Ben Stein on Nixon
-
@lufins-dad said in Ben Stein on Nixon:
He lied so he could stay in office and keep his agenda of peace going.
That's pretty funny.
-
@mik said in Ben Stein on Nixon:
At that time we held pols to a higher standard. We did not simply accept that they lie. Clinton changed that.
Pretty much.
Except...With the lens of time, we've discovered just how despicable some of our former presidents were. We've also discovered how much crap the press covered up for people they liked.
-
On @jon-nyc recommendation, I read (most of) Ambrose's biography of Nixon.
He comes across as a thoroughly unlikeable, even weird, person. No warmth, no "people skills," or empathy. and paranoid. He struck me as being the person I'd never want to have a beer with.
He was certainly no conservative (wage/price controls, advocate of national healthcare).But, when it comes to other things, Stein's right.
@Jolly said:
We've also discovered how much crap the press covered up for people they liked.
Witness the indiscretions of LBJ and JFK. Hell, try to find a picture of FDR where he's walking.
-
My understanding is that FDR forbade any filming of him trying to walk. His handlers always made sure that photos and filming were restricted in FDR's immediate presence.
As an aside, Stalin similarly forbade or controlled filming of him walking. He had suffered hip damage that was not only painful, but forced him to swing his hip when walking. This made his gait slow, awkward and almost, waddle like.
-
@lufins-dad said in Ben Stein on Nixon:
Does anyone remember what he did that was bad?
A crook
A 2-bit burglary
The 5 o'clock shadow
He was probably a slave owner
-
@copper said in Ben Stein on Nixon:
@lufins-dad said in Ben Stein on Nixon:
Does anyone remember what he did that was bad?
A crook
A 2-bit burglary
The 5 o'clock shadow
He was probably a slave owner
You forgot "sweat a lot"
-
@mik said in Ben Stein on Nixon:
At that time we held pols to a higher standard. We did not simply accept that they lie. Clinton changed that.
Yeah, different era of standards, media coverage, etc. Now everything is instantaneous, regardless of accuracy. A race to be first, a race to "cancel" others. I've said before that Trump had 100+ "watergate-level scandals" but the bar has just been set so low that... who cares.
-
@89th said in Ben Stein on Nixon:
@mik said in Ben Stein on Nixon:
At that time we held pols to a higher standard. We did not simply accept that they lie. Clinton changed that.
Yeah, different era of standards, media coverage, etc. Now everything is instantaneous, regardless of accuracy. A race to be first, a race to "cancel" others. I've said before that Trump had 100+ "watergate-level scandals" but the bar has just been set so low that... who cares.
Few do. And should we?
Again, what matters is what politicians do.
-
@jolly said in Ben Stein on Nixon:
@89th said in Ben Stein on Nixon:
@mik said in Ben Stein on Nixon:
At that time we held pols to a higher standard. We did not simply accept that they lie. Clinton changed that.
Yeah, different era of standards, media coverage, etc. Now everything is instantaneous, regardless of accuracy. A race to be first, a race to "cancel" others. I've said before that Trump had 100+ "watergate-level scandals" but the bar has just been set so low that... who cares.
Few do. And should we?
Again, what matters is what politicians do.
Yes we should care, and I consider what politicians say very close to what they do. For example, a president can have a significant impact on the actions of the citizenry based on their stated opinions on topics, whether true or not,
-
@89th said in Ben Stein on Nixon:
Yes we should care, and I consider what politicians say very close to what they do. For example, a president can have a significant impact on the actions of the citizenry based on their stated opinions on topics, whether true or not,
What I don't understand is the logic of "because I voted 'anyone but Hillary,' that means everything Trump did was amazing. Because wagon-circling."
Why is that necessary?
-
@89th said in Ben Stein on Nixon:
@jolly said in Ben Stein on Nixon:
@89th said in Ben Stein on Nixon:
@mik said in Ben Stein on Nixon:
At that time we held pols to a higher standard. We did not simply accept that they lie. Clinton changed that.
Yeah, different era of standards, media coverage, etc. Now everything is instantaneous, regardless of accuracy. A race to be first, a race to "cancel" others. I've said before that Trump had 100+ "watergate-level scandals" but the bar has just been set so low that... who cares.
Few do. And should we?
Again, what matters is what politicians do.
Yes we should care, and I consider what politicians say very close to what they do. For example, a president can have a significant impact on the actions of the citizenry based on their stated opinions on topics, whether true or not,
Naive.
-
In my experience, people only really care about the low moral fiber of the guy they didn't vote for, but they care about it A FREAKING TON!
-
@lufins-dad said in Ben Stein on Nixon:
Does anyone remember what he did that was bad?
He went after marijuana use by American troops in Vietnam with such frenzy that the soldiers switched to cocaine. There was eventually a consequential cocaine smuggling business from Vietnam -- or anyway the Far East -- to the US.
Then, IIRC, his administration initiated the War on Drugs, quelle ironie, which as everyone knows has been a smashing success from that day to this.
-
He was pretty anti-Semitic, if I remember correctly. As was his buddy, Billy Graham. Not that I'm old enough to remember anything other than him getting kicked out.
I know, I know, as long as his policies were good, his bigotry doesn't really matter.
And some of his best speechwriters were Jewish!
-
Coming from the UK, my only real knowledge of Ben Stein was regarding his willingness to give strangers his money and his seemingly tireless promotion of eye drops, presumably in order to get the money back.