Grade Ronald Reagan’s presidency

[TheReckoning]

B+. Best president of the modern political era.

[TheReckoning]

I knew who started this thread as soon as I read the title.

F

Still salty over that Cold War loss, eh?

[TheReckoning]

I knew who started this thread as soon as I read the title.

F

Still salty over that Cold War loss, eh?

This is going to be one of those threads, huh? In any case, I am not a Soviet communist.

Just a joke, just a joke.

[TheReckoning]

Ronald Reagan was an actor, not at all a factor
Just an employee of the country's real masters.

Let’s not act like you would grade Clinton or Obama the same way.

[TheReckoning]

Ronald Reagan was an actor, not at all a factor
Just an employee of the country's real masters.

Let’s not act like you would grade Clinton or Obama the same way.

The next line in the song is "Just like the Bushes, Clinton and Obama. Just another talking head telling lies on teleprompter."

Exactly my point. But did you give Obama and Clinton an F on those polls too?

Also, that song is pretty good music-wise, but in terms of historical accuracy, it’s rather useless for anything beyond propaganda.

[TheReckoning]

I’ve never got the point of “objectively” assessing presidents. How successful they are rests on how good you think they were for the country, which is largely informed by ideological considerations. If you’re just going by how successfully they accomplished their desired goals, then by the same token you’d be ranking murderous dictators as great leaders.

By the way, I think it’s actually far more hackish to say that Reagan was a great president. His policies objectively resulted in long-term negative consequences for the median worker, and most defences of him rest on nebulous, ideological claims of “but he increased muh freedum”.

You’re first paragraph is in direct contradiction with your second. You say “You can’t judge presidents objectively,” than your second one says, “it’s hackish to say he’s good, he objectively harmed this country.”

BTW, even Democrats rank Reagan as a top-half president, and no, it’s not just about how successfully they accomplished their goals. It’s one small portion of it, but not the whole thing.

[TheReckoning]

I’ve never got the point of “objectively” assessing presidents. How successful they are rests on how good you think they were for the country, which is largely informed by ideological considerations. If you’re just going by how successfully they accomplished their desired goals, then by the same token you’d be ranking murderous dictators as great leaders.

By the way, I think it’s actually far more hackish to say that Reagan was a great president. His policies objectively resulted in long-term negative consequences for the median worker, and most defences of him rest on nebulous, ideological claims of “but he increased muh freedum”.

You’re first paragraph is in direct contradiction with your second. You say “You can’t judge presidents objectively,” than your second one says, “it’s hackish to say he’s good, he objectively harmed this country.”

BTW, even Democrats rank Reagan as a top-half president, and no, it’s not just about how successfully they accomplished their goals. It’s one small portion of it, but not the whole thing.

I’m saying I wouldn’t be surprised by a conservative ranking Reagan highly, but it’s ridiculous to criticise liberals for not doing so. As someone who is left-of-centre, the economic data leads me to the inevitable conclusion that Reagan was a bad president, but I understand that a conservative wouldn’t care as much about inequality.

Democrats rank him in the top half as well. Also, the idea that “wealth inequality” is inherently a bad thing is not only wrong, it’s extremely dangerous. Read “Harrison Bergeron” to understand why.

[TheReckoning]

I’ve never got the point of “objectively” assessing presidents. How successful they are rests on how good you think they were for the country, which is largely informed by ideological considerations. If you’re just going by how successfully they accomplished their desired goals, then by the same token you’d be ranking murderous dictators as great leaders.

By the way, I think it’s actually far more hackish to say that Reagan was a great president. His policies objectively resulted in long-term negative consequences for the median worker, and most defences of him rest on nebulous, ideological claims of “but he increased muh freedum”.

You’re first paragraph is in direct contradiction with your second. You say “You can’t judge presidents objectively,” than your second one says, “it’s hackish to say he’s good, he objectively harmed this country.”

BTW, even Democrats rank Reagan as a top-half president, and no, it’s not just about how successfully they accomplished their goals. It’s one small portion of it, but not the whole thing.

I’m saying I wouldn’t be surprised by a conservative ranking Reagan highly, but it’s ridiculous to criticise liberals for not doing so. As someone who is left-of-centre, the economic data leads me to the inevitable conclusion that Reagan was a bad president, but I understand that a conservative wouldn’t care as much about inequality.

Democrats rank him in the top half as well. Also, the idea that “wealth inequality” is inherently a bad thing is not only wrong, it’s extremely dangerous. Read “Harrison Bergeron” to understand why.

You are really not good at this.

The comparison to Harrison Bergeron is absurd and ridiculous, really just silly, and it's actually somewhat disturbing you think that reducing wealth inequality is tantamount to a dystopian Camazotzian society.

Let me clarify: I understand that under certain circumstances, wealth inequality is a problem. But the idea that it is inherently a problem- along with other forms of inequality- is how we get to Harrison Bergeron.

[TheReckoning]

I’ve never got the point of “objectively” assessing presidents. How successful they are rests on how good you think they were for the country, which is largely informed by ideological considerations. If you’re just going by how successfully they accomplished their desired goals, then by the same token you’d be ranking murderous dictators as great leaders.

By the way, I think it’s actually far more hackish to say that Reagan was a great president. His policies objectively resulted in long-term negative consequences for the median worker, and most defences of him rest on nebulous, ideological claims of “but he increased muh freedum”.

You’re first paragraph is in direct contradiction with your second. You say “You can’t judge presidents objectively,” than your second one says, “it’s hackish to say he’s good, he objectively harmed this country.”

BTW, even Democrats rank Reagan as a top-half president, and no, it’s not just about how successfully they accomplished their goals. It’s one small portion of it, but not the whole thing.

I’m saying I wouldn’t be surprised by a conservative ranking Reagan highly, but it’s ridiculous to criticise liberals for not doing so. As someone who is left-of-centre, the economic data leads me to the inevitable conclusion that Reagan was a bad president, but I understand that a conservative wouldn’t care as much about inequality.

Democrats rank him in the top half as well. Also, the idea that “wealth inequality” is inherently a bad thing is not only wrong, it’s extremely dangerous. Read “Harrison Bergeron” to understand why.

You are really not good at this.

The comparison to Harrison Bergeron is absurd and ridiculous, really just silly, and it's actually somewhat disturbing you think that reducing wealth inequality is tantamount to a dystopian Camazotzian society.

Let me clarify: I understand that under certain circumstances, wealth inequality is a problem. But the idea that it is inherently a problem- along with other forms of inequality- is how we get to Harrison Bergeron.

There's no "getting to Harrison Bergeron" in the real world.

Why not?

[TheReckoning]

I’ve never got the point of “objectively” assessing presidents. How successful they are rests on how good you think they were for the country, which is largely informed by ideological considerations. If you’re just going by how successfully they accomplished their desired goals, then by the same token you’d be ranking murderous dictators as great leaders.

By the way, I think it’s actually far more hackish to say that Reagan was a great president. His policies objectively resulted in long-term negative consequences for the median worker, and most defences of him rest on nebulous, ideological claims of “but he increased muh freedum”.

You’re first paragraph is in direct contradiction with your second. You say “You can’t judge presidents objectively,” than your second one says, “it’s hackish to say he’s good, he objectively harmed this country.”

BTW, even Democrats rank Reagan as a top-half president, and no, it’s not just about how successfully they accomplished their goals. It’s one small portion of it, but not the whole thing.

I’m saying I wouldn’t be surprised by a conservative ranking Reagan highly, but it’s ridiculous to criticise liberals for not doing so. As someone who is left-of-centre, the economic data leads me to the inevitable conclusion that Reagan was a bad president, but I understand that a conservative wouldn’t care as much about inequality.

Democrats rank him in the top half as well. Also, the idea that “wealth inequality” is inherently a bad thing is not only wrong, it’s extremely dangerous. Read “Harrison Bergeron” to understand why.

You are really not good at this.

The comparison to Harrison Bergeron is absurd and ridiculous, really just silly, and it's actually somewhat disturbing you think that reducing wealth inequality is tantamount to a dystopian Camazotzian society.

Let me clarify: I understand that under certain circumstances, wealth inequality is a problem. But the idea that it is inherently a problem- along with other forms of inequality- is how we get to Harrison Bergeron.

There's no "getting to Harrison Bergeron" in the real world.

Why not?

You tell me why. That's how proof works. I'm not going to prove why something absurd "can't" happen, because that should be clear.

It can happen because anything can happen. If one can convince people that inequality is inherently bad, and that they can fix all of it as long as we give them power, it could happen.

[TheReckoning]

You have brought this on yourself.

Good meme, you forgot to edit out Woodbury on the bottom though.

[TheReckoning]

I’ve never got the point of “objectively” assessing presidents. How successful they are rests on how good you think they were for the country, which is largely informed by ideological considerations. If you’re just going by how successfully they accomplished their desired goals, then by the same token you’d be ranking murderous dictators as great leaders.

By the way, I think it’s actually far more hackish to say that Reagan was a great president. His policies objectively resulted in long-term negative consequences for the median worker, and most defences of him rest on nebulous, ideological claims of “but he increased muh freedum”.

You’re first paragraph is in direct contradiction with your second. You say “You can’t judge presidents objectively,” than your second one says, “it’s hackish to say he’s good, he objectively harmed this country.”

BTW, even Democrats rank Reagan as a top-half president, and no, it’s not just about how successfully they accomplished their goals. It’s one small portion of it, but not the whole thing.

I’m saying I wouldn’t be surprised by a conservative ranking Reagan highly, but it’s ridiculous to criticise liberals for not doing so. As someone who is left-of-centre, the economic data leads me to the inevitable conclusion that Reagan was a bad president, but I understand that a conservative wouldn’t care as much about inequality.

Democrats rank him in the top half as well. Also, the idea that “wealth inequality” is inherently a bad thing is not only wrong, it’s extremely dangerous. Read “Harrison Bergeron” to understand why.

lmao

Let me guess: you also think Animal Farm is anti-socialist?

It’s anti-communism, specifically, anti-communism-in-practice.

But as someone who’s favorite book is 1984, I know Orwell was a socialist. This doesn’t mean that he was uncritical of socialism, though.