• 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!

In hindsight, was the Nixon pardon good or bad for the country?

In hindsight, was the Nixon pardon good or bad for the country?

  • Yes

    Votes: 18 62.1%

  • No

    Votes: 8 27.6%

  • Not sure

    Votes: 3 10.3%
  • Total voters
    29
clownboy said:
Ford didn't lose because of that and yes, there was a huge sigh of relief. No one wanted anything other than a pardon, except for a few hippies who didn't understand Nixon withdrew troops from Vietnam, it was Johnson who put them there. Of course the hippies hated Johnson too. Partisanship wasn't so much broken down by party lines then, but ideological ones.

And finally, NO. Just quit with the stupid slogans. Clinton was not impeached for a bj. I suggest you read a little history BEFORE Hillary starts her run for the office.
Click to expand...

I haven't the slightest idea where you're getting your information: I was there, there was no relief.
 
jet57 said:
I haven't the slightest idea where you're getting your information: I was there, there was no relief.
Click to expand...

So was I, AND I was a democrat then, as liberal as they come.
 
clownboy said:
So was I, AND I was a democrat then, as liberal as they come.
Click to expand...

Closing the Chapter on Watergate Wasn't Done Lightly
The reverberations from that decision may well have cost Ford his presidency in the next election. In the first week after the pardon, his public approval rating plummeted from 71 percent to 49 percent. Jerry terHorst, Ford's press secretary and friend of 25 years, resigned as a matter of conscience.

Ford had been in office only a month. The pardon came as a surprise -- to Congress and the public – and it unleashed a wave of outrage and suspicion. Had there been a deal between Nixon and Ford promising a pardon in exchange for Nixon's resignation?
Click to expand...

Please.
 
jet57 said:
And Ford lost the next election and the Republican party has been in the toilet since. I don't remember a feeling of relief at all. I remember a great deal of outrage over it. The country has suffered a great deal over our inability to deal seriously with crooks in the executive office. Yet Congress went after Clinton on a BJ...!
Click to expand...

Congress didn't go after Clinton "on a BJ".
 
tres borrachos said:
Congress didn't go after Clinton "on a BJ".
Click to expand...

Oh yeah they did: they say he lied, but he lied about a BJ. Of course he was aquitted and when he made his first trip to Europe afterwards he received a five minute standing ovation: they're much more mature in Europe.
 
jet57 said:
Oh yeah they did: they say he lied, but he lied about a BJ. Of course he was aquitted and when he made his first trip to Europe afterwards he received a five minute standing ovation: they're much more mature in Europe.
Click to expand...

Uh, no they didn't. They went after him for perjury. Know your facts.

That's nice that Europeans are more mature. I'm sure you enjoy living there.
 
jet57 said:
Oh yeah they did: they say he lied, but he lied about a BJ. Of course he was aquitted and when he made his first trip to Europe afterwards he received a five minute standing ovation: they're much more mature in Europe.
Click to expand...
Perjury laws do not make distinctions regarding the nature of the lie. He swore an oath to tell the truth... then he lied. Period.
 
AJiveMan said:
I had to vote good or yes because if we start that slippery slope of not giving presidents leeway on some things, that could open a barrel of worms for all other past and present presidents. We all did notice the acquittal of Clinton by congress, did we not? Even though he committed adultery and lied about it.
Click to expand...

No leeway the President is not above the law.
 
tres borrachos said:
Uh, no they didn't. They went after him for perjury. Know your facts.

That's nice that Europeans are more mature. I'm sure you enjoy living there.
Click to expand...

Pugery; lying same thing. It was a bj pure and simple. A most silly and stupid aste of everybody's time and money.

And uh, I don't live in Europe: we've been here (US) since 1765.
 
radcen said:
Perjury laws do not make distinctions regarding the nature of the lie. He swore an oath to tell the truth... then he lied. Period.
Click to expand...

Kenneth Star stuck a sitting president for a bj. Just an asinine waste. The republicans still look stupid over that.
 
Jetboogieman said:
Your poll isn't really going to make sense by the way.

I think it was bad for the country, Nixon should have had his day in court at the very least.
Click to expand...

Remembering the time; the nation was in dire need of reconciliation, there are times when the greater good is more important than a single act of justice.
 
johndylan1 said:
Remembering the time; the nation was in dire need of reconciliation, there are times when the greater good is more important than a single act of justice.
Click to expand...

I can respect that, alot of people have said that in this thread and I feel like I should refer to that judgement, I wasn't there.
 
It was good. Watergate essentially killed Nixon's legacy for decades, only temporarily reviving in the aftermath of the man's death and whenever Democrats want to use Republicans from the past to make the current iteration look reckless or wrong. I'm doubtful that the pardon was that much of a sin. Few mention it and even fewer say it with misgivings.
 
Fearandloathing said:
Congress DID NOT go after Clinton over a blow job, they went after him because he lied under oath. Thank you for demonstrating the propaganda myth which Clinton created to get himself off.
Click to expand...

Talk about revisionist history. What do you think he was being asked about when he lied under oath? They were already going after him for something completely unrelated to his duties in office, and something that happens all across the United States all the time. He lied during that investigation while under oath, and they impeached him.

Obviously he shouldn't have lied under oath, but that was your classical Republican witch hunt. Throw the crap against the wall and see what sticks. It just so happens it worked.
 
jet57 said:
Pugery; lying same thing. It was a bj pure and simple. A most silly and stupid aste of everybody's time and money.

And uh, I don't live in Europe: we've been here (US) since 1765.
Click to expand...

Perjury (not pugery) is not the same thing as a BJ.
 
Dave Mittner said:
Talk about revisionist history. What do you think he was being asked about when he lied under oath? They were already going after him for something completely unrelated to his duties in office, and something that happens all across the United States all the time. He lied during that investigation while under oath, and they impeached him.

Obviously he shouldn't have lied under oath, but that was your classical Republican witch hunt. Throw the crap against the wall and see what sticks. It just so happens it worked.
Click to expand...
In other words, he lied under oath, which is illegal, and was called to answer for it. Yes. What's 'revisionist' about that? :shrug: It's a statement of fact.

Yes, I know I repeated what you said, but all you did was repeat what the previous poster said while trying to frame it as irrelevant.

Clinton defenders on this matter have their disapproval misplaced. They should disapprove of Clinton's lie. If it really wasn't such a big deal, as many claim, then he shouldn't have lied and broken the law to begin with.
 
radcen said:
In other words, he lied under oath, which is illegal, and was called to answer for it. Yes. What's 'revisionist' about that? :shrug: It's a statement of fact.

Yes, I know I repeated what you said, but all you did was repeat what the previous poster said while trying to frame it as irrelevant.

Clinton defenders on this matter have their disapproval misplaced. They should disapprove of Clinton's lie. If it really wasn't such a big deal, as many claim, then he shouldn't have lied and broken the law to begin with.
Click to expand...

Pay attention, please.

He said that Clinton wasn't investigated about the blowjob until AFTER he lied under oath. I pointed out that's a blatant lie because it was during that investigation that he lied.
 
jet57 said:
Oh yeah they did: they say he lied, but he lied about a BJ. Of course he was aquitted and when he made his first trip to Europe afterwards he received a five minute standing ovation: they're much more mature in Europe.
Click to expand...

Then you need to go back to the supplied links and do some reading. You bought the slogan, but you otherwise don't seem to know what you're talking about.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom