General political chat

Willmark

Well-Known Member
IMO, Watergate began the secret dream of so many in the media - wanting to be the next Woodward/Bernstein. And both parties have used impeachment as a tool against each other.
Nixon had to be investigated but at the same time such a contrast, one of the most intelligent men ever to sit behind the Resolute Desk (of course various studies disputed this) and the most morally bankrupt. He’s such a contrast that is so hard to square up, even presidential historians have a hard time with him. I should add I’m not a personal fan of his politics nor his presidency because I’m sure that will be lost on some.

I do agree that it has only emboldened the media and not for the better in terms of the investigation.

I'm not pleased with most of the policies being put forward by either side right now - I don't think I've voted for a candidate in decades. And I doubt I ever will again. Maybe I've just lost my youthful idealism after being presented with harsh reality over time. And witnessing the unintended consequences of enacting policies I supported way back when - while I and others dismissed all of the "older generation's" concerns as just being resistant to change - or worse.
Disagree and agree here.

I’m with you that I like neither “sides” policies but at the same time voting (for me at least) has been a positive affirmation: since 2008 for someone and since 2012 I’ve voted Libertarian, which for me is FOR something, I walked out of the voting booth in 2012 with the best feeling (knowing my candidate couldn’t win) it did it all the same. I made a positive affirmation something I’ve long held is one-off the problems in American politics for a while now: people vote not so much as to get what they want but to prevent others from getting what they want. And that’s at all levels of government by my estimation.

Looking back since 1992 and who I voted for, and my reasoning?

1992: Bush, voted against Clinton
1996: Nader, voted against both parties.
2000: Gore, voted against Bush.
2004: Kerry, voted against Bush.
2008: McCain, voted for McCain hoping for the 2000 version of him.
2012: Johnson- voted for him rather than against Obama
2016: Johnson-voted for him rather than against the other two.

Since 2008 I’ve made it a positive affirmation of what I vote for in a presidential candidate. Might be small, it may not matter, but for me it does.

YMMV.
 
Last edited:

The Mom

Moderator
Premium Member
Advertisement
Nixon had to be investigated but at the same time such a contrast, one of the most intelligent men ever to sit behind the Resolute Desk (of course various studies disputed this) and the most morally bankrupt. He’s such a contrast that is so hard to square up, even presidential historians have a hard time with him. I should add I’m not a personal fan of his politics nor his presidency because I’m sure that will be lost on some.

I do agree that it has only emboldened the media and not for the better in terms of the investigation.


.
It resulted in the election of, IMO, one of the most moral presidents ever. But we are still dealing with some of the negative aftermaths of that administration 40+ years later. I'm embarrassed to say I bought into the whole "We're running out of oil so we had better conserve now or our children will be freezing in the dark later" spiel. Is it a lie if you don't know you've been misled by your advisors, and you believe what you are telling the American people is the truth? If it was true for one party's president, then it should be accepted as true for the other party, too. Or maybe even the "moral" presidents lie to us. ;)


BTW, the whole "OMG! We're running out of oil!!!" crisis is contributing to some of the older generation's skepticism about Climate Change. Just sayin'
 

Jim S

Well-Known Member
Meanwhile.. our amazing Democrat majority in the House.. ya know, the “WOMEN’S RIGHTS” ones.. well, they couldn’t be bothered to allow a provision into the Equality Act, to actually protect women.

Cheers to men being allowed in women’s sports! 👍🏻

All of the progress made by women in sports and the democrats have decided to torpedo it and for the life of me I can't understand why.
 

aw14

Well-Known Member
All of the progress made by women in sports and the democrats have decided to torpedo it and for the life of me I can't understand why.

Interesting, and good for her for standing up for herself.
 

21stamps

Well-Known Member
All of the progress made by women in sports and the democrats have decided to torpedo it and for the life of me I can't understand why.
Me either.

I don’t think this is going to kill women’s sports, that we’re going to see an overwhelming amount of men switching to a women’s team. There will be some, though, and that’s too many. It’s not right.
 

Jim S

Well-Known Member
You’ll call any democrat a socialist, so whatever. You know things like social security are socialist programs right? Nah. It’s just a word Fox is telling you to sling around now. Just replace “Benghazi” with socialism in your MAGA mad libs (durr libs!) and you’re good.

Social security is a socialist program and also a ponzi scheme that is going broke. Thank you FDR for that mistake.

People could have much more in retirement if that money that is confiscated for social security was in a private pension fund. It would grow to twice as much income in retirement as social security and when you die it is passed on to your heirs. It would be your money-not the government to pilfer and waste as they have done.

The democrats are calling themselves socialist. I mean the leaders of the party AOC and Bernie make it clear they are socialist.
 
Last edited:

21stamps

Well-Known Member

Interesting, and good for her for standing up for herself.
This is good to see. It needs to be a bigger issue, supported loudly. I’m so sick of people being too scared to speak up.
 

aw14

Well-Known Member
The democrats are calling themselves socialist. I mean the leaders of the party AOC and Bernie make it clear they are socialist.
The AOC's and the Bernie's are not the ones that bother me TBH. It is the ones that are more "moderate" that are pandering now. Using Medicare for all, $15 minimum wage, and all the other talking points, when they full well know the costs and unintended consequences. It seems a likely election tool, that they know won't work in practice if they get elected.
 

Willmark

Well-Known Member
It resulted in the election of, IMO, one of the most moral presidents ever. But we are still dealing with some of the negative aftermaths of that administration 40+ years later. I'm embarrassed to say I bought into the whole "We're running out of oil so we had better conserve now or our children will be freezing in the dark later" spiel. Is it a lie if you don't know you've been misled by your advisors, and you believe what you are telling the American people is the truth? If it was true for one party's president, then it should be accepted as true for the other party, too. Or maybe even the "moral" presidents lie to us. ;)


BTW, the whole "OMG! We're running out of oil!!!" crisis is contributing to some of the older generation's skepticism about Climate Change. Just sayin'
Took me a few reads when you mentioned “moral” to get you meant the administration of Jimmy Carter not Nixon ;)

Carter is one of the most intelligent men ever to be elected president, one of the, if not the most moral. Terrible President however.

He’s going to be remembered for his humanitarian work for which he should, a very decent person who was a bad politician. Funnily enough I don’t think he would get out of the primaries of the Democrat Party in 2020, he’d be seen as too conservative.
 
Last edited:

EricsBiscuit

Well-Known Member
Took me a few reads when you mentioned “moral” to get you meant the administration of Jimmy Carter not Nixon ;)

Carter is one of the most intelligent men ever to be elected president, one of the, if not the most moral. Terrible President however.

He’s going to be remembered for his humanitarian work for which he should, a very decent person who was a bad politician. Funnily enough I don’t think he would get out of the primaries of the Democrat Party in 2020, he’d be seen as too conservative.
I wouldn’t agree that Carter was terrible. People forget that there still was some economic growth in the late 70s. This was a result of Carter’s deregulation efforts and attempts to reign in the fed’s budget. Aside from that I disagree with most of his policies. Carter is a very underrated president. As someone who volunteers for Habitat For Humanity, I also respect his accomplishments post presidency.
 

21stamps

Well-Known Member
Food for thought...

Using the current Women’s World Cup as example-

The US women’s national team has always been better than our men’s team.

However, this is the FIRST year when they’re finally getting a lot more hype.
More viewers.
More merchandise sold.
A proper commercial.
Fighting for equal pay.

Dems are publicly supporting this “equal pay” for women’s soccer, while at the same time not caring enough to put a provision to protect women’s sports.
What good does a pay increase do if you can’t get to that level in the first place??

Hypocrisy in Action.

But... the papers won’t write about it. The cable news shows won’t talk about it... because, morons will accuse them of ‘transphobia’ and they don’t want to ruffle feathers on the left. So, they let it go and hope it goes unnoticed...all the while claiming to be champions of women.

Sickening.
 

The Mom

Moderator
Premium Member
I wouldn’t agree that Carter was terrible. People forget that there still was some economic growth in the late 70s. This was a result of Carter’s deregulation efforts and attempts to reign in the fed’s budget. Aside from that I disagree with most of his policies. Carter is a very underrated president. As someone who volunteers for Habitat For Humanity, I also respect his accomplishments post presidency.
Gerald Ford might have been a good president - if he could have been elected. Who knows? But there was a "anything but another Republican" backlash from the majority of voters which meant no Republican was going to win. I think many Democrats are hoping for the same thing in 2020.
 

EricsBiscuit

Well-Known Member
Gerald Ford might have been a good president - if he could have been elected. Who knows? But there was a "anything but another Republican" backlash from the majority of voters which meant no Republican was going to win. I think many Democrats are hoping for the same thing in 2020.
Well there’s a big difference. Trump committed no crimes. Also, the economy is roaring. Trump has delivered on his promises.
 
Top Bottom