This comment has sparked an interesting debate, and it largely boils down to the definition of "democrat."
Some have responded that MFR is no liberal, but he& #39;s still a democrat b/c he supports elections, the Constitution, and democracy more broadly.
Not sure I agree. [THREAD] https://twitter.com/MichaelKugelman/status/1312466185636573184">https://twitter.com/MichaelKu...

When I said he& #39;s no democrat, I had in mind the nasty views he& #39;s espoused over the years and especially his bigoted views toward religious minorities, which is hate speech. Yes, he& #39;s no liberal, and one can indeed be a conservative democrat. But not a bigoted or racist democrat.

He may be more of a non-liberal than a non-democrat. But if one uses the MFR-is-still-a-democrat-because-he-supports-the-democratic-system reasoning, extremist political actors eg TLP/MML that contest elections, or authoritarians who gain power through polls, are also democrats.

If MFR disavowed the nasty things (which don& #39;t reflect democratic ideals) he& #39;s said over the years, maybe I& #39;d change my view. I doubt he& #39;s done that. @chiltan put it nicely re MFR: "Those who don& #39;t believe in equal rights of all citizens can never claim to be truly democratic."

Finally, I wasn& #39;t suggesting that MFR is more or less of a democrat than any one else, whether in terms of someone in government or in the opposition. It wasn& #39;t meant to be a comparison. It was merely about him.
Thanks for the useful feedback. FIN