Trump Calls for Mitt Romney's Impeachment

[OSR stands with Israel]

How will Republicans defend this one?

I won't.  The fact is, we have a self-worshipping moron as a president.  That doesn't mean I'm going to support a Democrat though.

Will you at least vote third party or write in then

[OSR stands with Israel]

Trump just wants to stay in the headlines as usual and the best way to do that is by attacking the Whoever the President is

[OSR stands with Israel]

Trump's strategy is to immediately counterattack when attacked, and to not let his opponents get a second wind.  This is no different.

Trump should point out, relentlessly, how Mitt Romney trashed him when he viewed it expedient to do so, and sucked up to him in other circumstances when it seemed expedient to do so.  This says more about Mitt Romney than it does about Trump.  Romney called Trump a "con man" and a "carnival barker" in early 2016, but after the 2016 election, he had lamb chops with Trump in a pricey restaurant and pretty much begged to be Secretary of State.  Somehow, Mitt Romney isn't winning me over on his "character" arguments.

So what, so many politicians in the past join cabinets of Presidents they disagree with . If Kerry won in 2004 and he wanted to interview John McCain for the the Sec of State position , McCain would take it even though he and other Republicans called Kerry’s foreign policy dangerous and cutting and running in the campaign.


The fact is Trump broke the law Fuzzy and even right wing legal experts like Judge Napolitano have said so and Napolitano is no where near a liberal . He went after Obama hard for 8 years and harder than many many other Fox Pundits do as well .   

[OSR stands with Israel]

Why do people still think Trump is an alpha male, he is the biggest snowflake in politics right now. He cries about everything. Being Alpha is not necessarily good but Trump is not close to one and if he faced a campaign team like Bush 2000 he would lose big time. Karl Rove would have obliterated Trump in every way possible, and Trump would do nothing but complain how Rove is bullying him.

Im sure if Rove was given full control over a campaign , that access hollywood tape would have been leaked right before the South Carolina primary or Super Tuesday which would have destroyed Trump before he could react and that would just be one of the things that would happen. Rove was an expert of taking people's perceived strengths and turning into one of their biggest weaknesses(He did it with McCain, Gore and Kerry). Rove would have made Trump's business record as a total liability , would make him look unpatriotic , and would make him look like the opposite of an Alpha Male.


I am not a fan of Rove one bit but he is exactly what is needed against someone like Trump as when you run against Trump you are not running a normal civil election campaign but Trump will make things personal and go dirty from day one so you have to be ready to do the same in return and Rove is an expert at that

[OSR stands with Israel]

Why do people still think Trump is an alpha male, he is the biggest snowflake in politics right now. He cries about everything. Being Alpha is not necessarily good but Trump is not close to one and if he faced a campaign team like Bush 2000 he would lose big time. Karl Rove would have obliterated Trump in every way possible, and Trump would do nothing but complain how Rove is bullying him.

Im sure if Rove was given full control over a campaign , that access hollywood tape would have been leaked right before the South Carolina primary or Super Tuesday which would have destroyed Trump before he could react and that would just be one of the things that would happen. Rove was an expert of taking people's perceived strengths and turning into one of their biggest weaknesses(He did it with McCain, Gore and Kerry). Rove would have made Trump's business record as a total liability , would make him look unpatriotic , and would make him look like the opposite of an Alpha Male.


I am not a fan of Rove one bit but he is exactly what is needed against someone like Trump as when you run against Trump you are not running a normal civil election campaign but Trump will make things personal and go dirty from day one so you have to be ready to do the same in return and Rove is an expert at that

Rove was overrated as a political genius in my mind. He was damned lucky that a few hundred ballots in FL saved him from being a permenant second tier consultant in 2000. As it was, it took American Crossroads getting blown out of the water in 2012, plus his silly live refusal on Fox to accept Ohio went to Obama, to do that.

This said, I agree we have to fight Trump with a switchblade from day 1. The key though is to run primarily on economic issues. The few persuadalbe votes could be moved to abandon Trump if presented an easily damning case his populism was all phony and he's more of a Richie Rich guy than Romney ever could be.

I'm not saying abandon the personal issues altogether, but they'll get enough coverage to largely take care of themselves. Anyone who whom even grudging accepts Trump's complete lack of character and suitability to be president is 99% unflippable at this point.

With the fundamentals the way they were in 2000, Gore should have won that election with 300+ EV so Bush winning is actually an accomplishment and Rove hasnt been a campaign manager or even influential in one since Bush in 2004.

Obviously I disagree with you on the economic policy part because I actually think Trump's economic policies have been good . So instead I think this is the campaign that should be run

This would mine:


1. Burst the Bubble He is Some Sort of Nationalist and tough on Radical Islam

- Mention over and over that Saudi Arabia murdered a US Permanent Resident and Trump sided with the Saudis

- Mention over and over that Trump is giving a Sharia State(Saudi Arabia) Nuclear Weapons and remind how the Saudis funds terrorists and Trump wants to trust them with Nukes

- Mention how Trump is negotiating with the Tailban, the same people who harbored the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11(I favor withdrawal too but not in this manner)

- Mention how Trump trusted a person who was a member of the Communist KGB over US intelligence


2. How Trump isnt doing enough against China


- He called someone who he appointed a bigger threat than the Chinese

- He has done nothing regarding the Hong Kong protests and even expressed sympathy to the communist government

- He withdrew from an agreement which would have allied us with nations who are opposed to the Communist Chinese Government



Why I would do the first two things: Trump is viewed as someone who is a nationalist, tough on China and tough on Radical Islam  . The media figures on the right use it to praise him , the figures on the left use it to attack him as reckless and divisive. What needs to be made clear is Trump is none of those 3 things and I find it stunning he isnt challanged on these 3 things and especially  the nationalist part because he is no such thing .




3. Attack his personal conduct


- This is obvious

[OSR stands with Israel]

Hot take. Impeach and remove Trump. Then we can have a discussion on Mitt Romney's suitability in office. If Pence gets tossed (hopefully not cause I'm on the Papa Pence train) can we please elevate Mitt Romney to the White House and correct the disastrous mistake of 2012 2016?

Fixed.

Let’s compromise and say correct the disastrous mistake of 2012 AND 2016

[OSR stands with Israel]

Trump's strategy is to immediately counterattack when attacked, and to not let his opponents get a second wind.  This is no different.

Trump should point out, relentlessly, how Mitt Romney trashed him when he viewed it expedient to do so, and sucked up to him in other circumstances when it seemed expedient to do so.  This says more about Mitt Romney than it does about Trump.  Romney called Trump a "con man" and a "carnival barker" in early 2016, but after the 2016 election, he had lamb chops with Trump in a pricey restaurant and pretty much begged to be Secretary of State.  Somehow, Mitt Romney isn't winning me over on his "character" arguments.

So what, so many politicians in the past join cabinets of Presidents they disagree with . If Kerry won in 2004 and he wanted to interview John McCain for the the Sec of State position , McCain would take it even though he and other Republicans called Kerry’s foreign policy dangerous and cutting and running in the campaign.


The fact is Trump broke the law Fuzzy and even right wing legal experts like Judge Napolitano have said so and Napolitano is no where near a liberal . He went after Obama hard for 8 years and harder than many many other Fox Pundits do as well .  

Then let impeachment happen.  But let the entire House vote to authorize the inquiry.

I agree if it’s judicial committee who has to vote to authorize not entire house cause if you do analogy to court cases :


Judicial Committee: DA’s office deciding whether to file charges
Full House : Grand Jury Deciding whether to indict
Senate : Jury deciding whether to find defendant guilty or not guilty

[OSR stands with Israel]

Trump's strategy is to immediately counterattack when attacked, and to not let his opponents get a second wind.  This is no different.

Trump should point out, relentlessly, how Mitt Romney trashed him when he viewed it expedient to do so, and sucked up to him in other circumstances when it seemed expedient to do so.  This says more about Mitt Romney than it does about Trump.  Romney called Trump a "con man" and a "carnival barker" in early 2016, but after the 2016 election, he had lamb chops with Trump in a pricey restaurant and pretty much begged to be Secretary of State.  Somehow, Mitt Romney isn't winning me over on his "character" arguments.

Agree with this.

Mitt Romney is a spineless chameleon who talks a big game and then votes in lockstep with Trump's agenda anyway.  In 2016 he gave a televised speech (which literally no one asked for) bashing Trump calling him "a phony, a fraud."  Eight months later Trump wins the election and he begs like a bitch for the SOS position, then later for his endorsement in the Senate race - and then he has the gall to campaign on being more of an immigration hawk than Trump is.  Pa-thet-ic.

Literally no one cares what Mitt Romney thinks except for fair-weather #resistance liberals, followers of his weird religion, and OSR.  As far as I'm concerned, he deserves all the flack he gets from both the left and right.

The state of Utah seems to like him a lot as well and lol I’m not even the biggest Romney fan on the forum . Did you forget about TCG and Lincoln Republican

[OSR stands with Israel]

How will Republicans defend this one?

I won't.  The fact is, we have a self-worshipping moron as a president.  That doesn't mean I'm going to support a Democrat though.

Will you at least vote third party or write in then

Why would a Republican vote against their interests lol. No one should need to apologize for voting for their beliefs even if the candidate in question sucks. Same goes for Democrats who vote for IE Bob Menendez. Vote for the policies you want to see enacted.

Even if all you care about is policy , its  called not sacrificing the long run for temporary  short run gains

[OSR stands with Israel]

How will Republicans defend this one?

I won't.  The fact is, we have a self-worshipping moron as a president.  That doesn't mean I'm going to support a Democrat though.

Will you at least vote third party or write in then

Why would a Republican vote against their interests lol. No one should need to apologize for voting for their beliefs even if the candidate in question sucks. Same goes for Democrats who vote for IE Bob Menendez. Vote for the policies you want to see enacted.

Even if all you care about is policy , its  called not sacrificing the long run for temporary  short run gains

Thats all the GOP knows....after all, it was clown Reagan who took this country from the world's largest creditor nation to the world's largest debtor nation.....all because he couldnt do basic math

Um no lol, the tax cuts benefits our economy a lot and the military spending was required and guess what it worked , it helped win the Cold War. After 7 years of Vietnam Syndrome , the military had to be rebuilt and Eisenhower's foreign policy had to be restored and thats what Ronald Reagan did

[OSR stands with Israel]

How will Republicans defend this one?

I won't.  The fact is, we have a self-worshipping moron as a president.  That doesn't mean I'm going to support a Democrat though.

Will you at least vote third party or write in then

Why would a Republican vote against their interests lol. No one should need to apologize for voting for their beliefs even if the candidate in question sucks. Same goes for Democrats who vote for IE Bob Menendez. Vote for the policies you want to see enacted.

Even if all you care about is policy , its  called not sacrificing the long run for temporary  short run gains

Thats all the GOP knows....after all, it was clown Reagan who took this country from the world's largest creditor nation to the world's largest debtor nation.....all because he couldnt do basic math

Um no lol, the tax cuts benefits our economy a lot and the military spending was required and guess what it worked , it helped win the Cold War. After 7 years of Vietnam Syndrome , the military had to be rebuilt and Eisenhower's foreign policy had to be restored and thats what Ronald Reagan did

Reagan also thought trees caused pollution so were not exactly dealing with a genius here. Sadly, the GOP has gotten so insane that clowns like Reagan are now considered "liberal."

Yah and he knew that and decided to appoint an extremely smart and competent cabinet and advisors.

Goerge Shultz, James Baker , Malcolm Baldridge , Richard Schwiker , and Jeane Kirkpatrick were extremely great picks .  Then he had economic advisors like Milton Friedman who were brilliant in every way as well.


Reagan also knew how to get bills passed congress as well and was a master of using the bully pulpit in ways no President since FDR has been.

[OSR stands with Israel]

How will Republicans defend this one?

I won't.  The fact is, we have a self-worshipping moron as a president.  That doesn't mean I'm going to support a Democrat though.

Will you at least vote third party or write in then

Why would a Republican vote against their interests lol. No one should need to apologize for voting for their beliefs even if the candidate in question sucks. Same goes for Democrats who vote for IE Bob Menendez. Vote for the policies you want to see enacted.

Even if all you care about is policy , its  called not sacrificing the long run for temporary  short run gains

Thats all the GOP knows....after all, it was clown Reagan who took this country from the world's largest creditor nation to the world's largest debtor nation.....all because he couldnt do basic math

Um no lol, the tax cuts benefits our economy a lot and the military spending was required and guess what it worked , it helped win the Cold War. After 7 years of Vietnam Syndrome , the military had to be rebuilt and Eisenhower's foreign policy had to be restored and thats what Ronald Reagan did

Reagan also thought trees caused pollution so were not exactly dealing with a genius here. Sadly, the GOP has gotten so insane that clowns like Reagan are now considered "liberal."

Yah and he knew that and decided to appoint an extremely smart and competent cabinet and advisors.

Goerge Shultz, James Baker , Malcolm Baldridge , Richard Schwiker , and Jeane Kirkpatrick were extremely great picks .  Then he had economic advisors like Milton Friedman who were brilliant in every way as well.


Reagan also knew how to get bills passed congress as well and was a master of using the bully pulpit in ways no President since FDR has been.

....James Watt, Ed Meese, Samuel Pierce, Mike deaver, Lyn Nofzinger, casper Weinberger, elliot abramz, William Poindexter......

The ones I mentioned had a a far bigger role in the Reagan admin than the ones you mentioned(Exception of Ed Meese). Reagan cabinet overall was amazing

[OSR stands with Israel]

How will Republicans defend this one?

I won't.  The fact is, we have a self-worshipping moron as a president.  That doesn't mean I'm going to support a Democrat though.

Will you at least vote third party or write in then

Why would a Republican vote against their interests lol. No one should need to apologize for voting for their beliefs even if the candidate in question sucks. Same goes for Democrats who vote for IE Bob Menendez. Vote for the policies you want to see enacted.

Even if all you care about is policy , its  called not sacrificing the long run for temporary  short run gains

Thats all the GOP knows....after all, it was clown Reagan who took this country from the world's largest creditor nation to the world's largest debtor nation.....all because he couldnt do basic math

Um no lol, the tax cuts benefits our economy a lot and the military spending was required and guess what it worked , it helped win the Cold War. After 7 years of Vietnam Syndrome , the military had to be rebuilt and Eisenhower's foreign policy had to be restored and thats what Ronald Reagan did

Reagan also thought trees caused pollution so were not exactly dealing with a genius here. Sadly, the GOP has gotten so insane that clowns like Reagan are now considered "liberal."

Yah and he knew that and decided to appoint an extremely smart and competent cabinet and advisors.

Goerge Shultz, James Baker , Malcolm Baldridge , Richard Schwiker , and Jeane Kirkpatrick were extremely great picks .  Then he had economic advisors like Milton Friedman who were brilliant in every way as well.


Reagan also knew how to get bills passed congress as well and was a master of using the bully pulpit in ways no President since FDR has been.

....James Watt, Ed Meese, Samuel Pierce, Mike deaver, Lyn Nofzinger, casper Weinberger, elliot abramz, William Poindexter......

The ones I mentioned had a a far bigger role in the Reagan admin than the ones you mentioned(Exception of Ed Meese). Reagan cabinet overall was amazing

You're on crack. Baker & Schultz, sure. And they were I will gladly concede at least reasonable professionals, who would appear sick like by today's Republican standards, even though they carried out really wrong and it policies. But schweiker? Baldrige? They were ciphers! Bit players at Best. Trust me. I followed politics like a hawk throughout the 1980s and had to look baldrige up, and barely remembered schweiker for his whopping two years as HHH secretary. They were nonentities, man. They were no more important than the mini corrupt individuals - - and I didn't list all of them, not enough time - - throughout the Reagan Administration.

Oh, Jean Kirkpatrick was neither that influential as ambassador to the UN, and what influence she did have was reprehensible supporting such failed historical embarrassments such as eating the Contra terrorists, solidly supporting the South American apartheid regime over Nelson Mandela, and posing pressuring right-wing authoritarian dictators from liberalizing their human rights policies at all so long as they declared anti Russian sentiment

I also named Milton Friedman someone I wish Reagan nominated to Secretary of Treasury instead of just main economic advisor . By the way Reagan followed mostly Friedman’s advice in crafting his economic policies so Friedman was extremely influential and thankfully so .


Also on his South American policy , some of it was bad but many were good as well :

Through his terms Reagan supported the anti-communist regimes of Guatemala and El Salvador and the Contra rebels in Nicaragua, as well as democratic transitions of power in Bolivia (1982), Honduras (1981), Argentina (1983), Brazil (1985), Uruguay (1984), and Suriname (1987

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_policy_of_the_Ronald_Reagan_administration

[OSR stands with Israel]

How will Republicans defend this one?

I won't.  The fact is, we have a self-worshipping moron as a president.  That doesn't mean I'm going to support a Democrat though.

Will you at least vote third party or write in then

Why would a Republican vote against their interests lol. No one should need to apologize for voting for their beliefs even if the candidate in question sucks. Same goes for Democrats who vote for IE Bob Menendez. Vote for the policies you want to see enacted.

Even if all you care about is policy , its  called not sacrificing the long run for temporary  short run gains

Thats all the GOP knows....after all, it was clown Reagan who took this country from the world's largest creditor nation to the world's largest debtor nation.....all because he couldnt do basic math

Um no lol, the tax cuts benefits our economy a lot and the military spending was required and guess what it worked , it helped win the Cold War. After 7 years of Vietnam Syndrome , the military had to be rebuilt and Eisenhower's foreign policy had to be restored and thats what Ronald Reagan did

Reagan also thought trees caused pollution so were not exactly dealing with a genius here. Sadly, the GOP has gotten so insane that clowns like Reagan are now considered "liberal."

Yah and he knew that and decided to appoint an extremely smart and competent cabinet and advisors.

Goerge Shultz, James Baker , Malcolm Baldridge , Richard Schwiker , and Jeane Kirkpatrick were extremely great picks .  Then he had economic advisors like Milton Friedman who were brilliant in every way as well.


Reagan also knew how to get bills passed congress as well and was a master of using the bully pulpit in ways no President since FDR has been.

....James Watt, Ed Meese, Samuel Pierce, Mike deaver, Lyn Nofzinger, casper Weinberger, elliot abramz, William Poindexter......

The ones I mentioned had a a far bigger role in the Reagan admin than the ones you mentioned(Exception of Ed Meese). Reagan cabinet overall was amazing

You're on crack. Baker & Schultz, sure. And they were I will gladly concede at least reasonable professionals, who would appear sick like by today's Republican standards, even though they carried out really wrong and it policies. But schweiker? Baldrige? They were ciphers! Bit players at Best. Trust me. I followed politics like a hawk throughout the 1980s and had to look baldrige up, and barely remembered schweiker for his whopping two years as HHH secretary. They were nonentities, man. They were no more important than the mini corrupt individuals - - and I didn't list all of them, not enough time - - throughout the Reagan Administration.

Oh, Jean Kirkpatrick was neither that influential as ambassador to the UN, and what influence she did have was reprehensible supporting such failed historical embarrassments such as eating the Contra terrorists, solidly supporting the South American apartheid regime over Nelson Mandela, and posing pressuring right-wing authoritarian dictators from liberalizing their human rights policies at all so long as they declared anti Russian sentiment

I also named Milton Friedman someone I wish Reagan nominated to Secretary of Treasury instead of just main economic advisor . By the way Reagan followed mostly Friedman’s advice in crafting his economic policies so Friedman was extremely influential and thankfully so .


Also on his South American policy , some of it was bad but many were good as well :

Through his terms Reagan supported the anti-communist regimes of Guatemala and El Salvador and the Contra rebels in Nicaragua, as well as democratic transitions of power in Bolivia (1982), Honduras (1981), Argentina (1983), Brazil (1985), Uruguay (1984), and Suriname (1987

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_policy_of_the_Ronald_Reagan_administration

Oh please. Is Administration foreign policy Hallmark was to not pressure right-wing authoritarian governments like these 2 democratize or liberalize, all in the name fighting communism. How can you argue that his policies in any manner shape or form cause, or even contributed, to those countries converting to democracy?

A better term for that little snippet you keep quoting would be "Reagan also happened to be president when the right wing dictatorships his administration supported throughout Central and South America succumbed to democratization efforts of their citizens".

That is what that wiki article says not me also if you hate Reagan's Foreign policy so much you probably would hate Eisenhower's cause Reagan's Foreign policy was basically Eisenhower's 2.0.  Heck Reagan's foreign polciy was more liberal than Eisenhower's was in many ways when it came to supporting Coop D'etat's

[OSR stands with Israel]

How will Republicans defend this one?

I won't.  The fact is, we have a self-worshipping moron as a president.  That doesn't mean I'm going to support a Democrat though.

Will you at least vote third party or write in then

Why would a Republican vote against their interests lol. No one should need to apologize for voting for their beliefs even if the candidate in question sucks. Same goes for Democrats who vote for IE Bob Menendez. Vote for the policies you want to see enacted.

Even if all you care about is policy , its  called not sacrificing the long run for temporary  short run gains

Thats all the GOP knows....after all, it was clown Reagan who took this country from the world's largest creditor nation to the world's largest debtor nation.....all because he couldnt do basic math

Um no lol, the tax cuts benefits our economy a lot and the military spending was required and guess what it worked , it helped win the Cold War. After 7 years of Vietnam Syndrome , the military had to be rebuilt and Eisenhower's foreign policy had to be restored and thats what Ronald Reagan did

Reagan also thought trees caused pollution so were not exactly dealing with a genius here. Sadly, the GOP has gotten so insane that clowns like Reagan are now considered "liberal."

Yah and he knew that and decided to appoint an extremely smart and competent cabinet and advisors.

Goerge Shultz, James Baker , Malcolm Baldridge , Richard Schwiker , and Jeane Kirkpatrick were extremely great picks .  Then he had economic advisors like Milton Friedman who were brilliant in every way as well.


Reagan also knew how to get bills passed congress as well and was a master of using the bully pulpit in ways no President since FDR has been.

....James Watt, Ed Meese, Samuel Pierce, Mike deaver, Lyn Nofzinger, casper Weinberger, elliot abramz, William Poindexter......

The ones I mentioned had a a far bigger role in the Reagan admin than the ones you mentioned(Exception of Ed Meese). Reagan cabinet overall was amazing

You're on crack. Baker & Schultz, sure. And they were I will gladly concede at least reasonable professionals, who would appear sick like by today's Republican standards, even though they carried out really wrong and it policies. But schweiker? Baldrige? They were ciphers! Bit players at Best. Trust me. I followed politics like a hawk throughout the 1980s and had to look baldrige up, and barely remembered schweiker for his whopping two years as HHH secretary. They were nonentities, man. They were no more important than the mini corrupt individuals - - and I didn't list all of them, not enough time - - throughout the Reagan Administration.

Oh, Jean Kirkpatrick was neither that influential as ambassador to the UN, and what influence she did have was reprehensible supporting such failed historical embarrassments such as eating the Contra terrorists, solidly supporting the South American apartheid regime over Nelson Mandela, and posing pressuring right-wing authoritarian dictators from liberalizing their human rights policies at all so long as they declared anti Russian sentiment

I also named Milton Friedman someone I wish Reagan nominated to Secretary of Treasury instead of just main economic advisor . By the way Reagan followed mostly Friedman’s advice in crafting his economic policies so Friedman was extremely influential and thankfully so .


Also on his South American policy , some of it was bad but many were good as well :

Through his terms Reagan supported the anti-communist regimes of Guatemala and El Salvador and the Contra rebels in Nicaragua, as well as democratic transitions of power in Bolivia (1982), Honduras (1981), Argentina (1983), Brazil (1985), Uruguay (1984), and Suriname (1987

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_policy_of_the_Ronald_Reagan_administration

Oh please. Is Administration foreign policy Hallmark was to not pressure right-wing authoritarian governments like these 2 democratize or liberalize, all in the name fighting communism. How can you argue that his policies in any manner shape or form cause, or even contributed, to those countries converting to democracy?

A better term for that little snippet you keep quoting would be "Reagan also happened to be president when the right wing dictatorships his administration supported throughout Central and South America succumbed to democratization efforts of their citizens".

That is what that wiki article says not me also if you hate Reagan's Foreign policy so much you probably would hate Eisenhower's cause Reagan's Foreign policy was basically Eisenhower's 2.0.  Heck Reagan's foreign polciy was more liberal than Eisenhower's was in many ways when it came to supporting Coop D'etat's

I can read the wiki article just fine. What I'm encouraging you to do is expand your critical thinking Beyond mere recitation. There's no evidence whatsoever that Reagan's policies had Jack squat to do Central and South America. How did Honduras democratizing only a few months after he took office and doing so about a year after he took office have anything to do with him? Also in light of the fact that Reagan adamantly and proudly made a Cornerstone of his foreign policy that human rights abuses and lack of freedom and democracy from right wing anti-communist allies was to be tolerated due to the need to fight worldwide Soviet aggression. He was wrong, and that Wikipedia blurb doesn't prove Jack schitt to the contrary.

Set a reminder 8 your initial Point, yes, Baker and shorts were at least reasonable and professional cabinet members of Reagan's. And they were really about the only two in his administration who both had actual influence / power, and work otherwise Crooks, laughing stocks, or proven dead wrong by history

Milton Friedman had a lot of influence and he was proven right by history in both the US and UK  espcially with the successes of Reagan and Thatcher. 


And on foreign policy Reagan's foreing policy even on Latin America was no different than Eisenhower's for example and his entire foreign policy in general was just an 1980s version of Eisenhower's FP.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_policy_of_the_Dwight_D._Eisenhower_administration#Latin_America

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_policy_of_the_Dwight_D._Eisenhower_administration#Covert_actions