What I hated most about Frost/Nixon (kinda political)

[Post]

The movie, specifically. I like it although it's probably boring to most. But the key issue I had with it was:

it made Nixon human.

Like, amazingly well. While I still think he did horrible things in office, I could empathize with him, and could actually see what he did may have not been done with malice. It was much easier to see him as evil political guy #5198357.

[Noleader]

"It's not illegal when the President does it." - Nixon

[Post]

And he was ridiculous for thinking that. I distinctly got the feeling, though - at least how it was portrayed in the movie - that he felt that was something unique to the President's position and not only when he or someone he agreed with was fulfilling the position.

[Noleader]

He went to the grave basically defending that position as well. It is kind of scary that we have reached a point in which Presidents (VP Cheney claimed that same thing) think they are above the law when our law clearly states that no person is above it and even requires oaths to it when taking office.

[Post]

And hence why I see Cheney as different. When Cheney and the Bush administration left office, his vocal opinion has been very clear that the current administration does not have the same privileges he felt he had while in office.

[Noleader]

Yep. They both were of the mind set that most political people are. It is great when we are in here but god forbid someone else do the same thing.

Nixon could be explained away as someone that truly did not understand our system of government and liked power so joined into it anyways.

[MickeyFinn]

Have you considered the idea that he was right? When was the last time a President was convicted of any number of things I could list?

[Noleader]

Legally speaking he is not right. Enforcement of it is weak at best and completely ignored most of the time. Because we only have two parties they normally just side with their guy and make him impeachment proof until the public in mass demands it. It would be enforced more if we had more parties that could form a bloc to impeach a president.

[Post]

Him being right implies Presidents who didn't were wrong. And that he would have been a worse President if he didn't. Which is ridiculous.

[MickeyFinn]

what's on paper and what actually happens are two different things. he was right in that there are no consequences for him.

[Post]

LEGAL consequences. The "it's not illegal if you're not caught" ideology only works for a relative few. Myself, I couldn't live comfortably killing someone even if I was never caught.

[MickeyFinn]

If everyone felt that way, crime wouldn't exist- and as a result, neither would criminal law. The conscience exists in only a few.

[Post]

First of all, that would only work if everyone had a guilty conscience about every possible evil. Just because some feel bad about stealing and others feel bad about driving fast, doesn't mean that they all feel bad about both crimes.

Secondly, things like murder and rape are things only a relative few are willing to do. By your insinuation, conscience only in a few = no conscience in many = more than half = 150+ million Americans would murder if there was no crime of it. Which is ridiculous.

The problem is that even with a really small pool of people willing to murder, it's still a big issue in society. Furthermore, the pool of people who actually murder is actually a big chunk of the people willing. The cruel truth is, because of this fact of population pools, a lot of law is directed not so much towards it ever happening, but rather, from the same people doing it again and again.

And repeat offense morality screws up your theory of laws = low conscience of the population.

[MickeyFinn]

Take a look at some psychiatric studies some time. The number of people that would kill because they are pressured to, or paid to, or can justify it to themselves is huge.

We're off topic- I have yet to see a President be convicted of something... Including Nixon! They all laugh in the face of the law. Clinton committed perjury and openly admitted it. What'd we do? It's only illegal if you aren't in charge.

[Post]

Perjury has two requirements to make it as such. Clinton did one.

But that's neither here nor there; again, you're indirectly stating it's "right" to murder someone if you can get away with it. You can believe it's "right" to do whatever you want since that's subjective, but it's perfectly legitimate to think things the President does is not "right" regardless of being caught, charged and convicted.

Edit: and for that matter, people driven to murder and their limits is completely different from ethical right and wrong we're speaking of. All that the psychiatric studies show is that a lot of people can be driven to do wrong, not that it's magically right when driven to that point.

[MickeyFinn]

Until a consequence exists, it's condoned. That's all I'm saying.

[Post]

And yet again, you're indirectly stating it's "right" to murder someone if you can get away with it. For that matter, there is a legal consequence (that they got around), and a public opinion consequence that does exist.

*I* think lesser of him. That is a consequence. Hence, it's not condoned *by me.* We as a country do not condone slavery, even if someone does it in some other country. That is an example of the US not giving consequence, but it not being condoned.