Is this what the presidency of this republic is supposed to be: the safe haven of a scoundrel, a witness protection program for a liar and lawbreaker?
I'm afraid that I must disagree, mojo.
While President Trump may be a liar, a cheat , a narcissist, a vengeful scoundrel, etc, etc, etc, he is not that unique in history.
Carl, in your opinion, which U.S. president was a worse scoundrel than the Rump?
mojo, of all the presidents I've lived under, I'd say that Bill Clinton was a lovable scoundrel, but the only other one who came close to impeachment was Richard Nixon.
As I said, I don't think Bill Clinton should ever have been impeached.
I also do not think Richard Nixon should have been impeached.
The persecution of Clinton was a direct result of the impeachment of Nixon, I believe.
Both men were elected by the people. It should have taken something major to bring them before the Senate to try to run them out of office.
IMHO, the same should be the case for Donald Trump. It should take something major - like colluding with foreign powers to win the election.
Like Hillary did with the UK and Russia.
(But she still lost.)
"Like Hillary did with the UK and Russia."
Debunked by Snopes, but of course your opinion is preferable to their timeline facts.
OK, Carl. You've got my attention.
Could you post the link you actually read from Snopes?
This is so interesting that I think we should start a new thread. I'll open one.
cf, here's the link.
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-11-30/fbi-raids-home-clinton-foundation-uranium-one-whistleblower a much better and more accurate link....wonder what hil just whispered in collusion with Putin? "I'll have more flexiblilty after the election"
Nixon is a mixed bag. His worst crime is the one nobody hunted him down for. Going to the S. Vietnamese before the '68 election and telling them not to make a deal in Paris because he would get better terms. I don't know how many American boys died for his prolonging that hopeless war, but it was many thousands.
He did open the door to China which was one man making history.
He started the EPA which cleaned up our water among other things.
I imagine the comment about Washington and Jefferson being scoundrels is related to being slave owners. I think that it is unfair to judge them for something that was acceptable practice at the time. (Although Jefferson was more cruel than Washington who freed his slaves upon his death)
But I have to agree with the poster who said Trump is the worst of all. Destroying our institutions. Destroying our relations with allies. Politicizing our intelligence and military. And of course setting a horrible example for our already cynical youth by being the biggest liar ever in the WH by miles.
In 1779, as a practical solution to end slavery, Jefferson supported gradual emancipation, training, and colonization of African-American slaves rather than unconditional manumission, believing that releasing unprepared slaves with no place to go and no means to support themselves would only bring them misfortune. In 1784, Jefferson proposed federal legislation banning slavery in the New Territories of the North and South after 1800, which failed to pass Congress by one vote. In his Notes on the State of Virginia, published in 1785, Jefferson expressed the beliefs that slavery corrupted both masters and slaves alike, supported colonization of freed slaves, suspected that African-Americans were inferior in intelligence, and that emancipating large numbers of slaves made slave uprisings more likely. In 1794 and 1796, Jefferson manumitted by deed two of his male slaves; they had been trained and were qualified to hold employment.
I'll look at it tomorrow.
I was thinking about Hillary hiring Steele who then paid the Russians, but your link should be interesting too.
Jefferson said many things against slavery and then acted in cruel ways as he got older and older.
Read "Master of the Mountain", by Henry Wiencek.
He hired the most cruel overseer of slaves in the state. The overseer handled the slaves in the field in a brutal manner, out of sight of all visitors to Monticello, while treating the slaves on the mountain top more kindly to make a good impression of his being a kind owner. Slaves in his home knew to be on good behavior lest they be sent to the fields.
He saw slaves as a way to get rich. He advocated eliminating the importation of slaves from Africa, not to abolish the institution, but because each slave who bore children made him wealthier. Kind of like gaining market share.
From wikipedia: "He did support prohibition of the importing of slaves into the United States, but took no actions related to the domestic institution: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Jefferson_and_slavery#Evaluations_by_historians
Also from that link in Wikipedia:
"In 2012, author Henry Wiencek, highly critical of Jefferson, concluded that Jefferson tried to protect his legacy as a Founding Father by hiding slavery from visitors at Monticello and through his writings to abolitionists. According to Wiencek's view Jefferson made a new frontage road to his Monticello estate to hide the overseers and slaves who worked the agriculture fields. Wiencek believed that Jefferson's "soft answers" to abolitionists were to make himself appear opposed to slavery. Wiencek stated that Jefferson held enormous political power but "did nothing to hasten slavery's end during his terms as a diplomat, secretary of state, vice president, and twice-elected president or after his presidency.""
I won't even mention all the children he had with Sally Hemmings and not publicly acknowledging them.
Having said all of that, he was probably no worse than the average slave owner of his time. But Washington was far more honorable.
Speaking of Viet Nam, as someone who has some personal experience..
No one bears more responsibility for the number of unnecessary deaths of our soldiers than the leftists of that era. They were inspired by Walter Cronkite who may bear more responsibility than any other person.
The North Vietnamese army was decimated during the Tet Offensive. They threw everything they had at us and were beaten quite literally to death. There was nothing left. A few cleanup operations were all that was required and the war would have been over by late 68, early 69.
Cronkite came on the air and called the battle a dismal failure stating that the NV army could not be defeated. A blatant lie. But, it inspired the protests here in the US and the leadership of the NVA decided to be patient, go underground, avoid major confrontation, and wait for the US to defeat itself.
It worked. But the war was extended by years and that cost thousands of American lives. What should have ended in 69 lasted until the withdrawal in 73 and the fall of Saigon in 75.
I find your twisted revisionist account of Vietnam to be disturbing. You need to watch Ken Burns documentary.
jag , sorry I copied and pasted should of been a link there
I find Tim's post on Tet, Cronkite and the msm entirely accurate....that battle was huge, but certainly not the way old walter told it to America...for all we known this could of been one of the earliest attempts of a msm former journalist becoming a lib cheer left leaning cheer leader on national tv and led directly to dan rather the liar and brain Williams the bigger liar
The left often finds the truth to be disturbing. It's very difficult for leftism and truth to coexist. That's why we see so much suppression in leftist organizations/countries.
Watch the Vietnam 10 part Ken Burns war documentary with all the FACTS backed up. (Netflix has it) Generals who were there. Or just hurl insults about people from the left and enjoy your self justification for a tragic foreign policy choice. For what it's worth. I was also mistakenly in favor of that war, naively believing the line that "if we don't fight them now we'll be fighting them in California in 10 years".
But I eventually saw my error in judgement.
"The left often finds the truth to be disturbing."
Tim, we all can find the truth to be disturbing, but that is not an excuse to ignore it.
"Tim, we all can find the truth to be disturbing, but that is not an excuse to ignore it."
Good one, Carl.
Carl is absolutely right. Now, let's go tear down some statues and ban some speakers on campus and assorted internet sites and rewrite a little history while we're at it.
I'm sure the satire/sarcasm here will be lost on some.
OH Tim the left and carl by definition would do a lot worse than ignore history and teat it down. They would like to rewrite history, burn it, bury it, and then finish with the ever popular.......the debate is over because we said so.
Here's the link:
"I'm sure the satire/sarcasm here will be lost on some."
Dang ! I wish you would label your post satire/sarcasm so we'd know for sure.
I did label it Carl. That was the point of the statement as I was nearly certain you would realize. In spite of that, there are still some who will miss the point...
"the debate is over because we said so."
Seems like I heard that phrase before! I moved my post about this to the climate report thread.
Tim, I forgot to label my post satire/sarcasm.
I understand Carl. Forgetting things is incredibly important to the left :-)
Tim, I'll try to forget that you said that. (G)