Is it my imagination or do Nixon and HRC have a lot in common?

Marvan Buren · Jan 24, 2016

I wonder if anyone else has noticed the many similarities between Hillary Clinton and Richard Nixon. Consider:

1) Both had been members of the Senate and had spent 8 years in a supporting role in the White House before running for President.
2) Both were defeated by inexperienced one-term Senators and both ran again 8 years later.
3) Both have elicited a visceral dislike from members of the other party despite the fact that their positions on the issues are far more moderate than the alternatives within their own party.
4) Both are / were incapable of avoiding scandals.

"Aside from that", Nixon was actually a decent President. He played his cards well with both the USSR and with China and even signed the Clean Air Act into law. He also prevented a Democratic Party that was seriously talking about unilateral disarmament from taking over the Presidency.

Now, its the Republicans turn to be geopolitical simpletons with their "carpet bombing" and the "US needs to start winning" platitudes. Clinton, like Nixon, is the most experienced, pragmatic but hard-nosed candidate. She is also, quite possibly, the least ethical.

It's a tough choice but unless Kasich miraculously wins the Republican nomination, look for realism to defeat ethics.

Iamjesus · Jan 24, 2016

Marvan Buren said:
I wonder if anyone else has noticed the many similarities between Hillary Clinton and Richard Nixon. Consider:

1) Both had been members of the Senate and had spent 8 years in a supporting role in the White House before running for President.
2) Both were defeated by inexperienced one-term Senators and both ran again 8 years later.
3) Both have elicited a visceral dislike from members of the other party despite the fact that their positions on the issues are far more moderate than the alternatives within their own party.
4) Both are / were incapable of avoiding scandals.

"Aside from that", Nixon was actually a decent President. He played his cards well with both the USSR and with China and even signed the Clean Air Act into law. He also prevented a Democratic Party that was seriously talking about unilateral disarmament from taking over the Presidency.

Now, its the Republicans turn to be geopolitical simpletons with their "carpet bombing" and the "US needs to start winning" platitudes. Clinton, like Nixon, is the most experienced, pragmatic but hard-nosed candidate. She is also, quite possibly, the least ethical.

It's a tough choice but unless Kasich miraculously wins the Republican nomination, look for realism to defeat ethics.

We could find many similarities or not between any two individuals. Cherry picking. So those I dismiss.

However, yes I see a similarity in character. Nixon and Clinton are the closest to what are perhaps sociopaths. Not evil or ill intentioned but rather empty of emotion inside. Not a diagnosis that makes for a bad President.

It's not a popular view but I have thought Nixon the best President in my lifetime. He did what I think is the number one task for a President...make us safer. He negotiated with the Soviets and turned the chance of nuclear Armeggedon down a few notches. He also opened up relations with China.

I don't see Hillary having Nixon's capability. I 'did' up to this past year but for whatever reason she has lost a step and is a bit befuddled at times. She may have made a decent President in 2008.

Marvan Buren · Jan 25, 2016

Iamjesus said:
.

However, yes I see a similarity in character. Nixon and Clinton are the closest to what are perhaps sociopaths. Not evil or ill intentioned but rather empty of emotion inside. Not a diagnosis that makes for a bad President.

It's not a popular view but I have thought Nixon the best President in my lifetime. He did what I think is the number one task for a President...make us safer. He negotiated with the Soviets and turned the chance of nuclear Armeggedon down a few notches. He also opened up relations with China.

I don't see Hillary having Nixon's capability. I 'did' up to this past year but for whatever reason she has lost a step and is a bit befuddled at times. She may have made a decent President in 2008.

It seems we agree that character, or lack thereof, is not particularly relevant to being a good President. If it were, Jimmy Carter would have been our best President.

We also agree that Nixon played an important role in winning the Cold War without nuclear Armeggedon. To say he "kept us safe" is a bit of a stretch, however, when we consider the thousands who died in Vietnam under his watch. Let's not forget that there is evidence that in 1968 Nixon tried to directly sabotage the peace talks that would have ended the war.

But that was before he was President and showed he would do anything to become President. Does Hillary's e-mail scandal represent a mistake or, as I believe, was it done deliberately to advance her chances of winning in 2016? Thus, if she does win, perhaps she hasn't lost a step after all. We can hope.

Empirica · Jan 25, 2016

Marvan Buren said:
I wonder if anyone else has noticed the many similarities between Hillary Clinton and Richard Nixon. Consider:

1) Both had been members of the Senate and had spent 8 years in a supporting role in the White House before running for President.
2) Both were defeated by inexperienced one-term Senators and both ran again 8 years later.
3) Both have elicited a visceral dislike from members of the other party despite the fact that their positions on the issues are far more moderate than the alternatives within their own party.
4) Both are / were incapable of avoiding scandals.

"Aside from that", Nixon was actually a decent President. He played his cards well with both the USSR and with China and even signed the Clean Air Act into law. He also prevented a Democratic Party that was seriously talking about unilateral disarmament from taking over the Presidency.

The much larger issue is their major differences:

1) RMN was constantly being scrutinized and investigated by the Press; which eventually brought him down!

2) HRC has always been protected by the Press to shelter her from scrutiny! (except in 2008 against Obama)

Now, its the Republicans turn to be geopolitical simpletons with their "carpet bombing" and the "US needs to start winning" platitudes. Clinton, like Nixon, is the most experienced, pragmatic but hard-nosed candidate. She is also, quite possibly, the least ethical.

It's a tough choice but unless Kasich miraculously wins the Republican nomination, look for realism to defeat ethics.

Did you actually say "quite possibly, the least ethical"?! :shock:

How about most definitely as well as the most corrupt; quite possibly even more so than BHO!

Marvan Buren · Jan 26, 2016

Empirica said:
The much larger issue is their major differences:

1) RMN was constantly being scrutinized and investigated by the Press; which eventually brought him down!

2) HRC has always been protected by the Press to shelter her from scrutiny! (except in 2008 against Obama)

Did you actually say "quite possibly, the least ethical"?! :shock:

How about most definitely as well as the most corrupt; quite possibly even more so than BHO!

Last time I looked, Fox News was the number 1 rated television news station, Rush Limbaugh was the #1 source for news on the radio, and the Wall Street Journal was the #1 newspaper. None of these let a day (or in the case of Fox, an hour) go by without some mention of the latest Hillary scandal. I therefore, can't agree with your statement that Hillary is being protected by the Press. True, MSNBC has yet to run a story on her e-mail scandals, but who watches MSNBC anyway? (actually, I sometimes do)

It's not for lack of trying that the Press hasn't yet brought her down. It just takes time. Remember, it took the Press 22 years from the "Checker's Speech" until they helped force Nixon to resign. Hillary has only held public office since 2000. That still gives the Press 6 more years to bury her - or we'll have to reluctantly conclude that perhaps she hasn't really done anything so terrible.

Iamjesus · Jan 26, 2016

It is also a very different time.

All of America got its info from a very narrow media strata in the 1970's. Just about everyone watched the big 3 network news and they were just regurgitations of each other.

Re Nixon and Vietnam. My brother was in Vietnam at the time of his second election. Nixon was more popular than just about any other President in history where it counted...at the ballot box. We were BIG supporters of Nixon.

Empirica · Jan 27, 2016

Marvan Buren said:
Last time I looked, Fox News was the number 1 rated television news station, Rush Limbaugh was the #1 source for news on the radio, and the Wall Street Journal was the #1 newspaper. None of these let a day (or in the case of Fox, an hour) go by without some mention of the latest Hillary scandal. I therefore, can't agree with your statement that Hillary is being protected by the Press. True, MSNBC has yet to run a story on her e-mail scandals, but who watches MSNBC anyway? (actually, I sometimes do)

Fox Cable News, the WSJ and right-wing AM radio may be the crim de la crim for reporting what others sugarcoat or avoid but they are still a minority in the Main Stream Media industry_

CBS, ABC, NBC, MSNBC and CNN, along with the New York Times and USA Today newspapers are all left-wing and combined are the major news sources for most Americans_
(btw; USA Today has a larger circulation than WSJ)

And another sad reality is that the majority of people under 30 get most of their political information from an overwhelmingly liberal entertainment industry_

Many of them, even to this very day, still believe that Sarah Palin actually said she can "see Russia from her window"!

It's not for lack of trying that the Press hasn't yet brought her down. It just takes time. Remember, it took the Press 22 years from the "Checker's Speech" until they helped force Nixon to resign. Hillary has only held public office since 2000. That still gives the Press 6 more years to bury her - or we'll have to reluctantly conclude that perhaps she hasn't really done anything so terrible.

The "Checker's Speech from 22 years before Watergate" had NOTA to do with the reason Nixon resigned!

His resignation was the direct result of the Watergate scandal which was aggressively reported from start to finish!

Watergate: Brief Timeline Of Events
The Watergate Timeline
June 13, 1971: The New York Times begins publishing the Pentagon Papers – the Defense Department’s secret history of the Vietnam War. The Washington Post will begin publishing the papers later in the week.

September 9, 1971: The White House “plumbers” unit – named for their orders to plug leaks in the administration – burglarizes a psychiatrist’s office to find files on Daniel Ellsberg, the former defense analyst who leaked the Pentagon Papers.

August 1, 1972: A $25,000 cashier’s check, apparently earmarked for the Nixon campaign, wound up in the bank account of a Watergate burglar, The Washington Post reports.

September 29, 1972: John Mitchell, while serving as attorney general, controlled a secret Republican fund used to finance widespread intelligence-gathering operations against the Democrats, The Post reports.

October 10, 1972: FBI agents establish that the Watergate break-in stems from a massive campaign of political spying and sabotage conducted on behalf of the Nixon reelection effort, The Post reports.

June 3, 1973: John Dean has told Watergate investigators that he discussed the Watergate cover-up with President Nixon at least 35 times, The Post reports.

June 13, 1973: Watergate prosecutors find a memo addressed to John Ehrlichman describing in detail the plans to burglarize the office of Pentagon Papers defendant Daniel Ellsberg’s psychiatrist, The Post reports.

July 24, 1974: The Supreme Court rules unanimously that Nixon must turn over the tape recordings of 64 White House conversations, rejecting the president’s claims of executive privilege.

July 27, 1974: House Judiciary Committee passes the first of three articles of impeachment, charging obstruction of justice.

August 8, 1974: Richard Nixon becomes the first U.S. president to resign. Vice President Gerald R. Ford assumes the country’s highest office. He will later pardon Nixon of all charges related to the Watergate case.

"Watergate" occurred September 9, 1971 and was the focus of intense reporting until Nixon resigned on August 8, 1974!

That's less than 3 years from start to finish and not 22 years from the inconsequential "Checker's Speech" you alluded to!

Marvan Buren · Jan 30, 2016

Empirica said:
That's less than 3 years from start to finish and not 22 years from the inconsequential "Checker's Speech" you alluded to!

True, but the Press had been relentlessly investigating Nixon for 22 years before they FINALLY found something serious enough to bury him. And Watergate, in which the full power and reach of the White House were used in blatantly illegal ways to ensure the re-election of a President, certainly was serious.

Similarly, the Press has been after Hillary since she was first lady. Remember how she murdered Vince Foster? Nothing has stuck so far, not because the Press isn't trying, but because nothing she had done was perceived by the public as being problematic. Benghazi, for example, has been the subject of countless Congressional hearings with nothing even approaching a "smoking gun."

However, this morning, my mainstream left-leaning newspaper arrived on my doorstep with a front page article about Hillary's e-mails containing top secret information. It is important to note here that the e-mail scandal was initially uncovered by mainstream icon AP. If in fact, the American people conclude that her actions compromised national security for her own "convenience" (or for some other nefarious political payback purpose) then she will fall and it will again be the Press that played the central role in bringing her down.

Empirica · Jan 30, 2016

Marvan Buren said:
True, but the Press had been relentlessly investigating Nixon for 22 years before they FINALLY found something serious enough to bury him. And Watergate, in which the full power and reach of the White House were used in blatantly illegal ways to ensure the re-election of a President, certainly was serious.

ie; despite a total lack of physical evidence or witnesses; the Press stayed up Nixon's "arse" for 22 years based on nothing except their own rational hunches and suspicions and the accusations by Democrats; until they finally nailed him!

Now that's dedication for which I commend the journalists who brought down the corrupt Nixon Administration_

Similarly, the Press has been after Hillary since she was first lady. Remember how she murdered Vince Foster? Nothing has stuck so far, not because the Press isn't trying,

If the Main Stream News had went after Hillary with all the same enthusiasm and vigor as it did Nixon; Hillary would be praying for an Obama Pardon right now instead of running for President_

but because nothing she had done was perceived by the public as being problematic. Benghazi, for example, has been the subject of countless Congressional hearings with nothing even approaching a "smoking gun."

And as long as the public remains in ignorance; it will never perceive anything she does as "being problematic" until the Press once again becomes dedicated to reporting the facts; regardless of political affiliation!

Your knowledge of "Benghazi" and the "Congressional hearings" are obviously limited; no doubt the result of your sources of information_

The Democrat side of the Congressional Committee stonewalled every Hearing, as did Eric Holder's DOJ by refusing to comply with subpoenas, as well as the witnesses who took The 5th!

But you see nothing that hints of corruption nor any sign of a cover-up here; and neither does your left-leaning newspaper!

The same with the IRS scandal and resulting Congressional Hearing__wonder why the press didn't jump all over that one?

And you actually believe the MSM has sincerely done a thorough investigation of the Benghazi terrorist attack and resulting Congressional Hearing and fully reported all the facts!

However, this morning, my mainstream left-leaning newspaper arrived on my doorstep with a front page article about Hillary's e-mails containing top secret information.

And you believe this to be evidence that your "mainstream left-leaning newspaper" and its MS colleagues are just as dedicated to bringing Hillary to justice as they were Nixon?

Do you sincerely believe your Press has actually done a thorough investigation of the Benghazi terrorist attack and resulting Congressional Hearing and has fully reported all the facts?

It is important to note here that the e-mail scandal was initially uncovered by mainstream icon AP.

Click to expand...

In order for the Main Stream News to keep up the appearance of legitimate journalism they must report all major news stories, only without the same commitment of a news agency dedicated to journalism_

If in fact, the American people conclude that her actions compromised national security for her own "convenience" (or for some other nefarious political payback purpose) then she will fall and it will again be the Press that played the central role in bringing her down.

Click to expand...

The American people will "conclude" whatever their news source tells them to!

Marvan Buren · Jan 31, 2016

Empirica said:
ie; In order for the Main Stream News to keep up the appearance of legitimate journalism they must report all major news stories, only without the same commitment of a news agency dedicated to journalism_

The American people will "conclude" whatever their news source tells them to!

Wow. I appreciate the point by point refutation. I'd love to see more of that in these forums, I just wish I could figure out how to respond with multiple quotes but I'm still a rookie trying to learn.

I think our basic difference is that you believe that the main stream media has a political agenda while I believe that, with some exceptions, their main goal is to increase circulation and viewership so that they can generate more advertising revenue. Or, to put it a different way, your position is that the MSM tells the people what to think, while I say that the people tell the MSM what stories to cover.

The public was fascinated by Monica Lewinsky's blue dress so that was the lead story throughout the MSM for over a year. In 2004, about two-thirds of the newspapers in America, endorsed John Kerry. The Kerry supporters included over 100 newspapers that had endorsed Bush in 2000. We know how that ended.

I will offer one opinion as to why the people are not nearly as interested in Hillary's untrustworthiness as they were in Nixon's. They already know that she can't be trusted and they don't care. After 8 years of Obama's naïve leadership, perhaps they feel that we need an SOB to project America's power around the world. Someone, let's say, like Richard Nixon.

Paperview · Jan 31, 2016

It's your imagination.

Sweden · Jan 31, 2016

Very different. Nixon had big - in the sense of broad, far reaching - ideas which sometimes challenged received wisdom. A very interesting man. Conversing with him must have been fascinating .

As far as I know Mrs Clinton has no ideas beyond accumulating power and riches for herself, her husband and daughter. I have never heard her say anything even slightly interesting or original

Empirica · Jan 31, 2016

Marvan Buren said:
Wow. I appreciate the point by point refutation. I'd love to see more of that in these forums, I just wish I could figure out how to respond with multiple quotes but I'm still a rookie trying to learn.

Your're quite welcome and I'm sure you'll figure all this out along the way, as I did_

It does eliminate a lot of confusion_ :thumbs:

I think our basic difference is that you believe that the main stream media has a political agenda while I believe that, with some exceptions, their main goal is to increase circulation and viewership so that they can generate more advertising revenue. Or, to put it a different way, your position is that the MSM tells the people what to think, while I say that the people tell the MSM what stories to cover.

Actually; the MSM's primary goal has for some time now been a "progressive ideo-political agenda"_

Which is evident by their willingness to sacrifice millions of viewers to their hated adversary; Fox Cable News_

In fact; MSNBC has been so dedicated to this agenda that it has reduced itself to inconsequential obscurity_

The public was fascinated by Monica Lewinsky's blue dress so that was the lead story throughout the MSM for over a year. In 2004, about two-thirds of the newspapers in America, endorsed John Kerry. The Kerry supporters included over 100 newspapers that had endorsed Bush in 2000. We know how that ended.

Which at election time the MSM quickly downplayed with it's not the blue dress; it's the economy stupid!

And the dumbed-down voters swallowed the lie hook, line and sinker and reelected Slick Willy!

I will offer one opinion as to why the people are not nearly as interested in Hillary's untrustworthiness as they were in Nixon's. They already know that she can't be trusted and they don't care.

I don't believe it is so much an "opinion" as it is another excuse to vote for Hillary_

After 8 years of Obama's naïve leadership, perhaps they feel that we need an SOB to project America's power around the world. Someone, let's say, like Richard Nixon.

It has nothing to do with Hillary being a "SOB" and everything to do her being so incredibly corrupt_

And Hillary's history of corruption pretty much renders her unreliable to do anything right for America_

matchlight · Jan 31, 2016

I can just picture Mrs. Clinton, looking sincerely into the camera and saying, "The American people need to know their President is not a crook. Well, I am not a crook."

Marvan Buren · Jan 31, 2016

Empirica said:
Which at election time the MSM quickly downplayed with it's not the blue dress; it's the economy stupid!

And the dumbed-down voters swallowed the lie hook, line and sinker and reelected Slick Willy!

I do need to correct your timeline on this. The blue dress scandal broke in January 1998, over a year after Clinton was reelected, dominated the news well into 1999 and sidelined Clinton for the 2000 election. We'll never know if the scandal and the MSM coverage it received contributed to GW Bush being elected in 2000 but its a fairly safe bet to say that it did.

The Press wants to sell papers - even when it helps Republicans.

Empirica · Jan 31, 2016

Marvan Buren said:
I do need to correct your timeline on this. The blue dress scandal broke in January 1998, over a year after Clinton was reelected, dominated the news well into 1999 and sidelined Clinton for the 2000 election. We'll never know if the scandal and the MSM coverage it received contributed to GW Bush being elected in 2000 but its a fairly safe bet to say that it did.

The Press wants to sell papers - even when it helps Republicans.

Correction noted but do you now better understand the nature of MSM tactics?!

Empirica · Jan 31, 2016

Sweden said:
Very different. Nixon had big - in the sense of broad, far reaching - ideas which sometimes challenged received wisdom. A very interesting man. Conversing with him must have been fascinating .

As far as I know Mrs Clinton has no ideas beyond accumulating power and riches for herself, her husband and daughter. I have never heard her say anything even slightly interesting or original

I agree but none the less; Richard Nixon considered his position as U.S. President to be above the law!

Although not quite as flagrantly as Barack Obama of course!

Albeit Hillary's motivations do differ from Obama's, which is to "fundamentally change America"!

And anyone who is aware of Obama's history knows exactly what the nature of that "change" is!

Sweden · Jan 31, 2016

Empirica said:
I agree but none the less; Richard Nixon considered his position as U.S. President to be above the law!

Although not quite as flagrantly as Barack Obama of course!

Albeit Hillary's motivations do differ from Obama's, which is to "fundamentally change America"!

And anyone who is aware of Obama's history knows exactly what the nature of that "change" is!

"To fundamentally change America" is as meaningless a slogan as "Change you Can believe in". People were enthused over Obama's words, as I recall it looks like Clinton's are falling flat. Maybe she should have found a new key word? A separate point I know people who were proud to vote for Obama because he is 'black'. If looks from here that the Clintons' expectations that voters would flock to Hilary just because she is a women is largely being disappointed. Could it be that American's do not see women as some sort of oppressed minority?

Empirica · Jan 31, 2016

Sweden said:
"To fundamentally change America" is as meaningless a slogan as "Change you Can believe in". People were enthused over Obama's words, as I recall it looks like Clinton's are falling flat. Maybe she should have found a new key word? A separate point I know people who were proud to vote for Obama because he is 'black'. If looks from here that the Clintons' expectations that voters would flock to Hilary just because she is a women is largely being disappointed. Could it be that American's do not see women as some sort of oppressed minority?

I'm sure there are a number of baby boomers around that actually experienced sexism; but not lately_

As a millennial I have never been the victim of sexual discrimination nor have I ever been witness to it_

It's simply no longer tolerated in Western Civilization at least not in the 21st Century from what I've seen_

False claims that "sexism is alive and well" is a political lie to create an imaginary class of victims to get votes_

Of course there will always be isolated incidences by certain individuals, groups, religions or somebody's idiot boss that discriminates simply because someone is the wrong gender or color, but this is in no way an indication that society condones 'sexism' or 'racism'_

And it's most assuredly not a good reason to vote for a corrupt politician like Hillary nor a delusional one like Bernie_

LetsGoBrandon · Jan 31, 2016

Marvan Buren said:
I wonder if anyone else has noticed the many similarities between Hillary Clinton and Richard Nixon. Consider:

1) Both had been members of the Senate and had spent 8 years in a supporting role in the White House before running for President.
2) Both were defeated by inexperienced one-term Senators and both ran again 8 years later.
3) Both have elicited a visceral dislike from members of the other party despite the fact that their positions on the issues are far more moderate than the alternatives within their own party.
4) Both are / were incapable of avoiding scandals.

"Aside from that", Nixon was actually a decent President. He played his cards well with both the USSR and with China and even signed the Clean Air Act into law. He also prevented a Democratic Party that was seriously talking about unilateral disarmament from taking over the Presidency.

Now, its the Republicans turn to be geopolitical simpletons with their "carpet bombing" and the "US needs to start winning" platitudes. Clinton, like Nixon, is the most experienced, pragmatic but hard-nosed candidate. She is also, quite possibly, the least ethical.

It's a tough choice but unless Kasich miraculously wins the Republican nomination, look for realism to defeat ethics.

The main similarity between Hillary and Nixon? Nixon was a crook who thought he was above the law. Hillary is a crook who thinks she is above the law.

faithful_servant · Jan 31, 2016

Marvan Buren said:
I wonder if anyone else has noticed the many similarities between Hillary Clinton and Richard Nixon. Consider:

1) Both had been members of the Senate and had spent 8 years in a supporting role in the White House before running for President.
2) Both were defeated by inexperienced one-term Senators and both ran again 8 years later.
3) Both have elicited a visceral dislike from members of the other party despite the fact that their positions on the issues are far more moderate than the alternatives within their own party.
4) Both are / were incapable of avoiding scandals.

"Aside from that", Nixon was actually a decent President. He played his cards well with both the USSR and with China and even signed the Clean Air Act into law. He also prevented a Democratic Party that was seriously talking about unilateral disarmament from taking over the Presidency.

Now, its the Republicans turn to be geopolitical simpletons with their "carpet bombing" and the "US needs to start winning" platitudes. Clinton, like Nixon, is the most experienced, pragmatic but hard-nosed candidate. She is also, quite possibly, the least ethical.

It's a tough choice but unless Kasich miraculously wins the Republican nomination, look for realism to defeat ethics.

Here we go again...
This kind of crap is 100% intellectually dishonest and ONLY appeals to those who want to believe the worst about someone. If you want to criticize Mrs. Clinton, then find any of the massive number of legitimate issues around to criticize her with, don't stoop to this kind of lowbrow garbage.

Fearandloathing · Jan 31, 2016

Marvan Buren said:
True, but the Press had been relentlessly investigating Nixon for 22 years before they FINALLY found something serious enough to bury him. And Watergate, in which the full power and reach of the White House were used in blatantly illegal ways to ensure the re-election of a President, certainly was serious.

Similarly, the Press has been after Hillary since she was first lady. Remember how she murdered Vince Foster? Nothing has stuck so far, not because the Press isn't trying, but because nothing she had done was perceived by the public as being problematic. Benghazi, for example, has been the subject of countless Congressional hearings with nothing even approaching a "smoking gun."

However, this morning, my mainstream left-leaning newspaper arrived on my doorstep with a front page article about Hillary's e-mails containing top secret information. It is important to note here that the e-mail scandal was initially uncovered by mainstream icon AP. If in fact, the American people conclude that her actions compromised national security for her own "convenience" (or for some other nefarious political payback purpose) then she will fall and it will again be the Press that played the central role in bringing her down.

I have no idea how you come up with that. I doubt you were old enough but Nixon was a press darling in many ways, he was a hero for his cleverness in debate with Nikita Kruschev in the famous kitchen debate. He made his nut prosecuting communists and was quite popular for doing so.

He did not run into trouble until the "Checkers Speech" where he had been accuse, falsely, of padding expense accounts.

I also disagree with you that "the press" has been "after Hillary" since she was first lady, Hillary got a magic carpet ride while in the White House. You also try to lay the Vietnam war on Nixon.

Sorry to tell you this but John Fitrzgerald Kennedy takes the credit for that one, he wanted a war he could call his own and got it. It was Nixon who go elected with a promise to end the war and he did.

and there we have the major difference between Nixon and Hillary, Nixon actually did what he said. Hillary as far as I know never has, she has NOT dodged sniper fire nor brought ANY measures of consequence forward in the 20 years we've had to deal with her. She's like a modern AM radio station: All Talk.

I find it hilarious that you compare Hillary with the sleaziest president in the modern era

Sweden · Jan 31, 2016

Empirica said:
I'm sure there are a number of baby boomers around that actually experienced sexism; but not lately_

As a millennial I have never been the victim of sexual discrimination nor have I ever been witness to it_

It's simply no longer tolerated in Western Civilization at least not in the 21st Century from what I've seen_

False claims that "sexism is alive and well" is a political lie to create an imaginary class of victims to get votes_

Of course there will always be isolated incidences by certain individuals, groups, religions or somebody's idiot boss that discriminates simply because someone is the wrong gender or color, but this is in no way an indication that society condones 'sexism' or 'racism'_

And it's most assuredly not a good reason to vote for a corrupt politician like Hillary nor a delusional one like Bernie_

Regarding sexism this is exactly right - even Korea has a woman as PM! I cannot think of any true democracy where it is disadvantage to be a woman in public life. When people are no longer inclined to vote against women just because they are female the argument that it is a duty to vote for one falls flat.

SocialD · Jan 31, 2016

Iamjesus said:
We could find many similarities or not between any two individuals. Cherry picking. So those I dismiss.

However, yes I see a similarity in character. Nixon and Clinton are the closest to what are perhaps sociopaths. Not evil or ill intentioned but rather empty of emotion inside. Not a diagnosis that makes for a bad President.

It's not a popular view but I have thought Nixon the best President in my lifetime. He did what I think is the number one task for a President...make us safer. He negotiated with the Soviets and turned the chance of nuclear Armeggedon down a few notches. He also opened up relations with China.

I don't see Hillary having Nixon's capability. I 'did' up to this past year but for whatever reason she has lost a step and is a bit befuddled at times. She may have made a decent President in 2008.

The sociopath part I can see. I remember watching a TED video on how to detect lying... you know body language, changes in vocal tone and rhythm, microexpressions etc.. Nixon had a visible tell when talking about whether he broke the law or not.. he folded his arms and stood back... Hillary has less overt ones but they are there.

Marvan Buren · Feb 2, 2016

Fearandloathing said:
I have no idea how you come up with that. I doubt you were old enough but Nixon was a press darling in many ways, he was a hero for his cleverness in debate with Nikita Kruschev in the famous kitchen debate. He made his nut prosecuting communists and was quite popular for doing so.

He did not run into trouble until the "Checkers Speech" where he had been accuse, falsely, of padding expense accounts.

I also disagree with you that "the press" has been "after Hillary" since she was first lady, Hillary got a magic carpet ride while in the White House. You also try to lay the Vietnam war on Nixon.

Sorry to tell you this but John Fitrzgerald Kennedy takes the credit for that one, he wanted a war he could call his own and got it. It was Nixon who go elected with a promise to end the war and he did.

and there we have the major difference between Nixon and Hillary, Nixon actually did what he said. Hillary as far as I know never has, she has NOT dodged sniper fire nor brought ANY measures of consequence forward in the 20 years we've had to deal with her. She's like a modern AM radio station: All Talk.

I find it hilarious that you compare Hillary with the sleaziest president in the modern era

You're right. I don't go back to Checkers. But I do go back to "Tin Soldiers and Nixon's coming." My Democratic family, and all our Democratic friends hated him. When he went to China, we assumed that the Ping-Pong players had embarrassed him into going. He could do nothing right. To my Republican friends today, its the same with Hillary. What has she done? A very creditable job as Secretary of State building sanctions against Iran, improving trade relations with the Far East and repairing America's image around the world after the beating it took under GWB. But of course, no Republican will even say one positive thing about her work at State.

Yes, JFK got us into Vietnam and LBJ's reflexive alpha male projection of American power (sound familiar?) turned JFK's mistake into a catastrophe. But Nixon may have sabotaged peace talks in 1968 and, in any event, he did continue and even intensify the war over the next 4 years. Compare that to Eisenhower who reached an armistice in Korea within 6 months of taking office. It was Nixon's War as well as JFK's and LBJ's.

Is it my imagination or do Nixon and HRC have a lot in common?

Member

Member

~Transcend~

Member

~Transcend~

Member

~Transcend~

Member

~Transcend~

Member

~Transcend~

~Transcend~

~Transcend~

How long is now?

Member