Ronald Reagan’s children say he’d be horrified by Trump

[Middle-aged Europe]

Why should we care what Reagan's kids think their Dad would think?

Should we care what Churchill's children would think about Teresa May?

Would you care what Trump's kids think in 40 years time?

I suppose each and everyone of us must answer these questions for him/herself.

[Annatar]

Reagan was an unmitigated disaster who was the president during the decade when American life expectancy began to grow at a slower rate and fall behind other developed countries and who gave millions of illegal aliens amnesty which hurt his party electorally and helped make states like California less Republican as well as overseeing huge declines in manufacturing. Frankly I have never understood why so many Republicans still look up to Reagan when he gave millions of illegals amnesty and oversaw the de-industrialisation of the county, the critique from the left is very accurate of him insofar as it was under him that America began to fall behind in indicators such as life expectancy. 

The fact he would not have liked Trump is a positive, being liked by Reagan probably isn't a good thing.

[Lord Admirale]

Funny thing is, Ronald Reagan would be too liberal for the modern Republican Party. He was pro-gun control and protected Social Security. If he ran with those positions today, he'd finish close to last in Iowa.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Funny thing is, Ronald Reagan would be too liberal for the modern Republican Party. He was pro-gun control and protected Social Security. If he ran with those positions today, he'd finish close to last in Iowa.

Reagan would be a more charismatic version of Kasich.


Funny enough Kasich was in Congress in the 1980s and he was considered a strong Reagan Republican then

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Funny thing is, Ronald Reagan would be too liberal for the modern Republican Party. He was pro-gun control and protected Social Security. If he ran with those positions today, he'd finish close to last in Iowa.

You're assuming that if Reagan were alive and active now, he'd have exactly the same political positions as then. It's only little less absurd than expecing Andrew Jackson would profess exactly the same ideology in what is essentially a totally diffrent world.

If anything, Reagan, once being viewed as very conservative for his age, would probably evolve further right with the entire GOP.

[junior chįmp]

Reagan was the original Trump...just with better manners.

Better manners in public, more child abuse in the home.

And lets not forget the Reagan's dabbled in the whichcraft known as Astrology

[Joe Republic]

There’s certainly one major thing Trump has in common with Reagan, at least: senile dementia.

[Some of My Best Friends Are Gay]

Democrats are the new Reaganites anyway (Runaway trade, anti-union, suburban billionaire needs being catered to only).

This is a hilarious claim, considering Trump's economic policies are just Reaganomics on steroids.


Yes, there's a lot of corporatist Dems, but only a very, very small number of them are anywhere near as neoliberal as Ronald Reagan was.

[Inmate Trump]

I doubt Ronald Reagan would be horrified at all.  Patti Davis is a liberal, as is Ron, Jr.  Michael Reagan probably has some kind of personal issue with Trump.

So his children's political beliefs (which differ from one another) determines how they believe their father would react to Trump?  They're the only ones alive who are able to give an accurate portrayal of their father; but their political leanings (again, which differ from one another) determine how they believe their father would react to Trump?  You're insinuating their political leanings somehow invalidate the memories of their father and you're reaching.  I suspect you know you're reaching, too.

As I've said in previous threads, you'll mostly support Trump no matter what he does simply because of his stance on abortion (which will always be legal).  My question to you is, how far does it go?  If the only pro-life candidate (in a field of staunch pro-choicers) also supported the US becoming a totalitarian regime with said candidate as the dictator, would you vote for them because they were pro-life and his opponents weren't?

I know you'll either deflect or say no, but I suspect you actually would.

[Progressive Pessimist]

Democrats are the new Reaganites anyway (Runaway trade, anti-union, suburban billionaire needs being catered to only).

This is a hilarious claim, considering Trump's economic policies are just Reaganomics on steroids.


Yes, there's a lot of corporatist Dems, but only a very, very small number of them are anywhere near as neoliberal as Ronald Reagan was.

This might be the best response I have ever seen by an Atlas poster using the term "neoliberal."

[Fuzzy Bear Loves Christian Missionaries]

I doubt Ronald Reagan would be horrified at all.  Patti Davis is a liberal, as is Ron, Jr.  Michael Reagan probably has some kind of personal issue with Trump.

So his children's political beliefs (which differ from one another) determines how they believe their father would react to Trump?  They're the only ones alive who are able to give an accurate portrayal of their father; but their political leanings (again, which differ from one another) determine how they believe their father would react to Trump?  You're insinuating their political leanings somehow invalidate the memories of their father and you're reaching.  I suspect you know you're reaching, too.

As I've said in previous threads, you'll mostly support Trump no matter what he does simply because of his stance on abortion (which will always be legal).  My question to you is, how far does it go?  If the only pro-life candidate (in a field of staunch pro-choicers) also supported the US becoming a totalitarian regime with said candidate as the dictator, would you vote for them because they were pro-life and his opponents weren't?

I know you'll either deflect or say no, but I suspect you actually would.

Well, of course, I would not vote for a dictator.  That's not the current choice, btw; that's only a narrative.  

Let's not forget that you voted for Deng Xioping oops, Dick Cheney oops George W. Bush for Vice Premier oops Vice President oops President.  And you did it twice.  Is that a litmus test of placing value on democracy?  I've seen President after President govern by Executive Orders and other Executive Actions that were dubios from LBJ's undeclared Vietnam War to Nixon's Impoundment of OEO monies, to Reagan's Iran-Contra, to Bush 41's pardoning of those that could implicate him in Iran-Contra to Bush 43's actions in Iraq, to Obama's Execuitve Orders.  The only Presidents that kept it under 100 MPH in this regard are Ford, Carter, and (yes, it's true) Clinton.  And the only reason Trump is being billed as a dictator is because his actions are a direct strike at the "Demographics is Destiny" leftist crowd; if his National Emergency were to advance Medicare for All because of a health crisis, the Red and Maroon avatars would be down with it to the max.

The idea that Trump is a "dictator" that must be "resisted" is hogwash.  It's a narrative to win elections that Democrats are sticking to.  Narratives and Truths are two different things more often than not.

I have, btw, not always voted for pro-life candidates.  Although I view Roe as an abomination, followed up by abominable decisions that entrench it further, I recognize that, in legal terms, it is (in the words of Mr. Justice Alito) "a precedent worthy of respect", so I know what time it is on this issue.  I do, however, appreciate Trump's adoption of a pro-life stance.  I don't know if he actually believes what he says, but I'll take a guy who's bought into a position enough to act on it over someone who's taken that position all their lives but does nothing to advance it.  And I'll take a person who, despite being personally un-Godly in a number of ways, appears to have respect for Christians as opposed to politicians who view their contempt for Christians as a virtue.  In the end, I have to vote for a person.   

[Inmate Trump]

I doubt Ronald Reagan would be horrified at all.  Patti Davis is a liberal, as is Ron, Jr.  Michael Reagan probably has some kind of personal issue with Trump.

So his children's political beliefs (which differ from one another) determines how they believe their father would react to Trump?  They're the only ones alive who are able to give an accurate portrayal of their father; but their political leanings (again, which differ from one another) determine how they believe their father would react to Trump?  You're insinuating their political leanings somehow invalidate the memories of their father and you're reaching.  I suspect you know you're reaching, too.

As I've said in previous threads, you'll mostly support Trump no matter what he does simply because of his stance on abortion (which will always be legal).  My question to you is, how far does it go?  If the only pro-life candidate (in a field of staunch pro-choicers) also supported the US becoming a totalitarian regime with said candidate as the dictator, would you vote for them because they were pro-life and his opponents weren't?

I know you'll either deflect or say no, but I suspect you actually would.

Well, of course, I would not vote for a dictator.  That's not the current choice, btw; that's only a narrative.  

Let's not forget that you voted for Deng Xioping oops, Dick Cheney oops George W. Bush for Vice Premier oops Vice President oops President.  And you did it twice.  Is that a litmus test of placing value on democracy?  I've seen President after President govern by Executive Orders and other Executive Actions that were dubios from LBJ's undeclared Vietnam War to Nixon's Impoundment of OEO monies, to Reagan's Iran-Contra, to Bush 41's pardoning of those that could implicate him in Iran-Contra to Bush 43's actions in Iraq, to Obama's Execuitve Orders.  The only Presidents that kept it under 100 MPH in this regard are Ford, Carter, and (yes, it's true) Clinton.  And the only reason Trump is being billed as a dictator is because his actions are a direct strike at the "Demographics is Destiny" leftist crowd; if his National Emergency were to advance Medicare for All because of a health crisis, the Red and Maroon avatars would be down with it to the max.

The idea that Trump is a "dictator" that must be "resisted" is hogwash.  It's a narrative to win elections that Democrats are sticking to.  Narratives and Truths are two different things more often than not.

I have, btw, not always voted for pro-life candidates.  Although I view Roe as an abomination, followed up by abominable decisions that entrench it further, I recognize that, in legal terms, it is (in the words of Mr. Justice Alito) "a precedent worthy of respect", so I know what time it is on this issue.  I do, however, appreciate Trump's adoption of a pro-life stance.  I don't know if he actually believes what he says, but I'll take a guy who's bought into a position enough to act on it over someone who's taken that position all their lives but does nothing to advance it.  And I'll take a person who, despite being personally un-Godly in a number of ways, appears to have respect for Christians as opposed to politicians who view their contempt for Christians as a virtue.  In the end, I have to vote for a person.   

I have to be brief right now, but to clear up a couple of points...I didn’t vote for Dubya twice—only once. But I’ll grant you he was awful and it was the wrong decision. We’re all allowed to change and evolve; I hope you will one day too.

And when I posed my question about the dictator-candidate, I actually wasn’t referring to Trump. I wasn’t referring to anyone specific, in fact. Mine was just a hypothetical argument of, “where do you draw the line?” I think it’s telling and amusing that you assumed that fit Trump.

[Deep Dixieland Senator, Muad'dib (OSR MSR)]

I think it’s telling and amusing that you assumed that fit Trump.

Given most rhetoric I've heard from the Left the world over it's not unreasonable to think that your hypothetical was hint at Trump. Quite a number of the most reasonable Lefties I know personally seem loose their mind about Trump.

"Trump is the next Hitler"

But Special K yes it is amusing LOL!

[pbrower2a]

Reagan was a reactionary, but not a fascist. Trump is both a reactionary and a fascist.

Trump stands for more centralization of power in the Presidency, something inimical to old conservative ideas that rejected the New Deal and the Great Society.

Big Government should scare the Right even if the objectives seem noble or profitable.

[Deep Dixieland Senator, Muad'dib (OSR MSR)]

Reagan was a reactionary, but not a fascist. Trump is both a reactionary and a fascist.

Trump stands for more centralization of power in the Presidency, something inimical to old conservative ideas that rejected the New Deal and the Great Society.

Big Government should scare the Right even if the objectives seem noble or profitable.

It's clear to me that you don't know what either a reactionary or a fascist actually is when it come to politics.

However regarding big government you are indeed correct.

[Statilius the Epicurean]

Who the f**k cares.

[fhtagn]

I mean, it's possible he would be, but it's pretty irrelevant. Not sure why anyone cares what his kids think their dad might think.

[Orthogonian Society Treasurer]

Ronald Reagan was elected president almost forty years ago. Are we going to start being worried about whether or not Harry Truman would have voted for Beto O'Rourke?

[Mr. Smith]

Funny thing is, Ronald Reagan would be too liberal for the modern Republican Party. He was pro-gun control and protected Social Security. If he ran with those positions today, he'd finish close to last in Iowa.

You're assuming that if Reagan were alive and active now, he'd have exactly the same political positions as then. It's only little less absurd than expecing Andrew Jackson would profess exactly the same ideology in what is essentially a totally diffrent world.

If anything, Reagan, once being viewed as very conservative for his age, would probably evolve further right with the entire GOP.

Goldwater didn't