onejayhawk
Afflicted with reason
Like seriously, seriously. Tell me, what did Nixon do that was even a little outside the lines? There is this image of a monster, but no one understands what he was supposed to have done. That's necessary, because he did not do anything much.Wait...seriously? Like, seriously seriously? Some "libertarian" you are...
How is that not libertarian?
The opposite. People start to understand how much of a railroad job Watergate was. Again, list Nixon's illegal actions.If anything, Nixon's reputation has undergone a revival as people forget just how horrifying Watergate was and instead focus on the advantages that being a paranoid weirdo living in an ethical netherworld has in the realm of international diplomacy.
Plus, Presidential scandals involving actual illegal actions got a bit boring after Iran-Contra, where a secret cabal inside the government was selling arms to a country who we basically were at war with in order to fund a paramilitary drug gang which Congress had explicitly prohibited funding for. I honestly consider Iran-Contra worse than Watergate, but Reagan was able to get out of it due to no prosecution over Congressional immunity and appearing like a clueless grandpa.
Watergate involved the president using executive authority to cover up a crime, Iran-Contra involved the president and a secret cabal directly working against Congress in direct violations of US Law passed by Congress to avoid such a thing.
Iran-Contra, in contrast, was massively dangerous, much worse than Watergate or even Whitewater. The openly thing that compares is Filegate in 1993 and the current unmasking controversy.
J
Last edited: