• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Which was a bigger scandal?

Which was a bigger scandal?


  • Total voters
    49
I would say the actions of the Special Prosecutor releasing the indictments of various GHWB/Reagan officials a couple days before the 92 election might have been even worse

Though the situation you mention was pretty scummy, I don't agree. Clinton was essentially impeached for lying about having an affair. I remember clearly that was when I realized the stupidity of partisan hacks.
 
Look - I do not want to insult anybody for exercising their free choice here. But really folks, anybody who would not realize that Watergate was at least ten times bigger either was born very recently and did not live through that era or is voting with very partisan motives.

People died that did not have to because of incomptence by the Obama administration and that is all you can say....Sounds to me like you are the partisan one my left wing friend. I wonder if you would feel the same way if one of the people killed was a relative or friend of yours.........
 
Though the situation you mention was pretty scummy, I don't agree. Clinton was essentially impeached for lying about having an affair. I remember clearly that was when I realized the stupidity of partisan hacks.

again partial agreement but I think the impeachment was a bit more like prosecuting Al Capone on minor league tax violations.
 
Really. Tell me more about how the federal level response to Hurricane Katrina was never considered a scandal worthy of note.

No intent in action. Just poor management of a situation. Nothing close to Watergate.

sure there was. there was the intent to protect the President in the middle of an election season from something that might harm his campaign.

No intent in action. Just poor management of a situation. Nothing close to Watergate.
 
again partial agreement but I think the impeachment was a bit more like prosecuting Al Capone on minor league tax violations.

More like prosecuting Al Capone for lying about whether he drank during Prohibition.
 
Though the situation you mention was pretty scummy, I don't agree. Clinton was essentially impeached for lying about having an affair. I remember clearly that was when I realized the stupidity of partisan hacks.

I actually liked Bill Clinton. I don't think he should have been impeached.
 
I actually liked Bill Clinton. I don't think he should have been impeached.

I don't know if he would like you-you don't have a big enough nose and you don't look like you dove into a vat of makeup!!!
 
I'm not real familiar with the law regarding impeachment, but just out of curiosity would that be considered actually "charging" him? When I think about Bill Clinton, what he did might have been a little bit sleazy, but where was the crime part?

I wouldn't want to charge the president with a crime, but if he lied to the American people and was involved in a cover-up of some sort, I would hope that impeachment would be an option.

Impeachment is for if the President commits a crime. So essentially impeaching him is charging him with a crime. Clinton lied under oath, which is not OK, but the Senate didn't think it worth removal from office. So far nobody from the Obama administration, much less Obama himself, has lied under oath. Lying in a press conference is not a crime. It's not clear yet that Obama actually committed a crime.

As far as Watergate, Nixon would have been impeached for Abuse of Power because of his efforts to use the wheels of government (like the FBI and CIA) to aid his coverup. He resigned to avoid being impeached, but it probably would have happened.
 
I actually liked Bill Clinton. I don't think he should have been impeached.

He was a scumbag. A liar. A cheater. A morally-bankrupt human being. With all due respect, Chris. ;)
 
Impeachment is for if the President commits a crime. So essentially impeaching him is charging him with a crime. Clinton lied under oath, which is not OK, but the Senate didn't think it worth removal from office. So far nobody from the Obama administration, much less Obama himself, has lied under oath. Lying in a press conference is not a crime. It's not clear yet that Obama actually committed a crime.

As far as Watergate, Nixon would have been impeached for Abuse of Power because of his efforts to use the wheels of government (like the FBI and CIA) to aid his coverup. He resigned to avoid being impeached, but it probably would have happened.

Thanks for explaining that.
 
He was a scumbag. A liar. A cheater. A morally-bankrupt human being. With all due respect, Chris. ;)

:lamo No problem Maggie!
 
Obama lied people died.

Nixon lied nobody died (and then he resigned and correctly judged that he was unfit for presidency, unlike another arrogant fool that is on the ballot right now).
 
Last edited:
If we are speaking legally then Watergate. If we are speaking ethically, the thinking line I chose then Benghazi.

No one died in Watergate, and the administration didn't order the break in. Nixon broke the law by obstructing the investigation after a few of his campaigners took it upon themselves to commit the B&E to look for politically beneficial information.

Benghazi may have been a potentially known terrorist plot. The two SEALS were told to stand down, and apparently military support was called off, four of our fellow citizens were killed as a result and there is some rumblings that Syrian rebels were being equipped with arms and Al Quida got word of this. May not be illegal mind you, but there are some glaring ethical no-nos.

The tie breaker for me was loss of life. So I went with Benghazi.
 
Obama lied people died.

Nixon lied nobody died.

Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia?

I mean, let's not get carried away with this stuff, guys. It's more than a bit ridiculous.
 
Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia?

I mean, let's not get carried away with this stuff, guys. It's more than a bit ridiculous.

When comparing Watergate with what happened in Benghazi I would say Benghazi is worse due to people dying and the administration trying to cover things up. So much for transparency.
 
When comparing Watergate with what happened in Benghazi I would say Benghazi is worse due to people dying and the administration trying to cover things up. So much for transparency.

But control was not through the administration, it was an external group that views the President as an enemy. For me, the comparison is weak on many levels.
 
When comparing Watergate with what happened in Benghazi I would say Benghazi is worse due to people dying and the administration trying to cover things up. So much for transparency.

Failure to keep a campaign promise is not a crime.
 
Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia?

I mean, let's not get carried away with this stuff, guys. It's more than a bit ridiculous.

I can't excuse his lack of a response after knowing what was going on.
 
People died that did not have to because of incomptence by the Obama administration and that is all you can say....Sounds to me like you are the partisan one my left wing friend. I wonder if you would feel the same way if one of the people killed was a relative or friend of yours.........

And all your faux outrage at a few deaths has nothing at all to do with your own partisan goals or dreams does it? :roll:

Ray Charles can see your true motivations a mile way and Ray is sadly both blind and dead.

I will have to remember your extremely high standard for the sanctity of human life in the future when you deviate from this new found pretend pacifism and endorse the killing of others or minimize the deaths of others.

Your faux outrage is as phony as a three dollar bill.
 
And all your faux outrage at a few deaths has nothing at all to do with your own partisan goals or dreams does it? :roll:

Ray Charles can see your true motivations a mile way and Ray is sadly both blind and dead.

I will have to remember your extremely high standard for the sanctity of human life in the future when you deviate from this new found pretend pacifism and endorse the killing of others or minimize the deaths of others.

Your faux outrage is as phony as a three dollar bill.
You think losing a high ranking official, his aide, and two Navy SEALS is something to be "faux" outraged about? I don't think you get it, that was a very bad day and we lost four good people in something that could possibly have been prevented. People have every right to be pissed.
 
You think a high ranking official, his aide, and two Navy SEALS is something to be "faux" outraged about? I don't think you get it, that was a very bad day and we lost four good people in something that could possibly have been prevented. People have every right to be pissed.

especially given the disgusting reports that the administration had plenty of time to take proactive or even reactive action and the fact that our ambassador was allegedly sodomized before being murdered
 
especially given the disgusting reports that the administration had plenty of time to take proactive or even reactive action and the fact that our ambassador was allegedly sodomized before being murdered
The last thing I've heard on the news was that we had a marine response group an hour or less away, the entire attack took longer than it would have taken to get backup in the area.
 
The last thing I've heard on the news was that we had a marine response group an hour or less away, the entire attack took longer than it would have taken to get backup in the area.

send in a airborne assault squad-a couple miniguns on an apache would have cleaned things up a bit
 
Back
Top Bottom