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.
wrote on 29 Sept 2021, 14:37 last edited by@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.
-
@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.
wrote on 29 Sept 2021, 15:22 last edited by@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.
-
@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.
wrote on 29 Sept 2021, 18:37 last edited by@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,
-
@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,
wrote on 29 Sept 2021, 18:43 last edited by@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?
-
@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,
wrote on 29 Sept 2021, 19:02 last edited by@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.
-
wrote on 29 Sept 2021, 20:10 last edited by
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!
-
*Can anyone even remember now what Nixon did that was so terrible? He ended the war in Vietnam, brought home the POWs, ended the war in the Mideast, opened relations with China, started the first nuclear weapons reduction treaty, saved Eretz Israel's life, started the Environmental Protection Agency. Does anyone remember what he did that was bad?
Oh, now I remember. He lied. He was a politician who lied. How remarkable. He lied to protect his subordinates who were covering up a ridiculous burglary that no one to this date has any clue about its purpose. He lied so he could stay in office and keep his agenda of peace going. That was his crime. He was a peacemaker and he wanted to make a world where there was a generation of peace. And he succeeded.
That is his legacy. He was a peacemaker. He was a lying, conniving, covering up peacemaker.*
Nixon was before my time. I’m curious as to what some of you think about Stein’s view?
wrote on 29 Sept 2021, 20:28 last edited by@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.
-
wrote on 29 Sept 2021, 20:31 last edited by Doctor Phibes
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!
-
wrote on 29 Sept 2021, 20:48 last edited by
Slightly off-topic, am I the only one that finds the mental image of Ben Stein ON Nixon strangely disturbing?
-
wrote on 29 Sept 2021, 21:12 last edited by
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.