Attention Republicans: Stop being corporatists.

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
mmm

There's an echo in here, for sure. awesome

Originally posted by King Kandy
I'm not a fan of his foreign policy, either. There is really no proof that Reagan "defeated' the iron curtain; it was headed for destruction based on the inherent instability of not having the support of it's citizens.

The biggest problem though, is he inspired two things that still **** stuff up today: One, the reckless spending and incredible debt that has been built up since then (he was the first president to not give a shit about the deficit). Two, the notion that the government has no place regulating businesses. Well I think the consequences of that one should be pretty obvious.

Well, I don't see it that way, but you first: point me, logically, to reasons why Red Communism would have fallen, without NATO's pressure, primarily back by Reagan's agenda's? I really can't see it happening with NATO (Reagan), at all.

The USSR could no longer keep any control because shortages were causing people to realize they were being screwed under communism, mainly because movements like Perestroika allowed them to realize they were worse off than other countries. This caused an internal pressure for change.

Really? you're asking for proof that Reagan was one of the main pieces in the take-down of soviet russia? you ARE a victim of the american public school system. Very well.

There is no empirical scientific proof of how much Ronald Reagan took part in the aversion of a nuclear holocaust, because the cold war was a poker game, but here are the bare-boned facts:

He built up america's missile defense.

He severely attacked soviet russia's reputation among other countries with strong words such as "evil empire"

using economics, he crippled russia even more than its pitiful government could:

After President Reagan's military buildup, the Soviet Union did not further dramatically build up its military;[192] the enormous military expenses, in combination with collectivized agriculture and inefficient planned manufacturing, were a heavy burden for the Soviet economy.[193] At the same time, the Reagan Administration persuaded Saudi Arabia to increase oil production,[194] which resulted in a drop of oil prices in 1985 to one-third of the previous level; oil was the main source of Soviet export revenues.[193] These factors gradually brought the Soviet economy to a stagnant state during Gorbachev's tenure.[193]

He was the one doing the diplomacy with Mikhail.

Ronald Reagan recognized the change in the direction of the Soviet leadership with Mikhail Gorbachev, and shifted to diplomacy, with a view to encourage the Soviet leader to pursue substantial arms agreements.[195] Reagan's personal mission was to achieve "a world free of nuclear weapons," which he regarded as "totally irrational, totally inhumane, good for nothing but killing, possibly destructive of life on earth and civilization."[196][197][198] He was able to start discussions on nuclear disarmament with General Secretary Gorbachev.[198] Gorbachev and Reagan held four summit conferences between 1985 and 1988: the first in Geneva, Switzerland, the second in Reykjavík, Iceland, the third in Washington, D.C., and the fourth in Moscow.[199] Reagan believed that if he could persuade the Soviets to allow for more democracy and free speech, this would lead to reform and the end of Communism.

I'm not saying he was THE GUY who SINGLEHANDEDLY did it, but he was the KEY PLAYER.

Also, if you want to talk economics:

During Jimmy Carter's last year in office (1980), inflation averaged 12.5%, compared to 4.4% during Reagan's last year in office (1988).[101] Over those eight years, the unemployment rate declined from 7.5% to 5.3%, hitting highs of 9.7% (1982) and 9.6% (1983) and averaging 7.5% during Reagan's administration.

Originally posted by King Kandy
The USSR could no longer keep any control because shortages were causing people to realize they were being screwed under communism, mainly because movements like Perestroika allowed them to realize they were worse off than other countries. This caused an internal pressure for change.

Originally posted by Moriarty
He built up america's missile defense.

Originally posted by Moriarty
He severely attacked soviet russia's reputation among other countries with strong words such as "evil empire"

Originally posted by Moriarty
using economics, he crippled russia even more than its pitiful government could:

Originally posted by Moriarty
He was the one doing the diplomacy with Mikhail.

Originally posted by Moriarty
Also, if you want to talk economics:
The guy's economics were not bad at all. A serious improvement over the previous management.

Originally posted by Moriarty
IT would have taken far longer to die if it had been left alone, and it probably would have been turned into a bloody revolt instead of a diffusion which turned Russia into a democracy.

"You can tell a lot about a fella's character by whether he picks out all of one color or just grabs a handful."
- Ronald Reagan, explaining why he liked to have a jar of jelly beans on hand during meetings.

Originally posted by King Kandy
[B]And that mattered how? I don't remember the time our missile defense shields destroyed the soviet government.

I somehow doubt this had an effect. Every important country by then already had a stance on the soviet union, I doubt any country on earth changed it's mind because Reagan said "evil empire".

He did contribute to this, I will admit, in that he hurt oil exports. The shortages Russia suffered were the same shortages it had always been suffering because it's climate is simply not suited for a high-population country. In any case, internal factors mattered more than Reagan in this case.

And this diplomacy caused the soviet union to collapse?

Originally posted by King Kandy
I have got to say, your evidence for this claim has been severally lacking. All you really proved is that Reagan tried to end the USSR, not that the things he did actually caused it to end.

I actually am pretty sure I made that point.

Originally posted by Moriarty
People aren't going to surrender when they think they can win.

Originally posted by Moriarty
Thank you for doubting. Now, please prove it.

Originally posted by Moriarty
I never said reagan destroyed russia's economy. (that was a typo, btw, I meant that he destroyed russias economy even more, not even more than they could, derpa derp)

Originally posted by Moriarty
I think his becoming such fast and firm friends with mikhail gorbachev really actually averted the missile crisis. It didn't really kill the soviet union.

And if it didn't end the soviet union, then you are severally lacking in reasons for what DID end it. I can tell you what didn't: Reagan. Basically, based on what you've offered your main point is that Reagan "tough talked" the USSR into submission. Forgive me for being skeptical of that one.

Originally posted by Moriarty
Um, the claim that had Mikhail not been diplomatic with Reagan, he wouldn't have ever surrendered to the US, and as a result the ussr would have gone on until its economy crashed and desperate hungry citizens dismantled its cruel government?

I actually am pretty sure I made that point.

Originally posted by King Kandy
He had everyone fooled, don't be hard on yourself. I mean there were Reagan democrats. He had charisma, i'll say that. So did Hitler.

And so does Obama. What's the difference? 🙄

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
And so does Obama. What's the difference? 🙄

Presumably that having charisma doesn't suddenly make you as pure as the driven snow.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Presumably that having charisma doesn't suddenly make you as pure as the driven snow.

Did you read the post I quoted? King Kandy implied that "He had charisma (Reagan), i'll say that. So did Hitler"

Maybe you should ask King Kandy that question.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Did you read the post I quoted? King Kandy implied that "He had charisma (Reagan), i'll say that. So did Hitler"

So you consider Hitler as pure as the driven snow. I'll, uh, keep that in mind.

😛

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Maybe you should ask King Kandy that question.

What question?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
So you consider Hitler as pure as the driven snow. I'll, uh, keep that in mind.

😛

What question?

I think comparing Reagan to Hitler is equal to comparing Obama to Hitler. If it is valid for one, then, I think, it is valid for the other.

You ask what question? Try this one: Does having charisma mean you are good or evil?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I think comparing Reagan to Hitler is equal to comparing Obama to Hitler. If it is valid for one, then, I think, it is valid for the other.

no they aren't

the comparison to hitler is, in the way it is used here, a rhetorical device meant to attach the negative sentiment of "hitler" to the quality "charisma", and then attach it to these individuals.

Hitler wasn't exceptionally charasmatic, he said the things Germans already believed and wanted to hear. He had some skills as an orator, but there is really no evidence that he was this genius man with a silver tongue that our colloquial history remembers him as.

Reagan had a little more charisma, but he was also an actor. While it is likely that his "grandfatherly" demenor was genuine, he benefitted from the "out of the churches and into the streets" conservatism that was rising in the 80s. For a huge number of christians, the republicans could have ran a watermellon, so long as it claimed to be an anti-liberal christian, and still won.

Obama is a marketing success. He beat out FAR more "charasmatic" democratic nominees (John Edward for instance) because of the media apparatus that almost unanimously declared him president before even the democratic primaries were over. In fact, the more astute comparison between the three is that they said the exact things that a motivated and large enough group in society wanted to hear (in the case for Obama, he physically represented one of the goals of the 60s). I wouldn't even call it opportunism, because I don't think any of them planned such a manipulation from the top down, they just happened to be the exact right person for the masses at the right time.

Bush jr, imho, probably had more just raw charisma than these guys, as even being opposed to his every political decision, thinking he is a moron, etc, I am left with this overwhelming sense that he is just a down to earth decent guy who was in way over his head, and he just wanted to be a rich daddy's boy and hang out on a ranch. That probably is a lot of marketing as well, but meh.

/rant

Originally posted by inimalist
no they aren't

the comparison to hitler is, in the way it is used here, a rhetorical device meant to attach the negative sentiment of "hitler" to the quality "charisma", and then attach it to these individuals....

Therefore, the comparison of Obama to Hitler works in the same way. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

BTW I didn't read all of your rant. Maybe later when I have more time.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Therefore, the comparison of Obama to Hitler works in the same way. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

BTW I didn't read all of your rant. Maybe later when I have more time.

it is the same in the way that the comparison doesn't work...

or that "charisma" is a quality that was not as important to these individuals as we tend to believe.

I think any comparison to Hitler is pretty useless though

Originally posted by inimalist
it is the same in the way that the comparison doesn't work...

or that "charisma" is a quality that was not as important to these individuals as we tend to believe.

I think any comparison to Hitler is pretty useless though

The comparison does not work. It is a week comparison that is more iconic then it is meaningful.