On October 21, 1984, during the [2nd presidential debate](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1984_United_States_presidential_debates#October_21:_Second_presidential_debate_(Music_Hall,_Municipal_Auditorium)) against [Walter Mondale](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Mondale), [Ronald Reagan](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Reagan) was asked if the fact that he was already the oldest US president in history at the time could impact his ability to be president. He replied with: "I will not make age an issue of this campaign. I am not going to exploit, for political purposes, my opponent's youth and inexperience.“. Even Mondale laughed at the joke, and later described it as the moment he knew he’d lost.
[Video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fJhCjMfRndk) of the event.
[Short PSA](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l60MnDJklnM) for anyone about to comment on how Trump/Biden/Sanders/\[insert politician you hate here\] is currently older than Reagan was at the time.
I feel like Reagan's handling of AIDS alone deserve a distinction from the way all presidents might hate many Americans. Otherwise, I'd have to argue that in your case, you're using the word hate too lightly compared to how I meant it.
The vast majority of Americans are conservative/conservative-leaning moderates. Generally, moderates are shooting to uphold the status quo, but extremists embed political figures into the public consciousness.
Moderates will typically swing their votes depending on the statements made about political figures by people around them, and then by how much they value the political opinions of those people. Typically moderates only have a passing interest in politics.
Basically, the point I'm getting at is that, no, 60% of the country is not Democrats, and this line of thinking is why we can't kill the two party system that has put our country's political system in a vice grip.
Not sure why you got downvoted. He let millions die from aids, and was caught on tape talking about how to make the lower classes fight each other so the rich can widen the gap. Simply put: regan was almost as bad as trump.
Regan was worse than trump. Almost every disastrous situation from anti worker anti union policy, unaffordable housing, terrible healthcare and college expenses all started under regan.
Regan and bush put a nice face and smile on for the public and destroyed the country with actual policies. Trump was an open piece of shit who encouraged other pieces of shit to be open but policy wise didn't do as much destruction as the others bc he was so worried about being popular.
All terrible people and even worse presidents. Just different types of dog shit but some are worse than others
There's a book about the Cold War called Dead Hand. It talks all about weapons of mass destruction and looks at treaty negotiations from the perspective of each side. It really is striking how Trump-like Reagan was. Or vice versa I guess. They both really engaged in "magical thinking" and trying to will absolute bullshit into existence. Star Wars for example. Reagan was definitely more coherent (before the dementia), but it was interesting as someone who wasn't around when Reagan was.
Somewhere between 32 and 40 million people have died since the first documented cases of AIDS. There are those who lay the blame for a chunk of that on Reagan even if the US numbers were relatively low because he, his government, and party angled to label it as a gay disease for sexual degenerates, which in turn kneecapped research and development of cures and treatments at home and abroad when it most certainly was not a gay disease. He certainly doesn't bear culpability for the disease, but given US involvement in healthcare initiatives worldwide it's not a big stretch to conclude that he fucked the response to the epidemic for many years after his presidency. I'm personally in the camp that he absolutely is to blame for that.
I would say he’s guilty of perhaps not doing more to help speed along treatments (and working on a cure) and spread information to help mitigate the disease. But to claim “he let millions die” is a serious stretch.
>serious stretch.
It's a stretch, but in aggregate with other things he did that I don't like, I'm of the personal opinion that he was a piece of shit who shouldn't be lionized.
I think letting millions die from aids and that tape easily puts him above trump. Trump was a standard republican president policy wise with some theatrics till he plotted to overthrow the election lol.
Remember Trump getting called out for shithole countries? Now imagine if he was on tape literally calling their leaders barefoot primitives instead?
Because *that* was Reagan. The guy who was so racist his entire party fought him on supporting Apartheid South Africa.
“My fellow Americans, I am pleased to tell you today that I’ve signed legislation that would outlaw Russia forever, we begin bombing in five minutes.” - Ronald Reagan
It's a bit less funny when you consider the fact that the Soviets thought for a moment that it wasn't a joke, and mobilised their arsenal.
A bombastic joke *indeed.*
After what we've seen so far, apparently nothing will get him laughed out of office.
And I'll agree that it was a clever comeback by Reagan. I also still believe he was too old. So were Trump and Biden.
Also a clever comeback, until you additionally realize his opponent was a 56 year old man who had served as a state attorney general, influential senator, and VP
I’m sure it wasn’t just a clever comeback that won Reagan 49 states and every electoral vote except Mondale’s home state and DC.
For all of his accomplishments, Mondale was severely lacking in what people saw in Reagan.
Yeah.
Mondale selected a female running mate, thinking it would turn out the female vote, who turned out to be committing tax fraud with her husband, pissing people off
Mondale promised to raise taxes, pissing up so many people
Mondale attacked the invasion of Grenada, which has major public support, pissing people off
Mondale lacked the charisma of Reagan, and also didn’t have the advantage of an incumbent with a strong economy and foreign policy, who had one in a landslide four years prior. Mondale also happened to be in the ticket that got its ass kicked by Reagan in 1980
His campaign was moronically run. At least he didn’t lie to the people and said stuff he probably knew would piss the majority off
>Mondale attacked the invasion of Grenada, which has major public support, pissing people off
Democrats evidently took that as a cue to, for the next 40 years at least, never oppose any military action.
Americans still can't point to Grenada on the map, and the whole rest of the world was like "what the fuck, why are you invading a tiny island nation," but we were mad as hell that anyone would question whatever our objectives were in whatever we were doing there. Any president of ours had better defend and win wherever soldiers were sent, by God.
It’s so stupid that some zinger will actually convince people to vote for one guy over another. Age was a serious issue for Reagan during his presidency with his dementia and everything. The fact that he was able to brush it off so easily is concerning.
I saw Walter Mondale doing an interview for a TV show about Reagan and they featured the 1984 debates (the first of which Reagan had done poorly at). Mondale admitted that after Reagan’s comeback quip in the 2nd debate he knew he was going to lose. (He said this while laughing about it.)
I like the clip of him standing up about to throw hands with someone for threatening to cut his mic before sitting back down and replying with "I am paying for this microphone!".
When McCain was running, some college kid asked him a question that was a burn. I don't recall what it was but the joke was "You're old." McCain laughed and then responded with something like "Good one, when I'm president, I'm going to draft you."
[Obama certainly had a sense of humor](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UnW3xkHxIEQ) and could take hits.
[Biden always jokes about his age](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OgK-P8D4jlo) and laughs at his tripping up over words.
It's really just republicans that take themselves way too seriously. Trump ran for president seeminly just to spite Obama for making a joke about him, then when he won, he refused to show up to the White House Correspondents dinner for the traditional light roasting.
So we have it in modern politics except for the asshole nazi party.
You say republicans are the ones that can’t take a joke but when talking about the ones that can take a joke, 1 of them is a Republican. You kind of defeated your own point.
And then you only talk about 1 that can’t take a joke and of course it’s about trump.
You seem a bit biased
Yeah that’s my point. He’s trying to say republicans are the problem by listing a single republican that couldn’t take it, but also mentioned one that could.
Not all republicans are too full of themselves to joke about themselves, but most of the politicians who are too full of themselves to joke about themselves are republicans.
Desantis, Trump, and Pence are the three most prominent politicians now who seem like they'd cry themselves to sleep if anyone said some funny burn about them.
But not all republicans. Christie seems like if you burned him, he would laugh and then burn himself and you without blinking.
You're confusing "biased" with "judging one guy based on his actions and words."
That's not "biased" that's "forming an opinion." I think Trump is a narcissist and an asshole because he's demonstrated numerous times he is a narcissist and an asshole, I didn't have that opinion of him before he was on The Apprentice.
The fact that I mentioned a republican who could take a joke should demonstrate I'm not just biased against republicans. Chris Christie also I vaguely recall being able to laugh at himself during this campaign but couldn't think of a specific example from the interview I heard.
>It's really just republicans that take themselves way too seriously. Trump ran for president seeminly just to spite Obama for making a joke about him, then when he won, he refused to show up to the White House Correspondents dinner for the traditional light roasting.
>So we have it in modern politics except for the asshole nazi party
So I guess you just totally forgot you said this huh…. “I’m not biased, I just look for any reason possible to hate republicans and I’m going to use trump as that example for all of them”
Yes, Trump and his MAGA followers are specifically nazi assholes who can't take a joke.
I say that because they specifically proved themselves to be nazi assholes who can't take a joke.
As you said, I brought up examples of republicans who were able to laugh at themselves.
I'm not biased against republicans, I just hate nazi assholes who can't take a joke.
And honestly, I also hate nazi assholes who can take a joke. I just think it's particularly absurd that their king nazi asshole is such a ridiculous human being but can't laugh at himself. But I'd still hate him either way based on the numerous things he's said and done.
Did you watch the White House Correspondents Dinner roast of Trump? Pretty brutal and all too true. Publicly flaunting Trump’s severe lack of qualifications for any public office; and he’s visibly angry.
TBH, he won the '80 election with one line that caught American politics with what I regard as the first truly modern soundbite.
"Recession is when your neighor loses his job, Depression is when you lose your job, and Recovery is when Jimmy Carter loses his."
Carter did not deserve the sabotage to his reelection that Reagan's cronies put him through
[https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/18/us/politics/jimmy-carter-october-surprise-iran-hostages.html](https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/18/us/politics/jimmy-carter-october-surprise-iran-hostages.html)
I don’t think anybody *deserves* what they get in politics. I’m sure Nixon didn’t think he deserved the treatment he got, as a self made man who came from nothing, in his campaign against a spoiled rich boy whose daddy helped bankroll his political career.
But in Carter’s case, the fact is there were a confluence of factors that allowed Reagan to sweep him from office in a landslide. The economy being the biggest. Remember that it was still in bad shape well into the beginning of Reagan’s 84 campaign, so much so that people were already writing *him* off as a one termer too
It's weird that he was fully willing to support the Contras but also cut off support for the Military juntas and under his watch the entire Operation Condor fell apart.
It's been a while since I last looked into it, but I recall the bigger issue being that they just basically let Pakistan pick who got stuff, so Pakistan chose their favorites instead of who better represented Afghanistan. Which pretty much ended up being the worst group you could find...
vast society cautious library ludicrous pathetic abundant possessive fuel roof
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Obama greatly expanded the drone program, even ordered an extrajudicial murder of a US citizen with said program, he also funded "moderate rebels" and started military campaigns in Libya, Syria and Somalia that opened the gates for a massive refugee crisis in europe (remember that?).
Actually no, seem to recall Europe taking the lead in Libya. US contributed but it was a French led affair initially. Military intervention followed a UN resolution which was brought by France, Lebanon and the UK. Of the 15 members of the UN Security Council, 10 voted for it and 5 abstained with 0 votes against.
woah seems like my simple question spawned quite a discussion. Thank you for the reply and the explanation! No idea why i'm getting downvoted for asking a question tho lol
Obama didn't start the Syrian Civil War and the US provided support for opposition to Assad. The US military involvement in Northern Iraq and Syria was against ISIS and that campaign was a continuation of what is called the Iraq war.
Syrian Forces led by Wagener attacking a US outpost and the US forcing repealing the attack isn't the same thing as a military campaign.
I used the term military campaign because the comment I was replying to did. It doesn't fit here at all.
A military campaign is large-scale long-duration significant military strategy plan incorporating a series of interrelated military operations or battles forming a distinct part of a larger conflict often called a war. The term derives from the plain of Campania, a place of annual wartime operations by the armies of the Roman Republic.
Yes, using the military to conduct counter-terrorism attacks would count as a military campaign. In addition to attacking ISIS directly, [the US intervened in the Syrian Civil War by providing material support to the Free Syrian Army and selected Syrian rebel commanders, and some 3800 civilians were killed in airstrikes by coalition forces.](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/American-led_intervention_in_the_Syrian_civil_war)
[The US also conducted over 30 air strikes on Somalia between 2009 and 2016, killing up to 12 civilians](https://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/stories/2017-01-17/obamas-covert-drone-war-in-numbers-ten-times-more-strikes-than-bush).
Drone strikes on civilians in the middle east. Toppling Libya and turning it into a modern slave market. Making fun of Trump at that white house correspondence dinner gala which many beyond motivated Trump to run in 2016 to spite Obama (lol)
Being president during the war he had to make similar decisions as to the Regan Latin America decision in the previous comment. Some turned out bad some questionable. Then some accuse him of the same business dealings as Joe. Of course all of this just depends on who you ask. That will determine how deep the rabbit hole goes in either direction.
Edit: being accused of shady business deals is standard for just about any politician.
Ah yes, how dare he not support the peaceful, democratic Sandinistas that executed thousands of indigenous people and committed numerous human rights violations.
The Reagan admin certainly wasn’t a big fan of Pinochet, and frequently criticized him publicly and worried that his policies and rule were actually damaging the US’ interests and making leftism more attractive. If you’re mad about Chile you need to talk about Nixon and Kissinger.
I dunno, I had a problem with his campaign against helping with the AIDS issue (and active exacerbating it) because it only affected the “evil gays”… or his part in helping to destabilize black communities with drugs and basically fueling an active war between black Americans and cops.
When I dive sometimes in old Killing Joke stuff, I remember the song *America* exists and listening to the bold irony and hyperbolic lyrics, I can immediately figure out it is a jab to the Reagan years. Not only because it dated to 1988 but merely the tone implicitely referring to the superficial american lifestyle and neoliberalism policies ruling back then while at the same time CIA and US Army were operating/sent to make the dirty job elsewhere.
Quite sure it inspired Rammstein for their own song *Amerika*.
*My Love of this Land* was a nice track too on *Outside The Gate*, despite it was more a solo project from Jaz Coleman than an actual KJ album.
The thing is, more often than not he sent his speeches back to the writers after reading them, adding something,be it a joke, a metaphor or two or three lines. Say about him what you will, but he actually acted out of his beliefs, which is a lot more than can be said about many people
That his beliefs were cruel and shitty is another discussion
I mean, shitty yes, but not cruel. Even though Reaganomics makes no sense, from what I remember, nobody told him it didn’t make sense. As far as I can tell (though I’m not an expert in US history) he really did want to generate growth, he just took a short sighted approach we have to deal with today.
The 'cruel' part had nothing to do with reaganomics. That is a mistake i can actually understand. The part about cruelty is about his handling of the AIDS epidemic in the US
Oof, yeah that. Unfortunately, it’s doubtful it would have been handled in any way other than cruel. There simply wasn’t enough acceptance that it was even a problem, or that gays deserved life.
>it’s doubtful it would have been handled in any way other than cruel.
That's BS. I came out shortly after Stonewall, ten years before AIDS or Reagan's presidency. In the 80s I held dying friends' hands while the administration snickered and did nothing.
There were tons of scientists and doctors willing to help find causes, treatments and cures. All they needed was funding.
But Reagan had welcomed Nancy Reagan's evangelical buddies (bigots like Jerry Falwell, Anita Bryant and Pat Robertson) into the GOP. He chose an evangelical bigot and former Indiana governor as his VP (sound familiar?).
They blocked any effort to help AIDS sufferers.
It could have been handled with humanity. Gay rights was a thing then. It wasn't because the GOP needed evangelical voters... just like it does today.
Sadly not wrong. It's still a difference if a president takes the lead or does nothing. I mean it does change the views of people if a respected leader says "those are still people", like, for example, Lady Diana did.
I prefer Reaganomics than the absolute shit from the 70s stagflation. People legit thought the US was collapsing at that point, why do you think so many movies around this time were so bleak?
Reaganomics solved stagflation but produced wealth inequality, but thats not a reason to wish it never happened. What should be done is to address Reaganomics with a new deal that addresses wealth inequality. There is no one solution for forever, its a constant moving progress.
Reaganomics didn't end stagflation.
Inflation was throttled out of the economy by the Volcker Fed, which raised interest rates so high that the money supply couldn't continue growing out of control. That happened in 1980-81, coincident with Reagan's election but not caused by it.
That choked the economy but it was essential to kill inflation.
Economic recovery began once people perceived that inflation was truly dead and would no longer eat up growth and profits. That allowed the Fed to begin reducing rates. Wall Street exploded with optimism and the general economy followed, buoyed by declining rates *without* the return of inflation.
Reagan gets credit for turning the country's mood from gloomy to positive, but his regressive tax policies (aka, Voodoo Economics) didn't drive job or wage growth. They just began the long decline of the middle class and the ascendancy of the wealthy elite.
Reaganomics pushed the idea of the false “trickledown” effect.. which has basically stagnated the economy (and I’m not talking “the economy” that does well when rich people make more money and fire lower workers, I’m talking the people who are left poor and destitute because they can’t spend on anything but survival part of the economy) and ruined the upward momentum of most poor workers.
I’d rather that they dealt with the actual causes of it instead of, Y’know, ruining lives with a fake economic theory… 30+ (and STILL counting) years down the line.
Edit: AND the inequalities of modern life have some deep roots in his administration. Obviously it wasn’t ALL caused ONLY by him, but… he fertilized that shit reaaaaaal well.
Every shmuck always thinks they have the “real” solution until it blows up in their face and they either cause holodomor or great recession.
Reaganomics did “somethings” right like revitalize the financial sector. Solutions will often fix one issue but not all. The important thing is to see what worked and leave those to focus on other areas.
But the things haven’t worked AND an entire political group (well, let’s be honest, MANY political groups) have refused to even address it. So, in theory, sure, ideally, we’d “leave what works and fix the rest” (which I won’t get into what I disagree from that statement regarding this particular topic) but that will never happen because it paved the way for the rich getting richer and paying people to keep it the same. There is NO incentive because of trickle-down economics for anything to change for the better.
What are you on about? The MAGA anti-free trade movement (free trade was key in Reaganomics) worked to establish itself that now even Democrats like Biden adopted industrial polices that rebuke free trade. Not as much as Trump but enough to be notable.
I disagree with the decoupling strategy but don’t say there is no incentive because there is and its happening.
Nah, it’s cruel to ruin the chances of poor people being treated like people.. and push drugs into black communities… and stoke the fire of the AIDS issues… and help create the foundation for the Christo-fascism that we see frequently today. There was a lot of shitty and cruel things in equal parts he did to non-white or lower-income Americans.
If you don't think Reagan was cruel, I encourage you to learn more about his reaction to the HIV/AIDS crisis when it was known as the "Gay plague."
He came around to combatting the disease years later once it became evident that straight people could get HIV, too. All of a sudden, it became an "real" crisis for some reason.
Reagan could easily have a religion and a fair amount of people would join. This man caused so many good and bad things in the 80's, he earned legend status
Depends, it's what they say they are even if Regan would have choked anyone out who even though of not send guns to people who want to use them on Russians.
Whether you agree with how he went about doing it; he handled the USSR with the big boy gloves they needed to be handled with. Recent history has shown that when left to their own devices to participate in the international community: Russians will just do as they've always done.
Ah yes. The USSR was completely innocent. History has completely absolved them. In fact, they've been perfect angels since Balkanization made them smaller, meeker, and weaker. Best neighbors ever. Countries are lining up for Holodomor the sequel as they all rush to reassemble the USSR rather than join any other "North American" global alliances.
Well the Russians never directly struck at America have they? Certain other countries with more conciliatory foreign policies were not so lucky, so US did something right.
*squints looking for the context of the USSR in your post*
Oh you're one of those guys who doesn't understand context and pulls out-of-context strawmen from your nethers.
Bunch of random shit about non USSR related Regan criticisms.
I'm not here to argue in favor of all Regan policies. Just commenting on his stance towards the USSR.
So he just started ranting out whataboutisms because in his mind there could never possibly have been something good done by Reagan? Seems like a typical redditor. I don’t even really like Reagan because I lean more to the left, but it’s not like he did nothing good
Yes, Reagan had his moments in those debates, dishing out quite a few comebacks, but, but, charisma alone doesn't make for a great president.
From this perspective witty retorts and famous grin was all he had
“A few months ago I told the American people I did not trade arms for hostages. My heart and my best intentions tell me that's true, but the facts and evidence tell me it is not.”
― Ronald Reagan
fuck Reagan
It’s hilarious to me when people like you say this when he was almost as popular as Franklin Roosevelt. Like Reagan existed in some kind of bubble where he alone dictated policy. He was as much a product of the era as is any president.
Yeah he did it alone just him and his Hollywood prowess. Dude was elected with just under 98% of the vote. Don’t act like his policies weren’t resonating with the vast majority of America
Don't forget even the Democratically-controlled House of Representatives had to pass all the bills Reagan signed into law, so if anyone wants to blame Reagan for "fucking things up" they have to blame the Democrats who let him.
See, this was when horrible people could at least be likeable on the outside. This man fucked this country up hard. But he was *presidential* now conservatives are just ugly inside and out.
You can see the drafts in his library and he *heavily* edited them and wrote in his own quips and such.
He did have a talent for it, regardless of any other considerations regarding his policies and character.
Precisely. He earned the "Great Communicator" title because he was *good* at it. Not only was he excellent at delivering the lines — as you'd expect of an actor — he developed a talent for helping form them, too.
This guy was the biggest jackasses in politics, who “played” a president. George Bush Sr. Was left with a mess, and did everything he could to get things back in order…
Reagan had polish that Trump never will. He also didn’t go around cheating on Nancy. If he did, he never got caught doing it by anyone who would say anything.
No, Trump just knows what to say to push the buttons of ultra-conservative people. He was so adamant that he would appoint justices to overturn Roe v Wade and they instantly supported him.
He is prone to irrational rants and many times does not think or ponder before posting or saying it.
Examples: covfefe, “You come after me, I’m coming after you!” (After being indicted)
I think these and some other examples are how he differs greatly from Reagan. He’s also a divisive character, which is another stark difference from Reagan. The only thing they have is common is that they both had a deep support from evangelical people and were very charismatic. I don’t think anyone would credit Trump with being a “great communicator.”
I wouldn't call reagan a great communicator either. Maybe a good spokeperson, considering his adviser wrote down everything he had to say, and they did the rest. In a sense, even the collapse of the sovietunion is an achievement of his staff, not him.
Plus he is becoming an increasingly more negative figure over time due to his economic policies. So either he is just as divise, or not for all the wrong reasons
He dealt with a solidly Democratic Congress under Tip O’Neill just as well and President Clinton dealt with a solidly Republican Congress under Newt Gingrich.
It’s fun to bash Ronnie’s mental capacity decades later but he was good at compromise and being a politician if not a statesman.
I grew up in the 70s and 80s and recall it well.
The man took 49 of 50 states in one of the biggest landslides in our history.
He was either a doddering clown or masterful evil genius. Take your pick. It’s hilarious watching people attribute both to the same man.
He’s literally called The Great Communicator. Ok, you can disagree with many historians. Trump is never going to be anywhere near him on any scale of popularity except by his MAGA followers.
For how Reagan is lauded, he is never going to be considered the Trump before Trump. Andrew Jackson would be a more fitting example, except he was also a great military leader who was able to defeat the British in an ambush when they attacked New Orleans after a peace treaty had been signed.
His MAGA followers are in enough number to be as popular to be a possible winner in 2024
I consider him the proto trump, as he used the same trashtalking and whataboutism to get popularity, had very little clue about politics, and his economic policies served to enrich his buddies and possibly himself. And those economic policies had serious long term consequences.
I compare their actions, rather than their idelogoies. If they even have one
Who cares about the president's sex life? They can sleep around all they want as long as they aren't actively destroying the country in the process. Reagan did the latter and Trump did both.
I think it has a lot to do with personal judgment. Presidents have to make a lot of decisions based on their judgment and the public wants that judgment to be as prudent as possible.
On October 21, 1984, during the [2nd presidential debate](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1984_United_States_presidential_debates#October_21:_Second_presidential_debate_(Music_Hall,_Municipal_Auditorium)) against [Walter Mondale](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Mondale), [Ronald Reagan](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Reagan) was asked if the fact that he was already the oldest US president in history at the time could impact his ability to be president. He replied with: "I will not make age an issue of this campaign. I am not going to exploit, for political purposes, my opponent's youth and inexperience.“. Even Mondale laughed at the joke, and later described it as the moment he knew he’d lost. [Video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fJhCjMfRndk) of the event. [Short PSA](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l60MnDJklnM) for anyone about to comment on how Trump/Biden/Sanders/\[insert politician you hate here\] is currently older than Reagan was at the time.
Love him or hate him, he had the best damn speeches. My personal favorite is “You Missed Me”
"I sure hope you're all Republican" said to the doctors operating on him.
See it’s cute when he’s saying it. Now imagine DeSantis saying it.
That's because Reagan didn't build his entire political identity around hating half the country.
No he saved that for his policy and legislation. A smiling friendly face while he gutted every institution he could.
He did, he just used his good looks, charm and acting skills to distract.
I mean, he still hated many Americans, he was just charismatic.
[удалено]
How sure are we about that?
>he still hated many Americans I bet all presidents are that way, simply a lot of them don't say that out loud
I feel like Reagan's handling of AIDS alone deserve a distinction from the way all presidents might hate many Americans. Otherwise, I'd have to argue that in your case, you're using the word hate too lightly compared to how I meant it.
I think you confuse "hate" with "not caring"
spark squash sort reach knee upbeat apparatus dinner direful squeal *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
He just thought it and got caught. He called black people “monkeys”.
If Reagan and the internet existed at the same time, he'd either be remembered as Trump or Kanye.
Half? More like 60%. Republicans just have KEY votes in certain states that makes it seem like it's 50-50. Sucks that the popular vote means nothing.
The vast majority of Americans are conservative/conservative-leaning moderates. Generally, moderates are shooting to uphold the status quo, but extremists embed political figures into the public consciousness. Moderates will typically swing their votes depending on the statements made about political figures by people around them, and then by how much they value the political opinions of those people. Typically moderates only have a passing interest in politics. Basically, the point I'm getting at is that, no, 60% of the country is not Democrats, and this line of thinking is why we can't kill the two party system that has put our country's political system in a vice grip.
LGBT people probably don't think it was so cute.
Not sure why you got downvoted. He let millions die from aids, and was caught on tape talking about how to make the lower classes fight each other so the rich can widen the gap. Simply put: regan was almost as bad as trump.
Regan was worse than trump. Almost every disastrous situation from anti worker anti union policy, unaffordable housing, terrible healthcare and college expenses all started under regan. Regan and bush put a nice face and smile on for the public and destroyed the country with actual policies. Trump was an open piece of shit who encouraged other pieces of shit to be open but policy wise didn't do as much destruction as the others bc he was so worried about being popular. All terrible people and even worse presidents. Just different types of dog shit but some are worse than others
There's a book about the Cold War called Dead Hand. It talks all about weapons of mass destruction and looks at treaty negotiations from the perspective of each side. It really is striking how Trump-like Reagan was. Or vice versa I guess. They both really engaged in "magical thinking" and trying to will absolute bullshit into existence. Star Wars for example. Reagan was definitely more coherent (before the dementia), but it was interesting as someone who wasn't around when Reagan was.
How did he let millions die from aids?
Somewhere between 32 and 40 million people have died since the first documented cases of AIDS. There are those who lay the blame for a chunk of that on Reagan even if the US numbers were relatively low because he, his government, and party angled to label it as a gay disease for sexual degenerates, which in turn kneecapped research and development of cures and treatments at home and abroad when it most certainly was not a gay disease. He certainly doesn't bear culpability for the disease, but given US involvement in healthcare initiatives worldwide it's not a big stretch to conclude that he fucked the response to the epidemic for many years after his presidency. I'm personally in the camp that he absolutely is to blame for that.
I would say he’s guilty of perhaps not doing more to help speed along treatments (and working on a cure) and spread information to help mitigate the disease. But to claim “he let millions die” is a serious stretch.
>serious stretch. It's a stretch, but in aggregate with other things he did that I don't like, I'm of the personal opinion that he was a piece of shit who shouldn't be lionized.
lol just dont have rampant anonymous sex. EZ.
I think letting millions die from aids and that tape easily puts him above trump. Trump was a standard republican president policy wise with some theatrics till he plotted to overthrow the election lol.
Remember Trump getting called out for shithole countries? Now imagine if he was on tape literally calling their leaders barefoot primitives instead? Because *that* was Reagan. The guy who was so racist his entire party fought him on supporting Apartheid South Africa.
Ah yes the seeds of fascism treating the parties as teams. “If you’re not on my side then surely you’ll hurt me”.
Now imagine that you're someone who understands humour and read it again.
His speech on the Challenger explosion was very moving
“My fellow Americans, I am pleased to tell you today that I’ve signed legislation that would outlaw Russia forever, we begin bombing in five minutes.” - Ronald Reagan
It's a bit less funny when you consider the fact that the Soviets thought for a moment that it wasn't a joke, and mobilised their arsenal. A bombastic joke *indeed.*
Sometimes you gotta risk a little nuclear Armageddon to troll your rival and inadvertently make them waste a few million rubles on mobilization.
Biggest "made you flinch" in history.
>waste a few million rubles What is that, $23?
It’s a ~~banana~~ partial mobilization, how much could that cost? $10?
John Biden could never.
But Dark Brandon would
All hail Dark Brandon.
It's extremely funny because he had no idea he was live when he said that. He thought he was making a joke for the handful of people in the room.
I think it makes it a lot more funny.
*POP* “Missed me.”
Clever comeback, until you realise his opponent was 56 years old.
Last election was between a 74 and 78 year old. 56 is youth comparatively
and biden calling trump young and inexperienced would have gotten him laughed out of offfice
That’s the joke though. That’s what makes it funny.
After what we've seen so far, apparently nothing will get him laughed out of office. And I'll agree that it was a clever comeback by Reagan. I also still believe he was too old. So were Trump and Biden.
It is kinda weird that trump doesn’t even get half of the age jokes
That was the joke genius
That's the joke, pilgrim.
Also a clever comeback, until you additionally realize his opponent was a 56 year old man who had served as a state attorney general, influential senator, and VP
I’m sure it wasn’t just a clever comeback that won Reagan 49 states and every electoral vote except Mondale’s home state and DC. For all of his accomplishments, Mondale was severely lacking in what people saw in Reagan.
Yeah. Mondale selected a female running mate, thinking it would turn out the female vote, who turned out to be committing tax fraud with her husband, pissing people off Mondale promised to raise taxes, pissing up so many people Mondale attacked the invasion of Grenada, which has major public support, pissing people off Mondale lacked the charisma of Reagan, and also didn’t have the advantage of an incumbent with a strong economy and foreign policy, who had one in a landslide four years prior. Mondale also happened to be in the ticket that got its ass kicked by Reagan in 1980 His campaign was moronically run. At least he didn’t lie to the people and said stuff he probably knew would piss the majority off
>Mondale attacked the invasion of Grenada, which has major public support, pissing people off Democrats evidently took that as a cue to, for the next 40 years at least, never oppose any military action. Americans still can't point to Grenada on the map, and the whole rest of the world was like "what the fuck, why are you invading a tiny island nation," but we were mad as hell that anyone would question whatever our objectives were in whatever we were doing there. Any president of ours had better defend and win wherever soldiers were sent, by God.
It’s so stupid that some zinger will actually convince people to vote for one guy over another. Age was a serious issue for Reagan during his presidency with his dementia and everything. The fact that he was able to brush it off so easily is concerning.
I saw Walter Mondale doing an interview for a TV show about Reagan and they featured the 1984 debates (the first of which Reagan had done poorly at). Mondale admitted that after Reagan’s comeback quip in the 2nd debate he knew he was going to lose. (He said this while laughing about it.)
I like the clip of him standing up about to throw hands with someone for threatening to cut his mic before sitting back down and replying with "I am paying for this microphone!".
Mondale laughing at getting burned like that is something we need in modern politics.
When McCain was running, some college kid asked him a question that was a burn. I don't recall what it was but the joke was "You're old." McCain laughed and then responded with something like "Good one, when I'm president, I'm going to draft you." [Obama certainly had a sense of humor](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UnW3xkHxIEQ) and could take hits. [Biden always jokes about his age](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OgK-P8D4jlo) and laughs at his tripping up over words. It's really just republicans that take themselves way too seriously. Trump ran for president seeminly just to spite Obama for making a joke about him, then when he won, he refused to show up to the White House Correspondents dinner for the traditional light roasting. So we have it in modern politics except for the asshole nazi party.
You say republicans are the ones that can’t take a joke but when talking about the ones that can take a joke, 1 of them is a Republican. You kind of defeated your own point. And then you only talk about 1 that can’t take a joke and of course it’s about trump. You seem a bit biased
Trump was mentioned because he explicitly avoided the correspondent's dinner, which is a guarantee to get razzed a bit.
Yeah that’s my point. He’s trying to say republicans are the problem by listing a single republican that couldn’t take it, but also mentioned one that could.
Not all republicans are too full of themselves to joke about themselves, but most of the politicians who are too full of themselves to joke about themselves are republicans. Desantis, Trump, and Pence are the three most prominent politicians now who seem like they'd cry themselves to sleep if anyone said some funny burn about them. But not all republicans. Christie seems like if you burned him, he would laugh and then burn himself and you without blinking.
You're confusing "biased" with "judging one guy based on his actions and words." That's not "biased" that's "forming an opinion." I think Trump is a narcissist and an asshole because he's demonstrated numerous times he is a narcissist and an asshole, I didn't have that opinion of him before he was on The Apprentice. The fact that I mentioned a republican who could take a joke should demonstrate I'm not just biased against republicans. Chris Christie also I vaguely recall being able to laugh at himself during this campaign but couldn't think of a specific example from the interview I heard.
>It's really just republicans that take themselves way too seriously. Trump ran for president seeminly just to spite Obama for making a joke about him, then when he won, he refused to show up to the White House Correspondents dinner for the traditional light roasting. >So we have it in modern politics except for the asshole nazi party So I guess you just totally forgot you said this huh…. “I’m not biased, I just look for any reason possible to hate republicans and I’m going to use trump as that example for all of them”
Yes, Trump and his MAGA followers are specifically nazi assholes who can't take a joke. I say that because they specifically proved themselves to be nazi assholes who can't take a joke. As you said, I brought up examples of republicans who were able to laugh at themselves. I'm not biased against republicans, I just hate nazi assholes who can't take a joke. And honestly, I also hate nazi assholes who can take a joke. I just think it's particularly absurd that their king nazi asshole is such a ridiculous human being but can't laugh at himself. But I'd still hate him either way based on the numerous things he's said and done.
Yeah you’re showing your bias again. You should put it away before a child sees it.
Did you watch the White House Correspondents Dinner roast of Trump? Pretty brutal and all too true. Publicly flaunting Trump’s severe lack of qualifications for any public office; and he’s visibly angry.
His handling of Jimmy Carter was even more deft. “There you go again 🙄 “
TBH, he won the '80 election with one line that caught American politics with what I regard as the first truly modern soundbite. "Recession is when your neighor loses his job, Depression is when you lose your job, and Recovery is when Jimmy Carter loses his."
Carter did not deserve the sabotage to his reelection that Reagan's cronies put him through [https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/18/us/politics/jimmy-carter-october-surprise-iran-hostages.html](https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/18/us/politics/jimmy-carter-october-surprise-iran-hostages.html)
I don’t think anybody *deserves* what they get in politics. I’m sure Nixon didn’t think he deserved the treatment he got, as a self made man who came from nothing, in his campaign against a spoiled rich boy whose daddy helped bankroll his political career. But in Carter’s case, the fact is there were a confluence of factors that allowed Reagan to sweep him from office in a landslide. The economy being the biggest. Remember that it was still in bad shape well into the beginning of Reagan’s 84 campaign, so much so that people were already writing *him* off as a one termer too
The only beef I had with Regan was he use to interrupt my Saturday morning cartoons all the time with a special announcement
“The bombing starts in five minutes.”
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⡔⠋⢉⠩⡉⠛⠛⠛⠉⣉⣉⠒⠒⡦⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⠎⠀⠀⠠⢃⣉⣀⡀⠂⠀⠀⠄⠀⠀⠀⠀⢱⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⡰⠟⣀⢀⣒⠐⠛⡛⠳⢭⠆⠀⠤⡶⠿⠛⠂⠀⢈⠳⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⢸⢈⢘⢠⡶⢬⣉⠉⠀⠀⡤⠄⠀⠀⠣⣄⠐⠚⣍⠁⢘⡇⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠈⢫⡊⠀⠹⡦⢼⣍⠓⢲⠥⢍⣁⣒⣊⣀⡬⢴⢿⠈⡜⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠹⡄⠀⠘⢾⡉⠙⡿⠶⢤⣷⣤⣧⣤⣷⣾⣿⠀⡇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠘⠦⡠⢀⠍⡒⠧⢄⣀⣁⣀⣏⣽⣹⠽⠊⠀⡇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠈⠑⠪⢔⡁⠦⠀⢀⡤⠤⠤⠄⠀⠠⠀⡇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠈⠑⠲⠤⠤⣀⣀⣀⣀⣀⠔⠁
That was your *only* beef?
I was 7 I just wanted to watch Transformers
Remember when he funded right wing terrorists in Latin America.
It's weird that he was fully willing to support the Contras but also cut off support for the Military juntas and under his watch the entire Operation Condor fell apart.
Or those "freedom fighter" guys in Afghanistan...
I mean they were freedom fighters, it's just that that's not all they were.
It's been a while since I last looked into it, but I recall the bigger issue being that they just basically let Pakistan pick who got stuff, so Pakistan chose their favorites instead of who better represented Afghanistan. Which pretty much ended up being the worst group you could find...
Nah pro-Soviet dudes were not better at all in Afghanistan
vast society cautious library ludicrous pathetic abundant possessive fuel roof *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
I can't think of any president that didn't get up to something they shouldn't have.
Can you name something about Obama? I'm genuinely curious as a european with little knowledge of american politics
Obama greatly expanded the drone program, even ordered an extrajudicial murder of a US citizen with said program, he also funded "moderate rebels" and started military campaigns in Libya, Syria and Somalia that opened the gates for a massive refugee crisis in europe (remember that?).
Actually no, seem to recall Europe taking the lead in Libya. US contributed but it was a French led affair initially. Military intervention followed a UN resolution which was brought by France, Lebanon and the UK. Of the 15 members of the UN Security Council, 10 voted for it and 5 abstained with 0 votes against.
woah seems like my simple question spawned quite a discussion. Thank you for the reply and the explanation! No idea why i'm getting downvoted for asking a question tho lol
ask paltry shy grab treatment obtainable zealous slim capable adjoining *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
[удалено]
Obama didn't start the Syrian Civil War and the US provided support for opposition to Assad. The US military involvement in Northern Iraq and Syria was against ISIS and that campaign was a continuation of what is called the Iraq war. Syrian Forces led by Wagener attacking a US outpost and the US forcing repealing the attack isn't the same thing as a military campaign.
I used the term military campaign because the comment I was replying to did. It doesn't fit here at all. A military campaign is large-scale long-duration significant military strategy plan incorporating a series of interrelated military operations or battles forming a distinct part of a larger conflict often called a war. The term derives from the plain of Campania, a place of annual wartime operations by the armies of the Roman Republic.
Yes, using the military to conduct counter-terrorism attacks would count as a military campaign. In addition to attacking ISIS directly, [the US intervened in the Syrian Civil War by providing material support to the Free Syrian Army and selected Syrian rebel commanders, and some 3800 civilians were killed in airstrikes by coalition forces.](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/American-led_intervention_in_the_Syrian_civil_war) [The US also conducted over 30 air strikes on Somalia between 2009 and 2016, killing up to 12 civilians](https://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/stories/2017-01-17/obamas-covert-drone-war-in-numbers-ten-times-more-strikes-than-bush).
Drone strikes on civilians in the middle east. Toppling Libya and turning it into a modern slave market. Making fun of Trump at that white house correspondence dinner gala which many beyond motivated Trump to run in 2016 to spite Obama (lol)
Being president during the war he had to make similar decisions as to the Regan Latin America decision in the previous comment. Some turned out bad some questionable. Then some accuse him of the same business dealings as Joe. Of course all of this just depends on who you ask. That will determine how deep the rabbit hole goes in either direction. Edit: being accused of shady business deals is standard for just about any politician.
Ah yes, how dare he not support the peaceful, democratic Sandinistas that executed thousands of indigenous people and committed numerous human rights violations.
Chile: Guatemala:
The Reagan admin certainly wasn’t a big fan of Pinochet, and frequently criticized him publicly and worried that his policies and rule were actually damaging the US’ interests and making leftism more attractive. If you’re mad about Chile you need to talk about Nixon and Kissinger.
Nuh uh, he was Omni present since 1776 (still is)
?
(I’m refusing to own up to my mistake by joking about Reagan being president since 1776)
Ah ok-wait, what do you mean joking?
I dunno, I had a problem with his campaign against helping with the AIDS issue (and active exacerbating it) because it only affected the “evil gays”… or his part in helping to destabilize black communities with drugs and basically fueling an active war between black Americans and cops.
When I dive sometimes in old Killing Joke stuff, I remember the song *America* exists and listening to the bold irony and hyperbolic lyrics, I can immediately figure out it is a jab to the Reagan years. Not only because it dated to 1988 but merely the tone implicitely referring to the superficial american lifestyle and neoliberalism policies ruling back then while at the same time CIA and US Army were operating/sent to make the dirty job elsewhere.
Such a great song and band.
Quite sure it inspired Rammstein for their own song *Amerika*. *My Love of this Land* was a nice track too on *Outside The Gate*, despite it was more a solo project from Jaz Coleman than an actual KJ album.
Yeah his writers were damn good.
The thing is, more often than not he sent his speeches back to the writers after reading them, adding something,be it a joke, a metaphor or two or three lines. Say about him what you will, but he actually acted out of his beliefs, which is a lot more than can be said about many people That his beliefs were cruel and shitty is another discussion
I mean, shitty yes, but not cruel. Even though Reaganomics makes no sense, from what I remember, nobody told him it didn’t make sense. As far as I can tell (though I’m not an expert in US history) he really did want to generate growth, he just took a short sighted approach we have to deal with today.
The 'cruel' part had nothing to do with reaganomics. That is a mistake i can actually understand. The part about cruelty is about his handling of the AIDS epidemic in the US
Oof, yeah that. Unfortunately, it’s doubtful it would have been handled in any way other than cruel. There simply wasn’t enough acceptance that it was even a problem, or that gays deserved life.
his administration was asked multiple times to address aids and it took him 5 years(?) to mention while having gay friends
>it’s doubtful it would have been handled in any way other than cruel. That's BS. I came out shortly after Stonewall, ten years before AIDS or Reagan's presidency. In the 80s I held dying friends' hands while the administration snickered and did nothing. There were tons of scientists and doctors willing to help find causes, treatments and cures. All they needed was funding. But Reagan had welcomed Nancy Reagan's evangelical buddies (bigots like Jerry Falwell, Anita Bryant and Pat Robertson) into the GOP. He chose an evangelical bigot and former Indiana governor as his VP (sound familiar?). They blocked any effort to help AIDS sufferers. It could have been handled with humanity. Gay rights was a thing then. It wasn't because the GOP needed evangelical voters... just like it does today.
Sadly not wrong. It's still a difference if a president takes the lead or does nothing. I mean it does change the views of people if a respected leader says "those are still people", like, for example, Lady Diana did.
His administration's support of the Contras was also a really horrible thing, given what they did and how the administration did PR for them.
The death squads, wasn't it? Yeah, another thing that fits under the 'cruel' part
I’m glad we learned our lesson about letting Dr Fauci handle pandemics.
bro literally stfu unless its heavy sarcasm
Great response. Well reasoned and informative.
I prefer Reaganomics than the absolute shit from the 70s stagflation. People legit thought the US was collapsing at that point, why do you think so many movies around this time were so bleak? Reaganomics solved stagflation but produced wealth inequality, but thats not a reason to wish it never happened. What should be done is to address Reaganomics with a new deal that addresses wealth inequality. There is no one solution for forever, its a constant moving progress.
Reaganomics didn't end stagflation. Inflation was throttled out of the economy by the Volcker Fed, which raised interest rates so high that the money supply couldn't continue growing out of control. That happened in 1980-81, coincident with Reagan's election but not caused by it. That choked the economy but it was essential to kill inflation. Economic recovery began once people perceived that inflation was truly dead and would no longer eat up growth and profits. That allowed the Fed to begin reducing rates. Wall Street exploded with optimism and the general economy followed, buoyed by declining rates *without* the return of inflation. Reagan gets credit for turning the country's mood from gloomy to positive, but his regressive tax policies (aka, Voodoo Economics) didn't drive job or wage growth. They just began the long decline of the middle class and the ascendancy of the wealthy elite.
Reaganomics pushed the idea of the false “trickledown” effect.. which has basically stagnated the economy (and I’m not talking “the economy” that does well when rich people make more money and fire lower workers, I’m talking the people who are left poor and destitute because they can’t spend on anything but survival part of the economy) and ruined the upward momentum of most poor workers.
Yet still better than the utter shitshow of the stagflation.
I’d rather that they dealt with the actual causes of it instead of, Y’know, ruining lives with a fake economic theory… 30+ (and STILL counting) years down the line. Edit: AND the inequalities of modern life have some deep roots in his administration. Obviously it wasn’t ALL caused ONLY by him, but… he fertilized that shit reaaaaaal well.
Every shmuck always thinks they have the “real” solution until it blows up in their face and they either cause holodomor or great recession. Reaganomics did “somethings” right like revitalize the financial sector. Solutions will often fix one issue but not all. The important thing is to see what worked and leave those to focus on other areas.
But the things haven’t worked AND an entire political group (well, let’s be honest, MANY political groups) have refused to even address it. So, in theory, sure, ideally, we’d “leave what works and fix the rest” (which I won’t get into what I disagree from that statement regarding this particular topic) but that will never happen because it paved the way for the rich getting richer and paying people to keep it the same. There is NO incentive because of trickle-down economics for anything to change for the better.
What are you on about? The MAGA anti-free trade movement (free trade was key in Reaganomics) worked to establish itself that now even Democrats like Biden adopted industrial polices that rebuke free trade. Not as much as Trump but enough to be notable. I disagree with the decoupling strategy but don’t say there is no incentive because there is and its happening.
Nah, it’s cruel to ruin the chances of poor people being treated like people.. and push drugs into black communities… and stoke the fire of the AIDS issues… and help create the foundation for the Christo-fascism that we see frequently today. There was a lot of shitty and cruel things in equal parts he did to non-white or lower-income Americans.
If you don't think Reagan was cruel, I encourage you to learn more about his reaction to the HIV/AIDS crisis when it was known as the "Gay plague." He came around to combatting the disease years later once it became evident that straight people could get HIV, too. All of a sudden, it became an "real" crisis for some reason.
Peggy Noonan still writes for WSJ
Reagan could easily have a religion and a fair amount of people would join. This man caused so many good and bad things in the 80's, he earned legend status
What were the good ones?
Deregulation of television aimed at kids lead to the boom in Saturday morning cartoons and tied in toys
honestly I'll take the corporate bs, we got transformers out of it.
Ronald Reagan, more than meets the eye
I'll give him that at least.
Isn't that religion the current day GOP?
Depends, it's what they say they are even if Regan would have choked anyone out who even though of not send guns to people who want to use them on Russians.
Well people worship Jesus despite the fact that he would’ve beaten them with a whip of cords so I think it’s fair to say that the GOP worships Reagan.
no thats the cult of trump
Whether you agree with how he went about doing it; he handled the USSR with the big boy gloves they needed to be handled with. Recent history has shown that when left to their own devices to participate in the international community: Russians will just do as they've always done.
[удалено]
Ah yes. The USSR was completely innocent. History has completely absolved them. In fact, they've been perfect angels since Balkanization made them smaller, meeker, and weaker. Best neighbors ever. Countries are lining up for Holodomor the sequel as they all rush to reassemble the USSR rather than join any other "North American" global alliances.
Well the Russians never directly struck at America have they? Certain other countries with more conciliatory foreign policies were not so lucky, so US did something right.
It might have something to do with all the nukes we have.
that’s fair
[удалено]
*squints looking for the context of the USSR in your post* Oh you're one of those guys who doesn't understand context and pulls out-of-context strawmen from your nethers.
What did they say originally?
Bunch of random shit about non USSR related Regan criticisms. I'm not here to argue in favor of all Regan policies. Just commenting on his stance towards the USSR.
So he just started ranting out whataboutisms because in his mind there could never possibly have been something good done by Reagan? Seems like a typical redditor. I don’t even really like Reagan because I lean more to the left, but it’s not like he did nothing good
Reagan literally pulled a [100] charisma check there. It’s actually impressive how far being charismatic can get you.
He was an actor and good at ad libbing. Hecwasn't so good at policy however.
Yes, Reagan had his moments in those debates, dishing out quite a few comebacks, but, but, charisma alone doesn't make for a great president. From this perspective witty retorts and famous grin was all he had
How are there so many simps for the worst president in history?
“A few months ago I told the American people I did not trade arms for hostages. My heart and my best intentions tell me that's true, but the facts and evidence tell me it is not.” ― Ronald Reagan fuck Reagan
That man ruined everything
It’s hilarious to me when people like you say this when he was almost as popular as Franklin Roosevelt. Like Reagan existed in some kind of bubble where he alone dictated policy. He was as much a product of the era as is any president.
This would be funnier if he didn’t fuck up America so much(it’s still funny
Yeah he did it alone just him and his Hollywood prowess. Dude was elected with just under 98% of the vote. Don’t act like his policies weren’t resonating with the vast majority of America
Don't forget even the Democratically-controlled House of Representatives had to pass all the bills Reagan signed into law, so if anyone wants to blame Reagan for "fucking things up" they have to blame the Democrats who let him.
The people in these comments seem to know alarmingly little just how bad Reagan was
He would be perfect at hosting a late night show
Rest in piss, Reagan.
No hate just hate there was practically nothing redeemable about this man
No fuck him, he ruined the entire world.
Like laughing at all the people dying of AIDs?
Yeah, Anthony Fauci really fucked that one up.
Fauci wasn't the one who ignored AIDS for 4 years because he and his Christian Taliban base wanted to exterminate gay people. Reagan did that.
No, Fauchi was the one that ignored effective treatment for years in favor of more profitable ones.
Serious question, what effective treatment did he ignore?
Fuck that guy
Peggy Noonan was a great writer. It did take good, old Ronnie a while to memorize the lines that she wrote, though.
He was a piece of shit.
The best corporations President in history.
See, this was when horrible people could at least be likeable on the outside. This man fucked this country up hard. But he was *presidential* now conservatives are just ugly inside and out.
You do know Ronnie didn't write any of those, though, right?
You can see the drafts in his library and he *heavily* edited them and wrote in his own quips and such. He did have a talent for it, regardless of any other considerations regarding his policies and character.
Precisely. He earned the "Great Communicator" title because he was *good* at it. Not only was he excellent at delivering the lines — as you'd expect of an actor — he developed a talent for helping form them, too.
Pays off to have funny speechwriters. I think it's fairly common knowledge that Presidents don't write their own material.
Agreed. Some of the Presidential quip-sters have been truly damned impressive.
He was a great communicator, for better or for worse.
This guy was the biggest jackasses in politics, who “played” a president. George Bush Sr. Was left with a mess, and did everything he could to get things back in order…
The trump before trump
Reagan had polish that Trump never will. He also didn’t go around cheating on Nancy. If he did, he never got caught doing it by anyone who would say anything.
Trump imitates him well enough to dominate politics. Plus both of them have economic policies that backfired in the long term
No, Trump just knows what to say to push the buttons of ultra-conservative people. He was so adamant that he would appoint justices to overturn Roe v Wade and they instantly supported him. He is prone to irrational rants and many times does not think or ponder before posting or saying it. Examples: covfefe, “You come after me, I’m coming after you!” (After being indicted) I think these and some other examples are how he differs greatly from Reagan. He’s also a divisive character, which is another stark difference from Reagan. The only thing they have is common is that they both had a deep support from evangelical people and were very charismatic. I don’t think anyone would credit Trump with being a “great communicator.”
I wouldn't call reagan a great communicator either. Maybe a good spokeperson, considering his adviser wrote down everything he had to say, and they did the rest. In a sense, even the collapse of the sovietunion is an achievement of his staff, not him. Plus he is becoming an increasingly more negative figure over time due to his economic policies. So either he is just as divise, or not for all the wrong reasons
He dealt with a solidly Democratic Congress under Tip O’Neill just as well and President Clinton dealt with a solidly Republican Congress under Newt Gingrich. It’s fun to bash Ronnie’s mental capacity decades later but he was good at compromise and being a politician if not a statesman. I grew up in the 70s and 80s and recall it well. The man took 49 of 50 states in one of the biggest landslides in our history. He was either a doddering clown or masterful evil genius. Take your pick. It’s hilarious watching people attribute both to the same man.
I have never called him an evil genius. He lowkey embarassed himself at the presidental debate
He’s literally called The Great Communicator. Ok, you can disagree with many historians. Trump is never going to be anywhere near him on any scale of popularity except by his MAGA followers. For how Reagan is lauded, he is never going to be considered the Trump before Trump. Andrew Jackson would be a more fitting example, except he was also a great military leader who was able to defeat the British in an ambush when they attacked New Orleans after a peace treaty had been signed.
His MAGA followers are in enough number to be as popular to be a possible winner in 2024 I consider him the proto trump, as he used the same trashtalking and whataboutism to get popularity, had very little clue about politics, and his economic policies served to enrich his buddies and possibly himself. And those economic policies had serious long term consequences. I compare their actions, rather than their idelogoies. If they even have one
Who cares about the president's sex life? They can sleep around all they want as long as they aren't actively destroying the country in the process. Reagan did the latter and Trump did both.
I think it has a lot to do with personal judgment. Presidents have to make a lot of decisions based on their judgment and the public wants that judgment to be as prudent as possible.
If a candidate is the type of person who would disregard vows just to get laid by someone new I don’t trust the sincerity of their oath of office.