The Nixon-aid quote is really the only one necessary today, isn't it? Let's just agree that using the same manipulative brainwashing tactics for the "good" message completely eliminate any viable credibility.
Reefer Madness was a PSA funded by a church group. I guess its fair to label it a "movie".
Also: why's the black girl the one trying to smoke weed all the time?

None of the recent elections have been landslides because voting groups are so separated and gerrymandering.

There hasn't be a McGovern/Nixon or Reagan/Carter result in decades.

Losing the popular vote is a landslide? Doesn't sound like it.

He certainly won, but he's won over a divided country with 50% participation, with almost 50:50 split supporting him / hating him. So he was basically elected by a quarter of the country.

Here's a poll that recently emerged about the election.

http://us.blastingnews.com/news/2016/10/president-donald-trump-emerges-via-halloween-masks-sales-accurate-prediction-since-nixon-001206445.htm

In short, the sale of Halloween masks of presidential candidates has predicted every election since Nixon when tracking began, and Hillary did not win with trick-or-treators.

For a moment, assume for the sake of argument that Assange is right. Next round of emails gets released, there's damning evidence of criminal actions or other behavior that are sufficient to arrest or at least force Hillary to drop out of the race. What would happen if that does come to pass?

Would the Democrat party be able to name Bernie as their candidate, since he got the second highest number of delegates? He has already endorsed Clinton and officially returned to being an Independent instead of a Democrat (or at least says that he would return to the Senate as an Independent). In light of that, would they pass the torch to Tim Kaine as Hillary's VP pick?

It's all pretty weird and unprecedented. I can only think of the Nixon resignation as setting any sort of example; but maybe there have been Governor candidates disqualified due to criminal activity in the middle of a race before?

I must say, it seems to me that it would almost be a blessing for the Democrat party if it *does* come true and they revert to Sanders for the nominee. I tend to think he'd easily beat Trump in the general election (although having endorsed Hillary could be damaging), and we'd all have the benefit of having someone with actually positive favorability ratings on the ballot...

Probably all wishful thinking on my part as a Sanders fan. But still interesting to contemplate.

You have ZERO proof she was hired quid pro quo. Absolutely zero. Do you honestly think Clinton would risk any bad optics whatsoever if she thought DWS wouldn't help her win? That was the Rodman analogy. Clinton hired her to help win the election, not to regulate elections to be fair.

And even Sanders supporters said the nomination wasn't stolen. He lost. He lost mainly because he didn't appeal enough to minority voters. You have to take a massive leap of cynicism to make that claim.

You're making it sound like Clinton hired Alan Grayson. That's my point.

Then you magically transfer DWS's guilt directly to Clinton. Did Clinton do that, or did DWS? I'm pretty sure it was DWS. I hated George W. Bush as president. That didn't make me magically transfer guilt about the Valerie Plame incident directly to him because there's no evidence he was responsible for outing her as a CIA operative.

And again, you're also talking about the leader of the Democratic Party favoring a lifelong Democrat over a dude who just decided to join for a Presidential run. When I think of a candidate who is personally corrupt, I think of Nixon. He broke a law. Clinton didn't break any laws whatsoever. NONE! She didn't even do anything. DWS didn't break any laws for that matter. She shouldn't have done what she did, but good lord, you're blowing this way out of proportion.

How exactly am I helping Trump win? Because I'm gonna vote for Clinton over Trump, Stein, and Johnson?! You're gonna have to explain to me how I should help Trump lose. Do I vote for Trump?! Do I vote for some other candidate who has absolutely zero chance of winning?

And all evidence does not argue against Clinton being the most qualified candidate out of the remaining candidates. She is BY FAR the most experienced candidate in government. You can sit there and rail about the hiring of DWS to help campaign all you want, but there is no possible way you can possibly make the claim that she isn't the most experienced out of the remaining candidates. She was the most experienced candidate among all primary candidates, too. That's an undeniable fact. All evidence at the very least doesn't say she isn't the most qualified. None of the 2016 primary candidates came remotely close to her experience in foreign policy. None of them came close to her experience in domestic policy.

This isn't to say experience is everything. But you're making a very flimsy argument about her being personally corrupt, and then claiming the ridiculous assertion that all evidence says she's not the most qualified candidate, even though she's clearly the most experienced.

And yes, we don't know how good or bad a President she would be. You also can't know if a specific Honda Accord will be more reliable than a specific Chevy Corvette either. That doesn't stop me from buying the Honda Accord without batting an eye if I want the most reliable car.

Only in this case, it's more like a Honda Accord vs. a lit on fire dumpster on wheels.

this actually makes me really mad. stewart and colbert have THE voice. they have the ability to reach the vast majority of people and the ability to change minds and they haven't using it. they're still playing the game and still playing it safe. they say everything up until the line of acceptability but refuse to cross it and what people need now is a voice that crosses that line of acceptability, of that idea that "well, it's equal but opposite". it's fucking not. the republicans are being destroyed by their own ideology from the inside out and the dems have nominated their version of richard nixon. stewart and colbert are both in a position to call this out for what it is and make no apologies for it but they refuse to. i think that is a massive act cowardice on their part and i find it incredibly disappointing.

i really love these guys but they're really dropping the ball here, in my opinion.

A lot of her issues come from her time in Arkansas, her legal cases, and her underhanded wall street support in the 90's. She has been lucky so far to not be caught red handed on anything, but she is definitely on par with a Nixon or Rumsfeld. Obama isn't corrupt in my opinion.

Sure, there are plenty of incompetents in office around the world, but at least in the western world, there isn't anyone even close to Trump (Tony Abbott in Australia was getting there though).

And "most corrupt politician since Nixon"?? I've seen no evidence of that. She's a US politician, no better or worse than most. If you think she's more corrupt than Cheney or Rumsfeld or even Obama. You'll need some pretty solid evidence. And no, I really don't give a fuck about "emailgate", that was stupidity, not corruption

What would the rest of the world do in our shoes? Elect the buffoon or elect the most corrupt politician since Nixon? Then again, what type of record does the rest of the world have on electing responsible leaders? Other than a very small handful of countries, I would say the rest of the world either votes in incompetents who mouth the things the populace wants to hear or they vote in the candidate that will least likely get them sent to Siberia; or it's equivalent in that respective country.

You can blame whomever you like. I will never vote for Hillary, which means I will be voting Libertarian this year. If that means Trump wins, then so be it. An inexperienced president is MUCH less of a threat than a corrupt one.

The worst harm Trump could do would be picking crappy SCOTUS judges, realistically an inexperienced President doesn't have that much power over anything else if Congress is against him/her. Look at Obama, other than the few years he had a Democratic led Congress, he has mostly been limited to presidential decrees that really don't do much.

Now a corrupt president that is motivated and knows how to work the system, that is an entirely different animal. I have no issues in saying that Hillary is the most corrupt person I have seen in the running for President since Nixon, and we all know how well that turned out. She is by far worse than Trump, who is just an idiot. Her husband was just as bad, his support of the deregulation policies of the late 1990s in regards to Wall Street directly led to the 2008 Depression.

I think it depends on how you define "worse". I believe that Hillary is capable of being the shadowy, sleazy politician that knows the corrupt system, knows how to use/abuse it, and is 100% willing to bend it to her own goals.

Trump is a largely incompetent blowhard. He, like Hillary, says what he thinks he has to say to get the support of his base, and then flip-flops to suit his purposes. He isn't a Washington insider, he doesn't have the network of connections that Hillary does.

If Trump could be another Bush, Hillary could be another Nixon. I'm not convinced that Hillary is the lesser of two evils here.

And that's still working under the assumption that Trump would be as bad as Bush. Bush was bad, but without Dick Cheney and Karl Rove whispering in his ear, maybe he'd have been a merely incompetent president instead of a terrible one. For all the negative things that I think can fairly be said of Trump, I don't think that he's very likely to become someone's sock puppet like Bush.

I'm definitely not sure that Trump would be better than Hillary (for whatever definition of "better" one chooses), but I don't think it is cut and dry to the point of delusion for someone to see either of them as the bigger threat.

Right wingers have a lower IQ and want a simplified world. They get frustrated when the simpleton they elected, surrounded by Nixons CIA team (including the simpleton's daddy) treat them like the fools they are.
Then they make an even dumber decision. Eventually they will elect a Hitler or such. If that doesn't make them idiots I don't know what would.

As an entertaining sidenote, when Bush lost to Obama, right wing voters (those that were being monitored and expresseed political preference) had a DROP IN TESTOSTERONE.
For them politics is an emotional, tribal event like a pack of apes fighting over power. Idiot is too kind.

I'll just take the opportunity and quote from Hunter S. Thompson's comment on Richard Nixon's death:

"If the right people had been in charge of Nixon's funeral, his casket would have been launched into one of those open-sewage canals that empty into the ocean just south of Los Angeles. He was a swine of a man and a jabbering dupe of a president. Nixon was so crooked that he needed servants to help him screw his pants on every morning. Even his funeral was illegal. He was queer in the deepest way. His body should have been burned in a trash bin."

haha, this is some nightmare alternate reality where Trump has used his fortune to clone himself so he are the only candidates like wot in tha futurama episode. Head-in-a-jar-Nixon does almost seem preferable...