I was driving home from work and thought about the parallels between watergate and this weeks happenings. You can draw some parallels. Hacking into the DNC. How high up did it go? Was Flynn of instructed to talk about sanctions? Why were the Trump campaign and the Russians in daily contact? Back then you didn't have a Fox News or a InfoWars to spin your cover. People trusted the media more. We live in a polar society. Nixon would have been able to ride it out with today's political landscape. Let's not let this delve into a ***** fest. If I'm wrong tell me why you think that. If you tend to agree with me tell me why. I just thought this could be an interesting topic.
I do because they actually have evidence that Nixon was involved.
(02-16-2017 03:49 PM)Hood-rich Wrote: [ -> ]I do because they actually have evidence that Nixon was involved.
Indeed. I seriously doubt anything here rises to the levels of what either Nixon or Hillary Clinton were guilty of doing.
Today's media climate, who knows? How long was Woodward and Berstein's investigation? Over a year? Will anyone allow journalists to do that anymore with a need for profit?
Yes, I too pine for the good ole days when you could round up every Japanese or German and put them in internment camps and not have to resign (FDR). Or when you could jail newspaper editors who you didn't agree with and not have to resign (John Adams). Or when you could openly say you don't have to follow The Constitution as President, you can just make up your own rules as you go along and not have to resign (Obama, Teddy, Woodrow). Or when you could firebomb civilian targets and not have to resign (FDR). Or nuke civilian targets and not have to resign (Truman). Or when you could assassinate American citizens in Idaho and quietly settle out of court with them and push prosecutors not to take the case up against the government and not resign (H. Bush). Or when you could declare any American citizen an unlawful enemy combatant and remove all of their legal protections and detain them indefinitely without resigning (Lincoln, W. Bush).
WHY YES MACH, I TOO PINE FOR THE EARLIER DAYS OF GOOD HONEST GOVERNMENT THAT LOOKED AFTER AND CARED FOR THE PEOPLE AND DID NO WRONG.
Trouble is that time never existed.
Contain your hysterical nonsense to one thread. There's no reason this couldn't have been posted as a reply in the #BIGGERTHANWATERGATE thread.
Mods, please merge.
I didn't think they had any evidence against him. That's why the Frost Nixon tapes were so important.
Kronke two totally different topics. You can pass this thread. Don't type on it. This could lead to an interesting thread if it's not ruined. Great addition Squid. Could a newsroom devote two reporters a year to chase down one story? It's just a totally different time.
(02-16-2017 03:56 PM)Machiavelli Wrote: [ -> ]I didn't think they had any evidence against him. That's why the Frost Nixon tapes were so important.
Yeah and because those tapes existed he had to resign. There was hard evidence that
would incriminate him. The SC ordered that he turn them over and he resigned a couple of weeks later.
(02-16-2017 04:05 PM)Hood-rich Wrote: [ -> ] (02-16-2017 03:56 PM)Machiavelli Wrote: [ -> ]I didn't think they had any evidence against him. That's why the Frost Nixon tapes were so important.
Yeah and because those tapes existed he had to resign. There was hard evidence that would incriminate him. The SC ordered that he turn them over and he resigned a couple of weeks later.
Which is pretty funny the more I think about it. Nixon actually had the evidence on him and wouldn't turn it over. The media and IC supposedly has the recording of Trump aids talking to Russia and as of right now, bupkis. If they've got dirt on him come out with it already.
I thought that part was erased. He resigned because he lost support. He wouldn't lose support in today's political climate. Hell he probably would have gained support amongst his base. We live in a totally different dynamic today.
(02-16-2017 03:54 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote: [ -> ]Yes, I too pine for the good ole days when you could round up every Japanese or German and put them in internment camps and not have to resign (FDR). Or when you could jail newspaper editors who you didn't agree with and not have to resign (John Adams). Or when you could openly say you don't have the follow The Constitution as President, you can just make up your own rules as you go along and not have to resign (Obama, Teddy, Woodrow). Or when you could firebomb civilian targets and not have to resign (FDR). Or nuke civilian targets and not have to resign (Truman). Or when you could assassinate American citizens in Idaho and quietly settle out of court with them and push prosecutors not to take the case up against the government and not resign (H. Bush). Or when you could declare any American citizen an unlawful enemy combatant and remove all of their legal protections and detain them indefinitely without resigning (Lincoln, W. Bush).
WHY YES MACH, I TOO PINE FOR THE EARLIER DAYS OF GOOD HONEST GOVERNMENT THAT LOOKED AFTER AND CARED FOR THE PEOPLE AND DID NO WRONG.
Trouble is that time never existed.
You forgot about the assassination of an American citizen who'd never been charged with a crime (Obama).
Someone who posts here. Native Georgian is somewhat a scholar on Watergate. I would like to see the parallels and what is different. Foreign govt. vs. the plumbers of course but their are some uncanny similiarities. I don't think it will rise to in impeachment now because of the political dynamics. Both sides have the team over country angles now. That didn't exist like it does now in my humble opinion. Disagree? Fine. Tell me why.
There is a big difference between this and Watergate. There was actual evidence of wrongdoing in Watergate. Here we have speculation about possible wrongdoing, but so far no evidence of actual wrongdoing.
(02-16-2017 04:11 PM)Machiavelli Wrote: [ -> ]Someone who posts here. Native Georgian is somewhat a scholar on Watergate. I would like to see the parallels and what is different. Foreign govt. vs. the plumbers of course but their are some uncanny similiarities. I don't think it will rise to in impeachment now because of the political dynamics. Both sides have the team over country angles now. That didn't exist like it does now in my humble opinion. Disagree? Fine. Tell me why.
Can't agree with the bolded part. I'd say, at least as it relates to Trump, that he's not on either side which is why DC is so pissed about his presidency. I know I find myself mumbling to the whole damned lot of 'em to go eff themselves.
I agree Owl, but we had speculation early back then too right? They had nothing early back then too. Just speculation. We know the DNC was hacked.
We are just in the beginning stages but you alreagy have immediate cover fire. We're people talking about prosecuting the leaks in Watergate the first week? You were alive then. I wasn't. It took a lot for it to build up to what we now know. He rode it out for a year didn't he? We won't be talking about this in a year. The pace of information is totally different now. People will become bored with it. I've changed my thinking on it.
(02-16-2017 03:56 PM)Machiavelli Wrote: [ -> ]I didn't think they had any evidence against him. That's why the Frost Nixon tapes were so important.
At the time, there was evidence but nothing concrete and it was denied by his supporters who blamed the other party and the media as out to get him. He finally resigned when his own part started turning against him. The realization and acceptance of the evidence came after he was out of office.
Imagine if there was social media back in the 70's. Republicans would be even more bullied than they are today
I agree somewhat Tech, but the GOP will defend Trump because he's our sob. At least they will give the appearance. Unless, the main goal is to put Pence in the iron throne. Owl posted that in October. He heard both would be impeached by fall no matter who won. I found that interesting too.