Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
In Watergate, there was a psychologist's office broken into, and confidential records of a Nixon supporter stolen. There was a hotel door that a security guard found taped open, and equipment and people inside who were tapping into a room used by Democrats to plan things. The people were found to work for a committee to re-elect Nixon. There were tapes of Oval Office conferences, where Nixon and his cohorts could be heard planning various cover-up activities. One of the tapes had an 18-1/2 minute gap, which someone said had been caused by a secretary pressing the wrong button by mistake. Technicians found it had been erased, then erased a little more, then a little more, as though someone wanted to make sure they had "gotten it all".
In today's affairs, there is.... well, nothing. No tapes of Trump. No wiretaps. No break-ins. No evidence of anything besides lies by Flynn, for which he got fired; and insubordination by Yeats, who also got fired. No evidence of the slightest collusion, bribes, changed votes, international intrigue, not even a picture of Trump stepping on a crack in a sidewalk.
Huge numbers of scandalous-sounding stories, all of which came from anonymous, untraceable sources, and which are being show false one after the other, having been invented out of thin air by the media with no evidence to back them up.
Aside from those differences, yep, today's affairs are identical to Watergate all right. (snicker) Like comparing a leaking water pipe to the Johnstown flood.
In Watergate, there was a psychologist's office broken into, and confidential records of a Nixon supporter stolen. There was a hotel door that a security guard found taped open, and equipment and people inside who were tapping into a room used by Democrats to plan things. The people were found to work for a committee to re-elect Nixon. There were tapes of Oval Office conferences, where Nixon and his cohorts could be heard planning various cover-up activities. One of the tapes had an 18-1/2 minute gap which technicians found had been erased, then erased a little more, then a little more, as though someone wanted to make sure they had "gotten it all".
In today's affairs, there is.... well, nothing. No tapes of Trump. No wiretaps. No break-ins. No evidence of anything besides lies by Flynn, for which he got fired; and insubordination by Yeats, who also got fired. No evidnce of the slightest collusion, bribes, international intrigue, not even a picture of Trump stepping on a crack in a sidewalk.
Huge numbers of scandalous-sounding stories, all of which came from anonymous, untraceable sources, and which are being show false one after the other, having been invented out of thin air by the media with no evidence to back them up
Aside from those differences, yep, today's affairs are identical to Watergate all right. (snicker) Like comparing a leaking water pipe to the Johnstown flood.
Then you and trump have nothing to fear by the truth coming out. Just ignore it, it will go away, or not...
Americans are much more concerned, and much more skeptical of Trump, at this early stage of the investigation than they were of Nixon in the aftermath of the Watergate break-in. Nixon subsequently won a landslide re-election victory over George McGovern.
Most Americans in the 1970s simply found it hard to believe that a President would knowingly condone a burglary in an attempt to gather intelligence and bug the national campaign headquarters of the opposing party. They could believe that over zealous aides could do so without the President's knowledge when evidence soon linked the break-in directly to the White House.
Like today, the nation was very polarized, but the polarization was even much more intense, especially among the young who were being forced (drafted, taxed heavily) to sacrifice for a Vietnam War that they found objectionable and a political and military leadership which seemed incompetent, indisputable in the wake of history.
Why is Trump faring worse? Trump, unlike Nixon, is generally believed to be inherently dishonest. Nixon only was considered "tricky" by most Americans. Informed by obvious Trump lies during the campaign (e.g., "Access Hollywood"), almost 60 percent of Americans now believe that Trump is dishonest.
Cozying up to a Russian dictator who clearly is engaging in cyber warfare against the U.S. isn't popular even among Republicans, as evidenced the Senate 98-2 sanction vote, a clear warning shot fired over the Trump bow. I remember nothing like that during the Watergate scandal until the tapes were introduced into evidence. Trump's defense of Russia and Putin seems incomprehensible to many champions of democracy even in the Republican Party, and these individuals only can conclude that something is rotten by such Presidential behavior even as Russian is re-arming the Taliban and forcing America's hand in Afghanistan, which still is costing American lives and well over $3 billion/month.
<<A senior U.S. military official, speaking on condition of anonymity, told reporters that intelligence showed that Russia was providing monetary and weapons support to the Taliban, specifically weapons such as machine guns.
The supply of weapons has accelerated in the past 18 months, the official said.>>
Remember that Vietnam was fought during the Cold War and in the still living aftermath of World War II and Korea. Most Americans were familiar with sacrifice and the titanic struggles in which the nation was engaged and were more trusting of Presidents, who were deemed protectors of the nation. American patriotism suffered a mighty flow during the Vietnam War era, culminating in the Watergate scandal and the first Presidential resignation.
In the post-Nixon era, all Presidents, especially one generally considered as dishonest as Trump, all live under a cloud of suspicion. Most Americans today don't remember that Nixon VP Spiro Agnew went to jail (on non-Watergate corruption), as did Attorney General John Mitchell, and Nixon's top aides -- H.R. Haldeman and John Erlichman. Those who do remember know that general corruption can permeate the highest levels of American government.
Conscious of the Watergate storm, likely even the 71-year-old Trump is deterred from unleashing those furies once again unless absolutely necessary for self-preservation (e.g., he actually has something material to hide from special prosecutor Robert Mueller).
While the visceral issue during the Nixon era was the Vietnam War, now growing numbers of Americans, especially younger Americans, believe that the titanic struggle involves avoiding an environmental calamity, and find Trump a liar or fool, take your pick, on the issue.
This trump disaster is 50 times worse than Watergate,remember it took two years for watergate to come to the American public.This has many more players and countries.
It's almost gladiatorial ain't it... the finest bread and circuses brought to you by the decrepit Democrat Party.
For those who were around during Watergate, how does this Russia probe compare?
This is much, much worse.
Nixon was, in essence, a crook. Both chambers of Congress had Democratic majorities, and Congressional Republicans had not yet lost their collective minds. Compared to today, it was much easier for Democrats and Republicans in Congress to work together against a common foe - Nixon.
Trump is, in essence, a traitor. Both chambers of Congress have Republican majorities, and some of the more influential Republicans are just now regaining their senses. There are some very good Republican Senators and Representatives, but in both chambers, the me-first, party-second, country-last GOPers outweigh the good public servants. Fortunately, there is a sufficient number of Republicans in Congress who will ultimately put country ahead of personal ambition, and do the right thing when it comes to Trump.
I never thought I'd seen anything that would be close to Watergate. To see something worse than Watergate -- both in the deeds committed and the very slow reaction of Congress -- is really disheartening.
Watergate actually happened. That's got to count for something????
Is that why he keeps trying to do fight Russian sanctions? Is that why he wants the investigations stopped. If he has nothing to hide then he should support the investigations and do all he can to help move them forward, but instead he hires Lawyers and talks of firing everyone involved. The more trump whines about the investigations the more the American People want them to continue because trump himself makes himself look guilty. If trump cannot stop the sanctions then Putin will probably throw his then useless sock puppet to the wolves and laugh his arse off over how easily we were played.
At some point he has to be allowed to discharge his duties. By your view he has no legitimacy to do literally anything. Every president since FDR has in some way engaged with the Soviet Union and then Russia, with the partial exception of Truman. Is that engagement per se "collusion" or is it the fact that Trump was previously an active businessman? Is the only person allowed to be President a career politician? As far as pursuing "investigations" I had always thought that when a crime was known, for example the Watergate burglaries one investigates. I never thought that one decides that a certain candidate or President has an aroma and thus needs to have every day of their lives investigated to see if they ever did anything wrong.
Quote:
Originally Posted by craigiri
All they care about is obtaining the office by hook or crook and the fantasies of him actually doing what he said. Meanwhile, he cannot even fill the basic government jobs because no one (not even Republicans) want that "stain" on their careers.
If you're so upset about lack of purity of elections why do you probably oppose requiring voters to identify themselves when they vote?
Quote:
Originally Posted by jrt1979
Watergate actually happened. That's got to count for something????
You'd be hard-pressed to know that nothing happened here. It's like the tree falling in the forest, at best. But hey, the Democrats have the right to govern. And by the way I didn't vote for Trump. But would now if the election were held today.
It is not likely that selling cybersecurity software to the FSB was already underway under Obama.
Obama was placing sanctions on Russia, not pulling them off.
Why post such obvious lies?
Cognitive dissonance. I don't doubt the poster is sincere, which is probably even more frightening as per the mental state and neediness of blind supporters.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blondy
This is a normal process that Treasury Dept always engages in relative to sanctions.......i.e. rolling back pieces of them that had unintended consequences.
Further, it was likely already underway by the Obama admin before Trump even took office.
For example, they are adjusting the regs so cellphones with encryption software can be traded.
The funnier thing is that trump supporters attack Obama whenever they can't respond (and Clinton), but sometimes resort to "Obama started it, isn't it a proof it's not dishonest ?" - ultimate cognitive dissonance - when it suits them! (ie Russian sanctions, lists of terrorist countries, ad lib).
Gee, these people need to choose
Last edited by personne; 06-18-2017 at 05:14 PM..
Reason: punctuation
The funnier thing is that trump supporters attack Obama whenever they can't respond (and Clinton), but sometimes resort to "Obama started it, isn't it a proof it's not dishonest" when it suits them? (ie Russian sanctions, lists of terrorist countries, ad lib).
Gee, these people need to choose
The trouble on one of these issues, Russian sanctions, is that Obama put them into effect when they could not possibly affect Hillary's election, but would be in effect to handcuff the new Trump administration. It was one of the many mischievous things Obama did to lay political and policy minefields for the upcoming administration.
The trouble on one of these issues, Russian sanctions, is that Obama put them into effect when they could not possibly affect Hillary's election, but would be in effect to handcuff the new Trump administration. It was one of the many mischievous things Obama did to lay political and policy minefields for the upcoming administration.
Why would he have "schemed" for them be in effect to handcuff Trump later if Trump didn't do anything?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
- when it suits them! (ie Russian sanctions, lists of terrorist countries, ad lib).