Opinion of Ronald Reagan?

[Interlocutor is just not there yet]

TheReckoning is on a roll this week.

What the amount of threads he's hijacked and the number of posters refusing to let go of his bait

[Buffalo Mayor Young Kim]

A president can be an HP and still be a good president.

I don't think Reagan was an HP. But I also think he wasn't a great president. He is very much overrated and gets too much credit and not enough blame for the things that happened during (and right) after his time in office.

He’s overrated by Republicans, but the Democrats on this Thread are acting like he’s the reincarnation of Hitler.

Well he was funding a genocide.

On the domestic front, I'll let other people take it, but suffice to say I can't think of single policy in that area that had a positive impact.

So 88 months of straight economic growth isn’t positive to you?

And Reagan was no more genocidal than FDR, who forced hundreds of thousands of people into interment camps (mass imprisonment of an ethnic group is arguably a genocide by loose terms).

I'm going to skip out on why I think his economic policy was horrible because it would be allot of linking and looking up things and I just am not down for that right now, but I'm sure someone else will pick this up ok?

But I do feel the need to respond to the second point. No a campaign of mass murder is not the same thing as Japanese interment. And these aren't loose definitions, Rios Montt and Mejia Victores were convicted of genocide in a court of law.

[Buffalo Mayor Young Kim]

TheReckoning is on a roll this week.

What the amount of threads he's steered and the amount of posters refusing to let go of his bait

Yeah, genocide apologia will do that.

[TheReckoning]

A president can be an HP and still be a good president.

I don't think Reagan was an HP. But I also think he wasn't a great president. He is very much overrated and gets too much credit and not enough blame for the things that happened during (and right) after his time in office.

He’s overrated by Republicans, but the Democrats on this Thread are acting like he’s the reincarnation of Hitler.

Well he was funding a genocide.

On the domestic front, I'll let other people take it, but suffice to say I can't think of single policy in that area that had a positive impact.

So 88 months of straight economic growth isn’t positive to you?

And Reagan was no more genocidal than FDR, who forced hundreds of thousands of people into interment camps (mass imprisonment of an ethnic group is arguably a genocide by loose terms).

I'm going to skip out on why I think his economic policy was horrible because it would be allot of linking and looking up things and I just am not down for that right now, but I'm sure someone else will pick this up ok?

But I do feel the need to respond to the second point. No a campaign of mass murder is not the same thing as Japanese interment. And these aren't loose definitions, Rios Montt and Mejia Victores were convicted of genocide in a court of law.

Not convinced the communists in Nicaragua were any less genocidal, considering what the communists in Mongolia did (and you being up my flair. Have communists been very friendly to Catholics? Ever?)

Anyways, Reagan was scared of the spread of communism, and rightfully so. I think this fear made him do things that he wasn’t very careful about, like supporting the Contras, just because they were anti-communist. But the idea that this thing alone makes him a terrible president- despite all the good he did- sounds like revisionist history that a vast majority of political scientists (including Democrats) disagree with.

[TheReckoning]

TheReckoning is on a roll this week.

What the amount of threads he's hijacked and the number of posters refusing to let go of his bait

I swear up and down, I am NOT a troll.

[TheReckoning]

TheReckoning is on a roll this week.

What the amount of threads he's steered and the amount of posters refusing to let go of his bait

Yeah, genocide apologia will do that.

You’re defending the atrocities committed by the FSLN just because they were anti-Reagan.

[Buffalo Mayor Young Kim]

A president can be an HP and still be a good president.

I don't think Reagan was an HP. But I also think he wasn't a great president. He is very much overrated and gets too much credit and not enough blame for the things that happened during (and right) after his time in office.

He’s overrated by Republicans, but the Democrats on this Thread are acting like he’s the reincarnation of Hitler.

Well he was funding a genocide.

On the domestic front, I'll let other people take it, but suffice to say I can't think of single policy in that area that had a positive impact.

So 88 months of straight economic growth isn’t positive to you?

And Reagan was no more genocidal than FDR, who forced hundreds of thousands of people into interment camps (mass imprisonment of an ethnic group is arguably a genocide by loose terms).

I'm going to skip out on why I think his economic policy was horrible because it would be allot of linking and looking up things and I just am not down for that right now, but I'm sure someone else will pick this up ok?

But I do feel the need to respond to the second point. No a campaign of mass murder is not the same thing as Japanese interment. And these aren't loose definitions, Rios Montt and Mejia Victores were convicted of genocide in a court of law.

Not convinced the communists in Nicaragua were any less genocidal, considering what the communists in Mongolia did (and you being up my flair. Have communists been very friendly to Catholics? Ever?)

Anyways, Reagan was scared of the spread of communism, and rightfully so. I think this fear made him do things that he wasn’t very careful about, like supporting the Contras, just because they were anti-communist. But the idea that this thing alone makes him a terrible president- despite all the good he did- sounds like revisionist history that a vast majority of political scientists (including Democrats) disagree with.

I keep bringing up your flair because you are defending people that murdered priests and nuns as a matter of policy. In one case defending a violent anticlerical madman sponsored by anti-Catholic bigots in the US. And also, you know, genocide.

I hate to repeat myself so often, but Rios Montt and Mejia Victores were convicted of genocide in court.
When that happens to any of the Sandinistas you are terrified of, I'll concede your point.


I don't have any other comment on communists other to note that in all of the dirty wars that Reagan sponsored in Central America the vast majority of human rights violations were committed by anti-communist forces.

[Buffalo Mayor Young Kim]

TheReckoning is on a roll this week.

What the amount of threads he's steered and the amount of posters refusing to let go of his bait

Yeah, genocide apologia will do that.

You’re defending the atrocities committed by the FSLN just because they were anti-Reagan.

No I'm not.

I haven't said a damn thing about Sandinistas until my very last post. And that was only the academic point that none of them have been convicted of genocide.

Aside from which, FSLN doesn't have anything to with the Guatemalan genocide other than as an excuse.

[progressive85]

He was at times funny, very charming, and seemed to fit the times in terms of his personality.  The economic policies, however, overwhelmingly favored the rich over everyone else.  I think he was really the towering figure of the late 20th century and I feel that we're still living with his ideology to this day.

[Alcibiades]

I tried to think of one problem in contemporary American governance and public life that couldn’t trace it’s origins to this administration and his little plutocratic revolution.
I came up with ‘Well we probably can’t pin Covid on him.’

A good part of the problem is a lot of people, some of whom had a very tense relationship with Reagan at various points, taking its legacy and shilling it with their spin on it.

Reagan made some mistakes, but he was far more strategic in his thinking and much more competent then 99% of Republican politicians today.

I’m not sure he was particularly competent. He was notoriously not a details man and his administration was the pretty corrupt, not to mention his cognitive decline. Even if he was competent, being competent at doing bad things (or ignoring inconvenient problems such as the AIDS epidemic) does not make him a good president.

[Benjamin Frank]

TheReckoning is on a roll this week.

What the amount of threads he's hijacked and the number of posters refusing to let go of his bait

I swear up and down, I am NOT a troll.

OK Nixon.

[Benjamin Frank]

With the singular exception of allowing Paul Volcker to raise interest rates to choke off inflation which caused, to that time, the deepest recession from 1982 to the spring of 1983 since The Great Depression, the Reagan Administration can, I think, accurately be summed up with the phrase:

"Short term gain for long term pain."

In these areas at a minimum:
1.The crushing of private sector labor unions

2.Cutting taxes which ballooned the federal government deficit and debt (and also led to the reemergence of inflation which ultimately sank his successor, George H W Bush.)

3.Cutting environmental and health and safety regulations which have led to environmental degradation.  Jimmy Carter did deregulate the trucking and airlines industries, but he never cut the environmental or health and safety regulations on them.

4.Encouraging the 'greed is good' ethos which led to such things as the Savings and Loan scandal.

All of these things combined have also led to the present situation of the large income and wealth inequality we see in the United States, and the concept of 'late stage capitalism' which is not just on the left, but is also on the right, with such things as opposition to free trade and suspicion of big business, especially 'big ag' and 'big pharma.'  (Not saying they're wrong here.)

It wasn't out of nowhere that at times in the 2016 election campaign, Donald Trump essentially ran on and won by repudiating Reagan's record.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

The first President I voted for and the best in my lifetime.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

The first President I voted for and the best in my lifetime.

His 1980 tax cuts raided the SSA trust fund while giving huge tax cuts to millionaires. Iran Contra sold weapons to our enemies, he isn't Saint😭😭😭

[Rules for me, but not for thee]

The first President I voted for and the best in my lifetime.

His 1980 tax cuts raided the SSA trust fund while giving huge tax cuts to millionaires. Iran Contra sold weapons to our enemies, he isn't Saint😭😭😭

No he isn't, but it speaks to the (lack of) quality of presidents in our lifetimes.

[𝕭𝖆𝖕𝖙𝖎𝖘𝖙𝖆 𝕸𝖎𝖓𝖔𝖑𝖆]

Ronald Reagan was HP.

Having said that, as the most prominent Vatican avatar on this site, the exchange between LVScreenssuck and TheReckoning on that particular point is... really something. You couldn't see it anywhere else other than Talk Elections.

[Sir Mohamed]

HP, his policies put America on a bad track for decades to come. He escalated the armes race while dismantling social programs. And there is the Iran Contra Affair, which was actually as bad as Watergate, if not worse. His admin also reacted very slowly to the Aids epidemic.

That's the very short answer, I could write a lot more in detail, but others already did in this thread. Reagan is for sure an overrated prez.

[Badger]

The fact that the Democrats on this board are calling the 7th best president ever (according to independent analysts) a HP show they aren’t as objective as they think.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/02/19/opinion/how-does-trump-stack-up-against-the-best-and-worst-presidents.html

Where in the article does it say that? I skimmed it but didn't see the partisan breakout.

This was telling however:
"It wasn’t just Democratic support that would carve F.D.R. on Mt. Rushmore: All groups, including Republicans, named him as most deserving of that honor.

Roosevelt, the godfather of presidential liberalism, received more than twice as many votes from Republicans as Ronald Reagan, his conservative counterpart."

It's not even close either.



Nice try. I see Reagan ranked 9th, not 7th overall. So I guess only independent and Republican scholars count? I mean, comone on, even Republican scholars rank FDR higher Reagan. In the words of the Gipper, "There you go again."

So there were 8 better than him. He's ranked behind Obama, Truman, both Roosevelts, Eisenhower, et al. I am simply expressing my opinions of him growing as a teenager in the rural South sourrounded by family members who suffered under his policies but worshipped the ground he walked on.

Nice try, bro.

They oversampled Democrats in their survey, and both Democrats and Republicans will be biased. So instead, I went with Independents.

And even still, 9th puts him in the top 80% of presidents. Not exactly a HP in my book.

And have you considered how well your family members under his presidency were is not the only factor in gauging the leader of 250 million people?

It’s literally right there in the article, where Presidents are ranked as party.

Also, I’m not really understanding you’re point. You’re saying, “FDR was better than Reagan. Therefore, Reagan sucked.” How does that make any sense? I think FDR was a FF as well, as was Obama, even though he’s ranked lower by Independent scholars than Reagan.

Because in my experience he did. So what more do you want? I can't stand the man and never have, even when he was elected when I was in 5th grade. He was president during my formative years and I always loathed him even though I was in the minority where I grew up.

I'm sick of hearing about Reagan and his f***d up policies. I have been thinking about how his rhetoric has led us to where we are the last few days. I don't think I'm alone in this sentiment either.

Of all the people responsible for the Catastrophe of Trump (especially these last few days), Reagan is the last one you want to blame. Don’t pin this on him just because he also had an “R” next to his name.

Reagan was by no means perfect, and I’m sure your families experiences are a reflection of at least some of his flaws. But I’ll never get over how he was able to put the nail in the coffin for the evil Communist Bloc.

Obama made choices that hurt me and the people I care about as well. But he still had a charm that made all but the most hateful Republicans smile.

The key is that nail in the coffin was the final nail of meny hammered in over the preceding 45 years. Republicans like to mythologize Reagan is some great Slayer of the great communist Beast, when all he did was run the ball in over the goal line after the rest of the team made a 95-yard drive before bringing him in.

Seriously, name one Reagan foreign policy venture which wasn't either already supported by 98 + percent of Democrats anyway ( e. G. The Grenada invasion, supporting the mujahideen in Afghanistan which started under Carter), or wasn't a colossal mistake which did nothing to advance our victory over communism (E.G. favoring so-called constructive engagement rather than sanctions with the apartheid South African government, our support of the Nicaraguan contras which was universally reviled by every democratic government in this hemisphere , and of course led to the Iran Contra debacle).

Conservatives like to claim that the fight checks Reagan wrote the Pentagon in the 80s somehow spent communist Russia to death and push them over the edge. Unfortunately that's not true. Military documents Declassified and obtained after the fall of the Cold War demonstrated that Soviet military spending did not increase particularly much for the ladies more than the rate of inflation. Reagan baited them to try matching the spending, but the Soviets didn't bite. Instead, we spend ourselves into enormous debt and created an unparalleled precedent for deficit spending, and in the process / social programs relied on by the poor and working class set defense contractors could make a bundle ( oh, and of course Finance huge tax cuts for the wealthiest).

It’s not just “conservatives” who think Reagan was a good president. Even Democrats rank him in the top 3rd.

And I also don’t think you understand just how evil the government of Nicaragua was at the time. Fighting them was necessary.

The non-conta opposition to the Sandinistas understood they were bad, and they adamantly and furiously opposed our supporting the Contras.

In answer to your question, not all that evil since they left on their own after being defeated in elections. Hell, even Trump couldn't do that! By your own rationale NATO shoumd be actively funding left wing paramilitaries in the US to figbt against Republican attempts to subvert Democracy here.

The more salient question is whether you realize just hiw evil the Contras were?

I can’t help but find it ironic that you condemn Reagan for providing support for a group trying to overthrow people who mass executed indigenous people- because you believe he played a role in the mass executions of indigenous people.

Your post makes zero sense. Elaborate?

[TheReckoning]

The fact that the Democrats on this board are calling the 7th best president ever (according to independent analysts) a HP show they aren’t as objective as they think.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/02/19/opinion/how-does-trump-stack-up-against-the-best-and-worst-presidents.html

Where in the article does it say that? I skimmed it but didn't see the partisan breakout.

This was telling however:
"It wasn’t just Democratic support that would carve F.D.R. on Mt. Rushmore: All groups, including Republicans, named him as most deserving of that honor.

Roosevelt, the godfather of presidential liberalism, received more than twice as many votes from Republicans as Ronald Reagan, his conservative counterpart."

It's not even close either.



Nice try. I see Reagan ranked 9th, not 7th overall. So I guess only independent and Republican scholars count? I mean, comone on, even Republican scholars rank FDR higher Reagan. In the words of the Gipper, "There you go again."

So there were 8 better than him. He's ranked behind Obama, Truman, both Roosevelts, Eisenhower, et al. I am simply expressing my opinions of him growing as a teenager in the rural South sourrounded by family members who suffered under his policies but worshipped the ground he walked on.

Nice try, bro.

They oversampled Democrats in their survey, and both Democrats and Republicans will be biased. So instead, I went with Independents.

And even still, 9th puts him in the top 80% of presidents. Not exactly a HP in my book.

And have you considered how well your family members under his presidency were is not the only factor in gauging the leader of 250 million people?

It’s literally right there in the article, where Presidents are ranked as party.

Also, I’m not really understanding you’re point. You’re saying, “FDR was better than Reagan. Therefore, Reagan sucked.” How does that make any sense? I think FDR was a FF as well, as was Obama, even though he’s ranked lower by Independent scholars than Reagan.

Because in my experience he did. So what more do you want? I can't stand the man and never have, even when he was elected when I was in 5th grade. He was president during my formative years and I always loathed him even though I was in the minority where I grew up.

I'm sick of hearing about Reagan and his f***d up policies. I have been thinking about how his rhetoric has led us to where we are the last few days. I don't think I'm alone in this sentiment either.

Of all the people responsible for the Catastrophe of Trump (especially these last few days), Reagan is the last one you want to blame. Don’t pin this on him just because he also had an “R” next to his name.

Reagan was by no means perfect, and I’m sure your families experiences are a reflection of at least some of his flaws. But I’ll never get over how he was able to put the nail in the coffin for the evil Communist Bloc.

Obama made choices that hurt me and the people I care about as well. But he still had a charm that made all but the most hateful Republicans smile.

The key is that nail in the coffin was the final nail of meny hammered in over the preceding 45 years. Republicans like to mythologize Reagan is some great Slayer of the great communist Beast, when all he did was run the ball in over the goal line after the rest of the team made a 95-yard drive before bringing him in.

Seriously, name one Reagan foreign policy venture which wasn't either already supported by 98 + percent of Democrats anyway ( e. G. The Grenada invasion, supporting the mujahideen in Afghanistan which started under Carter), or wasn't a colossal mistake which did nothing to advance our victory over communism (E.G. favoring so-called constructive engagement rather than sanctions with the apartheid South African government, our support of the Nicaraguan contras which was universally reviled by every democratic government in this hemisphere , and of course led to the Iran Contra debacle).

Conservatives like to claim that the fight checks Reagan wrote the Pentagon in the 80s somehow spent communist Russia to death and push them over the edge. Unfortunately that's not true. Military documents Declassified and obtained after the fall of the Cold War demonstrated that Soviet military spending did not increase particularly much for the ladies more than the rate of inflation. Reagan baited them to try matching the spending, but the Soviets didn't bite. Instead, we spend ourselves into enormous debt and created an unparalleled precedent for deficit spending, and in the process / social programs relied on by the poor and working class set defense contractors could make a bundle ( oh, and of course Finance huge tax cuts for the wealthiest).

It’s not just “conservatives” who think Reagan was a good president. Even Democrats rank him in the top 3rd.

And I also don’t think you understand just how evil the government of Nicaragua was at the time. Fighting them was necessary.

The non-conta opposition to the Sandinistas understood they were bad, and they adamantly and furiously opposed our supporting the Contras.

In answer to your question, not all that evil since they left on their own after being defeated in elections. Hell, even Trump couldn't do that! By your own rationale NATO shoumd be actively funding left wing paramilitaries in the US to figbt against Republican attempts to subvert Democracy here.

The more salient question is whether you realize just hiw evil the Contras were?

I can’t help but find it ironic that you condemn Reagan for providing support for a group trying to overthrow people who mass executed indigenous people- because you believe he played a role in the mass executions of indigenous people.

Your post makes zero sense. Elaborate?

My point is that Sandinistas were just as bad as the Contras.

Only, if they got in power, and Communism spread through Latin America, the Cold War may have ended VERY differently. Remember that.

[TheReckoning]

A president can be an HP and still be a good president.

I don't think Reagan was an HP. But I also think he wasn't a great president. He is very much overrated and gets too much credit and not enough blame for the things that happened during (and right) after his time in office.

He’s overrated by Republicans, but the Democrats on this Thread are acting like he’s the reincarnation of Hitler.

He called African politicians monkeys in a leaked phone conversation with then President Nixon.

In summation: HP

You focus only on the bad while leaving out important context. Yes, Reagan said a racist thing once. He was born in 1911 and had his early childhood under a president who supported the KKK, and he held some of the prejudices of that time. If you’re calling every president who’s said something racist once a HP, then Washington, Lincoln, LBJ, and pretty much all presidents pre-Reagan were HP.

[RI]

One of my least favorite Presidents, personally.

[TheReckoning]

A president can be an HP and still be a good president.

I don't think Reagan was an HP. But I also think he wasn't a great president. He is very much overrated and gets too much credit and not enough blame for the things that happened during (and right) after his time in office.

He’s overrated by Republicans, but the Democrats on this Thread are acting like he’s the reincarnation of Hitler.

He called African politicians monkeys in a leaked phone conversation with then President Nixon.

In summation: HP

You focus only on the bad while leaving out important context. Yes, Reagan said a racist thing once. He was born in 1911 and had his early childhood under a president who supported the KKK, and he held some of the prejudices of that time. If you’re calling every president who’s said something racist once a HP, then Washington, Lincoln, LBJ, and pretty much all presidents pre-Reagan were HP.

I judge people's values and deeds based on the time they lived in. There were plenty of people who were not bigots in the 1960s and 1980s, and people who had plenty of exposure to outside groups and still were bigoted are worse human beings. Reagan was an adult in control of his facilities when he chose to deliberately pander to racists for their votes. Other Republicans who had presidential ambitions chose not to, even though they were doubtless aware of previous Lily White strategies. Not valuing the humanity of some of your constituents more than votes makes a politician an HP.

You think the same of FDR?

He didn’t just make a racist comment once. He sent hundreds of thousands to an internet camp.

How’s that for “not valuing the humanity of some of your constituents more than votes”?

[Badger]

The fact that the Democrats on this board are calling the 7th best president ever (according to independent analysts) a HP show they aren’t as objective as they think.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/02/19/opinion/how-does-trump-stack-up-against-the-best-and-worst-presidents.html

Where in the article does it say that? I skimmed it but didn't see the partisan breakout.

This was telling however:
"It wasn’t just Democratic support that would carve F.D.R. on Mt. Rushmore: All groups, including Republicans, named him as most deserving of that honor.

Roosevelt, the godfather of presidential liberalism, received more than twice as many votes from Republicans as Ronald Reagan, his conservative counterpart."

It's not even close either.



Nice try. I see Reagan ranked 9th, not 7th overall. So I guess only independent and Republican scholars count? I mean, comone on, even Republican scholars rank FDR higher Reagan. In the words of the Gipper, "There you go again."

So there were 8 better than him. He's ranked behind Obama, Truman, both Roosevelts, Eisenhower, et al. I am simply expressing my opinions of him growing as a teenager in the rural South sourrounded by family members who suffered under his policies but worshipped the ground he walked on.

Nice try, bro.

They oversampled Democrats in their survey, and both Democrats and Republicans will be biased. So instead, I went with Independents.

And even still, 9th puts him in the top 80% of presidents. Not exactly a HP in my book.

And have you considered how well your family members under his presidency were is not the only factor in gauging the leader of 250 million people?

It’s literally right there in the article, where Presidents are ranked as party.

Also, I’m not really understanding you’re point. You’re saying, “FDR was better than Reagan. Therefore, Reagan sucked.” How does that make any sense? I think FDR was a FF as well, as was Obama, even though he’s ranked lower by Independent scholars than Reagan.

Because in my experience he did. So what more do you want? I can't stand the man and never have, even when he was elected when I was in 5th grade. He was president during my formative years and I always loathed him even though I was in the minority where I grew up.

I'm sick of hearing about Reagan and his f***d up policies. I have been thinking about how his rhetoric has led us to where we are the last few days. I don't think I'm alone in this sentiment either.

Of all the people responsible for the Catastrophe of Trump (especially these last few days), Reagan is the last one you want to blame. Don’t pin this on him just because he also had an “R” next to his name.

Reagan was by no means perfect, and I’m sure your families experiences are a reflection of at least some of his flaws. But I’ll never get over how he was able to put the nail in the coffin for the evil Communist Bloc.

Obama made choices that hurt me and the people I care about as well. But he still had a charm that made all but the most hateful Republicans smile.

The key is that nail in the coffin was the final nail of meny hammered in over the preceding 45 years. Republicans like to mythologize Reagan is some great Slayer of the great communist Beast, when all he did was run the ball in over the goal line after the rest of the team made a 95-yard drive before bringing him in.

Seriously, name one Reagan foreign policy venture which wasn't either already supported by 98 + percent of Democrats anyway ( e. G. The Grenada invasion, supporting the mujahideen in Afghanistan which started under Carter), or wasn't a colossal mistake which did nothing to advance our victory over communism (E.G. favoring so-called constructive engagement rather than sanctions with the apartheid South African government, our support of the Nicaraguan contras which was universally reviled by every democratic government in this hemisphere , and of course led to the Iran Contra debacle).

Conservatives like to claim that the fight checks Reagan wrote the Pentagon in the 80s somehow spent communist Russia to death and push them over the edge. Unfortunately that's not true. Military documents Declassified and obtained after the fall of the Cold War demonstrated that Soviet military spending did not increase particularly much for the ladies more than the rate of inflation. Reagan baited them to try matching the spending, but the Soviets didn't bite. Instead, we spend ourselves into enormous debt and created an unparalleled precedent for deficit spending, and in the process / social programs relied on by the poor and working class set defense contractors could make a bundle ( oh, and of course Finance huge tax cuts for the wealthiest).

It’s not just “conservatives” who think Reagan was a good president. Even Democrats rank him in the top 3rd.

And I also don’t think you understand just how evil the government of Nicaragua was at the time. Fighting them was necessary.

The non-conta opposition to the Sandinistas understood they were bad, and they adamantly and furiously opposed our supporting the Contras.

In answer to your question, not all that evil since they left on their own after being defeated in elections. Hell, even Trump couldn't do that! By your own rationale NATO shoumd be actively funding left wing paramilitaries in the US to figbt against Republican attempts to subvert Democracy here.

The more salient question is whether you realize just hiw evil the Contras were?

I can’t help but find it ironic that you condemn Reagan for providing support for a group trying to overthrow people who mass executed indigenous people- because you believe he played a role in the mass executions of indigenous people.

Your post makes zero sense. Elaborate?

My point is that Sandinistas were just as bad as the Contras.

Only, if they got in power, and Communism spread through Latin America, the Cold War may have ended VERY differently. Remember that.

Ah, the discredited domino theory. Your statement is at once both hyperbolic and fantastical. To say we needed to support a group of far right-wing bloodthirsty paramilitaries to remove a government which ultimately step down after losing a free election, let alone that it would have spread communism throughout Central America or even reverse the Cold War entirely, shows a breathtaking lack of basic historical knowledge.

[TheReckoning]

The fact that the Democrats on this board are calling the 7th best president ever (according to independent analysts) a HP show they aren’t as objective as they think.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/02/19/opinion/how-does-trump-stack-up-against-the-best-and-worst-presidents.html

Where in the article does it say that? I skimmed it but didn't see the partisan breakout.

This was telling however:
"It wasn’t just Democratic support that would carve F.D.R. on Mt. Rushmore: All groups, including Republicans, named him as most deserving of that honor.

Roosevelt, the godfather of presidential liberalism, received more than twice as many votes from Republicans as Ronald Reagan, his conservative counterpart."

It's not even close either.



Nice try. I see Reagan ranked 9th, not 7th overall. So I guess only independent and Republican scholars count? I mean, comone on, even Republican scholars rank FDR higher Reagan. In the words of the Gipper, "There you go again."

So there were 8 better than him. He's ranked behind Obama, Truman, both Roosevelts, Eisenhower, et al. I am simply expressing my opinions of him growing as a teenager in the rural South sourrounded by family members who suffered under his policies but worshipped the ground he walked on.

Nice try, bro.

They oversampled Democrats in their survey, and both Democrats and Republicans will be biased. So instead, I went with Independents.

And even still, 9th puts him in the top 80% of presidents. Not exactly a HP in my book.

And have you considered how well your family members under his presidency were is not the only factor in gauging the leader of 250 million people?

It’s literally right there in the article, where Presidents are ranked as party.

Also, I’m not really understanding you’re point. You’re saying, “FDR was better than Reagan. Therefore, Reagan sucked.” How does that make any sense? I think FDR was a FF as well, as was Obama, even though he’s ranked lower by Independent scholars than Reagan.

Because in my experience he did. So what more do you want? I can't stand the man and never have, even when he was elected when I was in 5th grade. He was president during my formative years and I always loathed him even though I was in the minority where I grew up.

I'm sick of hearing about Reagan and his f***d up policies. I have been thinking about how his rhetoric has led us to where we are the last few days. I don't think I'm alone in this sentiment either.

Of all the people responsible for the Catastrophe of Trump (especially these last few days), Reagan is the last one you want to blame. Don’t pin this on him just because he also had an “R” next to his name.

Reagan was by no means perfect, and I’m sure your families experiences are a reflection of at least some of his flaws. But I’ll never get over how he was able to put the nail in the coffin for the evil Communist Bloc.

Obama made choices that hurt me and the people I care about as well. But he still had a charm that made all but the most hateful Republicans smile.

The key is that nail in the coffin was the final nail of meny hammered in over the preceding 45 years. Republicans like to mythologize Reagan is some great Slayer of the great communist Beast, when all he did was run the ball in over the goal line after the rest of the team made a 95-yard drive before bringing him in.

Seriously, name one Reagan foreign policy venture which wasn't either already supported by 98 + percent of Democrats anyway ( e. G. The Grenada invasion, supporting the mujahideen in Afghanistan which started under Carter), or wasn't a colossal mistake which did nothing to advance our victory over communism (E.G. favoring so-called constructive engagement rather than sanctions with the apartheid South African government, our support of the Nicaraguan contras which was universally reviled by every democratic government in this hemisphere , and of course led to the Iran Contra debacle).

Conservatives like to claim that the fight checks Reagan wrote the Pentagon in the 80s somehow spent communist Russia to death and push them over the edge. Unfortunately that's not true. Military documents Declassified and obtained after the fall of the Cold War demonstrated that Soviet military spending did not increase particularly much for the ladies more than the rate of inflation. Reagan baited them to try matching the spending, but the Soviets didn't bite. Instead, we spend ourselves into enormous debt and created an unparalleled precedent for deficit spending, and in the process / social programs relied on by the poor and working class set defense contractors could make a bundle ( oh, and of course Finance huge tax cuts for the wealthiest).

It’s not just “conservatives” who think Reagan was a good president. Even Democrats rank him in the top 3rd.

And I also don’t think you understand just how evil the government of Nicaragua was at the time. Fighting them was necessary.

The non-conta opposition to the Sandinistas understood they were bad, and they adamantly and furiously opposed our supporting the Contras.

In answer to your question, not all that evil since they left on their own after being defeated in elections. Hell, even Trump couldn't do that! By your own rationale NATO shoumd be actively funding left wing paramilitaries in the US to figbt against Republican attempts to subvert Democracy here.

The more salient question is whether you realize just hiw evil the Contras were?

I can’t help but find it ironic that you condemn Reagan for providing support for a group trying to overthrow people who mass executed indigenous people- because you believe he played a role in the mass executions of indigenous people.

Your post makes zero sense. Elaborate?

My point is that Sandinistas were just as bad as the Contras.

Only, if they got in power, and Communism spread through Latin America, the Cold War may have ended VERY differently. Remember that.

Ah, the discredited domino theory. Your statement is at once both hyperbolic and fantastical. To say we needed to support a group of far right-wing bloodthirsty paramilitaries to remove a government which ultimately step down after losing a free election, let alone that it would have spread communism throughout Central America or even reverse the Cold War entirely, shows a breathtaking lack of basic historical knowledge.

Either way, while the financial support of Contras was questionable, it doesn’t discredit Reagan entirely because 1) It makes perfect sense as to why Reagan would oppose the spread of Communism, and 2) because Reagan’s presidency was much more than just this.

[Badger]

The fact that the Democrats on this board are calling the 7th best president ever (according to independent analysts) a HP show they aren’t as objective as they think.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/02/19/opinion/how-does-trump-stack-up-against-the-best-and-worst-presidents.html

Where in the article does it say that? I skimmed it but didn't see the partisan breakout.

This was telling however:
"It wasn’t just Democratic support that would carve F.D.R. on Mt. Rushmore: All groups, including Republicans, named him as most deserving of that honor.

Roosevelt, the godfather of presidential liberalism, received more than twice as many votes from Republicans as Ronald Reagan, his conservative counterpart."

It's not even close either.



Nice try. I see Reagan ranked 9th, not 7th overall. So I guess only independent and Republican scholars count? I mean, comone on, even Republican scholars rank FDR higher Reagan. In the words of the Gipper, "There you go again."

So there were 8 better than him. He's ranked behind Obama, Truman, both Roosevelts, Eisenhower, et al. I am simply expressing my opinions of him growing as a teenager in the rural South sourrounded by family members who suffered under his policies but worshipped the ground he walked on.

Nice try, bro.

They oversampled Democrats in their survey, and both Democrats and Republicans will be biased. So instead, I went with Independents.

And even still, 9th puts him in the top 80% of presidents. Not exactly a HP in my book.

And have you considered how well your family members under his presidency were is not the only factor in gauging the leader of 250 million people?

It’s literally right there in the article, where Presidents are ranked as party.

Also, I’m not really understanding you’re point. You’re saying, “FDR was better than Reagan. Therefore, Reagan sucked.” How does that make any sense? I think FDR was a FF as well, as was Obama, even though he’s ranked lower by Independent scholars than Reagan.

Because in my experience he did. So what more do you want? I can't stand the man and never have, even when he was elected when I was in 5th grade. He was president during my formative years and I always loathed him even though I was in the minority where I grew up.

I'm sick of hearing about Reagan and his f***d up policies. I have been thinking about how his rhetoric has led us to where we are the last few days. I don't think I'm alone in this sentiment either.

Of all the people responsible for the Catastrophe of Trump (especially these last few days), Reagan is the last one you want to blame. Don’t pin this on him just because he also had an “R” next to his name.

Reagan was by no means perfect, and I’m sure your families experiences are a reflection of at least some of his flaws. But I’ll never get over how he was able to put the nail in the coffin for the evil Communist Bloc.

Obama made choices that hurt me and the people I care about as well. But he still had a charm that made all but the most hateful Republicans smile.

The key is that nail in the coffin was the final nail of meny hammered in over the preceding 45 years. Republicans like to mythologize Reagan is some great Slayer of the great communist Beast, when all he did was run the ball in over the goal line after the rest of the team made a 95-yard drive before bringing him in.

Seriously, name one Reagan foreign policy venture which wasn't either already supported by 98 + percent of Democrats anyway ( e. G. The Grenada invasion, supporting the mujahideen in Afghanistan which started under Carter), or wasn't a colossal mistake which did nothing to advance our victory over communism (E.G. favoring so-called constructive engagement rather than sanctions with the apartheid South African government, our support of the Nicaraguan contras which was universally reviled by every democratic government in this hemisphere , and of course led to the Iran Contra debacle).

Conservatives like to claim that the fight checks Reagan wrote the Pentagon in the 80s somehow spent communist Russia to death and push them over the edge. Unfortunately that's not true. Military documents Declassified and obtained after the fall of the Cold War demonstrated that Soviet military spending did not increase particularly much for the ladies more than the rate of inflation. Reagan baited them to try matching the spending, but the Soviets didn't bite. Instead, we spend ourselves into enormous debt and created an unparalleled precedent for deficit spending, and in the process / social programs relied on by the poor and working class set defense contractors could make a bundle ( oh, and of course Finance huge tax cuts for the wealthiest).

It’s not just “conservatives” who think Reagan was a good president. Even Democrats rank him in the top 3rd.

And I also don’t think you understand just how evil the government of Nicaragua was at the time. Fighting them was necessary.

The non-conta opposition to the Sandinistas understood they were bad, and they adamantly and furiously opposed our supporting the Contras.

In answer to your question, not all that evil since they left on their own after being defeated in elections. Hell, even Trump couldn't do that! By your own rationale NATO shoumd be actively funding left wing paramilitaries in the US to figbt against Republican attempts to subvert Democracy here.

The more salient question is whether you realize just hiw evil the Contras were?

I can’t help but find it ironic that you condemn Reagan for providing support for a group trying to overthrow people who mass executed indigenous people- because you believe he played a role in the mass executions of indigenous people.

Your post makes zero sense. Elaborate?

My point is that Sandinistas were just as bad as the Contras.

Only, if they got in power, and Communism spread through Latin America, the Cold War may have ended VERY differently. Remember that.

Ah, the discredited domino theory. Your statement is at once both hyperbolic and fantastical. To say we needed to support a group of far right-wing bloodthirsty paramilitaries to remove a government which ultimately step down after losing a free election, let alone that it would have spread communism throughout Central America or even reverse the Cold War entirely, shows a breathtaking lack of basic historical knowledge.

Either way, while the financial support of Contras was questionable, it doesn’t discredit Reagan entirely because 1) It makes perfect sense as to why Reagan would oppose the spread of Communism, and 2) because Reagan’s presidency was much more than just this.

You are so right. His presidency also included a policy of supporting rather than condemning the South African apartheid regime, write down to having to be kicked Dragon screaming to be among one of the last leaders in the world call for Nelson Mandela's release, which was not only morally reprehensible but thoroughly counterproductive for combating the root causes of Communism. Involved the Iran-Contra deal which was beyond a debacle on so many levels for both are Central American and Middle Eastern policy, not to mention undermining the basic rule law and constitutional perogative sitar country. Involve being the only post-war president not to reach some nuclear arms agreement with the Soviets oh, and the fact is Soviet Union collapsed soon after he left office doesn't excuse that failure.

Oh, and that's just foreign policy. On the domestic front his was the presidency that brought the religious right into political power for the first time and ensconced it as a fundamental power source in one of the two major political parties right up to the present day. Keep vastly accelerated the politicization and partisanship of the appointment of the federal judiciary. And of course he slashed High income tax rates for all his rich friends and corporate donors, which not only doubled over 200 years of national debt within his first term alone, it said what turned out to be a horrible template 4 future budgets which have been adopted this present day ( notwithstanding Bill Clinton and Al Gore's Brave attempt, ultimately forwarded by W reinstituting half-assed Reaganomics, to maintain a budget surplus and start reducing the national debt). All of which accomplished only a handful of years worth of economic growth through the economic equivalent of a massive sugar high.

I seriously never hear any good specific talking points from Republicans as to why Reagan was so good unless either they think somehow truly believe slashing tax rates on the wealthiest in exchange for running up debt that I today decades later have to pay a huge chunk of my taxes just to pay the interest on the resulting debt, or something along the lines of gee whiz he was really patriotic and stuff.