HawkShack.com

Just wanted to see what everyone thought about blasting off fireworks on the 4th. I like blasting the stuff off from the rez. I ask because i'm part of a neighborhood thread that had a "Massive" discussion about it and I was a bit taken back at how many people think fireworks are bad.

Mak

I don't think they are bad but they can be dangerous. Just like guns, the fireworks do what they are designed to do (bad or good).

It's a big topic over here on the dry side. Personally, I'm completely against it. We have a lot of tinder dry lands that are in close proximity to residences and other structures, and we are subject to strong winds. Fireworks are just too damn accessible and impossible to monitor by law enforcement. There are too many irresponsible juveniles, like the ones that set off the Eagle Creek fire in the gorge last summer, that have access to them.

I can recall years ago over in Walla Walla when some grade school aged kids set off some fireworks in their parent's garage near a lawnmower and a gas can. Their bodies were burned beyond recognition.

Pasco just rescinded a 22 year long ban on fireworks, and they saw an increase in illegal fireworks being set off. The result: 11 grass fires, 3 structural fires, and 5 fires that they're calling miscellaneous.

https://www.tri-cityherald.com/news/loc ... 01104.html

I once had a friend that was a volunteer firefighter. He said that he would invite anyone that supported the liberal use of fireworks to go on a call to a wildfire with him. He assured me that they would quickly change their attitude towards fireworks.

I agree RD.. it's pretty dry and should be curtailed over there. I'm not sure about access over there or if it's legal or not. It's illegal in Seattle and surround cities but I live near a sliver of unincorporated King county where fireworks stands pop up during the 4th between Seattle and Burien. You can get some pretty good fireworks there. When I go to the rez outside of the cities over here, the kids have to be 18 I think to buy. With my kids, I light off the big stuff and let them play with the smaller stuff teaching them along the way how to be safe and the consequences if you are not. My little boy was playing with a sparkler and one of the sparks nailed him on the arm and he understood real quick what happens if you mess around with them... but... other than that, so far so good. The biggest issue that people have here is how it scares their pets.

In our neighborhood, people shoot of fireworks during the 4th, new years, and every time the Hawks score a touchdown. Which I think is a great tradition! My kids love it!! Then the threads start popping up. The people that were concerned decided to have a gathering at the local library and the cops got called. Here is a link:

https://www.seattlepi.com/seattlenews/article/best-of-nextdoor-library-fight-seahawks-cannon-12416348.php

It's freakin hilarious... but...

I know some of the folks that were they from both sides and I found it all to be a bit childish... Fighting each other over pets... I know some people anthropomorphize pets because they need to. Putting their cats and dogs in kid carries and strolling them around expecting neighbors to say, "Oh... how cute!". It's a freakin cat/dog! Look, I have pets too and they are great but they are not more important than humans and they are only around for 5 to 15 years if they don't get killed by a coyote or something.

Ok... I went off topic a bit.. sorry about that..
As RD stats, if you live in a area that is prone to wildfires, then ax the the fireworks, have access to them be more difficult or something. Anyways... I guess I just needed to vent a bit. thanks...

Mak

I'm not against fireworks just in this area, but all areas.

The Eagle Creek fire was started last year on Sept. 2nd by a couple of teenagers shooting off fireworks into a heavily wooded canyon on the Oregon side of the Columbia River gorge. It wasn't fully contained until November 30th. It burned nearly 50,000 acres, or 78 square miles, much of it pristine wilderness. To give you an idea of how much area 78 square miles is, the city of Spokane covers just 60 square miles, Tacoma about 62. That fire caused over $36 million in property damage, and that doesn't take into account the resources that had to be dedicated to it during the 3 months it took to put it out. Thankfully, no lives were lost, at least no human life. And that's just one fire.

That is a high price to pay for people, especially teenagers, to have access to something that has absolutely no value beyond simple and extremely brief entertainment. The sale and distribution of them needs to be banned to everyone except for those that secure a permit. I find it ironic that a teenager can't buy can of spray paint because of the damage they may do with it but they can buy fireworks.

We used to blast it by the river or the beach when I was young. My friends and I would shoot off firecrackers and the like all day leading up to the 4th. It was a lot of fun as a kid. We did almost start a barn fire when my cousins dropped a firecracker in some hay. Fireworks are dangerous fire hazards. And some of are downright dangerous as certain athletes with blown off parts would attest to. As much as I don't enjoy government regulation, areas should be set up for fireworks. You shouldn't be able to wander anywhere and shoot them off. It very much depends on the area. If you live in a desert like when I lived in El Paso, there wasn't much to burn. Shooting off fireworks shouldn't be a problem. You live in some grasslands or a forest, you should be careful. As is usual government should use sensible considerations for fireworks determined by area and the danger of fire or personal harm.

I haven't bought fireworks for many years. That said, I'm more of the "punish the Ass and not the mass" kind of guy.

I like the idea of banning them when conditions are extremely dry. This year Ada County (Boise area) banned aerial fireworks because of how dry it is. I understand that.

I also like the idea of having areas setup that people can go to and fire off their fireworks. This sounds pretty sensible to me. People would have the right to set off fireworks, the firefighters could be on hand and standing by if anything got out of control and a good time could be had by all.

Its too bad we can't have more parents who monitor and teach their kids the proper respect for fireworks and similarly, firearms.

idhawkman wrote:...I'm more of the "punish the Ass and not the mass" kind of guy.

As a rule, I am too, but in this case, the consequences of the actions of that one "ass" are too severe and the collective benefit to the "mass" is too inconsequential.

Besides, there's no way to punish the "ass" in a case like the Eagle Creek fire. How are you going to make two teenage kids pay for $37 million in damages?

RiverDog wrote:
As a rule, I am too, but in this case, the consequences of the actions of that one "ass" are too severe and the collective benefit to the "mass" is too inconsequential.

Besides, there's no way to punish the "ass" in a case like the Eagle Creek fire. How are you going to make two teenage kids pay for $37 million in damages?

Doesn't matter whether you can collect the full amount from them or not. How do you pay for a murder? That makes no difference as to why my liberties need to be suppressed because of the actions of someone else. It becomes a slippery slope once you establish the precedence.

idhawkman wrote:Doesn't matter whether you can collect the full amount from them or not. How do you pay for a murder? That makes no difference as to why my liberties need to be suppressed because of the actions of someone else. It becomes a slippery slope once you establish the precedence.

The precedence has been set a long, long time ago. I can't buy a can of spray paint at our local Home Depot unless I can prove my age. So please explain to me the difference in terms of sacrificing liberties between buying a can of Rust-oleum and buying a bottle rocket?

And in case you don't like my spray paint analogy, there's tons of other examples. Refrigerants, acids, herbicides, fertilizers, industrial chemicals, etc, things that for one reason or another, including safety and potential damage to the environment, that you cannot buy unless you have a license or a permit.

Unless we want to live in a pure anarchy, we're going to have to sacrifice some individual freedoms in the name of the collective good, and IMO it's a very, very small sacrifice to be deprived of a 10 or 15 seconds of enjoyment in firing off a bottle rocket given the huge consequences of it being mishandled by a thrill seeking teenager.

At the very least, they should not be sold to minors and they should not be sold in areas that are suceptible to wild fires.

A view of Ocean Shores, WA, on the morning of July 5th:

RiverDog wrote:The precedence has been set a long, long time ago. I can't buy a can of spray paint at our local Home Depot unless I can prove my age. So please explain to me the difference in terms of sacrificing liberties between buying a can of Rust-oleum and buying a bottle rocket?

And in case you don't like my spray paint analogy, there's tons of other examples. Refrigerants, acids, herbicides, fertilizers, industrial chemicals, etc, things that for one reason or another, including safety and potential damage to the environment, that you cannot buy unless you have a license or a permit.

Unless we want to live in a pure anarchy, we're going to have to sacrifice some individual freedoms in the name of the collective good, and IMO it's a very, very small sacrifice to be deprived of a 10 or 15 seconds of enjoyment in firing off a bottle rocket given the huge consequences of it being mishandled by a thrill seeking teenager.

At the very least, they should not be sold to minors and they should not be sold in areas that are suceptible to wild fires.

Yeah, especially with 350 million people. Nothing destroys freedom more than a large number of people to manage. It will only get worse as the population grows. More people, less freedom. It's the endless population growth that will destroy liberty faster than anything else. People growing into each other, over each other, and all wanting to eat, drink, and survive regardless of how their decisions affect other people. We like to talk about shifting values, but ultimately population dictates so many changes because of survival needs. Glad I won't live to see America become China with a billion people. That will be a very crowded, hard to manage America. That's another reason I don't worry about China. I'm not even sure how they would feed their people if they went to war and a first world nation was cutting off their supply lines. War would be a nightmare humanity crisis for China.

Aseahawkfan wrote:Yeah, especially with 350 million people. Nothing destroys freedom more than a large number of people to manage. It will only get worse as the population grows. More people, less freedom. It's the endless population growth that will destroy liberty faster than anything else. People growing into each other, over each other, and all wanting to eat, drink, and survive regardless of how their decisions affect other people. We like to talk about shifting values, but ultimately population dictates so many changes because of survival needs. Glad I won't live to see America become China with a billion people. That will be a very crowded, hard to manage America. That's another reason I don't worry about China. I'm not even sure how they would feed their people if they went to war and a first world nation was cutting off their supply lines. War would be a nightmare humanity crisis for China.

You're preaching to the choir. Almost every problem we face today can be traced back to over population, but it's a topic that few want to talk about and even fewer advocate doing something about.

RiverDog wrote:A view of Ocean Shores, WA, on the morning of July 5th:

Jesus H. people.

Almost every problem we face today can be traced back to over population, but it's a topic that few want to talk about and even fewer advocate doing something about.

I don't really disagree, but "experts" have been screeching about the same thing for half a century (see also: CAGW), and it's tended to be a self-correcting problem. We're not bacteria that just split in two regardless of our surroundings' ability to support us.

I can see the theoretical problem, but I think we tend to be able to roll with the punches that problem throws. I guess we'll see if that continues.

burrrton wrote:"A view of Ocean Shores, WA, on the morning of July 5th"

Jesus H. people.

Yea, it gives one a lot of confidence in people's ability to handle fireworks responsibly when they aren't even responsible enough to clean up after themselves.

So why should a bunch of jerks on a beach hundreds of miles away from me infringe my liberties?

Inch by inch the freedoms we have as Americans dwindle a little each and every day, month, year, etc.

idhawkman wrote:So why should a bunch of jerks on a beach hundreds of miles away from me infringe my liberties?

Inch by inch the freedoms we have as Americans dwindle a little each and every day, month, year, etc.

I don't think WA has the corner on jerks. I'm sure that Idaho has their fair share. It took scores of jerks to make that mess, and just one to start a fire.

You're talking about one tiny freedom that you get to exercise for a few seconds once or twice a year dwindling by 1/4" when the rest of the freedoms you exercise daily have dwindled by a couple hundred miles.

RiverDog wrote:
I don't think WA has the corner on jerks. I'm sure that Idaho has their fair share. It took scores of jerks to make that mess, and just one to start a fire.

You're talking about one tiny freedom that you get to exercise for a few seconds once or twice a year dwindling by 1/4" when the rest of the freedoms you exercise daily have dwindled by a couple hundred miles.

The point is, no matter how slight, the rights are being eroded. I've seen socialism and control over the populace. It is not pretty.

idhawkman wrote:The point is, no matter how slight, the rights are being eroded. I've seen socialism and control over the populace. It is not pretty.

All I can say is that if you're the type that gets upset over the compromising of rights on something as trivial as fireworks, I wouldn't be going to any city council meetings if they had anything more stressful on the agenda than a leash law. You'd have to bring your own oxygen bottle.

Here's a quote for you.

A fascist is a follower of a political philosophy characterized by authoritarian views and a strong central government — and no tolerance for opposing opinions. Fascist traces to the Italian word fascio, meaning "group, bundle." Under fascist rule, the emphasis is on the group — the nation — with few individual rights.

https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/fascist

idhawkman wrote:A fascist is a follower of a political philosophy characterized by authoritarian views and a strong central government — and no tolerance for opposing opinions. Fascist traces to the Italian word fascio, meaning "group, bundle." Under fascist rule, the emphasis is on the group — the nation — with few individual rights.

Would you characterize Trump's "America First" agenda as fascist? Does he tend to want to force people to act a certain way using government power? A lot of folks see Trump as fascist. Some of the things he says are fascist. Who is the least fascist candidate out there? The Democrats tend to try to sell us on "beneficial" fascism known as socialism. I tend to vote Republican to avoid the fascist ideology espoused by the Democrats who want levels of social control that they should not have. Trump is pushing some strange ideas as far as behavior and the law is concerned. Not my favorite part of his presidency using his office to put social pressure on people to knuckle under as he does with the NFL or his attacks on a free media picking Fox over another agencies when they're all lying. It's kind of bad when the president is picking sides in social matters in a way that affects jobs and business when they're all engaged in the same behavior. Though I guess the man is siding with the people that defend him under this unprecedented level of attack on a president.

Aseahawkfan wrote:
Would you characterize Trump's "America First" agenda as fascist? Does he tend to want to force people to act a certain way using government power? A lot of folks see Trump as fascist. Some of the things he says are fascist. Who is the least fascist candidate out there? The Democrats tend to try to sell us on "beneficial" fascism known as socialism. I tend to vote Republican to avoid the fascist ideology espoused by the Democrats who want levels of social control that they should not have. Trump is pushing some strange ideas as far as behavior and the law is concerned. Not my favorite part of his presidency using his office to put social pressure on people to knuckle under as he does with the NFL or his attacks on a free media picking Fox over another agencies when they're all lying. It's kind of bad when the president is picking sides in social matters in a way that affects jobs and business when they're all engaged in the same behavior. Though I guess the man is siding with the people that defend him under this unprecedented level of attack on a president.

I am socially Libertarian and economically Conservative.

Some things could be seen as fascist by Trump but the shear number of regulations he's gotten rid of would indicate he's not.

I'm for very limited government where they only provide what we can not provide ourselves. E.g. Roads, Military, police. With the Internet and available courses online, I'm not even sure that K-12 is necessary for the govt. to provide anymore. If people want their kids educated, then they can do a much better job than the govt.

Will this site allow us to post images from a url or do we have to upload it to a specific image site?

I figured it out. I thought this was funny.

idhawkman wrote:Will this site allow us to post images from a url or do we have to upload it to a specific image site?

I figured it out. I thought this was funny.

Taxed.jpg

Funny, but not accurate. At least according to this site, Washington ranks 33rd in total tax burden and just a smidge(.28%) higher than Idaho, which came in at #40:

https://wallethub.com/edu/states-with-h ... den/20494/

idhawkman wrote:Here's a quote for you.

"A fascist is a follower of a political philosophy characterized by authoritarian views and a strong central government — and no tolerance for opposing opinions. Fascist traces to the Italian word fascio, meaning "group, bundle." Under fascist rule, the emphasis is on the group — the nation — with few individual rights.

https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/fascist

So what's your point? Are you saying that I'm a fascist because I want fireworks banned?

Aseahawkfan wrote:Would you characterize Trump's "America First" agenda as fascist? Does he tend to want to force people to act a certain way using government power? A lot of folks see Trump as fascist. Some of the things he says are fascist. Who is the least fascist candidate out there? The Democrats tend to try to sell us on "beneficial" fascism known as socialism. I tend to vote Republican to avoid the fascist ideology espoused by the Democrats who want levels of social control that they should not have. Trump is pushing some strange ideas as far as behavior and the law is concerned. Not my favorite part of his presidency using his office to put social pressure on people to knuckle under as he does with the NFL or his attacks on a free media picking Fox over another agencies when they're all lying. It's kind of bad when the president is picking sides in social matters in a way that affects jobs and business when they're all engaged in the same behavior. Though I guess the man is siding with the people that defend him under this unprecedented level of attack on a president.

I was agreeing with what you said until you got to your last sentence. I would argue that Richard Nixon was attacked far more savagely than Trump or any other modern day POTUS. Back then the media was almost entirely composed of Demo libs, no Fox News, no talk radio, no Twitter, nothing to help him get his POV out and no one to defend him. He was completely at the mercy of the 4th estate. Not that I'm defending any of Nixon's actions, but his situation was 10 times more forboding than anything Trump has had to deal with.

RiverDog wrote:I was agreeing with what you said until you got to your last sentence. I would argue that Richard Nixon was attacked far more savagely than Trump or any other modern day POTUS. Back then the media was almost entirely composed of Demo libs, no Fox News, no talk radio, no Twitter, nothing to help him get his POV out and no one to defend him. He was completely at the mercy of the 4th estate. Not that I'm defending any of Nixon's actions, but his situation was 10 times more forboding than anything Trump has had to deal with.

Nixon had to deal wit this level of attack prior to Watergate leading up to the election? In my lifetime, I have never seen a president vilified at every opportunity. Did they attack Nixon's children and wife the way they attack Trump's children and wife? I see all types of stories about how Melania didn't touch his hand or Ivanka was ridiculed for her tweets or Donald Jr. looked stupid saying this. You're telling me that Nixon and his entire family were attacked prior to election and after being elected as badly as Trump? I find that hard to believe.

Aseahawkfan wrote:Nixon had to deal wit this level of attack prior to Watergate leading up to the election? In my lifetime, I have never seen a president vilified at every opportunity. Did they attack Nixon's children and wife the way they attack Trump's children and wife? I see all types of stories about how Melania didn't touch his hand or Ivanka was ridiculed for her tweets or Donald Jr. looked stupid saying this. You're telling me that Nixon and his entire family were attacked prior to election and after being elected as badly as Trump? I find that hard to believe.

Nixon didn't have to deal with as many personal attacks, but they did attack and distort his positions and there was very little Nixon could do to defend himself. The press was quite a bit more mannered and Nixon himself wasn't the womanizer that Trump is so they didn't have the material to work with that Trump has provided. Back then,most people got their news from either the network TV (Cronkite, Huntley-Brinkley, or Howard K. Smith) or a newspaper, and those establishments were decidedly liberal. It wasn't until the early 80's, once FM radio began to take over music listening from AM, when conservative talk radio had an opening and guys like Rush Limbaugh stepped in to fill the void, later in the decade when Rupert Murdock bought 20th Century Fox and used it to create what we now know as Fox News, and more recently the internet and social media entering the political scene.

I've read several biographies on Nixon, and each agreed that there were a number of attacks by the press, some of them very personal, that contributed to the paranoia he had about the press and eventually led to the actions that resulted in the Watergate cover-up and other highly illegal activities. Two events that stand out are the events that led to his Checkers speech when he was Ike's VP and his "you won't have Nixon to kick around anymore" press conference after he lost the '62 CA Gubernatorial race that caused him to drop out of politics for a time.

The biggest differene between Nixon and Trump is that the former had no means to defend himself and no one in the press to take his side. All Trump has to do to defend himself is pick up his phone and fire off a tweet and can count on Fox and talk radio to take his side in almost any debate.

RiverDog wrote:
I've read several biographies on Nixon, and each agreed that there were a number of attacks by the press, some of them very personal, that contributed to the paranoia he had about the press and eventually led to the actions that resulted in the Watergate cover-up and other highly illegal activities. Two events that stand out are the events that led to his Checkers speech when he was Ike's VP and his "you won't have Nixon to kick around anymore" press conference after he lost the '62 CA Gubernatorial race that caused him to drop out of politics for a time.

You could argue that this is why the media is going after Trump in the same way. They want him out and this technique worked before on Nixon so they are trying it again. Too bad they won't be able to accomplish their goals.

idhawkman wrote:You could argue that this is why the media is going after Trump in the same way. They want him out and this technique worked before on Nixon so they are trying it again. Too bad they won't be able to accomplish their goals.

Some of the media is going after Trump in the same way they went after Tricky Dick, but certainly not all of them, which was my point. Nowadays you can't just refer to 'the media' as some generic description of a unified institution with a distinct bias as there is far more variety than there was back in the '70's.

RiverDog wrote:Nixon didn't have to deal with as many personal attacks, but they did attack and distort his positions and there was very little Nixon could do to defend himself. The press was quite a bit more mannered and Nixon himself wasn't the womanizer that Trump is so they didn't have the material to work with that Trump has provided. Back then,most people got their news from either the network TV (Cronkite, Huntley-Brinkley, or Howard K. Smith) or a newspaper, and those establishments were decidedly liberal. It wasn't until the early 80's, once FM radio began to take over music listening from AM, when conservative talk radio had an opening and guys like Rush Limbaugh stepped in to fill the void, later in the decade when Rupert Murdock bought 20th Century Fox and used it to create what we now know as Fox News, and more recently the internet and social media entering the political scene.

I've read several biographies on Nixon, and each agreed that there were a number of attacks by the press, some of them very personal, that contributed to the paranoia he had about the press and eventually led to the actions that resulted in the Watergate cover-up and other highly illegal activities. Two events that stand out are the events that led to his Checkers speech when he was Ike's VP and his "you won't have Nixon to kick around anymore" press conference after he lost the '62 CA Gubernatorial race that caused him to drop out of politics for a time.

The biggest differene between Nixon and Trump is that the former had no means to defend himself and no one in the press to take his side. All Trump has to do to defend himself is pick up his phone and fire off a tweet and can count on Fox and talk radio to take his side in almost any debate.

Nothing you've written has convinced me the level of attack is the same. You said nothing about the attacks on Trump's family. Perhaps the press had more class than to attack a candidate's family than it does nowadays. They have more means to attack Trump than they did Nixon. Twitter may help Trump at times (though I would argue this), but Twitter is used to attack him far more often than to aid him. He has Fox News and some conservative web sites, but just as many liberal web sites keep constant attack on him and most of the news is still liberal. Then there are the international attacks on him before and after the election.

The only argument I see on your side is that no one has made himself a bigger target for attack than Trump. Nixon from what I recall was still a politician and spoke like one. Trump just talks like he doesn't care what people think. He invites the attacks on himself and tries to use it to his advantage. He's one of the most thoughtless presidents when it comes to public speaking. He's a loose cannon on the mic. Sometimes it helps him, sometimes not. He goes out there and starts blasting, whether what he says is true or not. He's out there to rile the crowds and push his agenda. He doesn't care if it's popular or he makes friends or not. He's taking people to task and going after what he considers imbalances against the United States. This hasn't happened in my lifetime. The last president I saw that projected this kind of strength was Reagan, but he was a hell of lot more well spoken when he was taking someone to task.

It sure would have been nice if the president that finally decided to force some better deals for the United States and make us more competitive economically as well as clean up immigration wasn't a better man personally. I like a lot of what Trump is pushing as far as politics, but I don't like the method and the man himself has too many chinks in his armor. I'm still surprised he's survived as long as he has with so many powerful people arrayed against him. He must be a lot smarter behind the scenes than he is given credit for. So called smart guys like Al Franken couldn't survive a single attack of groping and even Clinton ended up impeached and people claim he was such a smart guy. So far the guy they think of as one of the dumbest presidents is shaking the world, flipping the bird at the establishment both Republican and Democrat, and going at it with the world politicians. So far he is still standing. We'll see how long he makes it. I figure their combined efforts will take him down at some point, but they have to do it in a manner that doesn't bring them down with him. I know for certain this guy isn't the only dirty player in politics, not by a long shot.

Aseahawkfan wrote:Nothing you've written has convinced me the level of attack is the same. You said nothing about the attacks on Trump's family. Perhaps the press had more class than to attack a candidate's family than it does nowadays. They have more means to attack Trump than they did Nixon. Twitter may help Trump at times (though I would argue this), but Twitter is used to attack him far more often than to aid him. He has Fox News and some conservative web sites, but just as many liberal web sites keep constant attack on him and most of the news is still liberal. Then there are the international attacks on him before and after the election.

The only argument I see on your side is that no one has made himself a bigger target for attack than Trump. Nixon from what I recall was still a politician and spoke like one. Trump just talks like he doesn't care what people think. He invites the attacks on himself and tries to use it to his advantage. He's one of the most thoughtless presidents when it comes to public speaking. He's a loose cannon on the mic. Sometimes it helps him, sometimes not. He goes out there and starts blasting, whether what he says is true or not. He's out there to rile the crowds and push his agenda. He doesn't care if it's popular or he makes friends or not. He's taking people to task and going after what he considers imbalances against the United States. This hasn't happened in my lifetime. The last president I saw that projected this kind of strength was Reagan, but he was a hell of lot more well spoken when he was taking someone to task.

I agree that the level of attacks are more intense with Trump rather than they were with Nixon, but given that unlike Trump, Nixon couldn't respond or have anyone in the media rise up to defend him, so the net effect of those attacks was greater with Nixon.

You had to have lived through the Watergate era to understand the extent of the attacks on Nixon. I vividly remember John Chancellor of NBC News coming on national TV, interrupting regular programming, and saying that the United States was in the midst of the "most grave constitutional crisis in the history of the nation" (forgetting about the Civil War, Great Depression, etc) after Nixon fired the special prosecutor, which was his constitutional right to do so. That type of hysteria coming out of the media made you think that missles were inbound from the USSR rather than the perfectly legal act of the POTUS firing a subordinate. And it worked, as it had a resonating effect with Americans as the next day, tons of mail flooded congressmen urging them to impeach over it. Those types of extreme characterizations went unanswered, severely compromising Nixon's base, which is what did him in.

Once again, I'll add my disclaimer that I am not defending Richard Nixon or any of his actions. Both then and now, I felt he should have been run out of town and ultimately got what he deserved.

RiverDog wrote:I agree that the level of attacks are more intense with Trump rather than they were with Nixon, but given that unlike Trump, Nixon couldn't respond or have anyone in the media rise up to defend him, so the net effect of those attacks was greater with Nixon.

You had to have lived through the Watergate era to understand the extent of the attacks on Nixon. I vividly remember John Chancellor of NBC News coming on national TV, interrupting regular programming, and saying that the United States was in the midst of the "most grave constitutional crisis in the history of the nation" (forgetting about the Civil War, Great Depression, etc) after Nixon fired the special prosecutor, which was his constitutional right to do so. That type of hysteria coming out of the media made you think that missles were inbound from the USSR rather than the perfectly legal act of the POTUS firing a subordinate. And it worked, as it had a resonating effect with Americans as the next day, tons of mail flooded congressmen urging them to impeach over it. Those types of extreme characterizations went unanswered, severely compromising Nixon's base, which is what did him in.

Once again, I'll add my disclaimer that I am not defending Richard Nixon or any of his actions. Both then and now, I felt he should have been run out of town and ultimately got what he deserved.

We're not talking after Watergate here though. We're talking about relentless attack before anything has been proven. Trump has been attacked relentlessly since he started running for office. First by his own party, then by the Dems and anti-Trumpers during the election, and by what might be most of the world after his election. It's an unprecedented level of attack.

Was Nixon attacked like this prior to Watergate? Did he have to fight most of the world's press? Trump isn't just fighting the national press, he's fighting the world press. They are on his ass everywhere. He can't take a trip to a foreign nation without some series of stories or grandstanding politicians taking shots at him or trying to make some kind of statement using his visits. Even in Great Britain their talking about banning him and he wasn't invited to the Royal Wedding and the like. They love taking shots at Trump. He seems to feed on it, so maybe he likes it.

Aseahawkfan wrote:We're not talking after Watergate here though. We're talking about relentless attack before anything has been proven.

The war between Nixon and the media started long, long before Watergate and can be traced all the way back to 1952.

Trump has been attacked relentlessly since he started running for office. First by his own party, then by the Dems and anti-Trumpers during the election, and by what might be most of the world after his election. It's an unprecedented level of attack.

No doubt about it, but once again, Trump has had the benefit of a conservative press and social media to get his message out at least to his followers, even if all it entails is his calling the accusations "fake news." Nixon could not communicate with his base like Trump can. And although I would agree that Nixon did not have as many enemies within his own party, he still had signficant opposition, which is one of the reasons why they abandoned him during Watergate and why his coattails were very short despite his overwhelming victory in 1972. Nixon's campaign in '72 often times dropped the Republican designation in their ads and he did next to nothing to campaign for R candidates.

I will say that a lot of Nixon's troubles were of his own doing, but then again, it's very similar to Trump in that he's invited the attacks on him with is constant tweeting and his thin skin where he takes offense to the most trivial of slights. The more he tweets, the more they attack. Nixon developed a genuine paranoia with the press, and actively went to war with them. I see similar traits with Trump.