Nixon vs. Trump

[RickD]

If Nixon were alive and well and running one on one against Trump who would you vote for?

It depends on who is running as the republican candidate. Seeing how they both ran as republicans, only one could run under the republican ticket.

OK, how about them running for the nomination, say you're a republican, and they have a Presidential primary in your state?

Well, seeing that there were 17 Republican candidates this election, in not sure I'd vote for either of them in a primary. For me, Trump was near the bottom of the 17 candidates. I wouldn't say he was 17th on my list, but he was close to the bottom. I would not have voted for Trump in the primary. And since I'm not sure what Nixon really ran on, I probably would only vote for him in the general election, if I really didn't like his democratic opponent. I'd vote for almost anyone, if that person ran against Hillary. Except for Bernie.

I said one on one.

I know what you said, and it's ridiculous, just like your other stupid anti-Trump threads.
I'm going to ask you one time, to stop flooding the board with these stupid threads.

[Hortator]

Nixon was Johnson on steroids, no thanks

To believe that is to buy into media-driven popular mythology. Johnson was a piece of work beyond one's imagination. He and others in Texas virtually rigged elections. He massively pushed expansion of the dependencies of the welfare state. Notice, you often hear older Democrats wax nostalgically about Kennedy - but almost never about Johnson - there are key reasons for that. For one, Johnson hated both JFK and RFK. They viewed him as an uncouth bully from redneck Texas. He viewed them as clueless Harvard smartypants and pinheads, who had mostly a textbook understanding of the world. Johnson was a ruthless guy - like a bull in a china shop! The biggest differences between the two, per media myth, are largely due to the fact that Nixon got caught on tape with transcripts doing nefarious things. Johnson just didn't get caught - least not in any great scandal. But subsequently, his history has been revealed to show what he was really capable of. Johnson, in fact, LIKED much of Nixon's foreign policy stances. He did not like McGovern - thought him too far left.

I wasn't talking about his scandals, every Democrat had them this century and the last other than Carter for some reason.

I meant their public policies were both parallel. As you know, Johnson planted a lot of seeds during his presidency on the "War on Poverty" which, after 1 trillion dollars later, managed to reduce the poverty rate from 12% to a whopping 12%.

But these virtue-signalling policies were only started by him. If Johnson planted them, Nixon fertilized and watered them by expansion and increased budgets and spending given to them.

also as a side note, I have no love for Nixon, but Watergate wasn't nearly as big as history books would have you believe. That sort of behavior was common among a lot of politicians back then, mostly democrats. It wasn't worthy of changing "Richard" to a word for male phallus. That was harsh, cruel, and punished everyone who ever had the name Richard, or hoped to name their boy that. Though in the same hand, they did the same thing to "Johnson".

The 60s and 70s were cancer. Not unlike the adolescent rage you see organized today.

[ultimate777]

It depends on who is running as the republican candidate. Seeing how they both ran as republicans, only one could run under the republican ticket.

OK, how about them running for the nomination, say you're a republican, and they have a Presidential primary in your state?

Well, seeing that there were 17 Republican candidates this election, in not sure I'd vote for either of them in a primary. For me, Trump was near the bottom of the 17 candidates. I wouldn't say he was 17th on my list, but he was close to the bottom. I would not have voted for Trump in the primary. And since I'm not sure what Nixon really ran on, I probably would only vote for him in the general election, if I really didn't like his democratic opponent. I'd vote for almost anyone, if that person ran against Hillary. Except for Bernie.

I said one on one.

I know what you said, and it's ridiculous, just like your other stupid anti-Trump threads.
I'm going to ask you one time, to stop flooding the board with these stupid threads.

I find your remarks insulting. I don't care to stop. Are you going to ban me or whatever you call it if I don't?

[Hortator]

OK, how about them running for the nomination, say you're a republican, and they have a Presidential primary in your state?

Well, seeing that there were 17 Republican candidates this election, in not sure I'd vote for either of them in a primary. For me, Trump was near the bottom of the 17 candidates. I wouldn't say he was 17th on my list, but he was close to the bottom. I would not have voted for Trump in the primary. And since I'm not sure what Nixon really ran on, I probably would only vote for him in the general election, if I really didn't like his democratic opponent. I'd vote for almost anyone, if that person ran against Hillary. Except for Bernie.

I said one on one.

I know what you said, and it's ridiculous, just like your other stupid anti-Trump threads.
I'm going to ask you one time, to stop flooding the board with these stupid threads.

I find your remarks insulting. I don't care to stop. Are you going to ban me or whatever you call it if I don't?

Just an opinion from an uninterested party, they get tedious. Granted, this is a sub-forum for a small community, so it's not like you're causing congestion in Grand Central Station in here.

But the threads you make can easily be inserted into existing threads as replies. It's just a simple rule of the internet: it is always better to post in an existing thread than create your own. If it's a compelling reason to make a Trump thread, (like his Saudi trip for example would make a good one) then go for it. But to issue non-contextual statements in the form of a thread just seems like attention-seeking in my view.

So let's banter about Trump. You seem reasonable enough, just use existing threads so you're not hogging the spotlight over other people's threads, hmm?

[edwardmurphy]

Plus it will be easier to participate in the discussion if Rick doesn't get irritated and ban you.

[RickD]

Plus it will be easier to participate in the discussion if Rick doesn't get irritated and ban you.

If people were banned simply for being irritating, I would've been banned years ago.