Opinion of Ronald Reagan?

[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.

Don't act like he was solely responsible for bringing down the Soviet Bloc. There where other forces at play from within that helped make that happen. The results didn't create some great democratic world utopia either.

It wasn’t only him, but he did play a large role in the collapse. The collapse which drastically reduced the threat of human extinction.

Not too bad, if you ask me.

[Buffalo Mayor Young Kim]

Look if Reagan hadn’t been supporting Guatemalan genocidaires, Miami could be Castrograd right now :eyeroll:

Also, can I also circle back to The Reckoning’s Vatican avatar? Can you please at least take it down while your salvaging over a man who supported the murderous repression of parts of the Church in Central and South American  in the name of anti-communism (and at the behest of Evangelicals locally and at home).

Do you understand how evil the Communists in Nicaragua were?

How about those Mayan villagers in Guatemala?

Got to wipe those out

[TheReckoning]

Look if Reagan hadn’t been supporting Guatemalan genocidaires, Miami could be Castrograd right now :eyeroll:

Also, can I also circle back to The Reckoning’s Vatican avatar? Can you please at least take it down while your salvaging over a man who supported the murderous repression of parts of the Church in Central and South American  in the name of anti-communism (and at the behest of Evangelicals locally and at home).

Do you understand how evil the Communists in Nicaragua were?

How about those Mayan villagers in Guatemala?

Got to wipe those out

Reagan made mistakes, but honestly, if the communists in Guatemala were anything like the ones in China, I can’t get too mad at him for supporting the opposition to them.

[TheReckoning]

Iran-Contra and his botching of the AIDs epidemic puts him firmly in HP territory.

So I’m guessing Japanese Interment puts FDR in the same place?

No president is perfect.

[leonardothered]

I leave you with four words

(nsfw)

Not a hip hop guy but damn I love Killer Mike lol

[Beet]

HP. He ushered in the neoliberal era that we are in today.

[AnOdyssey]

https://youtu.be/XdM84-3_esY

[TheReckoning]

HP. He ushered in the neoliberal era that we are in today.

Lmao what???

LBJ was the first Neolib president, no question.

[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?

[Beet]

HP. He ushered in the neoliberal era that we are in today.

Lmao what???

LBJ was the first Neolib president, no question.

No, LBJ was a Keynesian.

[TheReckoning]

HP. He ushered in the neoliberal era that we are in today.

Lmao what???

LBJ was the first Neolib president, no question.

No, LBJ was a Keynesian.

The two aren’t mutually exclusive, and LBJ was nowhere near as Keynesian as, say, FDR.

[Red Velvet]

The Margaret Thatcher of the US, but way less interesting and not as controversial as her. Hardcore neoliberalism injected in the veins.

[Beet]

HP. He ushered in the neoliberal era that we are in today.

Lmao what???

LBJ was the first Neolib president, no question.

No, LBJ was a Keynesian.

The two aren’t mutually exclusive, and LBJ was nowhere near as Keynesian as, say, FDR.

Yes they are. One is associated with Keynes, Alvin Hansen, Paul Samuelson, the Phillips curve, and the IS/LM model, whereas the other is associated with the Mount Pelerin Society, Ludwig von Mises, Frederich Hayek, Milton Friedman, and the Washington Consensus.

FDR didn't know what Keynesianism was. He had no theoretical basis for what he was doing. He just enacted plans that he thought would work. But he didn't embrace Social Security until the Second New Deal, and never embraced Medicare, Medicaid, Food Stamps, etc. He tried to balance the budget in 1937 which brought on another recession.

[TheReckoning]

HP. He ushered in the neoliberal era that we are in today.

Lmao what???

LBJ was the first Neolib president, no question.

No, LBJ was a Keynesian.

The two aren’t mutually exclusive, and LBJ was nowhere near as Keynesian as, say, FDR.

Yes they are. One is associated with Keynes, Alvin Hansen, Paul Samuelson, the Phillips curve, and the IS/LM model, whereas the other is associated with the Mount Pelerin Society, Ludwig von Mises, Frederich Hayek, Milton Friedman, and the Washington Consensus.

FDR didn't know what Keynesianism was. He had no theoretical basis for what he was doing. He just enacted plans that he thought would work. But he didn't embrace Social Security until his second term, and never embraced Medicare, Medicaid, Food Stamps, etc. He tried to balance the budget in 1937 which brought on another recession.

I’m mistaken: It was actually Carter who first laid the groundwork for Neoliberalism, by deregulating several industries such as banks and airlines. But Reagan is no more guilty for it than, say Barack Obama.

FDRs economics were based on demand-side theory, which is the basis for pretty much all of Keynesian economics.

Reagan wasn’t perfect, and I still like other presidents such as Eisenhower better. But I take the word of actual political scientists more seriously than some posters on an obscure Internet forum.

And, given his accomplishments and failures, I largely agree with their assessments.

[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.

[Earthling]

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.

[Red Velvet]

People can argue that Reagan is bad, but no one can deny he set the stage for a generation.

He was considered way too radical before being elected and after he left power both democrats and republicans molded themselves under his influence: Light Reaganism vs Hard Reaganism.

So he obviously was “great” in terms of power and impact. Discussion whether that impact was great or terrible. And it depends for who, for millionaires he certainly was the best of all time. Income inequality skyrocketed in US during the 80s and only keeps growing since then.





All the drastic drop of inequality thanks to FDR work in the 30s and 40s, which set the stage for his successors, is practically almost all reversed by now. Rich keep getting richer and the poor are poorer and Reagan started the trend.

No wonder US is on brink of a Democratic collapse lol. There was massive civil unrest with the 1929 crisis, in a time inequality was at the highest ever recorded in the US, but at least there was someone smart to apply the policies needed at the time, as FDR did.

It’s an open question Biden will break away from Reaganism and go back to a FDR track, he should start listening to Bernie.

[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.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

HP , he was only popular due to Nancy Reagan War on Drugs and Pro choice and encouragement of Sandra Day O'connor. 1980, 2001, and 2017 tax cuts raided SSA funds as now we need our stimulus from the Employer tax from SSA for our stimulus. Govt raided SSA funds for TARP

Manchin said 2K should be targeted but we all pay taxes as in food stamps come from sales taxes and we pay FICA TAXES

[Earthling]

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.

True. Off course he is not. He is not some mass-murderer. Not even Trump comes close to being like Hitler and he is both an HP and a very bad president.

For me, Reagan belongs somewhere between 10 and 20. Just like Obama.

[Buffalo Mayor Young Kim]

Look if Reagan hadn’t been supporting Guatemalan genocidaires, Miami could be Castrograd right now :eyeroll:

Also, can I also circle back to The Reckoning’s Vatican avatar? Can you please at least take it down while your salvaging over a man who supported the murderous repression of parts of the Church in Central and South American  in the name of anti-communism (and at the behest of Evangelicals locally and at home).

Do you understand how evil the Communists in Nicaragua were?

How about those Mayan villagers in Guatemala?

Got to wipe those out

Reagan made mistakes, but honestly, if the communists in Guatemala were anything like the ones in China, I can’t get too mad at him for supporting the opposition to them.

Look if Reagan hadn’t been supporting Guatemalan genocidaires, Miami could be Castrograd right now :eyeroll:

Also, can I also circle back to The Reckoning’s Vatican avatar? Can you please at least take it down while your salvaging over a man who supported the murderous repression of parts of the Church in Central and South American  in the name of anti-communism (and at the behest of Evangelicals locally and at home).

Do you understand how evil the Communists in Nicaragua were?

How about those Mayan villagers in Guatemala?

Got to wipe those out

Reagan made mistakes, but honestly, if the communists in Guatemala were anything like the ones in China, I can’t get too mad at him for supporting the opposition to them.

Efrain Rios Montt seized power in a military coup in 1982 and during his 17 month reign killed anywhere between 10,000-20,000 people and destroyed 600 villages, in a campaign to reduce the Mayan population, who he claimed were naturally susceptible to communism due to their immaturity (his words), in the bloodiest part of the Guatemalan genocide.

Anyway, in 1982 and 1983 Rios Montt's army received millions of dollars in United States aid, which had been suspended by Carter was resumed by Reagan, claiming that the human rights situation was being improved by the new regime. He also provided propaganda support to the genocidaires, personally flew down to Managua in December of '82 to meet with Rios Montt, giving him a big photo op and giving an glowing interview where he calls him a man of great integrity and commitment who was committed to democracy (NB, Montt was a general installed by military coup) and was getting a bum rap. In case you are thinking this is a mistake, declassified CIA documents in Fed of 82, shortly before Rios Montt's coup, reports that the army was conducting massacres in a specific Mayan province, was meeting no substantial resistance, and that the army considered all Ixil (an indigenous) tribe to be insurgents and were giving no quarter, so he knew that 'fighting guerillas' was code for killing Mayans, and in February of 83, noted the rise in right wing violence and that bodies were piling up in rivers and gullies in the countryside. His financial support for the regime continued until it fell and through Mejia Victores (also convicted of genocide) regime.

Also, in El Salvador, where the civil war against the commies bankrolled by the Reagan administration killed 75,000 people. The UN sponsored Truth Commission would latter find that 85% of all offenses were committed by government (ie. anti-communist) forces. I'm not going to go into to much here, because reports of the specific conduct of the state department personnel are mixed, but the army that carried this out was funded and trained by the US and the Reagan administration claimed reports of massacres (later confirmed by the post war UN investigators) were guerilla propaganda to the Senate and conducted a campaign to discredit human rights groups reporting on the Salvadoran situation. As Reagan's Assistant SoS for human rights put it 'it was more important to prevent a communist takeover [than to promote human rights'. Again, 85% of the killing was from government forces.


Also of note, Rios Montt was a convert to evangelicalism, personal friend of Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson, who believed that Catholic priests (who kept trying to tell him to stop the organized mass murder of the Mayan community) in particular were targeted for extra-judicial killings. To the point where his own brother, a bishop, had to flee the country.
Of course in all these dirty wars, priests and nuns, particularly in rural areas, were targeted for summary execution by right-wing paramilitaries as a matter of course. (Not that left-wing militants were all that much better, before you get into the what about game)
I'm bringing this up in particular because you insist on putting the Holy See in your avatar and it's incredibly offensive.

HP. He ushered in the neoliberal era that we are in today.

Lmao what???

LBJ was the first Neolib president, no question.

What are you even talking about? Do you even know what neo-liberalism is?

[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.

[TheReckoning]

Look if Reagan hadn’t been supporting Guatemalan genocidaires, Miami could be Castrograd right now :eyeroll:

Also, can I also circle back to The Reckoning’s Vatican avatar? Can you please at least take it down while your salvaging over a man who supported the murderous repression of parts of the Church in Central and South American  in the name of anti-communism (and at the behest of Evangelicals locally and at home).

Do you understand how evil the Communists in Nicaragua were?

How about those Mayan villagers in Guatemala?

Got to wipe those out

Reagan made mistakes, but honestly, if the communists in Guatemala were anything like the ones in China, I can’t get too mad at him for supporting the opposition to them.

Look if Reagan hadn’t been supporting Guatemalan genocidaires, Miami could be Castrograd right now :eyeroll:

Also, can I also circle back to The Reckoning’s Vatican avatar? Can you please at least take it down while your salvaging over a man who supported the murderous repression of parts of the Church in Central and South American  in the name of anti-communism (and at the behest of Evangelicals locally and at home).

Do you understand how evil the Communists in Nicaragua were?

How about those Mayan villagers in Guatemala?

Got to wipe those out

Reagan made mistakes, but honestly, if the communists in Guatemala were anything like the ones in China, I can’t get too mad at him for supporting the opposition to them.

Efrain Rios Montt seized power in a military coup in 1982 and during his 17 month reign killed anywhere between 10,000-20,000 people and destroyed 600 villages, in a campaign to reduce the Mayan population, who he claimed were naturally susceptible to communism due to their immaturity (his words), in the bloodiest part of the Guatemalan genocide.

Anyway, in 1982 and 1983 Rios Montt's army received millions of dollars in United States aid, which had been suspended by Carter was resumed by Reagan, claiming that the human rights situation was being improved by the new regime. He also provided propaganda support to the genocidaires, personally flew down to Managua in December of '82 to meet with Rios Montt, giving him a big photo op and giving an glowing interview where he calls him a man of great integrity and commitment who was committed to democracy (NB, Montt was a general installed by military coup) and was getting a bum rap. In case you are thinking this is a mistake, declassified CIA documents in Fed of 82, shortly before Rios Montt's coup, reports that the army was conducting massacres in a specific Mayan province, was meeting no substantial resistance, and that the army considered all Ixil (an indigenous) tribe to be insurgents and were giving no quarter, so he knew that 'fighting guerillas' was code for killing Mayans, and in February of 83, noted the rise in right wing violence and that bodies were piling up in rivers and gullies in the countryside. His financial support for the regime continued until it fell and through Mejia Victores (also convicted of genocide) regime.

Also, in El Salvador, where the civil war against the commies bankrolled by the Reagan administration killed 75,000 people. The UN sponsored Truth Commission would latter find that 85% of all offenses were committed by government (ie. anti-communist) forces. I'm not going to go into to much here, because reports of the specific conduct of the state department personnel are mixed, but the army that carried this out was funded and trained by the US and the Reagan administration claimed reports of massacres (later confirmed by the post war UN investigators) were guerilla propaganda to the Senate and conducted a campaign to discredit human rights groups reporting on the Salvadoran situation. As Reagan's Assistant SoS for human rights put it 'it was more important to prevent a communist takeover [than to promote human rights'. Again, 85% of the killing was from government forces.


Also of note, Rios Montt was a convert to evangelicalism, personal friend of Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson, who believed that Catholic priests (who kept trying to tell him to stop the organized mass murder of the Mayan community) in particular were targeted for extra-judicial killings. To the point where his own brother, a bishop, had to flee the country.
Of course in all these dirty wars, priests and nuns, particularly in rural areas, were targeted for summary execution by right-wing paramilitaries as a matter of course. (Not that left-wing militants were all that much better, before you get into the what about game)
I'm bringing this up in particular because you insist on putting the Holy See in your avatar and it's incredibly offensive.

Neither the left-wing or right wing in this situation was ideal, but Reagan was terrified of the Domino effect, and rightfully so.

[Buffalo Mayor Young Kim]

Look if Reagan hadn’t been supporting Guatemalan genocidaires, Miami could be Castrograd right now :eyeroll:

Also, can I also circle back to The Reckoning’s Vatican avatar? Can you please at least take it down while your salvaging over a man who supported the murderous repression of parts of the Church in Central and South American  in the name of anti-communism (and at the behest of Evangelicals locally and at home).

Do you understand how evil the Communists in Nicaragua were?

How about those Mayan villagers in Guatemala?

Got to wipe those out

Reagan made mistakes, but honestly, if the communists in Guatemala were anything like the ones in China, I can’t get too mad at him for supporting the opposition to them.

Look if Reagan hadn’t been supporting Guatemalan genocidaires, Miami could be Castrograd right now :eyeroll:

Also, can I also circle back to The Reckoning’s Vatican avatar? Can you please at least take it down while your salvaging over a man who supported the murderous repression of parts of the Church in Central and South American  in the name of anti-communism (and at the behest of Evangelicals locally and at home).

Do you understand how evil the Communists in Nicaragua were?

How about those Mayan villagers in Guatemala?

Got to wipe those out

Reagan made mistakes, but honestly, if the communists in Guatemala were anything like the ones in China, I can’t get too mad at him for supporting the opposition to them.

Efrain Rios Montt seized power in a military coup in 1982 and during his 17 month reign killed anywhere between 10,000-20,000 people and destroyed 600 villages, in a campaign to reduce the Mayan population, who he claimed were naturally susceptible to communism due to their immaturity (his words), in the bloodiest part of the Guatemalan genocide.

Anyway, in 1982 and 1983 Rios Montt's army received millions of dollars in United States aid, which had been suspended by Carter was resumed by Reagan, claiming that the human rights situation was being improved by the new regime. He also provided propaganda support to the genocidaires, personally flew down to Managua in December of '82 to meet with Rios Montt, giving him a big photo op and giving an glowing interview where he calls him a man of great integrity and commitment who was committed to democracy (NB, Montt was a general installed by military coup) and was getting a bum rap. In case you are thinking this is a mistake, declassified CIA documents in Fed of 82, shortly before Rios Montt's coup, reports that the army was conducting massacres in a specific Mayan province, was meeting no substantial resistance, and that the army considered all Ixil (an indigenous) tribe to be insurgents and were giving no quarter, so he knew that 'fighting guerillas' was code for killing Mayans, and in February of 83, noted the rise in right wing violence and that bodies were piling up in rivers and gullies in the countryside. His financial support for the regime continued until it fell and through Mejia Victores (also convicted of genocide) regime.

Also, in El Salvador, where the civil war against the commies bankrolled by the Reagan administration killed 75,000 people. The UN sponsored Truth Commission would latter find that 85% of all offenses were committed by government (ie. anti-communist) forces. I'm not going to go into to much here, because reports of the specific conduct of the state department personnel are mixed, but the army that carried this out was funded and trained by the US and the Reagan administration claimed reports of massacres (later confirmed by the post war UN investigators) were guerilla propaganda to the Senate and conducted a campaign to discredit human rights groups reporting on the Salvadoran situation. As Reagan's Assistant SoS for human rights put it 'it was more important to prevent a communist takeover [than to promote human rights'. Again, 85% of the killing was from government forces.


Also of note, Rios Montt was a convert to evangelicalism, personal friend of Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson, who believed that Catholic priests (who kept trying to tell him to stop the organized mass murder of the Mayan community) in particular were targeted for extra-judicial killings. To the point where his own brother, a bishop, had to flee the country.
Of course in all these dirty wars, priests and nuns, particularly in rural areas, were targeted for summary execution by right-wing paramilitaries as a matter of course. (Not that left-wing militants were all that much better, before you get into the what about game)
I'm bringing this up in particular because you insist on putting the Holy See in your avatar and it's incredibly offensive.

Neither the left-wing or right wing in this situation was ideal, but Reagan was terrified of the Domino effect, and rightfully so.

We are talking about a literal genocide.

[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).