Can someone explain the nuanced differences

[DvlDog4WVU]

Nixon resigns from office amid loud public outcry surrounding the Watergate break-in for the purpose of wire tapping the DNC to get a leg up in an election.

Clinton campaign colludes with DNC office to thwart Bernie's run.

Granted, I'm biased, but please explain to me how either of these are acceptable, to either party. and why is this story still not front and center?

 

[moe]

Nixon resigns from office amid loud public outcry surrounding the Watergate break-in for the purpose of wire tapping the DNC to get a leg up in an election.

Clinton campaign colludes with DNC office to thwart Bernie's run.

Granted, I'm biased, but please explain to me how either of these are acceptable, to either party. and why is this story still not front and center?

With Nixon, there was a crime committed with the break-in then there was the cover up directed by Nixon and others which may have involved more criminal activity. It involved one political party against the other which is different of course.

The recent scandal involved only one party, there was no crime committed that I'm aware of. There was no particular coverup because the email correspondence is there for everyone to see. I can't explain why the story never received more attention but not sure how much that it deserved. As the Bernie/Hillary, I don't think that it affected the outcome of the primary so some may view it as no harm/no foul. I think that it's unfortunate that involved persons can't let things play out naturally but instead feel the need to help out one candidate over the other. Both cases involve election politics but that's about it.

 

[op2]

I'd like to see more discussion about how and why Bernie Sanders got to run for POTUS as a Democrat even though he's not a Democrat.

 

[WhiteTailEER]

Nixon resigns from office amid loud public outcry surrounding the Watergate break-in for the purpose of wire tapping the DNC to get a leg up in an election.

Clinton campaign colludes with DNC office to thwart Bernie's run.

Granted, I'm biased, but please explain to me how either of these are acceptable, to either party. and why is this story still not front and center?

Neither should be acceptable. Why is it not front and center? I don't know, but it has definitely gotten a lot of coverage. Bernie probably isn't pursuing it harder because he doesn't want to cause an uproar that could be detrimental to the party or country.

I'm just as concerned, if not more, about Trump wanting the Russians to hack into Hillary's emails.Whatever went on there, she was still SOS and he wants an adversary to hack into a government officials account?

 

[Popeer]

I'm just as concerned, if not more, about Trump wanting the Russians to hack into Hillary's emails. Whatever went on there, she was still SOS and he wants an adversary to hack into a government officials account?

He was just being sarcastic. [eyeroll]

 

[DvlDog4WVU]

Neither should be acceptable. Why is it not front and center? I don't know, but it has definitely gotten a lot of coverage. Bernie probably isn't pursuing it harder because he doesn't want to cause an uproar that could be detrimental to the party or country.

I'm just as concerned, if not more, about Trump wanting the Russians to hack into Hillary's emails.Whatever went on there, she was still SOS and he wants an adversary to hack into a government officials account?

Cmon WTE, the comment was made completely in jest. The dude wasn't actually calling for the Russian's to hack her account. He was pointing to her administration and lawyers attempts to delete the contents of the server. I don't like the guy either and won't be voting for him, but this one was a pretty obvious correlative comment with the DNCLeaks at the time.

The 2nd amendment comment he made was terrible. No question there. The comments he made about the Gold Star family was also horrendous. He makes enough boneheaded comments that it's easy to pick out the real ones from the Faux controversy ones like the one you listed.

And, I would be fine with it if Hillary made the same type of comment if the roles were reversed.

 

[mneilmont]

With Nixon, there was a crime committed with the break-in then there was the cover up directed by Nixon and others which may have involved more criminal activity. It involved one political party against the other which is different of course.

The recent scandal involved only one party, there was no crime committed that I'm aware of. There was no particular coverup because the email correspondence is there for everyone to see. I can't explain why the story never received more attention but not sure how much that it deserved. As the Bernie/Hillary, I don't think that it affected the outcome of the primary so some may view it as no harm/no foul. I think that it's unfortunate that involved persons can't let things play out naturally but instead feel the need to help out one candidate over the other. Both cases involve election politics but that's about it.

That would be damned close to talking out of both sides of your mouth. Are you saying as long as you stay within one party, everything conceivable is fair political game? Given equal prosecution of Hillary and Nixon, she would swing by her balls. And, what is the difference between cover-up and denying while lying? Hillary participated in cover-up from beginning to end. Whenever she lies, she is covering up. You possible defense is to state that she does not lie. That would go over well. Her whole damned team lied to cover up. Let's engage a private investigator/independent consul to prosecute instead of political hacks who follow Obama dictate.

 

[mneilmont]

Neither should be acceptable. Why is it not front and center? I don't know, but it has definitely gotten a lot of coverage. Bernie probably isn't pursuing it harder because he doesn't want to cause an uproar that could be detrimental to the party or country.

I'm just as concerned, if not more, about Trump wanting the Russians to hack into Hillary's emails.Whatever went on there, she was still SOS and he wants an adversary to hack into a government officials account?

Do you honestly think Trump prompting would cause Russians to do more or less than they are already engaged in? Maybe I am being a little generous to Trump, but I thought he was seriously jokingly asking Russia to share what they were already in possession of.

 

[mneilmont]

He was just being sarcastic. [eyeroll]

Of course, but our learned friends got an opening, and they were going to accentuate it. Hopefully no one truly saw that as an actual request to act.

 

[moe]

That would be damned close to talking out of both sides of your mouth. Are you saying as long as you stay within one party, everything conceivable is fair political game? Given equal prosecution of Hillary and Nixon, she would swing by her balls. And, what is the difference between cover-up and denying while lying? Hillary participated in cover-up from beginning to end. Whenever she lies, she is covering up. You possible defense is to state that she does not lie. That would go over well. Her whole damned team lied to cover up. Let's engage a private investigator/independent consul to prosecute instead of political hacks who follow Obama dictate.

Why do you ask what I said, can't you read? He asked about the differences between the two cases and I pointed out many of them. Since a crime was committed (break-in) with Watergate, to cover up or hide things from investigators is obstructing justice which is another crime. I don't believe that any crimes were committed regarding the latest Dem shenanigans between Bernie/Hillary. That would be the difference.

 

[Airport]

With Nixon, there was a crime committed with the break-in then there was the cover up directed by Nixon and others which may have involved more criminal activity. It involved one political party against the other which is different of course.

The recent scandal involved only one party, there was no crime committed that I'm aware of. There was no particular coverup because the email correspondence is there for everyone to see. I can't explain why the story never received more attention but not sure how much that it deserved. As the Bernie/Hillary, I don't think that it affected the outcome of the primary so some may view it as no harm/no foul. I think that it's unfortunate that involved persons can't let things play out naturally but instead feel the need to help out one candidate over the other. Both cases involve election politics but that's about it.

Bernie was never going to win. The real problem is the quid pro quo of the Clinton Foundation. Why were the 33,000 emails deleted? To cover up illegal activity, just like Nixons. Abedeen being pai by both govt and Foundation, Cheryl Mills going to the Foundation so she could invoke Client/Attorney priviledge when questioned. Justice dept is now dirty too. IRS= dirty. That's the real legacy of Obama, a bunch of dirty rotten govt employees.

 

[mneilmont]

Why do you ask what I said, can't you read? He asked about the differences between the two cases and I pointed out many of them. Since a crime was committed (break-in) with Watergate, to cover up or hide things from investigators is obstructing justice which is another crime. I don't believe that any crimes were committed regarding the latest Dem shenanigans between Bernie/Hillary. That would be the difference.

Are you making assumptions? he first heard about the break-in, and that he was guilty only of the cover-up, that he destroyed his Presidency to shield himself from the mistakes of misguided subordinates; that he, Nixon, was in effect a victim of the Watergate break-in rather than a perpetrator. Nixon was never proven to be involved in the planning of Watergate. He was only guilty of protecting his team.

And Nixon had nothing to gain. He was never going to lose the election.

There are a few other differences - night v. day, different century and other differences that have no impact on the comparison.

 

[Keyser76]

Lol, first time I ever heard Nixon called a victim.

 

[mneilmont]

Justice dept is now dirty too. IRS= dirty. That's the real legacy of Obama, a bunch of dirty rotten govt employees.

I was thinking about honesty in government a couple days ago. Everything in recent past has been influenced by party politics.

Who can remember a time recently when a member of the same party was instrumental in adjudging someone of their own party guilty of an act?

The last I remember was Nancy Johnson crashing on Newt in the '90s. That may have been a history changing vote by the Republican Nancy Johnson.

There should be no doubt that heretofore independent departments/divisions are absolutely political under this Administration, and it is absolutely open to any thinking man, and it does stink.

 

[moe]

Are you making assumptions? he first heard about the break-in, and that he was guilty only of the cover-up, that he destroyed his Presidency to shield himself from the mistakes of misguided subordinates; that he, Nixon, was in effect a victim of the Watergate break-in rather than a perpetrator. Nixon was never proven to be involved in the planning of Watergate. He was only guilty of protecting his team.

And Nixon had nothing to gain. He was never going to lose the election.

There are a few other differences - night v. day, different century and other differences that have no impact on the comparison.

No, I don't believe so. Good luck on finding someone to rehash Watergate with you. I do think that Nixon knew a whole lot more than you give him credit for.

 

[mneilmont]

Lol, first time I ever heard Nixon called a victim.

But , you do not question it do you? Some members of his team assumed a roll they should not have. Neither Watergate nor Dr Elsburg(?) were significant. Nixon won reelection by a landslide. He derived no benefit from the info garnered. He was clearly victimized. He was pulled into an act that he had no desire nor need to engage in.

Nixon's poor personality got him crucified. Dems and Media were all over it and no one tried to hide what their intentions were toward him. There have been numerous political acts that were worse and not even attempted to prosecute.

 

[mneilmont]

No, I don't believe so. Good luck on finding someone to rehash Watergate with you. I do think that Nixon knew a whole lot more than you give him credit for.

I have no problem with you thinking what you want, but Nixon was convicted from people's thoughts. It was personal grievance and no legal roots.

Nixon was found guilty of cover-up and not the base charge of B&E nor the planning of same. Rather than face impeachment, he stepped down.

Clinton was guilty of a perjury trap and impeached but not removed

 

[moe]

But , you do not question it do you? Some members of his team assumed a roll they should not have. Neither Watergate nor Dr Elsburg(?) were significant. Nixon won reelection by a landslide. He derived no benefit from the info garnered. He was clearly victimized. He was pulled into an act that he had no desire nor need to engage in.

Nixon's poor personality got him crucified. Dems and Media were all over it and no one tried to hide what their intentions were toward him. There have been numerous political acts that were worse and not even attempted to prosecute.

After a protracted series of bitter court battles, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the president was obligated to release the tapes to government investigators, and he eventually complied. These audio recordings implicated the president, revealing he had attempted to cover up activities that took place after the break-in and to use federal officials to deflect the investigation.[5][8] Facing near-certain impeachment in the House of Representatives and equally certain conviction by the Senate, Nixon resigned the presidency on August 9, 1974.[9][10] On September 8, 1974, his successor, Gerald Ford, pardoned him.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watergate_scandal

 

[bornaneer]

Nixon resigns from office amid loud public outcry surrounding the Watergate break-in for the purpose of wire tapping the DNC to get a leg up in an election.

Clinton campaign colludes with DNC office to thwart Bernie's run.

Granted, I'm biased, but please explain to me how either of these are acceptable, to either party. and why is this story still not front and center?

Thats an easy one with a couple of obvious answers. First, the media hated Nixon and kept the investigative spotlight on the issue and made it front and center news for months and months. Second, one was Republican and one is Democrat.

 

[moe]

Thats an one with a couple of obvious answers. First, the media hated Nixon and kept the investigative spotlight on the issue and made it front and center news for months. Second, one was Republican and one is Democrat.

Yep, keep blaming the media. Nixon did nothing wrong of course (sarcasm!).

 

[WhiteTailEER]

Cmon WTE, the comment was made completely in jest. The dude wasn't actually calling for the Russian's to hack her account. He was pointing to her administration and lawyers attempts to delete the contents of the server. I don't like the guy either and won't be voting for him, but this one was a pretty obvious correlative comment with the DNCLeaks at the time.

The 2nd amendment comment he made was terrible. No question there. The comments he made about the Gold Star family was also horrendous. He makes enough boneheaded comments that it's easy to pick out the real ones from the Faux controversy ones like the one you listed.

And, I would be fine with it if Hillary made the same type of comment if the roles were reversed.

Point taken, you're right.
I'm just not inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt when you aggregate everything he has said. Then he says yes he really meant it that way and then no he really didn't and all of that. Factor in the apparent admiration that he seems to have with Putin and it's where he likes to buy his wives ... it's difficult to tell if he's joking or not.

I hate the guy. I dislike him even more than I dislike Hillary (and that's a lot), so I'll admit to being completely biased against him. (like that wasn't already obvious) That bias clouded my judgment in this case

 

[mneilmont]

Yep, keep blaming the media. Nixon did nothing wrong of course.

Not a debate winner. Let me try that tactic.

You are wrong. I win? What

 

[moe]

Not a debate winner. Let me try that tactic.

You are wrong. I win? What

Translator? Try using English this time.

 

[bornaneer]

Yep, keep blaming the media. Nixon did nothing wrong of course.

Never said Nixon did "nothing" wrong. You are a very naive person..........especially when you want to be.

 

[moe]

Never said Nixon did "nothing" wrong. You are a very naive person..........especially when you want to be.

What is this naive **** that you speak of? Why bring up the media regarding Nixon? Obviously the media had a hot story to follow. It's not every day that the Prez resigns.

 

[mneilmont]

Translator? Try using English this time.

I tried to use small words for you??? Which specific words are you having trouble with???

 

[moe]

I tried to use small words for you??? Which specific words are you having trouble with???

Your message makes no sense. My link showed you that Nixon was guilty which you say that he wasn't. If being wrong means claiming victory then you're undefeated.

 

[Mntneer]

Cmon WTE, the comment was made completely in jest. The dude wasn't actually calling for the Russian's to hack her account. He was pointing to her administration and lawyers attempts to delete the contents of the server. I don't like the guy either and won't be voting for him, but this one was a pretty obvious correlative comment with the DNCLeaks at the time.

The 2nd amendment comment he made was terrible. No question there. The comments he made about the Gold Star family was also horrendous. He makes enough boneheaded comments that it's easy to pick out the real ones from the Faux controversy ones like the one you listed.

And, I would be fine with it if Hillary made the same type of comment if the roles were reversed.

He also wasn't asking Russian hackers to "hack" her account, he was asking them to find the missing 30,000 emails she claims she didn't delete... but did.

 

[countryroads89_rivals]

Never said Nixon did "nothing" wrong. You are a very naive person..........especially when you want to be.

HAHAHAHAHAHA! You claim the media was biased against Nixon and turn around call moe naive. That's some funny **** right there! [laughing]

 

[Airport]

HAHAHAHAHAHA! You claim the media was biased against Nixon and turn around call moe naive. That's some funny **** right there! [laughing]

Who was the first President you voted for? My first was Nixon and the press did not like him. I followed politics then and the media was against him.

 

[WhiteTailEER]

He also wasn't asking Russian hackers to "hack" her account, he was asking them to find the missing 30,000 emails she claims she didn't delete... but did.

Where would they find them and how? It would have to have been a hack, so I'm not exactly sure what you're getting at there. But it's mostly irrelevant.

I've conceded DD's and your points on this particular topic (that it was said in jest), but there is also a story now about some payment from the Ukraine to Trump's campaign.

It could be nothing and probably is, I freely admit that

 

[DvlDog4WVU]

Where would they find them and how? It would have to have been a hack, so I'm not exactly sure what you're getting at there. But it's mostly irrelevant.

I've conceded DD's and your points on this particular topic (that it was said in jest), but there is also a story now about some payment from the Ukraine to Trump's campaign.

It could be nothing and probably is, I freely admit that

I'll care about the latest when more than zero fvcks are given about the Clinton Foundation and all of the pay for play going on in that dumpster fire.

 

[mneilmont]

Your message makes no sense. My link showed you that Nixon was guilty which you say that he wasn't. If being wrong means claiming victory then you're undefeated.

Now that does require a bit of explanation? To suggest that I have claimed some victory is a misstatement. The selection of a victor has never been introduced on this thread. I am not looking for a title, I just want truths available as an option when you are speaking.

Specifically where did your link show Nixon was guilty of planning or participating in the break-in of the Watergate? Are you intentionally trying to mislead?

 

[WhiteTailEER]

I'll care about the latest when more than zero fvcks are given about the Clinton Foundation and all of the pay for play going on in that dumpster fire.

Somebody must have already given more than zero ***** about it or else you wouldn't know about it. I agree that it's a big deal too, but how much coverage that gets doesn't change how big of a deal this is. (if true)

There seems to be an interesting dynamic going on with this election. Maybe it's just me, or maybe it's always happened but it's just more pronounced now. It doesn't seem that many people are opening their eyes. Instead it seems that as more and more red flags pop up with these candidates that they close their eyes even tighter. The criticism of Trump only seems to strengthen the stance of his supporters and the same with Clinton.

The deflection of course is nothing new and is about equivalent to "I know you are but what am I"

 

[countryroads89_rivals]

Who was the first President you voted for? My first was Nixon and the press did not like him. I followed politics then and the media was against him.

[pfftt] I know die-hard Democrats that voted for Nixon. Stop with the media bias ********. You sound like poor little Donnie. The system is rigged, if he doesn't win it's becuase the system is rigged or voter fraud, the media hates him, nothing is his fault. [crying]

 

[moe]

Now that does require a bit of explanation? To suggest that I have claimed some victory is a misstatement. The selection of a victor has never been introduced on this thread. I am not looking for a title, I just want truths available as an option when you are speaking.

Specifically where did your link show Nixon was guilty of planning or participating in the break-in of the Watergate? Are you intentionally trying to mislead?

You truly struggle to communicate. Try using complete sentences and complete thoughts. It would be easier for others to understand what you're attempting to say. The short version is that Nixon was a crook (see below). Click on the provided link and read more!

After a protracted series of bitter court battles, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the president was obligated to release the tapes to government investigators, and he eventually complied. These audio recordings implicated the president, revealing he had attempted to cover up activities that took place after the break-in and to use federal officials to deflect the investigation.[5][8] Facing near-certain impeachment in the House of Representatives and equally certain conviction by the Senate, Nixon resigned the presidency on August 9, 1974.[9][10] On September 8, 1974, his successor, Gerald Ford, pardoned him.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watergate_scandal

 

[mneilmont]

You truly struggle to communicate. Try using complete sentences and complete thoughts. It would be easier for others to understand what you're attempting to say. The short version is that Nixon was a crook (see below). Click on the provided link and read more!

After a protracted series of bitter court battles, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the president was obligated to release the tapes to government investigators, and he eventually complied. These audio recordings implicated the president, revealing he had attempted to cover up activities that took place after the break-in and to use federal officials to deflect the investigation.[5][8] Facing near-certain impeachment in the House of Representatives and equally certain conviction by the Senate, Nixon resigned the presidency on August 9, 1974.[9][10] On September 8, 1974, his successor, Gerald Ford, pardoned him.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watergate_scandal

Forgive my fragmented sentences. Didn't think I would be graded on English. Just trying to communicate - if you miss the meaning, request me to exaggerate.

I do remember tapes were requested - no problem

Never a question tapes revealed Nixon participation in cover up. WAS THERE EVER PROOF OF HIM PARTICIPATING IN THE WATERGATE BREAK-IN OR PLANNING OF SAME? - That was the problem raised by me.

You are now introducing the possibility that Nixon was a crook. Are you attempting to obfuscate just a bit on what was being discussed? I have not heard that mentioned previously in our discussion, but you want to rabbit hunt to change the focus on - WAS THERE EVER PROOF OF NIXON PARTICIPATING IN PLANNING OF WATERGATE BREAK-IN? Why do you need to cloud issues by straying to other subjects?

That was the same tactic you attempted on Born, and he broke off the discussion, too.

 

[DvlDog4WVU]

Somebody must have already given more than zero ****s about it or else you wouldn't know about it. I agree that it's a big deal too, but how much coverage that gets doesn't change how big of a deal this is. (if true)

There seems to be an interesting dynamic going on with this election. Maybe it's just me, or maybe it's always happened but it's just more pronounced now. It doesn't seem that many people are opening their eyes. Instead it seems that as more and more red flags pop up with these candidates that they close their eyes even tighter. The criticism of Trump only seems to strengthen the stance of his supporters and the same with Clinton.

The deflection of course is nothing new and is about equivalent to "I know you are but what am I"

The book Clinton Cash is what started, but there hasn't been a lot of follow up. Anything Trump is guilty of, I guarantee the Clinton's wrote the book on how to do it.

My issue, like yours, is that both sides are entrenched. I don't think either is fit to lead our nation.

 

[Airport]

[pfftt] I know die-hard Democrats that voted for Nixon. Stop with the media bias ********. You sound like poor little Donnie. The system is rigged, if he doesn't win it's becuase the system is rigged or voter fraud, the media hates him, nothing is his fault. [crying]

The media bias ********? Surely you can't be serious. Dan Rather blatantly inserted himself into the election with a lie! No follow up on the pay to play by SOS Clinton. Jesus, you are a koolaid drinker.

 

[Airport]

[pfftt] I know die-hard Democrats that voted for Nixon. Stop with the media bias ********. You sound like poor little Donnie. The system is rigged, if he doesn't win it's becuase the system is rigged or voter fraud, the media hates him, nothing is his fault. [crying]

By the way, all I said was Nixon wasn't liked by the media. Did you ever hear one of Nixon's press conferences? Were you even born then? I never brought Trump into the conversation, you did.