Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Simple question: once Nixon was gone President Ford came in and pardoned Nixon for all the stuff he'd done. Some people were upset and said this was just another example of rich/powerful people getting away with murder. Well not specifically murder obviously.

Ford's reasoning at the time was that the nation would suffer because they'd be too focused on the trial. So I guess I am wondering if you think Nixon should of been pardoned? I can't deny there is some logic to Ford's reasoning, but then I would also ask if this means that people should not be put on trial if said trial would draw massive amounts of attention?

NO. public officials should be treated more harshly when they lie to the public.

Originally posted by Surtur
Simple question?

No its not. It doesn't even make sense.

Originally posted by Raisen
NO. public officials should be treated more harshly when they lie to the public.
Like police officers?

Originally posted by jaden101
No its not. It doesn't even make sense.

It's asking whether or not he should of been pardoned, what part about that doesn't make sense?

Also the question is simple, the answer might not be. It's simple in that it shouldn't be difficult to comprehend.

Originally posted by Raisen
NO. public officials should be treated more harshly when they lie to the public.

He didn't just lie he refused to hand over evidence and actually demanded a specific person be fired for continuing to look in it, and two people resigned rather then fire the guy before they finally found someone who would.

The evidence was recordings of conversations he had and he refused to give them over and then ended up only giving transcripts until finally he gave up the evidence. Which the last bit doesn't even make sense because it's not like he left stuff out of the transcripts so all the incriminating shit was still released.

That for me is the worst of what he did. He most likely didn't actually sanction the whole Watergate thing, but not only did he try to cover it up he tried to use his own power as president to circumvent the law. He didn't even do it on the sly,he just blatantly said "no I'm not going to do this".

I personally think we should take away the Prez's pardon ability all together. Especially if a Jury is involved.

Originally posted by Peace Keeper
Like police officers?

Are Cops "public officals"?

They don't get VOTED in....

Originally posted by Flyattractor
I personally think we should take away the Prez's pardon ability all together. Especially if a Jury is involved.



Are Cops "public officals"?

They don't get VOTED in....
You don't know the definition of public official, do you?

Anyone who holds authority over the public, given by the government, elected or not, is a public official.

Should have.

Not 'should of'.

Originally posted by krisblaze
Should have.

Not 'should of'.

Did you have anything else to add?

Originally posted by Peace Keeper
You don't know the definition of public official, do you?

Anyone who holds authority over the public, given by the government, elected or not, is a public official.

I don't know cause I don't really care.

But I do think that ELECTED Public Officials should be held to and treated more harshly for their crimes. But then if you break the law that person should be punished to the fullest no matter WHAT their positions are.


Like how Hillary should be NAILED to the WALL for her crimes but won't.

cops, corrections, and many others are considered public officials.

Originally posted by Raisen
cops, corrections, and many others are considered public officials.
Of course they are. Lol....I don't even know what to say.

I noticed since I stopped posting in here, Ush and the other mods dont come around and patrol the forum.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
I noticed since I stopped posting in here, Ush and the other mods dont come around and patrol the forum.
Well, dont say their names! They may come back and turn the GDF into a safe space again...free from racist facts and logically sound arguments!

I wont post here about anything anymore because any discussion just gets shut down.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
I wont post here about anything anymore because any discussion just gets shut down.
Hell, if you do that, then they think they win. We can have that, fren. You aren't the hero GDF asked for, youre the hero GDF deserves.

Let's do dis!!!

Originally posted by Surtur
Simple question: once Nixon was gone President Ford came in and pardoned Nixon for all the stuff he'd done. Some people were upset and said this was just another example of rich/powerful people getting away with murder. Well not specifically murder obviously.

Ford's reasoning at the time was that the nation would suffer because they'd be too focused on the trial. So I guess I am wondering if you think Nixon should of been pardoned? I can't deny there is some logic to Ford's reasoning, but then I would also ask if this means that people should not be put on trial if said trial would draw massive amounts of attention?

No, he should not have been pardoned.

Of course massive amounts of attention will be drawn to powerful public figures. Using that as an explanation is a total fail.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
I wont post here about anything anymore because any discussion just gets shut down.

You shouldn't let them get to you. Also how are you posting if it says your account is restricted?

Probably not, but what he did is choir boy shit compared to what politicians do these days, on the regular.

Originally posted by Surtur
You shouldn't let them get to you. Also how are you posting if it says your account is restricted?
The regressive mods try to weed out any dissenting opinions. It's sad.