Grade Ronald Reagan’s presidency

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

It can be described as similar to Greatest American Hero, Nancy Reagan single handle made Reagan popular by hand picking Sandra Day O'connor as Justice but the Iran Contra was the liability of his Prez.

Which lead to Saddam Husseincand then Bin Laden, he defeated Communism but the War on TERROR and giving Hussein WMDs during the Iran Iraq War got the World into trouble.

Don't take Greatest American hero literally, it was a terrible show with William Katt as Ralph Hinkley, same name as Assaasin of Reagan, that got taken off the air due to it being the bad version of Superman and kids got to watch Superboy in the early 90s, D Prez...I watch it on You tube as comic relief

[TheReckoning]

Ronald Reagan was an actor, not at all a factor
Just an employee of the country's real masters.

Let’s not act like you would grade Clinton or Obama the same way.

[President Johnson]

I give him a D, though he's really close to F.


Positive: Second term disarmament treaties, public inspiration.

Negative: Redistribution of wealth from the middle and working class to the upper classes, dismantling of social programs, massive federal deficit, Iran Contra, "Star Wars", Afghanistan policy, Aids response, failed war on drugs, rising influence of the Christian Right.

[vitoNova]

F -

[Ancestral Republican]

Ronald Reagan was an actor, not at all a factor
Just an employee of the country's real masters.

Let’s not act like you would grade Clinton or Obama the same way.

The next line in the song is "Just like the Bushes, Clinton and Obama. Just another talking head telling lies on teleprompter."

[TheReckoning]

Ronald Reagan was an actor, not at all a factor
Just an employee of the country's real masters.

Let’s not act like you would grade Clinton or Obama the same way.

The next line in the song is "Just like the Bushes, Clinton and Obama. Just another talking head telling lies on teleprompter."

Exactly my point. But did you give Obama and Clinton an F on those polls too?

Also, that song is pretty good music-wise, but in terms of historical accuracy, it’s rather useless for anything beyond propaganda.

[Alcibiades]

I’ve never got the point of “objectively” assessing presidents. How successful they are rests on how good you think they were for the country, which is largely informed by ideological considerations. If you’re just going by how successfully they accomplished their desired goals, then by the same token you’d be ranking murderous dictators as great leaders.

By the way, I think it’s actually far more hackish to say that Reagan was a great president. His policies objectively resulted in long-term negative consequences for the median worker, and most defences of him rest on nebulous, ideological claims of “but he increased muh freedum”.

[TheReckoning]

I’ve never got the point of “objectively” assessing presidents. How successful they are rests on how good you think they were for the country, which is largely informed by ideological considerations. If you’re just going by how successfully they accomplished their desired goals, then by the same token you’d be ranking murderous dictators as great leaders.

By the way, I think it’s actually far more hackish to say that Reagan was a great president. His policies objectively resulted in long-term negative consequences for the median worker, and most defences of him rest on nebulous, ideological claims of “but he increased muh freedum”.

You’re first paragraph is in direct contradiction with your second. You say “You can’t judge presidents objectively,” than your second one says, “it’s hackish to say he’s good, he objectively harmed this country.”

BTW, even Democrats rank Reagan as a top-half president, and no, it’s not just about how successfully they accomplished their goals. It’s one small portion of it, but not the whole thing.

[Alcibiades]

I’ve never got the point of “objectively” assessing presidents. How successful they are rests on how good you think they were for the country, which is largely informed by ideological considerations. If you’re just going by how successfully they accomplished their desired goals, then by the same token you’d be ranking murderous dictators as great leaders.

By the way, I think it’s actually far more hackish to say that Reagan was a great president. His policies objectively resulted in long-term negative consequences for the median worker, and most defences of him rest on nebulous, ideological claims of “but he increased muh freedum”.

You’re first paragraph is in direct contradiction with your second. You say “You can’t judge presidents objectively,” than your second one says, “it’s hackish to say he’s good, he objectively harmed this country.”

BTW, even Democrats rank Reagan as a top-half president, and no, it’s not just about how successfully they accomplished their goals. It’s one small portion of it, but not the whole thing.

I’m saying I wouldn’t be surprised by a conservative ranking Reagan highly, but it’s ridiculous to criticise liberals for not doing so. As someone who is left-of-centre, the economic data leads me to the inevitable conclusion that Reagan was a bad president, but I understand that a conservative wouldn’t care as much about inequality.

[TheReckoning]

I’ve never got the point of “objectively” assessing presidents. How successful they are rests on how good you think they were for the country, which is largely informed by ideological considerations. If you’re just going by how successfully they accomplished their desired goals, then by the same token you’d be ranking murderous dictators as great leaders.

By the way, I think it’s actually far more hackish to say that Reagan was a great president. His policies objectively resulted in long-term negative consequences for the median worker, and most defences of him rest on nebulous, ideological claims of “but he increased muh freedum”.

You’re first paragraph is in direct contradiction with your second. You say “You can’t judge presidents objectively,” than your second one says, “it’s hackish to say he’s good, he objectively harmed this country.”

BTW, even Democrats rank Reagan as a top-half president, and no, it’s not just about how successfully they accomplished their goals. It’s one small portion of it, but not the whole thing.

I’m saying I wouldn’t be surprised by a conservative ranking Reagan highly, but it’s ridiculous to criticise liberals for not doing so. As someone who is left-of-centre, the economic data leads me to the inevitable conclusion that Reagan was a bad president, but I understand that a conservative wouldn’t care as much about inequality.

Democrats rank him in the top half as well. Also, the idea that “wealth inequality” is inherently a bad thing is not only wrong, it’s extremely dangerous. Read “Harrison Bergeron” to understand why.

[OSR stands with Israel]

I’ve never got the point of “objectively” assessing presidents. How successful they are rests on how good you think they were for the country, which is largely informed by ideological considerations. If you’re just going by how successfully they accomplished their desired goals, then by the same token you’d be ranking murderous dictators as great leaders.

By the way, I think it’s actually far more hackish to say that Reagan was a great president. His policies objectively resulted in long-term negative consequences for the median worker, and most defences of him rest on nebulous, ideological claims of “but he increased muh freedum”.

That’s not true , Reagan is ranked in the 8-12 range by historians so ranking him the lower 20s or 30s is more hackish than ranking him 7th

[Farmlands]

I’ve never got the point of “objectively” assessing presidents. How successful they are rests on how good you think they were for the country, which is largely informed by ideological considerations. If you’re just going by how successfully they accomplished their desired goals, then by the same token you’d be ranking murderous dictators as great leaders.

By the way, I think it’s actually far more hackish to say that Reagan was a great president. His policies objectively resulted in long-term negative consequences for the median worker, and most defences of him rest on nebulous, ideological claims of “but he increased muh freedum”.

You’re first paragraph is in direct contradiction with your second. You say “You can’t judge presidents objectively,” than your second one says, “it’s hackish to say he’s good, he objectively harmed this country.”

BTW, even Democrats rank Reagan as a top-half president, and no, it’s not just about how successfully they accomplished their goals. It’s one small portion of it, but not the whole thing.

I’m saying I wouldn’t be surprised by a conservative ranking Reagan highly, but it’s ridiculous to criticise liberals for not doing so. As someone who is left-of-centre, the economic data leads me to the inevitable conclusion that Reagan was a bad president, but I understand that a conservative wouldn’t care as much about inequality.

Democrats rank him in the top half as well. Also, the idea that “wealth inequality” is inherently a bad thing is not only wrong, it’s extremely dangerous. Read “Harrison Bergeron” to understand why.

Various studies have linked inequality in the United States with fierce political polarization, if I remember correctly, which is why you see some of the same patterns now as in the Gilded Age. I don't see that as a good thing in any way.

[Ancestral Republican]

I’ve never got the point of “objectively” assessing presidents. How successful they are rests on how good you think they were for the country, which is largely informed by ideological considerations. If you’re just going by how successfully they accomplished their desired goals, then by the same token you’d be ranking murderous dictators as great leaders.

By the way, I think it’s actually far more hackish to say that Reagan was a great president. His policies objectively resulted in long-term negative consequences for the median worker, and most defences of him rest on nebulous, ideological claims of “but he increased muh freedum”.

You’re first paragraph is in direct contradiction with your second. You say “You can’t judge presidents objectively,” than your second one says, “it’s hackish to say he’s good, he objectively harmed this country.”

BTW, even Democrats rank Reagan as a top-half president, and no, it’s not just about how successfully they accomplished their goals. It’s one small portion of it, but not the whole thing.

I’m saying I wouldn’t be surprised by a conservative ranking Reagan highly, but it’s ridiculous to criticise liberals for not doing so. As someone who is left-of-centre, the economic data leads me to the inevitable conclusion that Reagan was a bad president, but I understand that a conservative wouldn’t care as much about inequality.

Democrats rank him in the top half as well. Also, the idea that “wealth inequality” is inherently a bad thing is not only wrong, it’s extremely dangerous. Read “Harrison Bergeron” to understand why.

Lmao. That has nothing to do with the issue of wealth inequality.

[KaiserDave]

I’ve never got the point of “objectively” assessing presidents. How successful they are rests on how good you think they were for the country, which is largely informed by ideological considerations. If you’re just going by how successfully they accomplished their desired goals, then by the same token you’d be ranking murderous dictators as great leaders.

By the way, I think it’s actually far more hackish to say that Reagan was a great president. His policies objectively resulted in long-term negative consequences for the median worker, and most defences of him rest on nebulous, ideological claims of “but he increased muh freedum”.

You’re first paragraph is in direct contradiction with your second. You say “You can’t judge presidents objectively,” than your second one says, “it’s hackish to say he’s good, he objectively harmed this country.”

BTW, even Democrats rank Reagan as a top-half president, and no, it’s not just about how successfully they accomplished their goals. It’s one small portion of it, but not the whole thing.

I’m saying I wouldn’t be surprised by a conservative ranking Reagan highly, but it’s ridiculous to criticise liberals for not doing so. As someone who is left-of-centre, the economic data leads me to the inevitable conclusion that Reagan was a bad president, but I understand that a conservative wouldn’t care as much about inequality.

Democrats rank him in the top half as well. Also, the idea that “wealth inequality” is inherently a bad thing is not only wrong, it’s extremely dangerous. Read “Harrison Bergeron” to understand why.

You are really not good at this.

The comparison to Harrison Bergeron is absurd and ridiculous, really just silly, and it's actually somewhat disturbing you think that reducing wealth inequality is tantamount to a dystopian Camazotzian society.

[TheReckoning]

I’ve never got the point of “objectively” assessing presidents. How successful they are rests on how good you think they were for the country, which is largely informed by ideological considerations. If you’re just going by how successfully they accomplished their desired goals, then by the same token you’d be ranking murderous dictators as great leaders.

By the way, I think it’s actually far more hackish to say that Reagan was a great president. His policies objectively resulted in long-term negative consequences for the median worker, and most defences of him rest on nebulous, ideological claims of “but he increased muh freedum”.

You’re first paragraph is in direct contradiction with your second. You say “You can’t judge presidents objectively,” than your second one says, “it’s hackish to say he’s good, he objectively harmed this country.”

BTW, even Democrats rank Reagan as a top-half president, and no, it’s not just about how successfully they accomplished their goals. It’s one small portion of it, but not the whole thing.

I’m saying I wouldn’t be surprised by a conservative ranking Reagan highly, but it’s ridiculous to criticise liberals for not doing so. As someone who is left-of-centre, the economic data leads me to the inevitable conclusion that Reagan was a bad president, but I understand that a conservative wouldn’t care as much about inequality.

Democrats rank him in the top half as well. Also, the idea that “wealth inequality” is inherently a bad thing is not only wrong, it’s extremely dangerous. Read “Harrison Bergeron” to understand why.

You are really not good at this.

The comparison to Harrison Bergeron is absurd and ridiculous, really just silly, and it's actually somewhat disturbing you think that reducing wealth inequality is tantamount to a dystopian Camazotzian society.

Let me clarify: I understand that under certain circumstances, wealth inequality is a problem. But the idea that it is inherently a problem- along with other forms of inequality- is how we get to Harrison Bergeron.

[KaiserDave]

I’ve never got the point of “objectively” assessing presidents. How successful they are rests on how good you think they were for the country, which is largely informed by ideological considerations. If you’re just going by how successfully they accomplished their desired goals, then by the same token you’d be ranking murderous dictators as great leaders.

By the way, I think it’s actually far more hackish to say that Reagan was a great president. His policies objectively resulted in long-term negative consequences for the median worker, and most defences of him rest on nebulous, ideological claims of “but he increased muh freedum”.

You’re first paragraph is in direct contradiction with your second. You say “You can’t judge presidents objectively,” than your second one says, “it’s hackish to say he’s good, he objectively harmed this country.”

BTW, even Democrats rank Reagan as a top-half president, and no, it’s not just about how successfully they accomplished their goals. It’s one small portion of it, but not the whole thing.

I’m saying I wouldn’t be surprised by a conservative ranking Reagan highly, but it’s ridiculous to criticise liberals for not doing so. As someone who is left-of-centre, the economic data leads me to the inevitable conclusion that Reagan was a bad president, but I understand that a conservative wouldn’t care as much about inequality.

Democrats rank him in the top half as well. Also, the idea that “wealth inequality” is inherently a bad thing is not only wrong, it’s extremely dangerous. Read “Harrison Bergeron” to understand why.

You are really not good at this.

The comparison to Harrison Bergeron is absurd and ridiculous, really just silly, and it's actually somewhat disturbing you think that reducing wealth inequality is tantamount to a dystopian Camazotzian society.

Let me clarify: I understand that under certain circumstances, wealth inequality is a problem. But the idea that it is inherently a problem- along with other forms of inequality- is how we get to Harrison Bergeron.

This is not grounded in reality. There's no "getting to Harrison Bergeron" in the real world. Nor is it in any way relevant in this thread.

[TheReckoning]

I’ve never got the point of “objectively” assessing presidents. How successful they are rests on how good you think they were for the country, which is largely informed by ideological considerations. If you’re just going by how successfully they accomplished their desired goals, then by the same token you’d be ranking murderous dictators as great leaders.

By the way, I think it’s actually far more hackish to say that Reagan was a great president. His policies objectively resulted in long-term negative consequences for the median worker, and most defences of him rest on nebulous, ideological claims of “but he increased muh freedum”.

You’re first paragraph is in direct contradiction with your second. You say “You can’t judge presidents objectively,” than your second one says, “it’s hackish to say he’s good, he objectively harmed this country.”

BTW, even Democrats rank Reagan as a top-half president, and no, it’s not just about how successfully they accomplished their goals. It’s one small portion of it, but not the whole thing.

I’m saying I wouldn’t be surprised by a conservative ranking Reagan highly, but it’s ridiculous to criticise liberals for not doing so. As someone who is left-of-centre, the economic data leads me to the inevitable conclusion that Reagan was a bad president, but I understand that a conservative wouldn’t care as much about inequality.

Democrats rank him in the top half as well. Also, the idea that “wealth inequality” is inherently a bad thing is not only wrong, it’s extremely dangerous. Read “Harrison Bergeron” to understand why.

You are really not good at this.

The comparison to Harrison Bergeron is absurd and ridiculous, really just silly, and it's actually somewhat disturbing you think that reducing wealth inequality is tantamount to a dystopian Camazotzian society.

Let me clarify: I understand that under certain circumstances, wealth inequality is a problem. But the idea that it is inherently a problem- along with other forms of inequality- is how we get to Harrison Bergeron.

There's no "getting to Harrison Bergeron" in the real world.

Why not?

[KaiserDave]

I’ve never got the point of “objectively” assessing presidents. How successful they are rests on how good you think they were for the country, which is largely informed by ideological considerations. If you’re just going by how successfully they accomplished their desired goals, then by the same token you’d be ranking murderous dictators as great leaders.

By the way, I think it’s actually far more hackish to say that Reagan was a great president. His policies objectively resulted in long-term negative consequences for the median worker, and most defences of him rest on nebulous, ideological claims of “but he increased muh freedum”.

You’re first paragraph is in direct contradiction with your second. You say “You can’t judge presidents objectively,” than your second one says, “it’s hackish to say he’s good, he objectively harmed this country.”

BTW, even Democrats rank Reagan as a top-half president, and no, it’s not just about how successfully they accomplished their goals. It’s one small portion of it, but not the whole thing.

I’m saying I wouldn’t be surprised by a conservative ranking Reagan highly, but it’s ridiculous to criticise liberals for not doing so. As someone who is left-of-centre, the economic data leads me to the inevitable conclusion that Reagan was a bad president, but I understand that a conservative wouldn’t care as much about inequality.

Democrats rank him in the top half as well. Also, the idea that “wealth inequality” is inherently a bad thing is not only wrong, it’s extremely dangerous. Read “Harrison Bergeron” to understand why.

You are really not good at this.

The comparison to Harrison Bergeron is absurd and ridiculous, really just silly, and it's actually somewhat disturbing you think that reducing wealth inequality is tantamount to a dystopian Camazotzian society.

Let me clarify: I understand that under certain circumstances, wealth inequality is a problem. But the idea that it is inherently a problem- along with other forms of inequality- is how we get to Harrison Bergeron.

There's no "getting to Harrison Bergeron" in the real world.

Why not?

You tell me why. That's how proof works. I'm not going to prove why something absurd "can't" happen, because that should be clear.

[TheReckoning]

I’ve never got the point of “objectively” assessing presidents. How successful they are rests on how good you think they were for the country, which is largely informed by ideological considerations. If you’re just going by how successfully they accomplished their desired goals, then by the same token you’d be ranking murderous dictators as great leaders.

By the way, I think it’s actually far more hackish to say that Reagan was a great president. His policies objectively resulted in long-term negative consequences for the median worker, and most defences of him rest on nebulous, ideological claims of “but he increased muh freedum”.

You’re first paragraph is in direct contradiction with your second. You say “You can’t judge presidents objectively,” than your second one says, “it’s hackish to say he’s good, he objectively harmed this country.”

BTW, even Democrats rank Reagan as a top-half president, and no, it’s not just about how successfully they accomplished their goals. It’s one small portion of it, but not the whole thing.

I’m saying I wouldn’t be surprised by a conservative ranking Reagan highly, but it’s ridiculous to criticise liberals for not doing so. As someone who is left-of-centre, the economic data leads me to the inevitable conclusion that Reagan was a bad president, but I understand that a conservative wouldn’t care as much about inequality.

Democrats rank him in the top half as well. Also, the idea that “wealth inequality” is inherently a bad thing is not only wrong, it’s extremely dangerous. Read “Harrison Bergeron” to understand why.

You are really not good at this.

The comparison to Harrison Bergeron is absurd and ridiculous, really just silly, and it's actually somewhat disturbing you think that reducing wealth inequality is tantamount to a dystopian Camazotzian society.

Let me clarify: I understand that under certain circumstances, wealth inequality is a problem. But the idea that it is inherently a problem- along with other forms of inequality- is how we get to Harrison Bergeron.

There's no "getting to Harrison Bergeron" in the real world.

Why not?

You tell me why. That's how proof works. I'm not going to prove why something absurd "can't" happen, because that should be clear.

It can happen because anything can happen. If one can convince people that inequality is inherently bad, and that they can fix all of it as long as we give them power, it could happen.

[Ancestral Republican]

I’ve never got the point of “objectively” assessing presidents. How successful they are rests on how good you think they were for the country, which is largely informed by ideological considerations. If you’re just going by how successfully they accomplished their desired goals, then by the same token you’d be ranking murderous dictators as great leaders.

By the way, I think it’s actually far more hackish to say that Reagan was a great president. His policies objectively resulted in long-term negative consequences for the median worker, and most defences of him rest on nebulous, ideological claims of “but he increased muh freedum”.

You’re first paragraph is in direct contradiction with your second. You say “You can’t judge presidents objectively,” than your second one says, “it’s hackish to say he’s good, he objectively harmed this country.”

BTW, even Democrats rank Reagan as a top-half president, and no, it’s not just about how successfully they accomplished their goals. It’s one small portion of it, but not the whole thing.

I’m saying I wouldn’t be surprised by a conservative ranking Reagan highly, but it’s ridiculous to criticise liberals for not doing so. As someone who is left-of-centre, the economic data leads me to the inevitable conclusion that Reagan was a bad president, but I understand that a conservative wouldn’t care as much about inequality.

Democrats rank him in the top half as well. Also, the idea that “wealth inequality” is inherently a bad thing is not only wrong, it’s extremely dangerous. Read “Harrison Bergeron” to understand why.

You are really not good at this.

The comparison to Harrison Bergeron is absurd and ridiculous, really just silly, and it's actually somewhat disturbing you think that reducing wealth inequality is tantamount to a dystopian Camazotzian society.

In his 1991 book Fates Worse than Death, Vonnegut suggests that during the Reagan administration, "anything that sounded like the Sermon on the Mount was socialistic or communistic, and therefore anti-American".

Kurt Vonnegut hated Reagan which really makes that suggestion laughable.

[John Dule]

You have brought this on yourself.

[OSR stands with Israel]

The fact that the only Republican president and heck even nominee  the media covered positively since 1960 was Reagan , that shows how successful he was that even the usual liberal press liked him a lot

[KaiserDave]

The fact that the only Republican president and heck even nominee  the media covered positively since 1960 was Reagan , that shows how successful he was that even the usual liberal press liked him a lot

Nobody denies he was successful at what he did, but what matters is whether these things were good for the country. And I think they were terrible for the country, so I grade him rather poorly.

[OSR stands with Israel]

The fact that the only Republican president and heck even nominee  the media covered positively since 1960 was Reagan , that shows how successful he was that even the usual liberal press liked him a lot

Nobody denies he was successful at what he did, but what matters is whether these things were good for the country. And I think they were terrible for the country, so I grade him rather poorly.

Why do you think the media then liked him much more than any other Republican

[YE]

The fact that the only Republican president and heck even nominee  the media covered positively since 1960 was Reagan , that shows how successful he was that even the usual liberal press liked him a lot

Nobody denies he was successful at what he did, but what matters is whether these things were good for the country. And I think they were terrible for the country, so I grade him rather poorly.

Why do you think the media then liked him much more than any other Republican

His charisma and popularity (which I'll concede is true but that doesn't make it a good thing inherently) is the simple answer. Also when did the media hate GHW Bush or Gerald Ford?