Status
Not open for further replies.
Then I simply don't believe things.

Really? Do you test the weight carrying ability of every chair you sit down in before doing so, or do you believe that the manufacturer did their job satisfactorily and that the chair will hold your weight without collapsing?

Do you test all the food your eat, or do you take it on faith that the company followed FDA procedures and that the food is safe to consume?

Shall I continue?
 
Get off my lawn! I'm old enough to have VOTED for Nixon. And did. In my defense, McGovern was a bit of a loon.
...

Not to derail the thread, but no he wasn't. He was a WWII hero, a university professor, and a respected member of the House and Senate. He got some bad campaign advice, and he was the subject of Nixon dirty tricks. But if McGovern had been elected, there would no Watergate scandal (the break-in happened during the campaign, but most of the cover-up was after the election) and no Nixon resignation-before-impeachment, and we would have gotten out of Vietnam years earlier, saving thousands of American lives and hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese lives.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_McGovern
 
Last edited:
Not to derail the thread, but no he wasn't. He was a WWII hero, a university professor, and a respected member of the House and Senate. He got some bad campaign advice, and he was the subject of Nixon dirty tricks. But if McGovern had been elected, there would no Watergate scandal (the break-in happened during the campaign, but most of the cover-up was after the election) and no Nixon resignation-before-impeachment, and we would have gotten out of Vietnam years earlier, saving thousands of American lives and hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese lives.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_McGovern
Thank you for saying so. I wanted to reply then worried about thread rules. Nixon and the GOP were just as good back then at pushing a message as they are today.
 
Not to derail the thread, but no he wasn't. He was a WWII hero, a university professor, and a respected member of the House and Senate. He got some bad campaign advice, and he was the subject of Nixon dirty tricks. But if McGovern had been elected, there would no Watergate scandal (the break-in happened during the campaign, but most of the cover-up was after the election) and no Nixon resignation-before-impeachment, and we would have gotten out of Vietnam years earlier, saving thousands of American lives and hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese lives.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_McGovern

Which is why I voted for him in my first election.
 
But if McGovern had been elected, there would no Watergate scandal (the break-in happened during the campaign, but most of the cover-up was after the election) and no Nixon resignation-before-impeachment, and we would have gotten out of Vietnam years earlier, saving thousands of American lives and hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese lives.
On the last bit, are you sure you're not thinking of McCarthy? By the time of Nixon's second inauguration it's pretty clear U.S. involvement was going to end soon.
 
Really? Do you test the weight carrying ability of every chair you sit down in before doing so, or do you believe that the manufacturer did their job satisfactorily and that the chair will hold your weight without collapsing?

Do you test all the food your eat, or do you take it on faith that the company followed FDA procedures and that the food is safe to consume?

Shall I continue?

This is a detail.
 
On the last bit, are you sure you're not thinking of McCarthy? By the time of Nixon's second inauguration it's pretty clear U.S. involvement was going to end soon.

It continued for two more years, until April 1975, and ended catastrophically for the Vietnamese and for the U.S. I think McGovern would have negotiated us out earlier, on better terms.
 
On the last bit, are you sure you're not thinking of McCarthy? By the time of Nixon's second inauguration it's pretty clear U.S. involvement was going to end soon.

No, McGovern was an early critic of our involvement in Vietnam. He ran on getting us out ASAP.
 
My pick of the replies, this person's sense of humor is one I can relate to...
Fran Jablway
‏ I blame the weasel who crawled into the wiring at the Hadron collider in Switzerland about three years ago. The short knocked us into a parallel universe. We will get back to normal when they repair it. That theory makes the most sense to me.​
Nice. :)
 
They'll just need to wait for a particular thing to come out or happen (documentary evidence of Trump doing something that nobody can deny is a felony, or perhaps something like caving on the wall), and they can talk about how he's not the man they thought he was, how he betrayed them and America, etc.
That's what the Dallas Morning News did when Nixon resigned.

The day after Nixon's resignation, the Dallas Morning News ran a front-page mea culpa admitting they had been wrong to support Nixon throughout the Watergate scandal—but they couldn't possibly have known Nixon was a crook until he admitted it by resigning, so they had actually been more right than everyone who had criticized Nixon before the resignation, because none of that criticism was based on evidence, because there was no genuine evidence of wrongdoing until Nixon provided evidence by resigning.

That's a paraphrase, of course, but it isn't any more ridiculous than what they said in their front-page editorial.
 
They'll just need to wait for a particular thing to come out or happen (documentary evidence of Trump doing something that nobody can deny is a felony, or perhaps something like caving on the wall), and they can talk about how he's not the man they thought he was, how he betrayed them and America, etc. Basically the same line that other right-wing pundits such as Ann Coulter have taken when it's looked like turning on him was the right thing to do.
"I am shocked - shocked! - to discover that this lying POS is a lying POS". :cool:
 
"I am shocked - shocked! - to discover that this lying POS is a lying POS". :cool:

Reminds me of something I heard at work from a Trump supporter. He said he thought a lot of the criticism Trump gets is unfair. He said, "Come on, everybody knew this guy lies all the time. That he was basically a sleaze. This is news?"
 
Reminds me of something I heard at work from a Trump supporter. He said he thought a lot of the criticism Trump gets is unfair. He said, "Come on, everybody knew this guy lies all the time. That he was basically a sleaze. This is news?"

Did you ask the obvious follow-up: "So why did you vote for him?"
 
That's what the Dallas Morning News did when Nixon resigned.

The day after Nixon's resignation, the Dallas Morning News ran a front-page mea culpa admitting they had been wrong to support Nixon throughout the Watergate scandal—but they couldn't possibly have known Nixon was a crook until he admitted it by resigning, so they had actually been more right than everyone who had criticized Nixon before the resignation, because none of that criticism was based on evidence, because there was no genuine evidence of wrongdoing until Nixon provided evidence by resigning.

That's a paraphrase, of course, but it isn't any more ridiculous than what they said in their front-page editorial.


In 2016, most leading newspapers, including ones with staunch Republican reputations, endorsed Clinton or no one. When Trump is finally pushed out, one way or another, their editorials will begin "We told you so!"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspaper_endorsements_in_the_2016_United_States_presidential_election
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom