Curious..............

[SaltyTiger 8,581]

49 minutes ago, auburnatl1 said:

Had the gop nominated virtually anyone but Trump, this election would probably already be over. 

Instead - mental decline vs sociopathic nuts seems to be an uninspiring choice for many.

I understand and can agree. What the GOP should have done in this election is not the intent of this thread. It appeared to be about thoughts on Biden’s decline vs Reagan. Obviously the thread is nothing more than the OP wanting to take shots at Reagan and opinions he doesn’t agree with. I was called a liar for giving an opinion. 

[homersapien 12,247]

2 hours ago, Mims44 said:

Letting a sitting president who is losing his mental acuity stay around to finish his term is one thing. Trying to re-elect them is another. The republicans could have had an easy slam dunk win over Biden running a lot of different candidates. Instead they decided to once again run with the lame horse Trump. They'll have no one but themselves to blame for four more years of Biden imo.

You sound like Republicans can actually control who they run for president. They are now the party of Trump.  Trump controls them.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/06/03/larry-hogan-lara-trump-rnc/

[homersapien 12,247]

https://www.foxnews.com/us/new-presidential-rankings-place-obama-top-10-reagan-trump-below-biden

New presidential rankings place Obama in top 10, Reagan and Trump below Biden

Some recent presidents were more likely to have a partisan divide in rankings

[aubiefifty 18,260]

44 minutes ago, SaltyTiger said:

I understand and can agree. What the GOP should have done in this election is not the intent of this thread. It appeared to be about thoughts on Biden’s decline vs Reagan. Obviously the thread is nothing more than the OP wanting to take shots at Reagan and opinions he doesn’t agree with. I was called a liar for giving an opinion. 

what dirty bastid called you that?

[auburnatl1 6,189]

26 minutes ago, homersapien said:

https://www.foxnews.com/us/new-presidential-rankings-place-obama-top-10-reagan-trump-below-biden

New presidential rankings place Obama in top 10, Reagan and Trump below Biden

Some recent presidents were more likely to have a partisan divide in rankings

Struggle with that. Love him or hate him, imo Reagan was the most consequential president since fdr.

[aubiefifty 18,260]

1 minute ago, auburnatl1 said:

Struggle with that. Love him or hate him, imo Reagan was the most consequential president since fdr.

i have a ronnie shirt that says i smell hippies............

[auburnatl1 6,189]

4 minutes ago, aubiefifty said:

i have a ronnie shirt that says i smell hippies............

It’s too terrifying for me to even imagine the variety of shirts you have in your bedroom closet.

Edited June 6 by auburnatl1

[aubiefifty 18,260]

1 minute ago, auburnatl1 said:

It’s too terrifying for me to even imagine the variety of shirts you have in your bedroom closet.

if we are not talking trump i am one of the nicest people you will ever meet. you can take the to the bank. but i can see how you would arrive at that conclusion.

[auburnatl1 6,189]

3 minutes ago, aubiefifty said:

if we are not talking trump i am one of the nicest people you will ever meet. you can take the to the bank. but i can see how you would arrive at that conclusion.

I’m sure you are. Was just teasing.

[aubiefifty 18,260]

1 minute ago, auburnatl1 said:

I’m sure you are. Was just teasing.

look i am fine with anyone not liking me but i just want you and others to know i would never hurt anyone ever. well maybe their feelings..............i have a lot of respect for you and we disagree on some stuff. but come at me anytime. natty you are a champ in my book...............and i am not even high yet.

[homersapien 12,247]

36 minutes ago, auburnatl1 said:

Struggle with that. Love him or hate him, imo Reagan was the most consequential president since fdr.

In popular opinion maybe, but objective historians and presidential scholars don't agree, and never have.

Edited June 6 by homersapien

[homersapien 12,247]

Apparently, my OP link is not available.  Here's another, chosen at random:

https://www.c-span.org/presidentsurvey2021/?page=overall

[aubiefifty 18,260]

ronnie and oliver killed poor women and children while he was in power. they supposedly went behind his back. i would not like our own soldiers killing innocent intentionally.

[homersapien 12,247]

Anyone really interested in Reagan's legacy - and wants an objective analysis should read Haynes'   "Sleepwalking Through History"

https://www.amazon.com/Sleepwalking-Through-History-America-Reagan/dp/0393324346

[auburnatl1 6,189]

14 minutes ago, homersapien said:

In popular opinion maybe, but objective historians and presidential scholars don't agree, and never have.

Bad news. I agree with the unwashed masses of “popular opinion” on this one.

[homersapien 12,247]

2 minutes ago, auburnatl1 said:

Bad news. I agree with the unwashed masses of “popular opinion” on this one.

Well, there is the saying "perception is reality". 

While that may be true in a political sense, it doesn't reflect actual reality, which is all that matters in my opinion. 

For example, the explosive growth in federal debt started under Reagan:

"During Reagan's presidency, the federal debt held by the public nearly tripled in nominal terms, from $738 billion to $2.1 trillion."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaganomics

 

[aubiefifty 18,260]

9 minutes ago, auburnatl1 said:

Bad news. I agree with the unwashed masses of “popular opinion” on this one.

you have that right big shooter.

[auburnatl1 6,189]

Just now, homersapien said:

Well, there is the saying "perception is reality". 

While that may be true in a political sense, it doesn't reflect actual reality, which is all that matters in my opinion. 

For example, the explosive growth in federal debt started under Reagan:

"During Reagan's presidency, the federal debt held by the public nearly tripled in nominal terms, from $738 billion to $2.1 trillion."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaganomics

 

Without a doubt his greatest failure. But his significant impact on the collapse of the Soviet Union, peacefully, was a multigenerational transformation to the state of the world (ps we won’t agree on Reagan)

[homersapien 12,247]

20 minutes ago, auburnatl1 said:

Without a doubt his greatest failure. But his significant impact on the collapse of the Soviet Union, peacefully, was a multigenerational transformation to the state of the world (ps we won’t agree on Reagan)

The failure of the Soviet Union was underway and would have happened with or without Reagan.  (But I will give him credit for accelerating the process - which was arguably the driver of the debt.)  Bottom line, I would give Gorbachev more credit than Reagan for that.

Domestically, he was clearly a neoliberal. "Reaganomics" had very bad consequences for many vulnerable communities - particularly the mentally ill - and promoted longer term wealth disparities.

You're right, we won't agree about Reagan.

Edited June 6 by homersapien

[homersapien 12,247]

Speaking of Reagan - and not to hijack the thread - but here's a piece highlighting Reagan's perspective of U.S. power, and it's role in the world which is in stark contrast to Trump's isolationism.

https://www.politico.com/news/2024/06/06/biden-inspiration-reagan-normandy-visit-00161888

Biden’s team takes from Reagan’s playbook as he heads to Normandy

 

[aubiefifty 18,260]

37 minutes ago, auburnatl1 said:

Without a doubt his greatest failure. But his significant impact on the collapse of the Soviet Union, peacefully, was a multigenerational transformation to the state of the world (ps we won’t agree on Reagan)

i admit that was a great thing! i had forgotten that. i will give the man props for that.

[SaltyTiger 8,581]

2 hours ago, aubiefifty said:

what dirty bastid called you that?

You

[Mims44 2,009]

2 hours ago, homersapien said:

You sound like Republicans can actually control who they run for president. They are now the party of Trump.  Trump controls them.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/06/03/larry-hogan-lara-trump-rnc/

There's too many passive republicans.

I go out around TN, AL, GA. Actual Trump fans are a minority. Lots don't seem to want him and are embarrassed by him. Even if they agree with his policies by and large, they can't stand his nature/antics/crimes/etc.

However, anything political going on... all those republicans disappear and it's maga goofballs as far as the eye can see. It's astounding he can get so little support in small conversations. And such an insane amount of support when it matters.

Maybe after taking another L they'll wise up.

Or I guess more likely, he'll be selling Trump2028 bumper stickers. 😕 

[auburnatl1 6,189]

1 hour ago, homersapien said:

The failure of the Soviet Union was underway and would have happened with or without Reagan.  (But I will give him credit for accelerating the process - which was arguably the driver of the debt.)  Bottom line, I would give Gorbachev more credit than Reagan for that.

Domestically, he was clearly a neoliberal. "Reaganomics" had very bad consequences for many vulnerable communities - particularly the mentally ill - and promoted longer term wealth disparities.

You're right, we won't agree about Reagan.

The heart of the disagreement.

[homersapien 12,247]

Nevertheless, Reagan actually increased the size of government, although at a slightly lower rate than the previous president. 

"The number of federal civilian employees increased 4.2% during Reagan's eight years, compared to 6.5% during the preceding eight years." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaganomics

 

On the other hand, Bill Clinton reduced the size of the government workforce with the "Federal Workforce Restructuring Act of 1994". https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/PPP-1994-book1/pdf/PPP-1994-book1-doc-pg561.pdf

""The big downsizing happened during the Clinton years as part of reinventing government," Kettl said. "And that ended up reducing the size of government significantly. But during the [George W.] Bush administration there was an increase in employment, especially because of TSA. So there is a paradox there." https://www.federaltimes.com/management/2016/01/08/5-shifts-that-transformed-federal-service/

 

And even Obama had a reform based agenda focused on "Performance Based Budgeting" (PBB) https://spp.umd.edu/sites/default/files/2021-10/Obama Administration PBB.pdf

https://www.fraserinstitute.org/article/proper-size-governments

 

My only point is that Reagan - and Republicans - are not uniquely the 'be all/end all' when it comes to reducing the size of government and/or increasing it's efficiency.

 

Edited June 6 by homersapien