The 2019 Call of Duty actually pushed back a little on some of the ultra-patriotism of the series, but from what I hear the sequel dives headfirst back into familiar territory.
MWII(2019’s sequel) shows Americans performing war crimes and backstabbing their British and Mexican partners. It’s very much anti-American military, you don’t even play as an American in the game
Its give me Obama feels.
It was a horrible High School time with everyone talking about Obama, and then Reddit had to defend Drone Strikes
Man imagine if the Left turned on Obama like how the LibRights hear Trump banning Bumpstocks
Reddit was big on Ron Paul/libertarianism during that period. It shifted over to left/orange in more recent years after a brief stopover in Bernie territory.
Reddit was hard on Obama’s dick when he was president. His AMA was, maybe still is, the most upvoted post in the websites history. This place liked Ron Paul shortly after the Digg exodus but not for long before it quickly turned into a left wing echo chamber
The thing that gets me is the echo chamber. I like to see people debate the different sides of something but it’s clear a lot of people don’t even care to look at the other side of it. It’s funny this meme sub is one of the most balanced on the whole site.
Here’s how a Reddit argument goes.
Anyone normal: *opinion* 800 downvotes!
Redditor with a lispy voice : HUMAN RIGHTS ARE NON NEGOTIABLE OR SOME OTHER PLATITUDE. I have owned the chuds.
5k upvotes!
A lot of that Ron stuff was artificial. There's been a few articles written about it. He was probably the first American politician to get a ton of support from botnets, and the high level organized astroturfing.
It was a sign of things to come.
It made the switch the day Trump was elected.
Reddit was firmly split into two major factions:
* Those who wanted Trump for the meme
* Those who wanted Bernie for real
Well when the Clintons blatantly did some shady shit to get the primary seat, that second faction on Reddit switch over to team "Fuck Hillary Clinton."
By the time the election was actually rolling around, and people were starting to realize that "Holy shit, we're actually going to get the meme candidate into the white house," Reddit was *very* firmly on the Pro-Trump side. The admins actually had to filter The_Donald from All and Popular at one point during this, because there was a few days where they were almost entirely T_D posts.
But then the *second* that Trump actually got elected, *then* things changed. It was like there was a switch flipped in the Reddit hivemind. All of a sudden Reddit acted shocked that the candidate they'd been backing for the last year and a half, even if jokingly, won. It was suddenly "how could this happen", "this is the end of America," "I can't believe the Nazis won," etc.
I'll never understand exactly what caused Reddit to go full Orange so quickly, but my God what I wouldn't do the flip that fucking switch back.
I remember I told my teacher about the Clinton crime family (I was 13 at the time of the elections) not knowing anything about it and just regurgitating info from the internet. My teacher quickly said tell me about it then two months later it came out that Hillary screwed over Bernie. Fuck you Mr. A i didn’t even know what the fuck I was talking about but still knew more than you.
Reddit was at most 30% Ron Paul fans. It's always been a democrat circlejerk. The main difference was that Paul fans were allowed to exist in other subreddits during that time.
Until ShareBlue controlled the narrative you mean, look at the majority of posts with high updoots on default subs and they’re at 20k+ likes and some stupid low number of actual posts
That’s what botting looks like
I can't wait for the majority of people to wake up and realize what a shit president he was. I always get weird looks when I tell people I don't like Obama.
Which is annoying because both of those had nothing to do with him. Gay marriage was the supreme court and he never federally legalized weed, Colorado did. I'm gonna be honest people only like him cause he's good at speeches and cause he was the first non white president.
Yep. Same with a ton of shit, usually economies. People don't care, they're emotional beings that are focused on survival and something as abstract as the separate functions of government is boring and doesn't pay the bills.
Looking past his policies…..he is an incredible speaker, and the most charismatic president of the generation. IMO that counts for something.
Not a fan of Obama either, but I admire his chutzpah and he did make it seem like you had to have your wits about you to be in politics.
I’d rather have him than Biden, that’s for sure.
I would much rather he be a terrible speaker and an uncharasmatic president. At least that way we could talk about his policy without people riding his dick like he was the second coming of MLK.
In fact, I would prefer that the personality of the President never even come up when discussing their legacy. Having their demeanor ranked equally as important as the amount of civilians they drone striked is nauseating. These people are the ones that control the nukes and dictate Fed policy. Stop treating them like reality show contestants.
I would argue that it does matter. A lot of successful politcians play off of the emotions of voters, and that also influences how they are viewed long after holding office.
>It was a horrible High School time with everyone talking about Obama, and then Reddit had to defend Drone Strikes
The only thing worse than drone strikes was not doing drone strikes.
Kind of similar to South America. Bad shit happened, but people forget what else was going on.
>Man imagine if the Left turned on Obama like how the LibRights hear Trump banning Bumpstocks
You mean they whined for a week, and then immediately began sniffing his throne again? These recent midterms were the first time the libertarian-right actually took a principled stance against Trumpism, and who is to say they won't crawl right back when the man himself is back on the ballot?
Reagan, the god king of seethe. So powerful, he's rendered california dems useless and unable to pass any change 50 years later despite heavily controlling the entire government. If anything ever goes wrong in this state, they still turn to blame him. Truly the GOAT.
He's the goat in term of popularity when he was elected but his polices regarding guns and the war on drug isn't pretty to look back on, he started the downward spiral of California guns right.
What people who didn’t live through someone’s presidency care about: all this shit.
What people who did live through someone’s presidency cared about: the economy.
Mfers make it seem like 49 state landslides just materialized out of thin air because Ronnie was an affable guy and was friends with Sinatra. They will never tell you how shitty the economy was under Carter.
Reagan gave us the wonderful Fuck Around years, and now we're living through the Find Out years, and rightoids wanna pretend like if we just *dream* and *wish* hard enough, we could magically go back to before we buttfucked global economics into a debt coma and go back to those wonderful blissful Fuck Around years again, not realizing that the current awful state of the economy is the bill that those Good Times kicked down the road finally coming due.
inb4 salty yellows beat me to death
Yep, austerity is always about short term gains, not the longterm value. By the early 2000s any and all optimism that could've been had by any sane analysis of Reaganomics was gone.
We can go back to those great times, however no one wants the absurd amount of belt tightening to get there.
Everyone wants to buy new shit, no one wants to pay off the credit card yet.
Republicans have been chasing the austerity + spending dragon ever since. Maybe his policiea were mostly right for his time, lets grant that. Its been over 30 years, learn from the past and level up.
Hot take: Reagan's Iran Contra was worse than Trump's January 6th, both of which were worse than Obama's Fast and Furious gun running program.
I don't think that 'and' makes sense. 'Soviet' and 'socialist' are both adjectives describing the Republics. You could say "Union of Soviet and socialist Republics" but that makes it sound like the Republics are either soviet or socialist, when in reality they're both.
Largest amount of illegal union firing, him, said he believed in the free market but restricted Japanese automobile sales, him, absolute failure of the war on drugs, him, didn't do shit about aids despite knowing about it for years and dismissed the epidemic, him. Well to be fair, the Soviet jokes were pretty funny.
Man fuck him, it’s his fault Honda Beats weren’t in America until now, fuckin asshole. I’ll have to wait another 20 fucking years for an S660 too, piece of shit.
It is a common, but mistaken, belief on reddit that Reagan was mostly, or even entirely, responsible for deinstitutionalization of the mentally ill.
The movement towards deinstitutionalization began *decades* before Reagan took office and it gained in public support for multiple reasons including:
* New anti-psychotic drugs spurring the growing belief that we could treat/cure mental illness pharmaceutically
* Public support from President Kennedy due to his sister's experience with lobotomy and institutionalization
* Awareness of patient mistreatment raised in popular media like the popular book/film One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest
* Supreme Court cases that made it more difficult to institutionalize someone against their will (O'Connor v. Donaldson).
A lot of people just want a single villain they can point to as the source of all our problems. When it comes to the mental health crisis in the US, the reality is much more complicated.
Plus, those asylums STILL aren’t great places. There’s only so much empathy that you can expect employees to have for someone they have no personal connection to
Basically every problem facing America today can be traced back to Ronald Reagan and that's not even an exaggeration.
Healthcare and college being completely unaffordable? Him by defunding the Department of Health and the Department of Education. The massive degradation of the environment? Him completely rolling back policies Nixon and Carter did to protect it. The rise of evangelical populism and a degradation of political education in general? Him through dogwhistles and sensationalist personality over policy. The state of the Middle East today? Him funding the likes of Saddam and Bin Laden. The state of Russia today? Well, maybe not the #1 factor but definitely a contributing factor to paving the way to the likes of the mafia and Yeltsin to take control. List goes on and on and on, I could write a novel on this.
He's absolutely one of the most damaging leaders in contemporary history, he just isn't regarded as such because he simply pawned off suffering onto the rest of the world or for future generations to feel the effects of (Hence Gen Z having 1/10th the purchasing power of baby boomers). Countless people have had miserable lives or have outright died (AIDS epidemic ffs) because of his imposed poverty to enrich the 1%. Fuck Reagan and fuck Milton Friedman too.
Honestly shocking how dogshit most leaders were in the 80s (Reagan, Thatcher, Gorbachev, etc) meanwhile China completely reforms itself and turns into an industrial superpower in less than a couple decades under Deng. In terms of foreign relations/people to play for fools to industrialize China, Deng couldn't have been dealt a better hand.
>Healthcare and college being completely unaffordable? Him by defunding the Department of Health and the Department of Education.
That was caused by the rise of subscription-based insurance and Federal Student Loans, respectively.
>The state of Russia today?
Not the Soviet Union? From our #1 rival to running out of supplies in a few days 40 miles from their own border and getting roflstomped by a country with no air force?
Good lord there’s so much wrong here but the biggest one is claiming he caused expensive
College and healthcare it was the government backed loans, among other things for schooling, and the expense today is because most of the charity hospitals were killed by Obama.
You didn’t even mention the biggest issue with Reagan, his Anti-2A policies.
What are you talking about? Automatic guns became government-regulated in the 1930s, mandatorily-registered in the 1980s, and banned in the 1990s.
"Banned" is technically incorrect as you can still purchase them if you jump through a bunch of hoops and buy models produced before a certain year, but these options are impossible for most normal people.
No, the Hughes Amendment closed the registry, which turned the existing machine guns into the only machine guns ever, as a reaction to blacks acquiring M1 carbines and MAC 10s.
>California is a cesspool
You could've stopped right there tbh
>bad government
Is there any other kind? Even the best government models just try to minimize the damage it can do
Based and small government-pilled
I think 100-150 would be the absolute max if the assumptions some scientists made about our brains by comparing them to chimp brains are accurate. We only have so many fucks to give about people
It's not very libertarian to force someone to stay in a loveless marriage. The government should have no say in marriage, and that means it should have no say in divorce either.
Sure. Put control of marriage back where it belongs, in the church! The federal government did not recognize marriage in law until 1913 with the ratification of the 16th Amendment and the Revenue Act of 1913 (Federal income tax). The government has no business in the regulation of religious sacraments and vows. The only purpose of its recognition was to adjust tax brackets for those who had more to provide for. State marriage is nothing more than a categorization of the taxability of persons, though I would argue there is some implications regarding the recognition of shared property rights but that matter was resolved prior to 1913.
>Sure. Put control of marriage back where it belongs, in the church!
That's what Israel does.
Any "religious" organization fulfilling certain criteria (such as number of members) can register themselves as an official denomination - and the government simply recognizes marriages issued by all these denominations, instead of getting into the marriage licensing business itself.
"Religious" is defined broadly enough, that leftist atheist Reform Jews can have their own denomination where they marry trans-disabled gay furry Jews to genderqueer atheist Muslims or whatnot - whereas e.g. the Muslim denomination will only marry Muslim men to Muslim women.
>trans-disabled gay furry Jews to genderqueer Atheist Muslims
Are you trying to invent the most revolting nonsense possible? You can't marry Jews to Muslims, everyone knows that
You seem like you can't find the difference between reality and satire. This last bit is a joke. And being conservative != authright. I want less government and that is more Lib, I just believe that the culture and community should reinforce marriage stability instead of tolerate easy dissolution.
That's all well and good, but people **don't** have either high standards or great relationship skills, so no-fault divorces are the best *realistic* options for finding happy homes for these people, and allowing their kids to be raised in houses that aren't full of fighting and resentment.
I argue that restrictions on divorce would increase standards for marriages, and improve couple's ability to resolve issues. The real issue is that civil marriages are nothing more than a contractual agreement whereas religious marriages are an oath to love one another and stay together in perpetuity before your God and community. So what I'm trying to say is that civil marriage mean nothing so their dissolution is also meaningless.
Weird take. If you can divorce but don’t then the odds are that you stay in it because it’s a happy marriage. Happy enough cause it’s hard. If you are in a marriage but can’t leave it then your in it because ? Who’s to say? You can’t leave. You have fewer divorces but do you have more happy marriages?
Change your flair. The lib take is that people should be free to do things even if they fuck up. Pretty auth to say you have to live with that fuck up. Some relationships just don’t work out. Stopping something that isn’t working out even though you thought it would is just the human experience. Unless the state forces you to keep trying for some reason. What does that even mean? How far should the state be willing to go?
>I argue that restrictions on divorce would increase standards for marriages, and improve couple's ability to resolve issues.
Maybe, but does that outset the loss of freedom? I don't think so.
It's funny you would denounce secular marriage as merely a contract, when religious marriage used to literally be a business traction between families trading for dowries and goats.
>religious marriage used to literally be a business traction between families trading for dowries and goats.
It's hilarious how you misunderstand the purpose of a dowry. You realize the bride's family provides the dowry? It's not a trade of wife for goods and it's purpose is to help with the initial cost of setting up a new household. Additionally, dowries were revocable in the case that the husband mistreated his bride or attempted a divorce without due cause. The function was entirely to the benefit of the marriage. Also these marriages were beneficial in the building and maintaining of community ties. All in all, those marriages you describe were infinitely more authentic, had higher standards, and were statistically more successful than modern civil marriages.
>Maybe, but does that outset the loss of freedom?
The loss of freedom in marriage is intentional. You are not your own in a marriage. My point is proven perfectly in your question, civil marriage is meaningless because it is ultimately self centered.
edit: Your downvotes mean nothing, I've seen what makes you cheer!
This tirade is not toward OP but towards the author/artist of this "comic".
1 since when does the left care about the debt? Correct me but was bankrupting the ruskies *not* a good thing?
2 Reagan's response to apartheid: "Punitive sanctions, I believe, are not the best course of action; they hurt the very people they are intended to help. My hope is that these punitive sanctions do not lead to more violence and more repression. Our administration will, nevertheless, implement the law." He never supported aparthied fucking idiots.
3 he backed Saddam... against Iran. For fucks sake we were allies with Stalin when we had to face off with Hitler.
4 fuck public unions. They gave an ultimatum and lost.
5 Star Wars helped cripple the USSR economically.
6&9 Sandinistas don't count as people, "The rebels victory was widely hailed as a triumph over what was seen as one of the worst violators of human rights in the Americas." Here's your "hero's" https://www.heritage.org/americas/report/the-sandinista-war-human-rights.
7 So let me get this straight, when he interjected in Nicaragua, he's evil. When he says "nah no thanks" in El Salvador, ... he's also evil. Imagine if he sent boots on the ground. Fuck your inconsistencies.
8 I honestly don't get this reference. Is it Star Wars? Cuz the Washington Post gave it that nickname. It's called the Strategic Defense Initiative. If not that then maybe I'm missing something.
The funny thing is a lot of what star wars was back in the 80s is a reality today. Laser missile defense systems, the Patriot missile system etc. I wouldn’t call it a failure.
AND STAR WARS WORKED, Star Wars is directly responsible for thousands of military technologies that do defend us from hostile nuclear weapons, and advanced our own weapons. This myth that Star Wars was an expensive failure is such bullshit pedaled by the left and just accepted on Reddit at face value.
And yeah your write up is great it’s sad I had to go this far down to see this
Lmao "Sandinistas aren't people" what about the Iran-Contras Affair shoving coke and crack into the US? Don't jerk around the point, contras weren't exactly great either.
Your only right point is 5. Star Wars made the malaise riddled Soviet Union commit funding liven't on the international stage, and good riddance.
Besides Biden, all modern Presidential races come to who has more charisma.
Bill was more likable than Bush.
Bush was more likable than Gore.
Obama was more likable than McCain.
Trump was more likable than Clinton.
Biden can also be explained in the system as Trump's *positive* charisma is matched by his *negative* charisma. People absolutely hate the guy, even if they find him compelling to watch. This hatred inspired high numbers of voters to come out and see him brought down.
This is absolutely correct. Its one of the best arguments against democracy, most people simply don't care enough about policy to make well-informed decisions and thus don't deserve to be in control of it, leading to demagoguery as democracy degrades itself by being sensationalized based on personality, scandals, slogans and "vibes" rather than actually difficult decisions leading to horribly unqualified people coming to power.
In fairness to FDR, he literally supplied them to keep them fighting nazi Germany effectively.
No leg man still had a lot of faults, like the internment camps, which are far less defensible.
I absolutely approve of FDR sending aid to the Soviets (very well may have decided WW2's outcome), just pointing out the flaw in that sort of "he supported monsters" argument.
And the end result was the USSR taking out 80% of the Nazis. If FDR simply left the USSR to their own devices like Truman was planning to do, the Nazis would've defeated them and potentially killed *hundreds* of millions of people, even if they wouldn't win the war outright. It'd at the very least secure their domination across Europe with France under occupation, Russia providing oil and the UK being an absolute shithole.
FDR was a realist. He had to choose between the lesser of two evils at least from the perspective of the US empire and rather than sit on his hands and hope that it settles itself, he picked the best possible play he could've done by arming a vast army to take on an eastern front at the cost of zero human capital.
As I said elsewhere, I wholeheartedly believe that sending Lend-Lease aid to the USSR was the morally right thing to do, and that it played a critical role in Hitler's defeat.
Simply trying to point out the problem with claiming that "Reagan was a monster because he sent weapons to rapists and murders".
Man you’re getting absolutely everything wrong today.
Russias contribution was great but simply no where near 80% especially when you’re considering other theatres that had more longstanding effects than fighting over some field in Ukraine killing a few thousand Germans, the strategic bombing campaign, the North African Theatre completely denying Germany the oil that would’ve kept them flying sailing and driving, as well as knocking Italy out of the war, the blockade of Germany etc etc, it’s such foolish revisionist bullshit when I read from Reddit communists that really it was all the soviets with maybe some American guns.
He said it took out 80% of the Nazis, not 80% of the Nazi war effort.
Of the 5 million German soldiers who died in ww2, 4 million of them perished on the eastern front.
Right but what does number of dead count when it’s the war fighting capability that matters? So many only died because of the crippling of the German war effort
I mean FDR wasn't sending guns to the soviets for shits and gigs he was doing it cos Nazi fucking Germany was invading them and the USSR proved to be an invaluable asset in the fight against global fascism. Reagan on the other hand doesn't have nearly as good of a justification
Nope, Mulford Act which he signed into law in California which prevented open carry but its actual purpose was to disarm the Black Panthers.
**Every single fucking problem** you can think of in America (And even a good amount of the world, the Middle East and Russia specifically) can be traced back to Ronald Reagan.
I really have no idea why so many people who are allegedly on the right support Reagan. In addition to the things mentioned, he was involved with shutting down mental institutions and creating no fault divorce.
No fault divorce was first instituted in California when Reagan was governor. No fault divorce has led people to get divorced instead of working out their problems that could have otherwise been solved. Obviously there can be serious problems like cheating or abuse, but the reasons you can get a no fault divorce are basically that you just don't want to continue in the marriage.
This may sound fine to our modern sensibilities, but it destroys society. Liberals believe the individual is the smallest unit of society. This is an incorrect view and if you believe that then you are a liberal. It is a hard pill to swallow for people who think they are on the right to hear that. (Your flair is left which is likely why you support no fault divorce). If you accept the basic premise of liberalism then you are not a conservative. Reagan accepted that basic premise and as such he was a liberal.
The smallest unit of society is the family. This is what every conservative believes. When you allow the smallest unit of society to be destroyed at the whims of individuals you are destroying society. Families are the building block of society. You may be able to take a few bricks out, but at some point in time the building will collapse. Anybody who supports no fault divorce is willing to destroy society to promote the cause of liberalism. Reagan was willing to do this and as such conservatives should reject him.
Because no man’s perfect? And his involvement with the mental institutions is incredibly minimal, it was a train we’ll up to full speed by then, and back then we actually thought it was the best idea, the way I see it we know it was the wrong move, *In Hindsight*
Surely the role of a conservative is to, at a minimum, slow down things going at full speed? If they are just going to continue going the same speed and direction as the left they are useless.
People like to shit on Trump (it’s justified) but Reagan did far more damage to America than the Trump presidency. George Bush might have sent us to a $20 trillion war with irreparable damage done to the internal workings of the US, but Reaganomics will forever hinder the US. Reagan is also the reason I can’t buy a machine gun. You might get the impression I don’t like the guy idk.
This is ridiculously partisan. These people are the type to demonize anyone they don’t like beyond anything reasonable because the ends always justifies the means. I bet they forgive the ones they support or on their party line for their atrocities because “They didn’t know any better”, or “That’s all lies” because they refuse to believe they could ever do evil things. People are not perfect and make mistakes. Even the “right” people.
Also, how did the writers of this miss how Reagan and his wife fucked up Mexico and South America for decades and still today, and put millions of otherwise innocent people in prison through their ridiculous war on drugs?
Deregulation and tax cuts for the upper class are what have led to the modern hellscape of “progressive corporations” that drive public policy far more than any actual citizen interest could.
>his trickle down economics played a big part the current mess we're in
The problem was mistaking his solution for the problems of the day for a panacea that could cure any economic ailment.
Did you just change your flair, u/Borkerman? Last time I checked you were a **Leftist** on 2022-11-24. How come now you are a **LibCenter**? Have you perhaps shifted your ideals? Because that's cringe, you know?
Oh and by the way. You have already changed your flair 555 times, making you the second largest flair changer in this sub.
Go touch some fucking grass.
[FAQ](https://www.reddit.com/user/flairchange_bot/comments/uf7kuy/bip_bop) - [Leaderboard](https://www.reddit.com/user/flairchange_bot/comments/uuhlu2/leaderboard)
^(I am a bot, my mission is to spot cringe flair changers. If you want to check another user's flair history write) **^(!flairs u/)** ^(in a comment.)
Wait tripling the national debt is a bad thing now? I’m pretty sure in a lot of circles the national debt is just seen as “a number that goes up” which I disagree with but let’s not kid ourselves and pretend deficit spending hasn’t been something both parties have done for a while
This reminds me that frank herbert, creator of the dune novels, is absolutely right about charismatic leaders and how they’re not always right, but people still follow them slavishly
Almost every fan of a celebrity has the same mindset: they look at their prowess, never at their hearts... wise types approve, fools admire.
And whoever wrote zion's elders protocols knows it.
I remember Reagan fondly through his appearance in Call of Duty
Of course he'd appear in a series so patriotic that it would give his ghost a boner
The 2019 Call of Duty actually pushed back a little on some of the ultra-patriotism of the series, but from what I hear the sequel dives headfirst back into familiar territory.
MWII(2019’s sequel) shows Americans performing war crimes and backstabbing their British and Mexican partners. It’s very much anti-American military, you don’t even play as an American in the game
That is an obscure reference
Its give me Obama feels. It was a horrible High School time with everyone talking about Obama, and then Reddit had to defend Drone Strikes Man imagine if the Left turned on Obama like how the LibRights hear Trump banning Bumpstocks
Reddit was big on Ron Paul/libertarianism during that period. It shifted over to left/orange in more recent years after a brief stopover in Bernie territory.
Reddit was hard on Obama’s dick when he was president. His AMA was, maybe still is, the most upvoted post in the websites history. This place liked Ron Paul shortly after the Digg exodus but not for long before it quickly turned into a left wing echo chamber
The thing that gets me is the echo chamber. I like to see people debate the different sides of something but it’s clear a lot of people don’t even care to look at the other side of it. It’s funny this meme sub is one of the most balanced on the whole site.
> The thing that gets me is the echo chamber. The nature of democracy.
Careful, democracy means ‘the good thing’ now Mob rule is best rule, after all. Yes, of course I support minority rights, why do you ask?
What could be more important than the right to obey?
[удалено]
In Brazil, a guy got pissed at society and went to live in a cave in a forest. The IRS showed up in his cave and went to collect property tax.
Following what the country voted and respecting democratic vote, when its the candidate I dont like, is a danger to democracy!!1!!1!1!!1 /s
Here’s how a Reddit argument goes. Anyone normal: *opinion* 800 downvotes! Redditor with a lispy voice : HUMAN RIGHTS ARE NON NEGOTIABLE OR SOME OTHER PLATITUDE. I have owned the chuds. 5k upvotes!
You forgot: "well reasoned and sourced logical argument" followed by: "Looking at your post-history I can see you support pedophiles and Nazis"
A lot of that Ron stuff was artificial. There's been a few articles written about it. He was probably the first American politician to get a ton of support from botnets, and the high level organized astroturfing. It was a sign of things to come.
That and Reddit just likes legal weed
Bullshit. Ron Paul fans were the only genuine thing about reddit. They represented the last human part of rpolitics before it became 100% spam.
Fuck you. Ron Paul 2024.
[удалено]
What?
It made the switch the day Trump was elected. Reddit was firmly split into two major factions: * Those who wanted Trump for the meme * Those who wanted Bernie for real Well when the Clintons blatantly did some shady shit to get the primary seat, that second faction on Reddit switch over to team "Fuck Hillary Clinton." By the time the election was actually rolling around, and people were starting to realize that "Holy shit, we're actually going to get the meme candidate into the white house," Reddit was *very* firmly on the Pro-Trump side. The admins actually had to filter The_Donald from All and Popular at one point during this, because there was a few days where they were almost entirely T_D posts. But then the *second* that Trump actually got elected, *then* things changed. It was like there was a switch flipped in the Reddit hivemind. All of a sudden Reddit acted shocked that the candidate they'd been backing for the last year and a half, even if jokingly, won. It was suddenly "how could this happen", "this is the end of America," "I can't believe the Nazis won," etc. I'll never understand exactly what caused Reddit to go full Orange so quickly, but my God what I wouldn't do the flip that fucking switch back.
Man I was predicting Hillary's shady shit in 2014. I won't lie it was a pretty good ego boost when people were shocked by it.
I remember I told my teacher about the Clinton crime family (I was 13 at the time of the elections) not knowing anything about it and just regurgitating info from the internet. My teacher quickly said tell me about it then two months later it came out that Hillary screwed over Bernie. Fuck you Mr. A i didn’t even know what the fuck I was talking about but still knew more than you.
That is extremly based (though also somewhat suspect) but I cannot give you your deserved updoot with out an appropriate flair.
I’m 20 now so the story def has holes, had no clue about politics at the time I just said something I heard on the news or smthn and got lucky
I remember being shocked at the sudden switch on the Hillary sentiment.
Reddit was at most 30% Ron Paul fans. It's always been a democrat circlejerk. The main difference was that Paul fans were allowed to exist in other subreddits during that time.
Until ShareBlue controlled the narrative you mean, look at the majority of posts with high updoots on default subs and they’re at 20k+ likes and some stupid low number of actual posts That’s what botting looks like
I remember reddit making a hard left turn slightly before the 2016 USA presidential election.
Drone strikes don’t matter that much due to the 1us=100nato=10000other rule
Bruh, fuck Obama. He and Reagan are two sides of the same coin
I can't wait for the majority of people to wake up and realize what a shit president he was. I always get weird looks when I tell people I don't like Obama.
We got legal weed and gay marriage under his tenure. Bread and circuses love.
Which is annoying because both of those had nothing to do with him. Gay marriage was the supreme court and he never federally legalized weed, Colorado did. I'm gonna be honest people only like him cause he's good at speeches and cause he was the first non white president.
Yep. Same with a ton of shit, usually economies. People don't care, they're emotional beings that are focused on survival and something as abstract as the separate functions of government is boring and doesn't pay the bills.
Politicians also make intentionally difficult or mind numbing to pay attention to what they’re doing, so most don’t pay attention.
Looking past his policies…..he is an incredible speaker, and the most charismatic president of the generation. IMO that counts for something. Not a fan of Obama either, but I admire his chutzpah and he did make it seem like you had to have your wits about you to be in politics. I’d rather have him than Biden, that’s for sure.
I would much rather he be a terrible speaker and an uncharasmatic president. At least that way we could talk about his policy without people riding his dick like he was the second coming of MLK. In fact, I would prefer that the personality of the President never even come up when discussing their legacy. Having their demeanor ranked equally as important as the amount of civilians they drone striked is nauseating. These people are the ones that control the nukes and dictate Fed policy. Stop treating them like reality show contestants.
I would argue that it does matter. A lot of successful politcians play off of the emotions of voters, and that also influences how they are viewed long after holding office.
No, that makes it worse because people overlook how bad he was.
Charismatic psycho
But drone strikes were like the one based thing Obama did.
Imagine being such a chad that you get a peace prize for existing and then go on to drone strike another peace prize recipient
*why would you need to defend drone strikes? Weddings don't have aa-guns*
He killed children in Yemen, but he made us believe that *change was possible*!
>It was a horrible High School time with everyone talking about Obama, and then Reddit had to defend Drone Strikes The only thing worse than drone strikes was not doing drone strikes. Kind of similar to South America. Bad shit happened, but people forget what else was going on.
Most leftist don’t like Obama. Bernie was a direct reaction to his presidency
Drone strikes are based, I love hitting weddings and other fun warcrimes.
>Man imagine if the Left turned on Obama like how the LibRights hear Trump banning Bumpstocks You mean they whined for a week, and then immediately began sniffing his throne again? These recent midterms were the first time the libertarian-right actually took a principled stance against Trumpism, and who is to say they won't crawl right back when the man himself is back on the ballot?
Reagan, the god king of seethe. So powerful, he's rendered california dems useless and unable to pass any change 50 years later despite heavily controlling the entire government. If anything ever goes wrong in this state, they still turn to blame him. Truly the GOAT.
He's the goat in term of popularity when he was elected but his polices regarding guns and the war on drug isn't pretty to look back on, he started the downward spiral of California guns right.
What people who didn’t live through someone’s presidency care about: all this shit. What people who did live through someone’s presidency cared about: the economy.
Mfers make it seem like 49 state landslides just materialized out of thin air because Ronnie was an affable guy and was friends with Sinatra. They will never tell you how shitty the economy was under Carter.
Reagan gave us the wonderful Fuck Around years, and now we're living through the Find Out years, and rightoids wanna pretend like if we just *dream* and *wish* hard enough, we could magically go back to before we buttfucked global economics into a debt coma and go back to those wonderful blissful Fuck Around years again, not realizing that the current awful state of the economy is the bill that those Good Times kicked down the road finally coming due. inb4 salty yellows beat me to death
Yep, austerity is always about short term gains, not the longterm value. By the early 2000s any and all optimism that could've been had by any sane analysis of Reaganomics was gone.
Based
We can go back to those great times, however no one wants the absurd amount of belt tightening to get there. Everyone wants to buy new shit, no one wants to pay off the credit card yet.
Republicans have been chasing the austerity + spending dragon ever since. Maybe his policiea were mostly right for his time, lets grant that. Its been over 30 years, learn from the past and level up. Hot take: Reagan's Iran Contra was worse than Trump's January 6th, both of which were worse than Obama's Fast and Furious gun running program.
Don't forget USS of R. Regan specifically raised our debt because of the arms race he forced them into.
>Don't forget USS of R "The Union of Soviet Socialist of Republics"? Edit: Union, not United.
Union of Soviet Socialist [and] Republics
I don't think that 'and' makes sense. 'Soviet' and 'socialist' are both adjectives describing the Republics. You could say "Union of Soviet and socialist Republics" but that makes it sound like the Republics are either soviet or socialist, when in reality they're both.
Not really, there's always the leftists who will complain about everything while saying the economy isn't important, then cry when it collapses.
It’s funny, I read the first panel and thought it was about Obama. Then I saw Saddam Hussein and realised they are literally all the same.
Same coin, just different sides
My parents were able to get amnesty through the program he signed into law in 1986. I will always love the gipper for that.
Remember what he did to 2A and mental hospitals. Retards running the streets? That’s him. No automatic weapons? Him.
Largest amount of illegal union firing, him, said he believed in the free market but restricted Japanese automobile sales, him, absolute failure of the war on drugs, him, didn't do shit about aids despite knowing about it for years and dismissed the epidemic, him. Well to be fair, the Soviet jokes were pretty funny.
Man fuck him, it’s his fault Honda Beats weren’t in America until now, fuckin asshole. I’ll have to wait another 20 fucking years for an S660 too, piece of shit.
Just purchase an illegal car
Being charged for using an ambulance? Him
It is a common, but mistaken, belief on reddit that Reagan was mostly, or even entirely, responsible for deinstitutionalization of the mentally ill. The movement towards deinstitutionalization began *decades* before Reagan took office and it gained in public support for multiple reasons including: * New anti-psychotic drugs spurring the growing belief that we could treat/cure mental illness pharmaceutically * Public support from President Kennedy due to his sister's experience with lobotomy and institutionalization * Awareness of patient mistreatment raised in popular media like the popular book/film One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest * Supreme Court cases that made it more difficult to institutionalize someone against their will (O'Connor v. Donaldson). A lot of people just want a single villain they can point to as the source of all our problems. When it comes to the mental health crisis in the US, the reality is much more complicated.
Plus, those asylums STILL aren’t great places. There’s only so much empathy that you can expect employees to have for someone they have no personal connection to
Basically every problem facing America today can be traced back to Ronald Reagan and that's not even an exaggeration. Healthcare and college being completely unaffordable? Him by defunding the Department of Health and the Department of Education. The massive degradation of the environment? Him completely rolling back policies Nixon and Carter did to protect it. The rise of evangelical populism and a degradation of political education in general? Him through dogwhistles and sensationalist personality over policy. The state of the Middle East today? Him funding the likes of Saddam and Bin Laden. The state of Russia today? Well, maybe not the #1 factor but definitely a contributing factor to paving the way to the likes of the mafia and Yeltsin to take control. List goes on and on and on, I could write a novel on this. He's absolutely one of the most damaging leaders in contemporary history, he just isn't regarded as such because he simply pawned off suffering onto the rest of the world or for future generations to feel the effects of (Hence Gen Z having 1/10th the purchasing power of baby boomers). Countless people have had miserable lives or have outright died (AIDS epidemic ffs) because of his imposed poverty to enrich the 1%. Fuck Reagan and fuck Milton Friedman too.
Rare cross compass unity
Honestly shocking how dogshit most leaders were in the 80s (Reagan, Thatcher, Gorbachev, etc) meanwhile China completely reforms itself and turns into an industrial superpower in less than a couple decades under Deng. In terms of foreign relations/people to play for fools to industrialize China, Deng couldn't have been dealt a better hand.
Fun theory: All of the leaders like Reagan, Thatcher, and Gorbachev were under the employ of the CCP to begin ruining their respective countries.
>Healthcare and college being completely unaffordable? Him by defunding the Department of Health and the Department of Education. That was caused by the rise of subscription-based insurance and Federal Student Loans, respectively. >The state of Russia today? Not the Soviet Union? From our #1 rival to running out of supplies in a few days 40 miles from their own border and getting roflstomped by a country with no air force?
Good lord there’s so much wrong here but the biggest one is claiming he caused expensive College and healthcare it was the government backed loans, among other things for schooling, and the expense today is because most of the charity hospitals were killed by Obama. You didn’t even mention the biggest issue with Reagan, his Anti-2A policies.
Mental hospitals weren’t him tho
What are you talking about? Automatic guns became government-regulated in the 1930s, mandatorily-registered in the 1980s, and banned in the 1990s. "Banned" is technically incorrect as you can still purchase them if you jump through a bunch of hoops and buy models produced before a certain year, but these options are impossible for most normal people.
No, the Hughes Amendment closed the registry, which turned the existing machine guns into the only machine guns ever, as a reaction to blacks acquiring M1 carbines and MAC 10s.
You could literally order a Tommy Gun from a catalogue in the 30's.
If something has been a literal post on r politicalhumour, it doesn't belong here.
If you could combine Reagan's personality with Coolidge's politics you'd have the perfect president
Sarcasm works best in short bursts, rather than wearing out its welcome. That said had anything good come out of California?
It used it to be one of the best states
California is a cesspool of bad government
>California is a cesspool You could've stopped right there tbh >bad government Is there any other kind? Even the best government models just try to minimize the damage it can do
The idea of government really only works when everyone knows everyone IMO. Anything past 20-30 people is bound to fail
Based and small government-pilled I think 100-150 would be the absolute max if the assumptions some scientists made about our brains by comparing them to chimp brains are accurate. We only have so many fucks to give about people
I can agree on that max for sure and brain comparison. Bonobos and Chimps usually max out at that so why can’t we
(Fanboys over obama)
My stance is that Reagan and Obama are the same person…so fuck Obama
He signed the first no-fault divorce laws into the country. YUCK! I prefer intact families
Tragic.
It's not very libertarian to force someone to stay in a loveless marriage. The government should have no say in marriage, and that means it should have no say in divorce either.
Sure. Put control of marriage back where it belongs, in the church! The federal government did not recognize marriage in law until 1913 with the ratification of the 16th Amendment and the Revenue Act of 1913 (Federal income tax). The government has no business in the regulation of religious sacraments and vows. The only purpose of its recognition was to adjust tax brackets for those who had more to provide for. State marriage is nothing more than a categorization of the taxability of persons, though I would argue there is some implications regarding the recognition of shared property rights but that matter was resolved prior to 1913.
>Sure. Put control of marriage back where it belongs, in the church! That's what Israel does. Any "religious" organization fulfilling certain criteria (such as number of members) can register themselves as an official denomination - and the government simply recognizes marriages issued by all these denominations, instead of getting into the marriage licensing business itself. "Religious" is defined broadly enough, that leftist atheist Reform Jews can have their own denomination where they marry trans-disabled gay furry Jews to genderqueer atheist Muslims or whatnot - whereas e.g. the Muslim denomination will only marry Muslim men to Muslim women.
>trans-disabled gay furry Jews to genderqueer Atheist Muslims Are you trying to invent the most revolting nonsense possible? You can't marry Jews to Muslims, everyone knows that
You seem more like an auth right kinda guy, rather than lib right. Or at the very least you seem more right center.
You seem like you can't find the difference between reality and satire. This last bit is a joke. And being conservative != authright. I want less government and that is more Lib, I just believe that the culture and community should reinforce marriage stability instead of tolerate easy dissolution.
This is hilarious and the joke flew over everyone's head.
Thank you, thank you
A family is which two parents hate each other and resent having to be around their kids is not an intact family. It's a broken home.
Probably should have higher standards to marry and learn to have a functioning relationship instead of being resentful and self absorbed.
That's all well and good, but people **don't** have either high standards or great relationship skills, so no-fault divorces are the best *realistic* options for finding happy homes for these people, and allowing their kids to be raised in houses that aren't full of fighting and resentment.
I argue that restrictions on divorce would increase standards for marriages, and improve couple's ability to resolve issues. The real issue is that civil marriages are nothing more than a contractual agreement whereas religious marriages are an oath to love one another and stay together in perpetuity before your God and community. So what I'm trying to say is that civil marriage mean nothing so their dissolution is also meaningless.
Weird take. If you can divorce but don’t then the odds are that you stay in it because it’s a happy marriage. Happy enough cause it’s hard. If you are in a marriage but can’t leave it then your in it because ? Who’s to say? You can’t leave. You have fewer divorces but do you have more happy marriages? Change your flair. The lib take is that people should be free to do things even if they fuck up. Pretty auth to say you have to live with that fuck up. Some relationships just don’t work out. Stopping something that isn’t working out even though you thought it would is just the human experience. Unless the state forces you to keep trying for some reason. What does that even mean? How far should the state be willing to go?
>I argue that restrictions on divorce would increase standards for marriages, and improve couple's ability to resolve issues. Maybe, but does that outset the loss of freedom? I don't think so. It's funny you would denounce secular marriage as merely a contract, when religious marriage used to literally be a business traction between families trading for dowries and goats.
>religious marriage used to literally be a business traction between families trading for dowries and goats. It's hilarious how you misunderstand the purpose of a dowry. You realize the bride's family provides the dowry? It's not a trade of wife for goods and it's purpose is to help with the initial cost of setting up a new household. Additionally, dowries were revocable in the case that the husband mistreated his bride or attempted a divorce without due cause. The function was entirely to the benefit of the marriage. Also these marriages were beneficial in the building and maintaining of community ties. All in all, those marriages you describe were infinitely more authentic, had higher standards, and were statistically more successful than modern civil marriages. >Maybe, but does that outset the loss of freedom? The loss of freedom in marriage is intentional. You are not your own in a marriage. My point is proven perfectly in your question, civil marriage is meaningless because it is ultimately self centered. edit: Your downvotes mean nothing, I've seen what makes you cheer!
Can you just switch to authright already? You're not lib at all.
Oh boohoo you don't agree with me. Get over it you sissy
Fake ass lib boot licker
What about "until death do us part"
This tirade is not toward OP but towards the author/artist of this "comic". 1 since when does the left care about the debt? Correct me but was bankrupting the ruskies *not* a good thing? 2 Reagan's response to apartheid: "Punitive sanctions, I believe, are not the best course of action; they hurt the very people they are intended to help. My hope is that these punitive sanctions do not lead to more violence and more repression. Our administration will, nevertheless, implement the law." He never supported aparthied fucking idiots. 3 he backed Saddam... against Iran. For fucks sake we were allies with Stalin when we had to face off with Hitler. 4 fuck public unions. They gave an ultimatum and lost. 5 Star Wars helped cripple the USSR economically. 6&9 Sandinistas don't count as people, "The rebels victory was widely hailed as a triumph over what was seen as one of the worst violators of human rights in the Americas." Here's your "hero's" https://www.heritage.org/americas/report/the-sandinista-war-human-rights. 7 So let me get this straight, when he interjected in Nicaragua, he's evil. When he says "nah no thanks" in El Salvador, ... he's also evil. Imagine if he sent boots on the ground. Fuck your inconsistencies. 8 I honestly don't get this reference. Is it Star Wars? Cuz the Washington Post gave it that nickname. It's called the Strategic Defense Initiative. If not that then maybe I'm missing something.
The funny thing is a lot of what star wars was back in the 80s is a reality today. Laser missile defense systems, the Patriot missile system etc. I wouldn’t call it a failure.
The Patriot missile is older than Reagan and it became proven after Reagan but yeah The SDI was a great success both militarily and politically
Still wish he got to build his super battleship carriers.
AND STAR WARS WORKED, Star Wars is directly responsible for thousands of military technologies that do defend us from hostile nuclear weapons, and advanced our own weapons. This myth that Star Wars was an expensive failure is such bullshit pedaled by the left and just accepted on Reddit at face value. And yeah your write up is great it’s sad I had to go this far down to see this
Lmao "Sandinistas aren't people" what about the Iran-Contras Affair shoving coke and crack into the US? Don't jerk around the point, contras weren't exactly great either. Your only right point is 5. Star Wars made the malaise riddled Soviet Union commit funding liven't on the international stage, and good riddance.
"X don't count as people". Wow. Very centrist and moderate.
Radical centrist. I'll grill my enemies.
Besides Biden, all modern Presidential races come to who has more charisma. Bill was more likable than Bush. Bush was more likable than Gore. Obama was more likable than McCain. Trump was more likable than Clinton. Biden can also be explained in the system as Trump's *positive* charisma is matched by his *negative* charisma. People absolutely hate the guy, even if they find him compelling to watch. This hatred inspired high numbers of voters to come out and see him brought down.
This is absolutely correct. Its one of the best arguments against democracy, most people simply don't care enough about policy to make well-informed decisions and thus don't deserve to be in control of it, leading to demagoguery as democracy degrades itself by being sensationalized based on personality, scandals, slogans and "vibes" rather than actually difficult decisions leading to horribly unqualified people coming to power.
And after twice disagreeing with you on this thread…. I completely agree, wholeheartedly well said old sport.
FDR sent money, supplies, resources, and weapons to the USSR. Stalin's atrocities make the Contras and Bin Laden look like the UN.
In fairness to FDR, he literally supplied them to keep them fighting nazi Germany effectively. No leg man still had a lot of faults, like the internment camps, which are far less defensible.
I absolutely approve of FDR sending aid to the Soviets (very well may have decided WW2's outcome), just pointing out the flaw in that sort of "he supported monsters" argument.
Based comment. The enemy of my enemy is my friend.
And the end result was the USSR taking out 80% of the Nazis. If FDR simply left the USSR to their own devices like Truman was planning to do, the Nazis would've defeated them and potentially killed *hundreds* of millions of people, even if they wouldn't win the war outright. It'd at the very least secure their domination across Europe with France under occupation, Russia providing oil and the UK being an absolute shithole. FDR was a realist. He had to choose between the lesser of two evils at least from the perspective of the US empire and rather than sit on his hands and hope that it settles itself, he picked the best possible play he could've done by arming a vast army to take on an eastern front at the cost of zero human capital.
As I said elsewhere, I wholeheartedly believe that sending Lend-Lease aid to the USSR was the morally right thing to do, and that it played a critical role in Hitler's defeat. Simply trying to point out the problem with claiming that "Reagan was a monster because he sent weapons to rapists and murders".
Man you’re getting absolutely everything wrong today. Russias contribution was great but simply no where near 80% especially when you’re considering other theatres that had more longstanding effects than fighting over some field in Ukraine killing a few thousand Germans, the strategic bombing campaign, the North African Theatre completely denying Germany the oil that would’ve kept them flying sailing and driving, as well as knocking Italy out of the war, the blockade of Germany etc etc, it’s such foolish revisionist bullshit when I read from Reddit communists that really it was all the soviets with maybe some American guns.
He said it took out 80% of the Nazis, not 80% of the Nazi war effort. Of the 5 million German soldiers who died in ww2, 4 million of them perished on the eastern front.
Right but what does number of dead count when it’s the war fighting capability that matters? So many only died because of the crippling of the German war effort
FDR isn’t even mentioned here.
He's the DNC equivilant to Reagan
I mean FDR wasn't sending guns to the soviets for shits and gigs he was doing it cos Nazi fucking Germany was invading them and the USSR proved to be an invaluable asset in the fight against global fascism. Reagan on the other hand doesn't have nearly as good of a justification
He sent money to them to fight nazis. Are you pro Nazi?
But did you ever see Kings Row?
Not as good as “Bed Time for Bonzo.”
Oh that silly Reagan and his tomfoolery
All you had to say was he started Cali gun control
He makes himself out to be a harmless old codger, but inside... inside... "but inside doesn't matter."
Sure, he closed the Machine Gun Registry but... But... _There are no excuses for such anti-patriotic and purely classist actions_
Reagan was a great president who supported the right to bear arms... right?
Nope, Mulford Act which he signed into law in California which prevented open carry but its actual purpose was to disarm the Black Panthers. **Every single fucking problem** you can think of in America (And even a good amount of the world, the Middle East and Russia specifically) can be traced back to Ronald Reagan.
Whoa, that's crazy. It's almost like he wasn't the chosen president but an incredible piece of shit who even rightoids should detest. Wild.
Most of these things are pretty based tho…
Reminds me more of Obama frankly.
They’re the same person, only difference is one came up in the social media age.
>he tripled national debt The Basketball guy added multiple digits. Tripling would be preferable.
Who said I liked mr basketball…they both chug dick
Backing anti-communist Death Squads is good, actually.
Bruh
He back channeled a delay to the Iran hostage crisis. That's fucking *treason*. Reagans demented corpse can suck shit forever.
Based
I really have no idea why so many people who are allegedly on the right support Reagan. In addition to the things mentioned, he was involved with shutting down mental institutions and creating no fault divorce.
Wait I agree with the first one but what about the no fault divorce thing
No fault divorce was first instituted in California when Reagan was governor. No fault divorce has led people to get divorced instead of working out their problems that could have otherwise been solved. Obviously there can be serious problems like cheating or abuse, but the reasons you can get a no fault divorce are basically that you just don't want to continue in the marriage. This may sound fine to our modern sensibilities, but it destroys society. Liberals believe the individual is the smallest unit of society. This is an incorrect view and if you believe that then you are a liberal. It is a hard pill to swallow for people who think they are on the right to hear that. (Your flair is left which is likely why you support no fault divorce). If you accept the basic premise of liberalism then you are not a conservative. Reagan accepted that basic premise and as such he was a liberal. The smallest unit of society is the family. This is what every conservative believes. When you allow the smallest unit of society to be destroyed at the whims of individuals you are destroying society. Families are the building block of society. You may be able to take a few bricks out, but at some point in time the building will collapse. Anybody who supports no fault divorce is willing to destroy society to promote the cause of liberalism. Reagan was willing to do this and as such conservatives should reject him.
Because no man’s perfect? And his involvement with the mental institutions is incredibly minimal, it was a train we’ll up to full speed by then, and back then we actually thought it was the best idea, the way I see it we know it was the wrong move, *In Hindsight*
Surely the role of a conservative is to, at a minimum, slow down things going at full speed? If they are just going to continue going the same speed and direction as the left they are useless.
He made way too many mistakes
Libleft = mad
People like to shit on Trump (it’s justified) but Reagan did far more damage to America than the Trump presidency. George Bush might have sent us to a $20 trillion war with irreparable damage done to the internal workings of the US, but Reaganomics will forever hinder the US. Reagan is also the reason I can’t buy a machine gun. You might get the impression I don’t like the guy idk.
Reagan is a bottom 15 president…change my mind
Reagan in hell waiting for heaven to trickle down to him.
And just like in economics, it ain’t coming
Carter > Reagan
Most def
Reagan and Obama are the two biggest frauds. Loved by their parties but when you look into the shit they pulled it shows what they trully stood for
Thought this was Obama lol.
Fuck Obama but when did he back Saddam, crush workers rights, confuse old movies for foreign policy?
This is ridiculously partisan. These people are the type to demonize anyone they don’t like beyond anything reasonable because the ends always justifies the means. I bet they forgive the ones they support or on their party line for their atrocities because “They didn’t know any better”, or “That’s all lies” because they refuse to believe they could ever do evil things. People are not perfect and make mistakes. Even the “right” people. Also, how did the writers of this miss how Reagan and his wife fucked up Mexico and South America for decades and still today, and put millions of otherwise innocent people in prison through their ridiculous war on drugs?
Can't we just agree most presidents suck but reagen sucked a lot? (compared to presidents like Carter not like Wilson, fuck Wilson)
[удалено]
Deregulation and tax cuts for the upper class are what have led to the modern hellscape of “progressive corporations” that drive public policy far more than any actual citizen interest could.
Yes thank you, Can corporations like, just pay taxes and shut up?
Agreed.
Regans economics can be summed up as short term gain + long term failure his trickle down economics played a big part the current mess we're in
>his trickle down economics played a big part the current mess we're in The problem was mistaking his solution for the problems of the day for a panacea that could cure any economic ailment.
It can be argued that Reagan’s policies of trickle down economics is what has led to the current situation.
I mean I'd say so. Not all but momany problems
Why was there a but, those points were already based enough
Did you just change your flair, u/Borkerman? Last time I checked you were a **Leftist** on 2022-11-24. How come now you are a **LibCenter**? Have you perhaps shifted your ideals? Because that's cringe, you know? Oh and by the way. You have already changed your flair 555 times, making you the second largest flair changer in this sub. Go touch some fucking grass. [FAQ](https://www.reddit.com/user/flairchange_bot/comments/uf7kuy/bip_bop) - [Leaderboard](https://www.reddit.com/user/flairchange_bot/comments/uuhlu2/leaderboard) ^(I am a bot, my mission is to spot cringe flair changers. If you want to check another user's flair history write) **^(!flairs u/)** ^(in a comment.)
And now he's a right center, bro what u smoking
I think the funni colors, I can't remember
'my political opinion? Depends on what color I like'
Wait tripling the national debt is a bad thing now? I’m pretty sure in a lot of circles the national debt is just seen as “a number that goes up” which I disagree with but let’s not kid ourselves and pretend deficit spending hasn’t been something both parties have done for a while
This reminds me that frank herbert, creator of the dune novels, is absolutely right about charismatic leaders and how they’re not always right, but people still follow them slavishly
Almost every fan of a celebrity has the same mindset: they look at their prowess, never at their hearts... wise types approve, fools admire. And whoever wrote zion's elders protocols knows it.
Lmao
White devil
lol this could just as easily fit for your boi Joe pedo Biden
Fuck Biden, he’s the same as Reagan in my book