Opinion of Ronald Reagan?
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 06:29:21 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  Individual Politics (Moderator: The Dowager Mod)
  Opinion of Ronald Reagan?
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9
Poll
Question: ?
#1
FF
 
#2
HP
 
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results

Total Voters: 158

Author Topic: Opinion of Ronald Reagan?  (Read 8899 times)
OSR stands with Israel
Computer89
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 44,357


Political Matrix
E: 3.42, S: 2.61

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #175 on: January 12, 2021, 10:05:42 PM »

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


Of course we're not objective. How do you think opinions work?

Saying that Reagan was a horrible president is like calling Trump an amazing president. If you want to say that’s simply an opinion and not objectively wrong, then go ahead.

Political opinions can't be "objectively" anything. Ranking Presidents is an opinion no matter how you slice it. I believe Reagan and Trump were both very bad Presidents (although Trump has certainly proved himself to be worse) and my ratings would reflect that.

I think the question then becomes: why is your opinion so out of line with effectively all political scientists, including Democrats? Why do you believe you know better than them?


Usually most rankings by political scientists and historians of recent Presidents judge them without prejudice to their accomplishments, and rather just the amount of accomplishment they had or effect on the country, although I believe Reagan's effect on the country was terrible, there's no doubt he had a massive effect on it. Although I suspect this attempt at objectivity of recent Presidents will not apply to Trump, as his "administration" was so obviously and egregiously terrible.


That’s how presidents should be judged , and  not based on how much you agree with them on the issues
Logged
Crane
Atlas Politician
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,080


Political Matrix
E: -8.16, S: 3.22

P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #176 on: January 12, 2021, 10:20:47 PM »

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


Of course we're not objective. How do you think opinions work?

Saying that Reagan was a horrible president is like calling Trump an amazing president. If you want to say that’s simply an opinion and not objectively wrong, then go ahead.

Political opinions can't be "objectively" anything. Ranking Presidents is an opinion no matter how you slice it. I believe Reagan and Trump were both very bad Presidents (although Trump has certainly proved himself to be worse) and my ratings would reflect that.

I think the question then becomes: why is your opinion so out of line with effectively all political scientists, including Democrats? Why do you believe you know better than them?


Usually most rankings by political scientists and historians of recent Presidents judge them without prejudice to their accomplishments, and rather just the amount of accomplishment they had or effect on the country, although I believe Reagan's effect on the country was terrible, there's no doubt he had a massive effect on it. Although I suspect this attempt at objectivity of recent Presidents will not apply to Trump, as his "administration" was so obviously and egregiously terrible.


That’s how presidents should be judged , and  not based on how much you agree with them on the issues

Reagan did lots of terrible things.

You: "Ah, but you have heard of him"
Logged
WD
Western Democrat
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,573
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -7.35, S: -0.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #177 on: January 13, 2021, 12:04:26 AM »

This thread is 8 pages longer than it should be.
Logged
Battista Minola 1616
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,282
Vatican City State


Political Matrix
E: -5.55, S: -1.57

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #178 on: January 13, 2021, 06:03:18 AM »

This thread is 8 pages longer than it should be.

Preach!

I suspect that almost half of TheReckoning's total posts have been in this thread lmao.
Logged
S019
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,257
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -4.13, S: -1.39

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #179 on: January 13, 2021, 11:10:23 AM »

HP
Logged
Alcibiades
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,851
United Kingdom


Political Matrix
E: -4.39, S: -6.96

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #180 on: January 13, 2021, 02:06:12 PM »

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

Lmao what???

LBJ was the first Neolib president, no question.

Lol, what is this take. LBJ was the most economically left-wing President of the post-WWII era.
Logged
VAR
VARepublican
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,755
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #181 on: January 13, 2021, 02:07:47 PM »

Please lock this thread
Logged
TheReckoning
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,656
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #182 on: January 13, 2021, 02:51:29 PM »

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

Lmao what???

LBJ was the first Neolib president, no question.

Lol, what is this take. LBJ was the most economically left-wing President of the post-WWII era.

Neolibs can be left-wing, but I was wrong there. It was actually Carter who first implemented Neolib policies. I was confused because Neoliberalism came to prominence under the Johnson presidency, but didn’t have to do with him directly.
Logged
WMS
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,562


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -1.22

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #183 on: January 13, 2021, 02:57:28 PM »

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.
Please expand your scope to include the even more murderous predecessor to Rios Montt, Romeo Lucas Garcia. Who also got support from the Reagan administration, for that matter.
Logged
Asenath Waite
Fulbright DNC
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,431
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #184 on: January 13, 2021, 03:21:03 PM »

HP, honestly he was the original Trump and Bitburg his own "nazis are very fine people" moment.
Logged
All Along The Watchtower
Progressive Realist
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,426
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #185 on: January 13, 2021, 03:49:36 PM »

Did Trump ever use the phrase "strapping young buck?"
Logged
All Along The Watchtower
Progressive Realist
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,426
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #186 on: January 13, 2021, 03:51:04 PM »

Quote
“To see those monkeys from those African countries, damn them,” Reagan said, to laughter from Nixon. “They are still uncomfortable wearing shoes.”

But remember, Trump is the racist aberration in the Republican Party.
Logged
TheReckoning
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,656
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #187 on: January 13, 2021, 04:07:35 PM »

Quote
“To see those monkeys from those African countries, damn them,” Reagan said, to laughter from Nixon. “They are still uncomfortable wearing shoes.”

But remember, Trump is the racist aberration in the Republican Party.

Reagan was born in 1911, and was raised under a president who supported the KKK. He still held prejudices from that time, and by no means was perfect. So, he made an off-hand racist comment because the Tanzanian delegation he was referring to were pro-communist, and he was (rightfully) against that. He shouldn’t have said it, but at least it was no were near as bad as the things LBJ would say, who was born around the same time.

Meanwhile, as president, Reagan granted amnesty to over a million illegal immigrants, established MLK day as a national holiday, and payed reparations to Japanese people who were held in interment camps by FDR (who I’m sure you think very highly of).

Not exactly something a dedicated white supremacist would do
Logged
TheReckoning
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,656
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #188 on: January 13, 2021, 04:08:34 PM »

HP, honestly he was the original Trump and Bitburg his own "nazis are very fine people" moment.

Reagan wasn’t Trump in the slightest.

The only two things you have linking them together were “actors who became Republican presidents”.
Logged
Lechasseur
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,757


Political Matrix
E: -0.52, S: 3.13

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #189 on: January 13, 2021, 06:33:34 PM »

FF on Foreign Policy
HP on Domestic Policy
Logged
Lechasseur
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,757


Political Matrix
E: -0.52, S: 3.13

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #190 on: January 13, 2021, 06:36:38 PM »
« Edited: January 13, 2021, 06:50:13 PM by Lechasseur »

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


Of course we're not objective. How do you think opinions work?

Saying that Reagan was a horrible president is like calling Trump an amazing president. If you want to say that’s simply an opinion and not objectively wrong, then go ahead.

Political opinions can't be "objectively" anything. Ranking Presidents is an opinion no matter how you slice it. I believe Reagan and Trump were both very bad Presidents (although Trump has certainly proved himself to be worse) and my ratings would reflect that.

I think the question then becomes: why is your opinion so out of line with effectively all political scientists, including Democrats? Why do you believe you know better than them?


Usually most rankings by political scientists and historians of recent Presidents judge them without prejudice to their accomplishments, and rather just the amount of accomplishment they had or effect on the country

Yeah that’s... not true. George W Bush definitely had a larger on the county than his father, but one of them is ranked higher than the other.

Well Bush again, obviously egregious and horrible. The full scope of the disasters of Reaganism are less subtle than Bush's, who left office with the economy obviously on fire.

Eh, those were still great times of massive prosperity compared to what we're dealing with now.

In 2008, everyone I knew was doing fine (at least economically). Myself and my whole family has been devasted by this 2020-2021 great depression though.
Logged
MT Treasurer
IndyRep
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,284
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #191 on: January 13, 2021, 09:15:09 PM »
« Edited: January 13, 2021, 09:23:24 PM by MT Treasurer »

One who understood that politics essentially boils down to theatrics and branding. His astonishing success in the realm of political image-making (which notably has lasted well beyond his presidency) is one of the greatest marketing wonders in American history, especially given the Iran-Contra episode, the long list of broken promises which fly in the face of the pompous rhetoric (particularly to social conservatives/the Religious Right, groups he and his successors used as props), and the divisive rhetoric ("They act like Tarzan, look like Jane, and smell like Cheetah", etc.). Probably the one president who comes as close to the fabled 'Trump with a brain and actual political shrewdness' as you can realistically get. A masterful manipulator (especially in reading and playing his audience) and rhetorician, but the fact that he didn’t sink under the weight of his rhetoric is the real story of his presidency/legacy.



e: I highly recommend this gem, you’ll see why it’s really amusing (and illuminating):

Billing, William C. "Reagan in Youngstown." The Ripon Forum, vol. 40, no. 5, Oct - Nov 2006.

https://riponsociety.org/article/reagan-in-youngstown/
Logged
OSR stands with Israel
Computer89
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 44,357


Political Matrix
E: 3.42, S: 2.61

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #192 on: January 13, 2021, 09:53:12 PM »

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


Of course we're not objective. How do you think opinions work?

Saying that Reagan was a horrible president is like calling Trump an amazing president. If you want to say that’s simply an opinion and not objectively wrong, then go ahead.

Political opinions can't be "objectively" anything. Ranking Presidents is an opinion no matter how you slice it. I believe Reagan and Trump were both very bad Presidents (although Trump has certainly proved himself to be worse) and my ratings would reflect that.

I think the question then becomes: why is your opinion so out of line with effectively all political scientists, including Democrats? Why do you believe you know better than them?


Usually most rankings by political scientists and historians of recent Presidents judge them without prejudice to their accomplishments, and rather just the amount of accomplishment they had or effect on the country

Yeah that’s... not true. George W Bush definitely had a larger on the county than his father, but one of them is ranked higher than the other.

Well Bush again, obviously egregious and horrible. The full scope of the disasters of Reaganism are less subtle than Bush's, who left office with the economy obviously on fire.

Eh, those were still great times of massive prosperity compared to what we're dealing with now.

In 2008, everyone I knew was doing fine (at least economically). Myself and my whole family has been devasted by this 2020-2021 great depression though.


The long term impacts of 2008 were worse , and unemployment currently is at Jan 2014 levels .

Heck on Election Day 49% of Americans thought the economy was good while that number was 36% in 2016
Logged
RINO Tom
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,002
United States


Political Matrix
E: 2.45, S: -0.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #193 on: January 13, 2021, 10:05:46 PM »

FF and much better President than everyone since.
Logged
MarkD
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,132
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #194 on: January 14, 2021, 10:41:35 AM »

I used to think of RR as FF, but I don't think that way anymore.

First of all, I disapprove of the fact that he vetoed the Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1987, which was good legislation, and RR's argument against it, as well as Pat Robertson's, was BS.

Secondly, I eventually realized what a hypocrite RR was regarding the appointment of Supreme Court Justices. In 1987, when Reagan announced he was appointing Robert Bork to the Supreme Court, he said that Bork "shares my view that judges' personal perferences and values should not be part of their constitutional interpretations. The guiding principle of judicial restraint recognizes that under the Constitution it is the exclusive province of the legislatures to enact laws and the role of the courts to interpret them." But more than a dozen years later, all of Reagan's successful appointees to the Court -- Sandra Day O'Connor, Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, and William Rehnquist (elevated by Reagan to be Chief Justice) -- joined in together to perpetrate the Bush v. Gore decision, which was a decision that had absolutely nothing to do with judicial restraint, and which certainly had nothing to do with Originalism as a method of constitutional interpretation. That Court decision punctured my faith that Republicans appoint better Justices than do Democrats, and it drove me to making the decision to stop voting (for over a dozen years).
Logged
Lechasseur
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,757


Political Matrix
E: -0.52, S: 3.13

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #195 on: January 14, 2021, 02:03:37 PM »

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


Of course we're not objective. How do you think opinions work?

Saying that Reagan was a horrible president is like calling Trump an amazing president. If you want to say that’s simply an opinion and not objectively wrong, then go ahead.

Political opinions can't be "objectively" anything. Ranking Presidents is an opinion no matter how you slice it. I believe Reagan and Trump were both very bad Presidents (although Trump has certainly proved himself to be worse) and my ratings would reflect that.

I think the question then becomes: why is your opinion so out of line with effectively all political scientists, including Democrats? Why do you believe you know better than them?


Usually most rankings by political scientists and historians of recent Presidents judge them without prejudice to their accomplishments, and rather just the amount of accomplishment they had or effect on the country

Yeah that’s... not true. George W Bush definitely had a larger on the county than his father, but one of them is ranked higher than the other.

Well Bush again, obviously egregious and horrible. The full scope of the disasters of Reaganism are less subtle than Bush's, who left office with the economy obviously on fire.

Eh, those were still great times of massive prosperity compared to what we're dealing with now.

In 2008, everyone I knew was doing fine (at least economically). Myself and my whole family has been devasted by this 2020-2021 great depression though.


The long term impacts of 2008 were worse , and unemployment currently is at Jan 2014 levels .

Heck on Election Day 49% of Americans thought the economy was good while that number was 36% in 2016

Yeah i have a hard time believing that. Empirically it just doesn't make sense.

Well with polling we all know what a joke that is. You can just make it say what you want it to say.

And with the unemployment rate, i think the difference is in 2008 people were still trying to find work. In 2020 many simply aren't bothering as there's no work out there. And you're not counted as unemployed if you're not actively looking for work.
Logged
OSR stands with Israel
Computer89
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 44,357


Political Matrix
E: 3.42, S: 2.61

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #196 on: January 14, 2021, 04:00:49 PM »

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


Of course we're not objective. How do you think opinions work?

Saying that Reagan was a horrible president is like calling Trump an amazing president. If you want to say that’s simply an opinion and not objectively wrong, then go ahead.

Political opinions can't be "objectively" anything. Ranking Presidents is an opinion no matter how you slice it. I believe Reagan and Trump were both very bad Presidents (although Trump has certainly proved himself to be worse) and my ratings would reflect that.

I think the question then becomes: why is your opinion so out of line with effectively all political scientists, including Democrats? Why do you believe you know better than them?


Usually most rankings by political scientists and historians of recent Presidents judge them without prejudice to their accomplishments, and rather just the amount of accomplishment they had or effect on the country

Yeah that’s... not true. George W Bush definitely had a larger on the county than his father, but one of them is ranked higher than the other.

Well Bush again, obviously egregious and horrible. The full scope of the disasters of Reaganism are less subtle than Bush's, who left office with the economy obviously on fire.

Eh, those were still great times of massive prosperity compared to what we're dealing with now.

In 2008, everyone I knew was doing fine (at least economically). Myself and my whole family has been devasted by this 2020-2021 great depression though.


The long term impacts of 2008 were worse , and unemployment currently is at Jan 2014 levels .

Heck on Election Day 49% of Americans thought the economy was good while that number was 36% in 2016

Yeah i have a hard time believing that. Empirically it just doesn't make sense.

Well with polling we all know what a joke that is. You can just make it say what you want it to say.

And with the unemployment rate, i think the difference is in 2008 people were still trying to find work. In 2020 many simply aren't bothering as there's no work out there. And you're not counted as unemployed if you're not actively looking for work.

It makes perfect sense for economic fundamentals to be better now than the Great Recession, as there has been no credit crunch this time at least to anywhere near as the levels of the Great Recession. Also the fast growth since June makes sense as the bad economic numbers last spring were inflated due to the lockdowns not really cause of any major fundamental problem with the economy.

Also unemployment rate even if you include discouraged workers is lower now than that number was from  2009-2012
Logged
Alcibiades
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,851
United Kingdom


Political Matrix
E: -4.39, S: -6.96

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #197 on: January 14, 2021, 06:35:14 PM »

I could list all the bad things Reagan did as President, or all the corrosive impacts he’s had in the years since, but I think that would be missing the ultimate point as to why I think he was such an HP.

The Reagan political playbook (utilised to immense success) was ultimately based off demonising the vulnerable: poor people, black people, unions, industrial workers, and gay people, to name some of his favourite groups to pick on. I would contend that choosing easy targets such as these to appease the middle class majority who felt somehow threatened by and/or jealous of them is the epitome of cowardice, and why Reagan completely lacked the qualities required to be a truly great leader.

As much as people bemoan the the current culture war alignment (and I think Elliott County, KY, voting for the right-wing candidate while Darien, CT, votes for the more left-wing one is just as insane as anyone), I think it is better than the Reagan-era class alignment. Reagan very successfully, using the above strategy, gathered up the affluent suburbanites (ranging from the merely centre-right in the burbs of places such as Philadelphia and Chicago, to his rabidly right-wing base in Orange County and the Sunbelt), as well as the legendary Reagan Democrats, who had got a bit of money, and desperately wanted to feel middle class, which they did by joining in with the bashing of marginalised groups. I think this gets at some of the irony that MT Treasurer hints at in the link to the article in his excellent post above (although Youngstown was never really representative of that group in the same way as Macomb was), as well as the obvious future echoes to the Trump era.

But this is why the Reagan coalition was so toxic; it was, in essence, like a completely rigged game, with the confident and upwardly mobile majority against the voiceless, marginalised, substantial minority. It was like high school bullying, and, somewhat perversely, this was apparently manifested in the high school culture and politics (especially in middle-class and affluent suburbia) of the 1980s (I have heard a number of people talk about this, ranging from 90s indie rockers talking about going to high school in the 80s in interviews to Badger on this forum), a reflection of the stifling conformity of the decade in which outsiders were relentlessly picked on. I have often thought that being a liberal or a poor kid or other social outcast in a well-off section of 80s Orange County* as a teenager must have ranked as among the most hellish social experiences possible. Fortunately, that suburban world is now dead as these places have greatly diversified. In his book Which Side Are You On?, Thomas Geoghegan talks about organised labour as being the counterculture of the 80s. I think there is a certain forlorn beauty in these macho middle-aged men in a dying subculture being the #Resistance of their day, but at the same time it captures the hopelessness of being on the wrong side in Reagan’s America.

FF and much better President than everyone since.

I’m surprised that you think so highly of Reagan, considering how you’ve spelt out your vision of a Republican Party which is a sensible check on the more outlandish currents within the Democratic (a vision which I have a lot of sympathy for, even if I think it is a bit optimistic given the party’s current state). It was Reagan after all, who destroyed any hope for this kind of GOP; while the Rockefeller faction had passed its sell-by date at that point, it was by no means inevitable that the GOP had to end up as a coalition of the various particularly toxic elements Reagan worked to bring together, including the Religious Right (whom, remember, Goldwater hated with a passion) and the white resentment/ex-segregationist Southern crowd; there was of course frequent overlap between the two. Not to mention, of course, Reagan being the first to pursue (again, very successfully) the kind of fact-free, responsibility-free rhetoric which has come to define the modern GOP, to again reference MT Treasurer. I think it is a stretch to say that Trump is Reagan’s spiritual successor, but by no means inaccurate to say that, without Reagan, the kind of GOP which gave rise to Trump would not have been possible.

*The irony is that movement conservatism, which ultimately succeeded in mostly overturning the New Deal Order, would have never have existed without the Sun Belt suburbs, which never would have existed without the massive investment and development the New Deal brought to the South and West. Similarly, the Reagan Democrats, in their desperate quest to be truly middle class, voted for a man who helped destroyed the ladder from working class to middle class.
Logged
OSR stands with Israel
Computer89
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 44,357


Political Matrix
E: 3.42, S: 2.61

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #198 on: January 14, 2021, 07:17:49 PM »


FF and much better President than everyone since.

I’m surprised that you think so highly of Reagan, considering how you’ve spelt out your vision of a Republican Party which is a sensible check on the more outlandish currents within the Democratic (a vision which I have a lot of sympathy for, even if I think it is a bit optimistic given the party’s current state). It was Reagan after all, who destroyed any hope for this kind of GOP; while the Rockefeller faction had passed its sell-by date at that point, it was by no means inevitable that the GOP had to end up as a coalition of the various particularly toxic elements Reagan worked to bring together, including the Religious Right (whom, remember, Goldwater hated with a passion) and the white resentment/ex-segregationist Southern crowd; there was of course frequent overlap between the two. Not to mention, of course, Reagan being the first to pursue (again, very successfully) the kind of fact-free, responsibility-free rhetoric which has come to define the modern GOP, to again reference MT Treasurer. I think it is a stretch to say that Trump is Reagan’s spiritual successor, but by no means inaccurate to say that, without Reagan, the kind of GOP which gave rise to Trump would not have been possible.


Reagan is liked by all wings of the Republican Party given how successful he was(definitely are most successful president at least since Eisenhower).

Also the Reagan gop was pretty different than the type of gop Trump wants to  bring and if you actually look at the 1976 GOP map , Ford  does better in the Trumpian blue collar areas than Reagan does while Reagan is obviously the candidate of sunbelt suburbs .


Reagan is probably the most popular candidate our nation ever had in the suburbs
Logged
thumb21
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,679
Cyprus


Political Matrix
E: -4.42, S: 1.82

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #199 on: January 14, 2021, 08:15:34 PM »

Ridiculously overrated.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.075 seconds with 14 queries.