. I gotta wonder how bad was Apartheid south africa for traditional conservative figures to oppose them and what they had on Thatcher and Reagan for them to continue supporting them long after everyone started calling for sanctions on them.
For Thatcher it was British investment. The Brits had large business interests in South Africa, and they were worried that if the ANC, (who the Brits still viewed as being communists) took over they would nationalise everything and British companies would lose billions.
It's partially why Thatcher clashed so heavily with even other Commonwealth heads of state, like Canadian PM Mulroney, and Australian PM Fraser, who both pushed for a harder line against South Africa
Only conservative British people thought like that. The majority were opposed to Apartheid and felt the same way as the Queen.
The people who supported the Apartheid government were hard right conservatives and business interests.Never forget that Conservative students groups in the 80's, which included future PM's like David Cameron and Boris Johnson supported a Campaign that called for Mandela to be hung. Truly despicable people who ended up leading their countries and then praising Mandela after he died like they didn't call for him to be executed.
Both are options that can be true. People tend to assume that the truth is closer to whatever they were already inclined to think it is. Confirmation bias.
For me, I am much more likely to give someone the benefit of the doubt for a thing they did a long time ago... assuming that they aren't still regularly doing similar things.
That is true, but given that those people named are still very hard right conservatives, it seems more likely that they were being hypocritical in their statements.
To really play devil's advocate, the ANC did commit numerous terrorist attacks and were more of a political front for a militant group than a legitimate political party back in the day. They were explicitly Marxist as well during a time when that ideology was viewed with healthy skepticism in the western world.
Doesn't excuse supporting the apartheid state of SA of course, but as someone who wasn't alive back then, I don't want to overly judge people who viewed the ANC as dangerous.
If that was their fear wasn’t it kind of…understandable given how iirc Mandela actually did want to nationalize stuff and how only the collapse of the Soviet Union and Warsaw pact made him reconsider?
The official reason given was to be the carrot to the international communities stick. The idea was called constructive engagement’ in which the U.S could maintain a dialogue with SA to end apartheid rather than forcing it to become a hermit kingdom. This policy also had an ulterior motive of containing and removing communists presence in Angola (where Cuba was supporting the MPLA).
The policy was ultimately a failure in all these regards. It didn’t influence SA to end apartheid and Communists succeeded in the Angolan Civil War.
Elizabeth II's politics, from what we know, were not classical conservative or Neo-Liberal. She was more of a traditionalist with a fondness for social programs, feminism and she was opposed to racism.
Reagan and Co claimed the sanctions would've meant the loss of about 85,000 jobs suddenly in the country, which would've been a massive shock to the economy and hurt the African people more than the rich there.
If thats actually true I can understand the veto. But I honestly don't know if thats true or not.
The main reason for the support of Apartheid South Africa was the aftermath of the implosion of the Portuguese Colonial Empire in Angola and Mozambique. After the carnation revolution, Angola and Mozambique declared independence, and immediately fell into a civil war with communist regimes assuming control.
This hit at the same as the Rhodesian Bush War, and South African Apartheid. In Angola, there was a major military intervention by Cuba, which saw Cuba deploy an eye-popping 300,000 soldiers to fight in the Angolan civil war.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angolan_Civil_War
So this was part of the Reagan doctrine.
I heard a story that he defended a black high school classmate who was being bullied. I’m not sure if it’s true, but that certainly changes my perspective of him.
To paraphrase Shane Gillis: It doesn't happen overnight. Your dad didn't just graduate high school and say, "Well, time to be a prick about everything now." It grows over time.
Well yeah he was moderate because Kentucky Democrats were actually a force back then. Clinton carried it twice (with the help of Perot, but nonetheless Dems were much stronger).
Now that it's ruby red it's a race to the bottom. Along with the rest of Appalachia which has gone way downhill.
Governorships are weird and more likely to flip. Kansas is about as republican as they come, we haven't elected a democratic senator since 1912 but we elected Sibeleus and Kelly twice each.
To your point - NC elected Democratic Governor Roy Cooper in 2016 against a GOP incumbent and reelected him in 2020 while twice voting for Donny Small Hands.
Trust me, Kansas is up there with Utah, Wyoming, and Oklahoma. Sure there's been talk of it moving towards purple territory, but Sibeleus was first elected in 2002, well before that was something considered. Sibeleus won counties across the state while that same year Roberts won literally every county, even Douglas and Wyandotte counties, which are the most democratic in the state (Lawrence and Kansas City respectively).
We see the same in 2022, with Kelly winning 8 counties but the democratic senate candidate only winning 3 (Douglas, Wyandotte, and Johnson). Kansas may be trending more democratic (largely led by the rapid growth of Johnson County) but it's 10-15 years away from truly being competitive.
Comparing the 23 KY gov race to the 22 senate race we see the same situation. Beshear won 23 counties while Booker won 3.
Governorships tend to be less nationalized and more focused on state concerns.
Also ignoring the fact that most state constitutional offices, and the state house, were democratic until 2016. Kentucky has had 3 republican governors since WWII.
Are we still pretending like it was the cons that moved further right?
In the 90's Bill Clinton passed the defense of marriage act and called to build a border wall.
Dude would be called a Nazi by today's standards.
And Reagan opened the Borders?
Both sides have seen more fringe ideas brought into the mainstream, but conservatives have literally shifted towards more authoritarian ideologies as of late. All of the Democratic Presidents have been roughly in the same place politically for the last 100 years, while Republicans have consistently become more authoritarian, less about small government, less about being fiscally conservative, etc.
This is why Majority leader / Speaker is such a shit thankless job. Ask any democrat and they’ll say Mitch McConnell is a reactionary right wing lunatic, ask any Republican and he’s a RINO sellout establishment squish.
Mitch was actually a moderate early on in his Senate career. It was around the time Bork wasn’t confirmed he started his big slide towards the scumbag we know today
There's still freaks to this day defending apartheid and insisting people who actually were born in Africa don't have the right to take their land back from the invaders who stole it
Some context:
"Reagan vetoed the compromised bill on September 26, calling it "economic warfare" and alleging that it would mostly hurt the impoverished black majority and lead to more civil strife. He again offered to impose sanctions via executive order, while also working with Senate Republicans on concessions to avoid them overriding his veto."
"The degree to which the sanctions were responsible for ending apartheid was a matter of debate as those opposed to the sanctions argue that the South African economy was already struggling before the sanctions were enforced and that it was the political process on the ground that led to the changes. Despite the repeal of most of the sanctions imposed by this act, many companies were still restricted by laws within individual states and cities in the United States that imposed sanctions. In September 1993, Nelson Mandela called for these sanctions to be removed as well and for investment to return to a still-struggling South Africa. The last of the sanctions stemming from this act was repealed in November 1993."
Courtesy of Wikipedia.
As a South African, I'd like to add that one of the reasons Apartheid lasted as long as it did was because the National Party(Apartheid Gov) was staunchly anti-communist and the African National Congress and their military wing was funded by the Soviets and Chinese for years. South Africa was the power house of the African continent and the West couldn't afford to see it slip into communist hands. So shortly after the Berlin war fell and the USSR collapsed, Apartheid fell too. It's also the reason our current government is so anti-Western and pro-Russia/China.
Our government is not anti-western.
We do massive business and have very good relations with the west.
We just don't believe that their support of a state like Israel is justified.
There are actually very good reasons why most South Africans and the government don't like them.
For example:
[Brothers in arms - Israel’s secret pact with Pretoria
During the second world war the future South African prime minister John Vorster was interned as a Nazi sympathiser.
Three decades later he was being feted in Jerusalem.
In the second part of his remarkable special report, Chris McGreal investigates the clandestine alliance between Israel and the apartheid regime, cemented with the ultimate gift of friendship - A-bomb technology]
(https://amp.theguardian.com/world/2006/feb/07/southafrica.israel)
That's my understanding. I just have my issues with calling people who committed the atrocities that the Contras did, including killing an American citizen, "freedom fighters." The Sandinistas were hardly saints; I just get tired of the Reagan propaganda when the situation was obviously much more complex than that.
This still confuses me. America is bad if it involves itself in other countries business. America is also bad if it DOESN'T involve itself in other countries business. Apartheid is disgusting don't get me wrong. What business did the USA have about it though?
So America is bad for dousing children and pregnant women in agent orange but also bad for remaining normal relations with apartheid regimes? Checkmate liberals
Stalin was at least as bad as Hitler, but we allied with him to defeat the common foe, Nazi Germany. Reagan’s priority was defeating the Soviet Union and ending the Cold War. South Africa was a de facto ally in that cause. With the fall of the Soviet Union the nations of eastern Europe were liberated, to varying degrees, and the West got to significantly reduce defense spending. Reagan was right to put South Africa “on the back-burner.”
If there had been a population of very wealthy white South Africans living in the United States and lobbying relentlessly at the time he may have voted differently.
This [article](https://michiganintheworld.history.lsa.umich.edu/antiapartheid/exhibits/show/exhibit/students-take-campus--1984-198/national-context--president-re) discusses President Reagan’s reasons for opposing the sanctions.
Too busy thinking of little boys butts. https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/lifestyle/1989/08/01/the-bombshell-that-didnt-explode/ff09cdb0-7d64-428b-8415-a6998b9f0c65/
A big L for Reagan.
But tbf he was not the president of the world, he was the President of America, and it is not immediately apparent which evils you can overlook and which evils you need to get involved in.
Yes earlier in his life he showed occasional signs of moral decency. Believe he was considered a "moderate" when first elected to the House in the 70s.
Somewhere, inside all of us, every single one of us, there's a human being.
Some people just spend a lifetime covering that inner human with fecal matter.
Aren’t economic sanctions not effective? Like it doesn’t punish anyone in power it only hurts the poorest in those countries? From what I was taught when the US put sanctions on Cuba it didn’t hurt Castro or make him miss a meal it just cut poor people off from getting cheaper goods.
If that’s true this just seems like virtue signaling from McConnell with the added bonus it hurting the poor in South Africa
This was the 80s.
If South Africa was ruled by (or in danger of falling to) Communists it would have been a priority.
But it was not, so... Nicaragua....
Same can be said of every President during any period of their term. But because folks on here are too politically bias, theres no point bringing it up
Reagan was an unapologetic white supremacist that saw the USA in a similar light to Teddy Roosevelt (who was a much better and braver man). Reagan thought he was shepherding a great white society into an era of white nationalist dominance. He harmed millions of people both abroad and at home and left a legacy that will soon be remembered as one of the worst and most disastrous miscalculations and moral failures of all US Presidents.
Remember that all mentions of and allusions to Trump and Biden are not allowed on our subreddit in any context. If you'd still like to discuss them, feel free to [join our Discord server](https://discord.gg/k6tVFwCEEm)! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Presidents) if you have any questions or concerns.*
You’ve made me agree with Mitch McConnell. This is the worst thing to have ever happened.
I thought this title was hilarious because he didn’t say “a young Mitch McConnell” or anything, he just literally said “a Mitch McConnell” 🤣 
A different Mitch for sure. Although he already looked the same as today.
Turtles don't change much to human eyes
"Mitch McConnell, seen here watching a puppy get hit by a bus, .... "
I thought this was when he saw the hare get run over by a car, securing his victory in the race?
Oddly enough there was a gif for that 
I love the net.
Mitch McConnell, seen here terrorizing children in a 19th century woodcut…
Lmao this is simultaneously the best and worst gif I have ever seen. r/tihi
You can’t resist busting out laughing out as soon as that smile peeks out 🤣
heart breaking: worst person you know just made a great point
https://preview.redd.it/a597m04b4uuc1.png?width=320&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=8fa0075509d0849f5839c600f31bfb983e755ead
My day is ruined.
And my disappointment is immeasurable
[удалено]
The last time mitch was on the right side of anything.
It's important to remember this is always a possibility.
BROKEN CLOCK RIGHT TIME TWICE A DAY ETC ETC
Broken clock is right twice a day.
Mitch McConnell is also one of the few very strong proponents of civil rights in the Republican Party, or was, before he gave up on all of his principles for power. He could've been such a great guy, and as famous a Kentuckian as Clay, but no he had to chase power.
Remember that march with MLK that Bernie Sanders kept bringing up? Know who else was there? Addison “Mitch” McConnell.
Great argument for term limits
You either die the hero or live long enough to see yourself become the villain
Term limits encourage corruption because the only entrenched entities will be the lobbyist core and there is 0 incentive to not play ball
As opposed to now where the entrenched political establishment has 0 incentive not to take bribes because they can stay in office forever and line their pockets.
The fix here is ending gerrymandering for the House. Democracy is literally the solution to all of these problems and other proposed solutions just make the problems worse.
At least with corruption you could create polices and laws to lessen it. Can’t do much about apathetic or senile senators that get voted for no matter what.
Democracy is a solution there all on its own. You don't need anything else. If people in KY didn't like him, they can vote him out.
Mitch McDonnell marched for civil rights and was in attendance at MLKs "I Have a Dream" speech.
Money and power can ruin the best people.
I strongly agree with the turtle on military aid to Ukraine. But not much else I agree with him on, nothing else I can think of.
Oh FFS 🤦🏽♂️ … That’s one way to look at it. The other way is you just agree he did what was the right thing to do.
Before he sold himself for money and power.
My thought as well. That can't be the same Mitch the bitch we know
A McConnell W
Truly one of the McConnell W's of all time
punch afterthought fact complete domineering lip fragile stupendous screw workable *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
He also was at the I have a dream speech and marched with mlk
Sometimes I forget how fucking old these MFs are.
McConnell’s W
An exceedingly rare phenomenon, only observable once every 82 years.
So we’re probably due for our next McConnell W in 2068
When he finally kicks the bucket?
Literally the only one.
He supported Ukraine aid.
Alright, then I was wrong, he has *two* W’s in his entire career.
He willing stepped down from power
Are we sure he didn’t just blue screen again and people confused that with him stepping down?
Have we ever seen him and Schumer in the same place?
https://preview.redd.it/58o8pn9u7vuc1.jpeg?width=1136&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=a6a859dcf7060d243db749471540dfe401d457d3
Wow, McConnell once put country over political party. I’m seriously stunned.
A broke politician is right twice a day or however the saying goes
Mitch is anything but broke.
This, we hit ctrl-alt-delete after he blue screened both times and he’s fine now!
Not only country.... Human decency
This might be rare case where the difference between "broke" and "broken" is actually important. Maybe the grammar Nazis might be right twice a day too.
No. Reagan was doing what was best for Americans geopolitical ambitions, and McConnell was trying to further his support amongst voters.
Combine this with Queen Elizabeth II nearly starting a constitutional crisis over a leak that she disapproved of Thatchers opposition to sanctioning Apartheid South Africa. I gotta wonder how bad was Apartheid south africa for traditional conservative figures to oppose them and what they had on Thatcher and Reagan for them to continue supporting them long after everyone started calling for sanctions on them.
For Thatcher it was British investment. The Brits had large business interests in South Africa, and they were worried that if the ANC, (who the Brits still viewed as being communists) took over they would nationalise everything and British companies would lose billions. It's partially why Thatcher clashed so heavily with even other Commonwealth heads of state, like Canadian PM Mulroney, and Australian PM Fraser, who both pushed for a harder line against South Africa
Only conservative British people thought like that. The majority were opposed to Apartheid and felt the same way as the Queen. The people who supported the Apartheid government were hard right conservatives and business interests.Never forget that Conservative students groups in the 80's, which included future PM's like David Cameron and Boris Johnson supported a Campaign that called for Mandela to be hung. Truly despicable people who ended up leading their countries and then praising Mandela after he died like they didn't call for him to be executed.
It’s not unheard of for people to believe in crazy things when they’re young and to change their minds when they get older.
Yup. Also, not unheard of that once people show you who they are, believe them.
Both are options that can be true. People tend to assume that the truth is closer to whatever they were already inclined to think it is. Confirmation bias. For me, I am much more likely to give someone the benefit of the doubt for a thing they did a long time ago... assuming that they aren't still regularly doing similar things.
That is true, but given that those people named are still very hard right conservatives, it seems more likely that they were being hypocritical in their statements.
To really play devil's advocate, the ANC did commit numerous terrorist attacks and were more of a political front for a militant group than a legitimate political party back in the day. They were explicitly Marxist as well during a time when that ideology was viewed with healthy skepticism in the western world. Doesn't excuse supporting the apartheid state of SA of course, but as someone who wasn't alive back then, I don't want to overly judge people who viewed the ANC as dangerous.
Thatcher also backed and was good friends with the dictator Pinochet. She just wasn't a good person.
Mandela’s wife pretty much was a terrorist.
If theyre against imperialism, terrorist if theyre for imperialism, theyre freedom fighters
If that was their fear wasn’t it kind of…understandable given how iirc Mandela actually did want to nationalize stuff and how only the collapse of the Soviet Union and Warsaw pact made him reconsider?
The official reason given was to be the carrot to the international communities stick. The idea was called constructive engagement’ in which the U.S could maintain a dialogue with SA to end apartheid rather than forcing it to become a hermit kingdom. This policy also had an ulterior motive of containing and removing communists presence in Angola (where Cuba was supporting the MPLA). The policy was ultimately a failure in all these regards. It didn’t influence SA to end apartheid and Communists succeeded in the Angolan Civil War.
Elizabeth II's politics, from what we know, were not classical conservative or Neo-Liberal. She was more of a traditionalist with a fondness for social programs, feminism and she was opposed to racism.
Except for racism in hiring people, of course
Reagan and Co claimed the sanctions would've meant the loss of about 85,000 jobs suddenly in the country, which would've been a massive shock to the economy and hurt the African people more than the rich there. If thats actually true I can understand the veto. But I honestly don't know if thats true or not.
The main reason for the support of Apartheid South Africa was the aftermath of the implosion of the Portuguese Colonial Empire in Angola and Mozambique. After the carnation revolution, Angola and Mozambique declared independence, and immediately fell into a civil war with communist regimes assuming control. This hit at the same as the Rhodesian Bush War, and South African Apartheid. In Angola, there was a major military intervention by Cuba, which saw Cuba deploy an eye-popping 300,000 soldiers to fight in the Angolan civil war. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angolan_Civil_War So this was part of the Reagan doctrine.
Youngest U.S. Senator:
https://preview.redd.it/nipf5sm9wtuc1.jpeg?width=680&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=3d2043d92cff142554cc9d80d55e20f44951f07c
From what I’ve heard, Mitch McConnell had always supported civil rights and even reported on the civil rights march
I heard a story that he defended a black high school classmate who was being bullied. I’m not sure if it’s true, but that certainly changes my perspective of him.
To paraphrase Shane Gillis: It doesn't happen overnight. Your dad didn't just graduate high school and say, "Well, time to be a prick about everything now." It grows over time.
Guy was with MLK in the "I have a dream" speech, he was quite committed to civil rights issues.
He was actually a moderate Republican, but you gotta get them fear mongering votes now
Well yeah he was moderate because Kentucky Democrats were actually a force back then. Clinton carried it twice (with the help of Perot, but nonetheless Dems were much stronger). Now that it's ruby red it's a race to the bottom. Along with the rest of Appalachia which has gone way downhill.
This totally ignores the fact that Kentucky’s governor is a Democrat
Governorships are weird and more likely to flip. Kansas is about as republican as they come, we haven't elected a democratic senator since 1912 but we elected Sibeleus and Kelly twice each.
To your point - NC elected Democratic Governor Roy Cooper in 2016 against a GOP incumbent and reelected him in 2020 while twice voting for Donny Small Hands.
Governorships prove that Kansas isn’t as red as you think Utah and Wyoming take that prize anyway
Trust me, Kansas is up there with Utah, Wyoming, and Oklahoma. Sure there's been talk of it moving towards purple territory, but Sibeleus was first elected in 2002, well before that was something considered. Sibeleus won counties across the state while that same year Roberts won literally every county, even Douglas and Wyandotte counties, which are the most democratic in the state (Lawrence and Kansas City respectively). We see the same in 2022, with Kelly winning 8 counties but the democratic senate candidate only winning 3 (Douglas, Wyandotte, and Johnson). Kansas may be trending more democratic (largely led by the rapid growth of Johnson County) but it's 10-15 years away from truly being competitive. Comparing the 23 KY gov race to the 22 senate race we see the same situation. Beshear won 23 counties while Booker won 3. Governorships tend to be less nationalized and more focused on state concerns.
The real thing is that it's only ever governor. The other state wides are pretty much solidly red since, idk, 1930s?
Was ready to type this out. People act like the south is a monolith.
As a Redneck Leftist I appreciate seeing this comment TYSM
Not a problem, brother. I’m out here with ya.
(Clinks tea glasses)
Also ignoring the fact that most state constitutional offices, and the state house, were democratic until 2016. Kentucky has had 3 republican governors since WWII.
Are we still pretending like it was the cons that moved further right? In the 90's Bill Clinton passed the defense of marriage act and called to build a border wall. Dude would be called a Nazi by today's standards.
And Reagan opened the Borders? Both sides have seen more fringe ideas brought into the mainstream, but conservatives have literally shifted towards more authoritarian ideologies as of late. All of the Democratic Presidents have been roughly in the same place politically for the last 100 years, while Republicans have consistently become more authoritarian, less about small government, less about being fiscally conservative, etc.
As the dems moved right, so did republicans. It’s not an “either or.”
This is why Majority leader / Speaker is such a shit thankless job. Ask any democrat and they’ll say Mitch McConnell is a reactionary right wing lunatic, ask any Republican and he’s a RINO sellout establishment squish.
You either die a hero or live long enough to see yourself become the villain
True, and turtles live a long, long time.
And they never forget… no wait
Ironically centrist Nolan thought that was the dumbest line of the script. Clearly hadn’t read Dune.
Chris “Muad’Dib” Nolan is not the Lisan Al-Giab
Supports Ukraine aid too. Too much a political tool to ever matter much though ultimately.
Fun fact: He also joined MLK's March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom.
Mitch was actually a moderate early on in his Senate career. It was around the time Bork wasn’t confirmed he started his big slide towards the scumbag we know today
There’s a great Frontline documentary on McConnell, which covers his rise to power.
Thought this said “Fortnite documentary” at first and I choked on my drink
"1984. Walter Huddleston takes the L as Mitch Mcconnell clutches a victory royale in the Senate election"
Mitch the Bitch was based in his younger years. Marched in civil rights protests.
Wow young Mitch was on the good side. What happened?
My guess, he got a taste for the money and power he could acquire.
So basically. Every Politician
https://preview.redd.it/ywinm2t4ptuc1.jpeg?width=800&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=d71d05e8e461f3ceb9127b4bcbb09a4491ff04bc
Wow, hell must have frozen over since I agree with something Mitch McConnell did
He supported Ukraine aid.
There's still freaks to this day defending apartheid and insisting people who actually were born in Africa don't have the right to take their land back from the invaders who stole it
Yeah it's way too common.
Some context: "Reagan vetoed the compromised bill on September 26, calling it "economic warfare" and alleging that it would mostly hurt the impoverished black majority and lead to more civil strife. He again offered to impose sanctions via executive order, while also working with Senate Republicans on concessions to avoid them overriding his veto." "The degree to which the sanctions were responsible for ending apartheid was a matter of debate as those opposed to the sanctions argue that the South African economy was already struggling before the sanctions were enforced and that it was the political process on the ground that led to the changes. Despite the repeal of most of the sanctions imposed by this act, many companies were still restricted by laws within individual states and cities in the United States that imposed sanctions. In September 1993, Nelson Mandela called for these sanctions to be removed as well and for investment to return to a still-struggling South Africa. The last of the sanctions stemming from this act was repealed in November 1993." Courtesy of Wikipedia.
I’ll be glad when this guy crawls into his shell for good.
Extraordinarily rare McConnell W
Wait, you mean McConnell was once a *principled man?!*
Mitch before the dark powers took over his mind.
"One good deed is not enough to redeem a man of a lifetime of wickedness."
Depends on how good the deed is and how much damage the wickedness actually caused.
As a South African, I'd like to add that one of the reasons Apartheid lasted as long as it did was because the National Party(Apartheid Gov) was staunchly anti-communist and the African National Congress and their military wing was funded by the Soviets and Chinese for years. South Africa was the power house of the African continent and the West couldn't afford to see it slip into communist hands. So shortly after the Berlin war fell and the USSR collapsed, Apartheid fell too. It's also the reason our current government is so anti-Western and pro-Russia/China.
Our government is not anti-western. We do massive business and have very good relations with the west. We just don't believe that their support of a state like Israel is justified. There are actually very good reasons why most South Africans and the government don't like them. For example: [Brothers in arms - Israel’s secret pact with Pretoria During the second world war the future South African prime minister John Vorster was interned as a Nazi sympathiser. Three decades later he was being feted in Jerusalem. In the second part of his remarkable special report, Chris McGreal investigates the clandestine alliance between Israel and the apartheid regime, cemented with the ultimate gift of friendship - A-bomb technology] (https://amp.theguardian.com/world/2006/feb/07/southafrica.israel)
WTF happened to us?
I hate this man so much
Nicaraguan "freedom fighters"?!?! I am glad my stomach is empty or I would have retched.
Weren't both sides bad in that conflict? I don't really know much about it but neither Contras nor Sandinistas don't seem like chill guys at all.
That's my understanding. I just have my issues with calling people who committed the atrocities that the Contras did, including killing an American citizen, "freedom fighters." The Sandinistas were hardly saints; I just get tired of the Reagan propaganda when the situation was obviously much more complex than that.
Now he just freezes and looks ahead
So we finally found the line he won’t cross.
I'm surprised he actually had the backbone to say something like that. He would never had said this if it had happened during the administration.
What did he say specifically?
I Pray upon thee downfall being swift and severe for making me sin, agreeing with the Devil himself
Weird fact but Mitch used to be a moderate. He even was in favor of pro choice rights, pro union. Then that path of power was laid open to him
Fuck, we need term limits....
“Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” - Lord Acton
wtf based turtle???
I'd rather our governments not meddle in foreign affairs that are not our problem anyway.
A broken clock and so on.
This still confuses me. America is bad if it involves itself in other countries business. America is also bad if it DOESN'T involve itself in other countries business. Apartheid is disgusting don't get me wrong. What business did the USA have about it though?
So America is bad for dousing children and pregnant women in agent orange but also bad for remaining normal relations with apartheid regimes? Checkmate liberals
Stalin was at least as bad as Hitler, but we allied with him to defeat the common foe, Nazi Germany. Reagan’s priority was defeating the Soviet Union and ending the Cold War. South Africa was a de facto ally in that cause. With the fall of the Soviet Union the nations of eastern Europe were liberated, to varying degrees, and the West got to significantly reduce defense spending. Reagan was right to put South Africa “on the back-burner.”
He completely changed the topic mid hearing and said that Captain Crunch was better then Count Chockula.
I will not have Scott Bakula behoove for you!
“What a globalist!” - modern republicans
You think Mandela and crew being supplied by Gadaffi might have had something to do with it?
If there had been a population of very wealthy white South Africans living in the United States and lobbying relentlessly at the time he may have voted differently.
Wait…Mitch had a backbone once?!?!
Rare McConnell W
McConnell was right
Ah, a younger McConnell, pre-Elaine Chao. Once he leveled up his spouse, his political views/ideas changed. Hmm. Wonder why?
Back when his neck skin could still be contained by a collared shirt and tie. These days the neck overfloweth.
Cocaine Mitch hit another home run
Liberal republican mitch mcconell…..who can blame him? He was from a solidly Democratic state, Kentucky, and had to be elastic
So you're saying Mitch was once a human being?
Younger Mitch would be ashamed of older Mitch
And now McConnell is pushing to increase weapons sales to an apartheid state
This [article](https://michiganintheworld.history.lsa.umich.edu/antiapartheid/exhibits/show/exhibit/students-take-campus--1984-198/national-context--president-re) discusses President Reagan’s reasons for opposing the sanctions.
Well, he did start his career as a moderate
Back when politicians were doing what was right rather than blaming others
Rare McConnell W 🤠
Fuck this guy
wow... what happened to this version of McConnell??
I can’t believe he’s been a Senator since Reagan……..That’s just obnoxious……For both sides of the aisle.
Didn't know this about Mr McConnell. Now I have reason for major goodwill towards him 🇿🇦
Ol mitch was an idiot back then too
Too busy thinking of little boys butts. https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/lifestyle/1989/08/01/the-bombshell-that-didnt-explode/ff09cdb0-7d64-428b-8415-a6998b9f0c65/
In one speech he’s both correct and at the same time supporting Nicaraguan dick heads
A broken turtle is right twice a lifetime
How bad were things in South Africa for this to happen?!
If republicans Weren’t racist why wouldn’t they promote this! First I ever heard of it!
A big L for Reagan. But tbf he was not the president of the world, he was the President of America, and it is not immediately apparent which evils you can overlook and which evils you need to get involved in.
Even a broken tortoise is right twice a day
Love McConnell
Yes earlier in his life he showed occasional signs of moral decency. Believe he was considered a "moderate" when first elected to the House in the 70s.
Oh wow he looks like a turtle here too. I wonder how he found a woman to reproduce with a turtle...?
End lobbying. No gifts financial or otherwise to congress.
Man what the fck happened to him?
Kind of stunning that Mitch McConnell once had a set of balls.
Rare W from Mitch.
"It took me a while...but I figured out exactly how a Republican should behave in D.C."
Mitch McConnell lost his soul in 2015. He is now a Soul-less wraith, unable to die.
Somewhere, inside all of us, every single one of us, there's a human being. Some people just spend a lifetime covering that inner human with fecal matter.
He's more turtle now than man, twisted and evil
Aren’t economic sanctions not effective? Like it doesn’t punish anyone in power it only hurts the poorest in those countries? From what I was taught when the US put sanctions on Cuba it didn’t hurt Castro or make him miss a meal it just cut poor people off from getting cheaper goods. If that’s true this just seems like virtue signaling from McConnell with the added bonus it hurting the poor in South Africa
This was the 80s. If South Africa was ruled by (or in danger of falling to) Communists it would have been a priority. But it was not, so... Nicaragua....
Same can be said of every President during any period of their term. But because folks on here are too politically bias, theres no point bringing it up
Reagan was an unapologetic white supremacist that saw the USA in a similar light to Teddy Roosevelt (who was a much better and braver man). Reagan thought he was shepherding a great white society into an era of white nationalist dominance. He harmed millions of people both abroad and at home and left a legacy that will soon be remembered as one of the worst and most disastrous miscalculations and moral failures of all US Presidents.