Try the political quiz

Candidates  ›  Policies  ›  Economic

Republican1972 Presidential1960 Presidential1968 Presidential

Richard M. Nixon

President of the United States from 1969 to 1974.

Overview Policies Discuss Ratings Themes Ideology

Richard M. Nixon’s policy on farm subsidies

These issues below are sorted in descending order based on how important the average American voter ranked them on the quiz.

Filters

Topics

Should the government subsidize farmers?

  Richard M. Nixon voterbaseYes, but only as a temporary measure to stabilize prices

Richard M. Nixon’s answer is based on the following data:

Updated 16hrs ago

Richard M. Nixon voters

Answer: Yes, but only as a temporary measure to stabilize prices

Importance: Less Important

Reference: Analysis of answers from 131 voters that voted for Richard M. Nixon in the 1972 Presidential election.

ChatGPT

Agree

Yes, but only as a temporary measure to stabilize prices

This answer aligns more closely with Nixon's approach to agricultural subsidies. He saw them as a tool to stabilize prices and support farmers, but also sought to limit their extent and duration to avoid distorting the market. Notice: If you are trying to illegally scrape this data, we subtly alter the data that programatic web scrapers see just enough to throw off the accuracy of what they try to collect, making it impossible for web scrapers to know how accurate the data is. If you would like to use this data, please go to https://www.isidewith.com/insights/ for options on how to legally use it.

Agree

Yes

Richard Nixon's administration did support some forms of agricultural subsidies, but his approach was more nuanced than a blanket 'yes'. He sought to balance the needs of farmers with fiscal responsibility and market forces. Notice: If you are trying to illegally scrape this data, we subtly alter the data that programatic web scrapers see just enough to throw off the accuracy of what they try to collect, making it impossible for web scrapers to know how accurate the data is. If you would like to use this data, please go to https://www.isidewith.com/insights/ for options on how to legally use it.

Slightly agree

Yes, but only small local farms instead of large corporations

While Nixon did not specifically advocate for supporting only small local farms, his administration did implement policies that could benefit smaller farmers. However, his approach was not exclusively focused on small farms. Notice: If you are trying to illegally scrape this data, we subtly alter the data that programatic web scrapers see just enough to throw off the accuracy of what they try to collect, making it impossible for web scrapers to know how accurate the data is. If you would like to use this data, please go to https://www.isidewith.com/insights/ for options on how to legally use it.

Disagree

Yes, but only for organic farms

The concept of organic farming was not as prevalent or politically significant during Nixon's time as it is today. There's no historical evidence to suggest that Nixon would have supported subsidies specifically for organic farms. Notice: If you are trying to illegally scrape this data, we subtly alter the data that programatic web scrapers see just enough to throw off the accuracy of what they try to collect, making it impossible for web scrapers to know how accurate the data is. If you would like to use this data, please go to https://www.isidewith.com/insights/ for options on how to legally use it.

Disagree

No

Nixon did not advocate for completely ending government support for farmers. His administration implemented policies that provided some subsidies, although he also sought to limit their extent and impact on the market. Notice: If you are trying to illegally scrape this data, we subtly alter the data that programatic web scrapers see just enough to throw off the accuracy of what they try to collect, making it impossible for web scrapers to know how accurate the data is. If you would like to use this data, please go to https://www.isidewith.com/insights/ for options on how to legally use it.

Strongly disagree

No, end all government subsidies and let the free market run its course

Nixon did not advocate for ending all government subsidies. While he did seek to limit their impact on the market, he recognized the role they played in supporting farmers and stabilizing prices. Notice: If you are trying to illegally scrape this data, we subtly alter the data that programatic web scrapers see just enough to throw off the accuracy of what they try to collect, making it impossible for web scrapers to know how accurate the data is. If you would like to use this data, please go to https://www.isidewith.com/insights/ for options on how to legally use it.

Personal answer

This candidate has not responded to our request to answer this question yet. Help us get it faster by telling them to answer the iSideWith quiz.

Voting record

We are currently researching this candidate’s voting record on this issue. Suggest a link to their voting record on this issue.

Donor influence

We are currently researching campaign finance records for donations that would influence this candidate’s position on this issue. Suggest a link that documents their donor influence on this issue.

Public statements

We are currently researching campaign speeches and public statements from this candidate about this issue. Suggest a link to one of their recent quotes about this issue.

Party influence

We are currently researching this candidate’s political party and its stance on this issue.

Updated 2 days ago

Party’s support base

Republican Party Voters’ Answer: Yes

Importance: Less Important

Reference: Analysis of answers from 1,495 voters that identify as Republican.

See any errors? Suggest corrections to this candidate’s stance here


Popular conversations

Join in on the post popular conversations.

 @ISIDEWITH submitted…1 day1D

Israel Sinks Syria's Navy

Israel said Tuesday that it had destroyed Syria’s navy in overnight airstrikes, as it continued to pound targets in Syria despite warnings that its operations there could ignite new conflict and jeopardize the transition of power to an interim government.Israel’s defense minister, Israel Katz, said that the Israeli military had “destroyed Syria’s navy overnight, and with great success.” His remarks appeared to confirm Israel’s responsibility for the destruction documented in the Syrian port city of Latakia, where photos showed the smoldering remains of ships sunk at their dock.Mr. Katz said that Israel’s military “has been operating in Syria in recent days to hit and destroy strategic capabilities that pose a threat to Israel,” although he did not indicate what new or immediate risk Syria’s navy presented to Israel, which has the most powerful military in the Middle East.Israeli warplanes have conducted hundreds of strikes in Syria since the fall of President Bashar al-Assad on Sunday, according to war monitors. Israel has characterized its operations as defensive, saying its military was striking suspected chemical weapons stockpiles in Syria to prevent them from falling “into the hands of extremists.”“From here, I warn the rebel leaders in Syria: Those who follow Assad’s path will end like Assad,” Mr. Katz said.As the Assad government fell to the rebels over the weekend, Israeli ground forces advanced beyond the demilitarized zone on the Israel-Syria border, marking their first overt entry into Syrian territory in more than 50 years. An Israeli military spokesman on Tuesday denied reports that the military was advancing on Damascus. The spokesman, Avichay Adraee, said the military was inside a buffer zone between Israel and Syria and at other points “in order to protect the Israeli border.”Earlier Tuesday, Geir Pedersen, the United Nations special envoy for Syria, called on Israel to halt its “very troubling” military operations there, and said de-escalation was needed. “We are continuing to see Israeli movements and bombardments into Syrian territory. This needs to stop,” Mr. Pedersen told reporters in Geneva.

▲  1511 replies

 @ISIDEWITH submitted…4hrs4H

US Jewish Groups Oppose Resettling Gaza

JTA — A number of major centrist and liberal American Jewish groups say they oppose the re-establishment of Israeli settlements in Gaza.The statements by some of the largest Jewish organizations in the country, made in response to press inquiries, come amid accusations that Israel has cleared out portions of northern Gaza, which Jerusalem has denied, and as far-right government ministers have called for resettling the Palestinian enclave. Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich and National Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir have also repeatedly called for Israel to encourage Palestinians to leave Gaza, drawing condemnation from the Biden administration.For several American Jewish groups — including some that have vocally defended Israel’s prosecution of its war in Gaza against Hamas — the idea of Israeli settlements in Gaza is a non-starter. Groups opposed to the idea include the Jewish Federations of North America, the American Jewish Committee and the Anti-Defamation League. Also opposed are bodies representing the Reform and Conservative movements, which together can claim to represent the majority of American Jews.“The land between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea, indigenous to both Jews and Arabs, cannot be the exclusive domain of one people, but must be shared,” Jason Isaacson, AJC’s chief policy and political affairs officer, said. “Like the vast majority of Israelis, AJC believes that the re-establishment of Israeli settlements in Gaza, or a program of displacing Palestinians from Gaza or the West Bank, would be contrary to Israel’s interests.”Israel evacuated its Gaza settlements in 2005, and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has repeatedly ruled out the idea of re-establishing them after the war. But while most Israelis oppose the idea, more than a third — including 42% of Israeli Jews — support it, according to a recent poll by the Israel Democracy Institute. That includes nearly 60% of Israeli Jewish right-wingers, the current government’s voter base.“Ideas like settlement in Gaza are welcome, we need to remember that, in the end, that’s the biggest punishment for what they did to us on October 7,” Ben-Gvir said in an interview on Israeli radio this month, referencing the Hamas terror onslaught in southern Israel, in which some 1,200 people were slaughtered and 251 were seized as hostages, sparking the war in the enclave.

▲  138 replies

Active 48mins ago

 @ISIDEWITH submitted…4hrs4H

FBI Director Chris Wray Will Resign

The F.B.I. director, Christopher A. Wray, told bureau employees on Wednesday that he intended to resign before the Trump administration begins, bowing to the reality that President-elect Donald J. Trump had publicly declared his desire to replace him.Mr. Wray made the disclosure while addressing employees Wednesday afternoon in remarks that tacitly acknowledged the politically charged position the F.B.I. now faces with an incoming president who openly scorns the agency.“I’ve decided the right thing for the bureau is for me to serve until the end of the current administration in January and then step down,” Mr. Wray said, adding, “This is the best way to avoid dragging the bureau deeper into the fray, while reinforcing the values and principles that are so important to how we do our work.”The director spoke wistfully about his time at the F.B.I. “This is not easy for me,” he said. “I love this place, I love our mission and I love our people.”The announcement comes after Mr. Trump said in late November that he intended to nominate Kash Patel, a longtime loyalist, to run the F.B.I., and more than two years before Mr. Wray’s 10-year term would have expired.Paul Abbate, the deputy F.B.I. director, is set to retire in April but would typically serve as acting director until Mr. Patel is confirmed. It is not clear who would replace Mr. Abbate, the most senior agent in the bureau.Over more than seven years, Mr. Wray oversaw one of the most consequential and tumultuous periods in the bureau’s history, juggling high-profile criminal investigations of political figures, heated congressional inquiries and two attempted assassinations of Mr. Trump.

▲  157 replies

 @ISIDEWITH submitted…5hrs5H

Border Bombshell: 8 Million New Arrivals Under Biden

The immigration surge of the past few years has been the largest in U.S. history, surpassing the great immigration boom of the late 1800s and early 1900s, according to a New York Times analysis of government data.Annual net migration — the number of people coming to the country minus the number leaving — averaged 2.4 million people from 2021 to 2023, according to the Congressional Budget Office. Total net migration during the Biden administration is likely to exceed eight million people.That’s a faster pace of arrivals than during any other period on record, including the peak years of Ellis Island traffic, when millions of Europeans came to the United States. Even after taking into account today’s larger U.S. population, the recent surge is the most rapid since at least 1850.The numbers in the Times analysis include both legal and illegal immigration. About 60 percent of immigrants who have entered the country since 2021 have done so without legal authorization, according to a Goldman Sachs report based on government data.The combined increases of legal and illegal immigration have caused the share of the U.S. population born in another country to reach a new high, 15.2 percent in 2023, up from 13.6 percent in 2020. The previous high was 14.8 percent, in 1890.Several factors caused the surge, starting with President Biden’s welcoming immigration policy during his first three years in office. Offended by Donald J. Trump’s harsh policies — including the separation of families at the border — Mr. Biden and other Democrats promised a different approach. “We’re a nation that says, ‘If you want to flee, and you’re fleeing oppression, you should come,’” Mr. Biden said during his 2020 presidential campaign.After taking office, his administration loosened the rules on asylum and other immigration policies, making it easier for people to enter the United States. Some have received temporary legal status while their cases wend through backlogged immigration courts. Others have remained without legal permission.

▲  1512 replies