Madman Theory

Ok, I’m a flaming Liberal with a guilty admission to make - I actually think Nixon wasn’t nearly as bad as he was made out to be. Sure he had personal flaws but he was also sharp enough to realize some things were important. He created the EPA for crying out loud, and visited China, which was verboten at the time. ANYWAY - the other thing he was known for was the Madman Policy (or theory). I doubt it’s on purpose, as it was for Nixon, but Trump seems to be laying the same groundwork. And when you’re dealing with a bunch of thugs like ISIS, maybe it just might be effective. I don’t know.

I voted for Nixon. I would have voted for McGovern, but the rap on him was that he was wishy-washy, which he proved to me by selecting Eagleton as his running mate, saying that he would stand by Eagleton when a scandal arose, and then dropped Eagleton when it came out that Eagleton had had depression and treatment by ECT.
As far as the madman idea, however, I don’t think that fits with religious zealots. Maybe you can out-crazy other nation-states, but you can’t out-crazy religious mad men.

Fart on Nixon, (Okay, sorry, let me refine that a little. For all my contempt for some of the people he brought into politics and not being at all impressed with his personal paranoid thing - Yes, I still have to give it to you. Nixon was a Statesman, incredible knowledge, still of the old school “country first” ideal - even if not lived up to {who does}, I believe he believed it and tried living it, least till the little demons in his head took over.) or to be more specific the ruthless villains he brought into politics like Lee Atwater]
That Eagleton thing sooo sucked.
As for McGovern, he got a bad rap.
There’s an example of another genuine WWII hero trashed by a bunch of draft dodging pretty boy operatives.
I mean, “McGovern flew 35 combat missions as pilot of a B-24 Liberator in Italy during World War II, and received numerous combat awards.” - I ain’t big on war, but that doesn’t mean I can’t appreciate what it takes to be a good soldier, and a pilot flying a lumbering aircraft through enemy fire - jezz that takes some skill, and cohones, and brains, and force-of-spirit (he was the man in charge of the aircraft and his crew) - I believe on two occasions he limped back and landed a badly damaged plane. That demands real character, fancy facade don’t do it.
AS for his political character, he was one of that dying breed who went into politics for his country rather personal gain and fame. I know many today can’t comprehend what a ‘sense of duty to the greater good’, is or means, but it used to be a real deal.
He wouldn’t have betrayed his country. All those huge what-ifs… and what if Gore had won… and what if Kennedy hadn’t been shot.
Instead the dogs of war won the day and the age.
What if people would wake up?

'TRASHING' CANDIDATES By George McGovern - Published: May 11, 1983 http://www.nytimes.com/1983/05/11/opinion/trashing-candidates.html
I was looking for some opposing thoughts and found this instead. Makes for a good timely read:
What Democrats Still Don’t Get About George McGovern BY JOSHUA MOUND February 29, 2016 https://newrepublic.com/article/130737/democrats-still-dont-get-george-mcgovern
Richard Nixon at 100: not just criminal, but treasonous too Michael Cohen http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/jan/10/richard-nixon-100-criminal-traitor
Although Will Bunch does a sobering job of putting Nixon's deeds into perspective:
What Woodward and Bernstein Got Wrong About Watergate http://www.huffingtonpost.com/will-bunch/what-woodward-and-bernste_b_1605208.html

And John Kerry might have been POTUS, had he not been swift-boated by piss-ants.

I voted for Nixon. I would have voted for McGovern, but the rap on him was that he was wishy-washy, which he proved to me by selecting Eagleton as his running mate, saying that he would stand by Eagleton when a scandal arose, and then dropped Eagleton when it came out that Eagleton had had depression and treatment by ECT. As far as the madman idea, however, I don't think that fits with religious zealots. Maybe you can out-crazy other nation-states, but you can't out-crazy religious mad men.
I don't know. I gotta believe even religious nuts have a segment in their subconscious where they love their families beyond whatever religious delusions they hold, so that threatening to go after their families, as Trump suggested, while repulsive, might have an effect on them. Might not prevent the most extreme, but maybe it might slow down or turn those on the fence about it.
I voted for Nixon. I would have voted for McGovern, but the rap on him was that he was wishy-washy, which he proved to me by selecting Eagleton as his running mate, saying that he would stand by Eagleton when a scandal arose, and then dropped Eagleton when it came out that Eagleton had had depression and treatment by ECT. As far as the madman idea, however, I don't think that fits with religious zealots. Maybe you can out-crazy other nation-states, but you can't out-crazy religious mad men.
It wasn't selecting Eagleton as his running mate that showed him to be wishy-washy, it was that he didn't stand up for him. The selection wasn't the problem. It was ignorance of mental health issues. I voted for McGovern because I felt there were a lot more important issues to consider than whether he erred on Eagleton. as it turned out I was right. McGovern with his one demerit would have been many times better than tricky Dick. It would take a whole lot more than one slip to make me vote for any Republican. It would go against all of my political standards. i would vote for a third party before I'd ever vote for a Republican. Every one I've ever known has shown himself to be a war monger, in favor of tax cuts for the rich and favoring big business over everything else. I don't think McGovern's error on Eagleton showed him to be wishy-washy. It showed him to be uninformed on that one issue. Nixon showed himself to be uninformed on many more issues, including basic morality, with the result that he almost caused a presidential crisis. I also could never forgive Ford for pardoning him. It was an inside job that damaged the country. Needless to say, I didn't vote for Ford, either. Lois
I voted for Nixon. I would have voted for McGovern, but the rap on him was that he was wishy-washy, which he proved to me by selecting Eagleton as his running mate, saying that he would stand by Eagleton when a scandal arose, and then dropped Eagleton when it came out that Eagleton had had depression and treatment by ECT. As far as the madman idea, however, I don't think that fits with religious zealots. Maybe you can out-crazy other nation-states, but you can't out-crazy religious mad men.
I don't know. I gotta believe even religious nuts have a segment in their subconscious where they love their families beyond whatever religious delusions they hold, so that threatening to go after their families, as Trump suggested, while repulsive, might have an effect on them. Might not prevent the most extreme, but maybe it might slow down or turn those on the fence about it. They don't love their families any more than any other segment of the population. It's an outright lie they would like us to accept. They are as likely to be cruel to and neglectful of their families as anyone else and history has proven this to be true at every turn. Lois
I voted for Nixon. I would have voted for McGovern, but the rap on him was that he was wishy-washy, which he proved to me by selecting Eagleton as his running mate, saying that he would stand by Eagleton when a scandal arose, and then dropped Eagleton when it came out that Eagleton had had depression and treatment by ECT. As far as the madman idea, however, I don't think that fits with religious zealots. Maybe you can out-crazy other nation-states, but you can't out-crazy religious mad men.
I don't know. I gotta believe even religious nuts have a segment in their subconscious where they love their families beyond whatever religious delusions they hold, so that threatening to go after their families, as Trump suggested, while repulsive, might have an effect on them. Might not prevent the most extreme, but maybe it might slow down or turn those on the fence about it. If killing families of Daesh became US policy, there are a few obvious problems. 1) Screw the concept of international law, and whatever hope such a concept might hold for the future of humanity. 2) If you don't also kill extended family and anyone who cares about the innocents that you are killing, you create more future terrorists, than you have killed. 3) You become the moral equivalent of what you are trying to destroy.
I voted for Nixon. I would have voted for McGovern, but the rap on him was that he was wishy-washy, which he proved to me by selecting Eagleton as his running mate, saying that he would stand by Eagleton when a scandal arose, and then dropped Eagleton when it came out that Eagleton had had depression and treatment by ECT. As far as the madman idea, however, I don't think that fits with religious zealots. Maybe you can out-crazy other nation-states, but you can't out-crazy religious mad men.
I don't know. I gotta believe even religious nuts have a segment in their subconscious where they love their families beyond whatever religious delusions they hold, so that threatening to go after their families, as Trump suggested, while repulsive, might have an effect on them. Might not prevent the most extreme, but maybe it might slow down or turn those on the fence about it. If killing families of Daesh became US policy, there are a few obvious problems. 1) Screw the concept of international law, and whatever hope such a concept might hold for the future of humanity. 2) If you don't also kill extended family and anyone who cares about the innocents that you are killing, you create more future terrorists, than you have killed. 3) You become the moral equivalent of what you are trying to destroy.Interesting. I'd say the US gov has a long history of all of these, which is one reason so many hate us.
I voted for Nixon. I would have voted for McGovern, but the rap on him was that he was wishy-washy, which he proved to me by selecting Eagleton as his running mate, saying that he would stand by Eagleton when a scandal arose, and then dropped Eagleton when it came out that Eagleton had had depression and treatment by ECT. As far as the madman idea, however, I don't think that fits with religious zealots. Maybe you can out-crazy other nation-states, but you can't out-crazy religious mad men.
I don't know. I gotta believe even religious nuts have a segment in their subconscious where they love their families beyond whatever religious delusions they hold, so that threatening to go after their families, as Trump suggested, while repulsive, might have an effect on them. Might not prevent the most extreme, but maybe it might slow down or turn those on the fence about it. If killing families of Daesh became US policy, there are a few obvious problems. 1) Screw the concept of international law, and whatever hope such a concept might hold for the future of humanity. 2) If you don't also kill extended family and anyone who cares about the innocents that you are killing, you create more future terrorists, than you have killed. 3) You become the moral equivalent of what you are trying to destroy.Interesting. I'd say the US gov has a long history of all of these, which is one reason so many hate us. So Trump advocates more of that, just more intensively, I guess. I suspect that the ultimate results would be the same, just more intensive.

Nixon was a Prescott Bush stooge, that says all I need to know about the man.
http://www.businessinsider.com/watergate-revelations-the-coup-against-nixon-part-1-of-3-2012-5

Ok, I'm a flaming Liberal with a guilty admission to make - I actually think Nixon wasn't nearly as bad as he was made out to be. Sure he had personal flaws but he was also sharp enough to realize some things were important. He created the EPA for crying out loud, and visited China, which was verboten at the time. ANYWAY - the other thing he was known for was the Madman Policy (or theory). I doubt it's on purpose, as it was for Nixon, but Trump seems to be laying the same groundwork. And when you're dealing with a bunch of thugs like ISIS, maybe it just might be effective. I don't know.
Nixon's Madman Policy was directed at Vietnam, he wanted to convince the NV leadership that if they didn't come to the peace table he would nuke the North. Nixon also expanded the Vietnam war into Cambodia and Laos, US bombing and operations in Cambodia completely destabilized the country and led directly to the rise of Pol Pot and the killing fields where probably more than 2 million died. http://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/stories/cambodia/tl02.html https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_Fields In Laos they are still paying the price of Nixon expanding the war into that country. http://www.reuters.com/article/us-laos-clusterbombs-idUSTRE4AQ0HD20081127 Watergate itself wasn't limited to the raiding of the Democratic party headquarters, it was the tip of the iceberg of Nixon using the entire US intelligence apparatus as his person political tool. I seriously doubt that America could survive another President like Nixon, if Trump is elected to office I think it will be the beginning of the end of the US.