Churchill was a great man, but he was already demonstrating his greatness in the years leading up to the war, warning against Hitler while serving as First Lord of the Admiralty.
McCain is a betrayer. He has no principles. Churchill wouldn’t have let England be swarmed under a flood of illegal immigrants. Again, terrible analogy.
> Churchill wouldn’t have let England be swarmed under a flood of illegal immigrants.
He had his own moments of really arguable domestic performance — like the General Strike of 1926 and the Sidney St Seige and the Tonypandy Riot. And I’ve already mentioned the Dardanelles fiasco.
We don’t know what he would have done about the Mexican illegal alien situation because he was never put in that position.
We *do* know that he wasn’t the arch-Conservative Icon all of his political career that we’d like to think he was.
His performance during WW-II was certainly masterful. Before that, and after that, it was so-so, and sometimes pretty awful.
> Again, terrible analogy.
Time will tell. On McCain’s performance-to-date, it tracks along quite nicely with Churchill’s pre-WW-II performance. Both served, both were POWs, both had political careers, both straddled either side of Center, and both had wobbly bits that would infuriate the Conservatives...
...no, I’d say it’s a brilliant analogy. Could even prove to be Prophetic, depending on how McCain does if he is ever made POTUS.
You clearly disagree — I’d be curious to see how.
Churchill did well with WWII, but before that he sucked. Just ask the Irish; Churchill tormented those people and literally split the country in two. The sectarian strife, still prevalent today, can be laid right at his feet.
^^^^^^^^^^McCain is a betrayer. He has no principles. Churchill wouldn’t have let England be swarmed under a flood of illegal immigrants. Again, terrible analogy.^^^^^^^^^^^
McCain isn’t just a bystander. He didn’t just stand by and watch it happen; let it happen.
McCain lead the charge so that the flood would increase.