It's an absolute disaster how low things have gotten.

The irony is your fixation on Trump's balls.

And it's actually true that Papa Joe Kennedy stole Illinois and WVA for Jack.  But today's far left Dems aren't challenging Delicate Donnie's win.  There was one weak effort by Jill Stein (not Hillary, who conceded gracefully) and that was months ago. So the entire premise of your post is wrong.
Now, if you want to have a real debate, challenge the Dems' relentless opposition to all of Trump's initiatives. I happen to agree with most of it, but at least that's a legitimate question.

Nixon had no balls..just a sniveling coward..

To make your lousy point even hold water, the 1960  Republicans would have had to do everything possible to denigrate President Kennedy.  

You're a legend in your own mind, right???

How far would have trump taken this "Election was rigged" nonsense. He had his based primed and ready to fight it till the end. How many state recalls would have he demanded. He for sure wasn't going away quietly..I think we all know that. Just a thought...
And Nixon was a true "Republican" in the sense he put "Country before party". Can today's republicans say that?
So as for "standing down", not really sure why or what for.
So I'm not sure if this gives your post a different take or...

Since all you have remaining is a FG meme, I guess not.

...Nixon committed treason by sabotaging the Paris peace talks, resulting in the Vietnam War continuing for five more years and thousands more American soldiers killed.  Trump + Russia = treason.

If you can provide one, I'd be very interested to investigate. It wasn't just IL and WV. TX was also suspect. Anything else sounds like just a convenient excuse to avoid the topic.

You're talking about 1968 Nixon while I was talking about 1960 Nixon AND we are still left with the far left Democrats of today having less integrity and character than 1960 Nixon. Maybe you're implying that in a few years the far Left Democrats will have even less integrity and character than they do now?

My count is a big zero.

Your typically tendentious, poorly written and dense posts deserve only derision.  Hence, this....If you don't like it, don't respond to my posts.

Yeah yeah yeah.

Whatever....dems were photographed blubbering like babies when the final results came in and Crooked Hillary was officially declared a LOSER.....AGAIN.  

Actually I got laid last night....you should try it.

But Obama the RACIST was a saint?

That pretty much sums up his entire 8 years.

It’s understandable you rather join your friends here to bury your head in the sand rather than face the fact that the far Left has not accepted Hillary Clinton’s concession. These “unacceptors” range from the rioters and protesters to a solid majority of the Press to the leaders of the Democrat Party and most importantly to Democrats working in government agencies. Most vocally say yes he is President but their actions indicate otherwise. And Clinton and Obama (Obama especially) are doing what they can to stoke the fire, not tamp it down. This isn’t about resisting Trump’s policies, it’s about working to get rid of Trump.  

The truth is that Nixon and the GOP launched a massive nationwide campaign for a recount of the 1960 election.  The meager recount effort for the 2016 election pales in comparison as it was limited to one state.  Check out Greenberg of Columbia University's extensive work on Nixon history and place in American politics for the actual truth.  There are plenty of other historical sources.  Thank god Trumpy and the radical elements of the GOP's vision of 1984 just won't play out because the truth is out there.  I just wish more progressives would do more to point it out.

You are really, really dense.  I did not read your post. I just told you I consider you a buffoon so idiotic I have no interest in debating anything with you.  Yet you feel compelled to respond anyway.  Perhaps you simply MUST have the last word.  OK, go for it if you're really that retarded.  I can guarantee I won't be reading it.  Just laughing at you....

Good one. It suits you well.

...than in 1968?  Why don't you go back to 1946 and 1950 to see his character in his races against Jerry Voorhis and Helen Gahagan Douglas.  See also his sob story Checkers speech in 1952 to save his Veep ambitions.

drives everything they do in their life must be based on your personal life.

...Nixon's character and integrity in 1960, yet when shown his total lack of character and integrity throughout his life, you post some bullshit about never making any favorable statement or characterization of Nixon's actions either before or after the 1960 election.  Way to dance on the head of a pin - now you're claiming your OP was limiting Nixon's "character and " integrity" to the 1960 election. Bwahahahaha!!

I used to read a lot more political stuff, pre-internet. Jack Anderson pulled up lots of stuff in the Nixon days, but I'm not saying that I remember reading the election fraud allegations in Anderson's work. There were a lot of investigative reporters back then.

I never brought Nixon's behavior post 1960 into this. Others in this thread have tried to as well as you. It IS possible to praise or point out one good thing a person does without excusing all the bad things that person ever did. I think I will never get  over the mentality here akin to if you're not 100% with me then you are my enemy.  

Your statement, "You didn't say Nixon had far more integrity and character in the 1960 election" is 100% false. The 1960 clarification was right up front in the first sentence of my main paragraph in the OP. So I'm not JUST NOW making the claim. It was RIGHT IN THE OP.

Look up Watergate!

Absolute disaster? Yep! That truly was! There' so much missing in both contexts you present; that of Nixon, and that of Trump's election, and the democrats response to it, that you are left with just a fat pile of BS!

would argue about how many angels could dance on the head of a pin. I had always pictured Ed as being one of the one's arguing, not one of ones dancing!

The content that clearly spells out it was about Nixon's actions relating to the 1960 election results. But then I expect you to only look at headlines so I'm not at all surprised at your reaction. At worst I'm guilty of an incomplete headline and since I rail against them I deserve that, sorry that they are limited in length here. But then again you live for false headlines.

Context!

The context I was pointing out was in regard to the man and his political history, not the one aspect within that context that you present!

That's a common tactic when you have no actual countering argument that stays within the context parameters.

But, you just can't see it or admit it. And, after all that's said and done, it made you sound like you are crying about how unfairly Trump is being treated!