Opinion of Ronald Reagan?

[TheReckoning]

Don’t know if this goes here, but I figured whatever.

[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

[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

You can’t have objective analysis of a subjective question. That why these lists are going on generic ‘was he a successful politician’, as in how much did he accomplish not whether his accomplishments were positive or negative. Because academic historians aren’t in the business of value judgements.

If it was about being a successful politician, than John Adam’s with his one term would not be above GW Bush with his two terms, and Democrats and Republicans would be more in agreement.

[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

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?

[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 by 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.

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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.

[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.

[TheReckoning]

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

Lmao what???

LBJ was the first Neolib president, no question.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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).

[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.

[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.

[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”?

[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.