Jump to content

US Politics: compromising positions


DanteGabriel

Recommended Posts

If you look at the recent history of scandals under Republican presidents, basically none of the high-level officials ever end up serving time, or if so not much at all.  Between Libby's commutation and the Iran-Contra pardons you gotta go back to Watergate for anyone that could credibly be called "high-ranking" that did time.  And even then it was just Haldeman, Ehrlichman, and Mitchell (the AG) - and they all served about 18 months.

So, it wouldn't really be breaking norms for Trump to pardon these guys eventually - in fact you could argue that is the norm for the GOP.*  The issue was/still is whether Trump pardons anyone involved BEFORE Mueller concludes the investigation.

*While making sure I was right about the above I came across this link that highlights the differences in criminality between Democrat and Republican administrations.  Worth a look!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, DMC said:

If you look at the recent history of scandals under Republican presidents, basically none of the high-level officials ever end up serving time, or if so not much at all.  Between Libby's commutation and the Iran-Contra pardons you gotta go back to Watergate for anyone that could credibly be called "high-ranking" that did time.  And even then it was just Haldeman, Ehrlichman, and Mitchell (the AG) - and they all served about 18 months.

So, it wouldn't really be breaking norms for Trump to pardon these guys eventually - in fact you could argue that is the norm for the GOP.*  The issue was/still is whether Trump pardons anyone involved BEFORE Mueller concludes the investigation.

*While making sure I was right about the above I came across this link that highlights the differences in criminality between Democrat and Republican administrations.  Worth a look!

And to bring everything full circle to elite private schools let us once again cite the self label the Nixon criminals gave themselves: the USC Mafia.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, lokisnow said:

And to bring everything full circle to elite private schools let us once again cite the self label the Nixon criminals gave themselves: the USC Mafia.

I thought they just called themselves creeps (and yes, I know it’s technically CRP). And to keep the circle going: Roger Stone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wouldn't be surprised if universities themselves are bribing US News and World Reports and similar orgs to boost their 'rankings' (a loose collection of garbage metrics if ever I saw one).

I've said this before in other places, but the entire edifice of meritocracy that is supposed to define the US has eroded past recognition. Libertarian goobers fail to realize that money can buy a whole lot of 'merit', so their free market/objectivism/Ayn-Rand cultism is basically a flaming pile of poo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

I thought they just called themselves creeps (and yes, I know it’s technically CRP). And to keep the circle going: Roger Stone.

Well, there were people on CRP that were just finance chairmen.  You may be thinking of the Plumbers, or "fixers," who actually organized the Watergate break-in, because the head of that was Liddy - who was also a member of CRP.  The USC Mafia were higher-level advisors, who didn't commit outright crimes like Watergate, but rather dirty tricks or "ratfucking."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, DMC said:

Well, there were people on CRP that were just finance chairmen.  You may be thinking of the Plumbers, or "fixers," who actually organized the Watergate break-in, because the head of that was Liddy - who was also a member of CRP.  The USC Mafia were higher-level advisors, who didn't commit outright crimes like Watergate, but rather dirty tricks or "ratfucking."

Yeah, didn't mean to entirely conflate them, just was going for the bad joke. However, I didn't think the Plumbers were all apart of CRP. Do I have that wrong?

 

Also, going back a few weeks, I did read the article you linked about a 27 member SC. I think in a vacuum it's not a bad idea, however, it would have to be done in a bipartisan fashion and we both know that will never happen. In fact it likely would even drive the parties further apart and that's not what America needs right now. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

However, I didn't think the Plumbers were all apart of CRP. Do I have that wrong?

Yeah I think only LIddy and Hunt were also part of CRP.  Don't quote me on that though.

42 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

I think in a vacuum it's not a bad idea, however, it would have to be done in a bipartisan fashion and we both know that will never happen.

Well, sure, it's never going to happen in a bipartisan way because one party will always have the immediate advantage.  But the argument was if one party could do it unilaterally - and my contention that if they could they should.

44 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

In fact it likely would even drive the parties further apart and that's not what America needs right now. 

I don't think this is really a valid argument at this point.  Doing anything of substance is going to drive the parties further apart.  That doesn't mean you stop trying to do things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, DMC said:

Well, there were people on CRP that were just finance chairmen.  You may be thinking of the Plumbers, or "fixers," who actually organized the Watergate break-in, because the head of that was Liddy - who was also a member of CRP.  The USC Mafia were higher-level advisors, who didn't commit outright crimes like Watergate, but rather dirty tricks or "ratfucking."

Donald Segretti.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, DMC said:

Yeah I think only LIddy and Hunt were also part of CRP.  Don't quote me on that though.

Well, sure, it's never going to happen in a bipartisan way because one party will always have the immediate advantage.  But the argument was if one party could do it unilaterally - and my contention that if they could they should.

I don't think this is really a valid argument at this point.  Doing anything of substance is going to drive the parties further apart.  That doesn't mean you stop trying to do things.

Stans, Magruder, Kalmbach, McCord, Colson...and, of course, Roger Stone. I know you're talking about the Plumbers, but a lot of prominent members of Creep went to jail.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Ice Queen said:

Stans, Magruder, Kalmbach, McCord, Colson...and, of course, Roger Stone. I know you're talking about the Plumbers, but a lot of prominent members of Creep went to jail.

Only Stone, who didn't go to jail, and Stans, who didn't go to jail, would count as "high-level" officials - which was my original point.  The other three only went to jail for around half a year, and McCord obviously flipped.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, DMC said:

Only Stone, who didn't go to jail, and Stans, who didn't go to jail, would count as "high-level" officials - which was my original point.  The other three only went to jail for around half a year, and McCord obviously flipped.

Mitchell went to prison for 19 months. He only got released because of medical reasons. Which is what Manafort is obviously trying to do. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just a random thought: in the modern era has any R president that completed 2 terms and replaced by a D president ever been looked upon kindly by the Republican party after the passsage of a few years (or even a few days) after they leave office? It seems that almost every time they end up being criticised as not conservative enough.

Reagan is beloved, because he was replaced by GHWB. GHWB is not remembered fondly in some quarters of the Republican party.

Nixon has a large contingent of apologists, and is remembered fondly in terms of actually being president. But he had to resign and so he could never complete his vision.

GWB has been nailed with the not conservative enough label.

If Trump gets replaced by a Democrat (assuming he makes it the full 8) the daggers will be out I think. If he gets replaced by a Democrat in 2020 then of course he lost because of voter fraud, and other Democratic cheating.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

Just a random thought: in the modern era has any R president that completed 2 terms and replaced by a D president ever been looked upon kindly by the Republican party after the passsage of a few years (or even a few days) after they leave office? It seems that almost every time they end up being criticised as not conservative enough.

Well you kinda just answered your own question.  Dubya is the only GOP president that completed 2 terms and was replaced by a Dem since Eisenhower - who wasn't as beloved as he is now but still most liked him.  Then you literally have to go back to Teddy Roosevelt for the next example (and even he didn't technically serve two full terms).  And of course Dubya is still hated.  It's only been a decade and he left office as the most unpopular since Truman - and really the two are about even as the most unpopular lame ducks in the history of polling.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, DMC said:

Well you kinda just answered your own question.  Dubya is the only GOP president that completed 2 terms and was replaced by a Dem since Eisenhower - who wasn't as beloved as he is now but still most liked him.  Then you literally have to go back to Teddy Roosevelt for the next example (and even he didn't technically serve two full terms).  And of course Dubya is still hated.  It's only been a decade and he left office as the most unpopular since Truman - and really the two are about even as the most unpopular lame ducks in the history of polling.

I guess to turn it around. If a Republican president wants to be remembered fondly by his/her own party's conservative core they either need to serve 2 terms and bring in a Republican replacement. Or leave office early by some means that can be spun as them being victims of some kind of injustice. In all other cases, they will leave office and eventually be labelled as not having been conservative enough.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...