58% approval ratings

you left out the pope and the catholic church nearly bankrupting itself to help Polands movement towards freedom.

and you don't seem to have any idea that the reason the old guard Russsian military generals let go was because they realized they could not keep up with Regan's military and Star wars spending.
Russia was spending 25 to 35 percent of their GDP on the military and they knew they could not match up with Reagans new spending on new tech.

This gave gorbachev the opening he needed to reform.

I was in school in D.C. studying this with professors who were briefing congress and writing the reports at the time. I watched the predictions one of my professors made happen a very short time after making them. It was very exciting and a being aware of the danger was wild.

he said it was a dangerous time and that eventually the soviet union was going to have problems because Reagan's military spending accelerated their demise. The generals had to admit they could not keep up. They ceded their power to Gorbachev and reform.

The professor explained in 1985 that there would be a reckoning because the USSR had their natural resources in one area, their food in another and their people in another and they could not continue to spend some much of their GDP on the military yet alone spend more. He explained that Reagan policies were not giving them the time they needed to restructure and it would cause them to implode. This professor at GWU briefed Congress on the Russian economy... and pretty much nailed what was about to happened. He told congress they needed to be ready to pick up the pieces and help usher one the USSR broker apart.


Russian historians? I'm sure there is one or two who makes mention of him favorably. Please give a name though? Reagan was out of office when the wall came down and a lot more had to do with Poland & Lech Walesa. Regan was not insignificant, he was pally with Gorbachev and that helped but the St. Regan revisionism is bullshit. The US contributed a lot of pressure but constant intellectual & propaganda pressure from the various European nations should be credited for a lot. Would Regan have stayed the course without Maggie for example?

Regan was the visibly aged leader of a lame duck administration clouded by scandal and corruption, Iran-Contra in particular when he made the tear down the wall speech. Which was not very well covered in the global media as he was a senile joke to most of the world at the time.

One could credit Carter for sneakily letting the Russians into Afghanistan unopposed :) They bit off more than they could chew there and that demoralised them greatly. Or you could say point out what stupid fucker(s) sided/funded the Mujahedin, setting up the Taliban..

My girlfriend's grandfather back then was involved in you name it military programs from the 50s thru the early 90s. He worked at area 51 for years (allegedly) ;). The events of 1989 were a surprise to them and they were the spook's spooks.

I understand the attachment to the 80s as you guys got to wallow in greed but get real crediting Regan so much with the collapse of the USSR. The Soviets had a large part in their own demise, Brezhnev the fault much of this.
 
Yes, Walter Mondale for the Dems, what a tiger he was and running with a female VP might have been a bit ahead of his time.

I recall he was from Minnesota? I recon Tom B is from there as he has that special kind of stupid you get in Minnesota.

I quite liked Regan in reality, most did. Regan would be a liberal by 2017 GOP standards anyway. What I don't like is giving credit where it is not due but he did not make himself a mythical figure.
You can't even spell Reagan's name you imbecile. The rest of your post is complete bullshit.
 
You can't even spell Reagan's name you imbecile. The rest of your post is complete bullshit.

So you ARE from Minnesota then? hehe. Fun teasing the spectrum kid. Ok not that much fun.

Oh my, my bad Tom B. Regan & Reagan are the same to me, just anglicised spellings of Ó Riagáin or Ó Ríogáin. In school we used the Irish language names for Irish families. All the best loudmouth Republicans in American politics are Irish though don'tcha know.

@jem, I have no great issues with Ronnie as an iconic man. He was a big man on the world stage for sure however excess 20/20 revisionism makes me fell ill. I was there, I remember the 80s and I'm not as convinced that Reagan was calling his shots as much as others credit him. There was a cost to Reagan's approach. I can't think of a good analogy really but it is like a doctor curing a distressing disease by giving you a different one.

Charles Krauthammer (feel free to correct me again Tom B) coined the term "Reagan Doctrine" I believe? It seemed to me that afterwards Reagan realised, oh that is what I am doing? oh okeydokey then!. I am trivialising of course but there was a disconnect between the first and second term.

The collapse of the Soviet Union in my mind anyway was a like snow building in unstable ways to form an avalanche waiting for a final trigger. Much of the process was mindless erosion. I personally credit Gorbachev with 70% of the final sequence. Reagan's squeezing did have an effect but it would have been dismissed by a healthier, younger Soviet state. It was fortunate for Reagan the old guard hung on a little too long.

So you credit Reagan for creating certain contributing conditions and I credit a far longer chain of events within the USSR.

Hairsplitting perhaps but what was actually said and done vs what was interpreted matters to me anyway*. I just dread the day when Trump's face is put on mount Rushmore by those who concoct a glowingly revisionist past for him.

*"We will bury you" for example. Did he mean that or we will be present at your funeral?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/We_will_bury_you
 
Last edited:
Obama coming into office with a 1.2 trillion dollar deficit,2 wars with hundreds of thousands of troops overseas and the worst economy since the great depression had a lot to do with that.

Obama leaving office with 20 trillion in debt and the worst recovery from a recession EVER had a lot to do with Trump winning.
Here's a fact: If the economy is doing well in 2020, Trump is a lock.
 
Obama leaving office with 20 trillion in debt and the worst recovery from a recession EVER had a lot to do with Trump winning.
Here's a fact: If the economy is doing well in 2020, Trump is a lock.


A system that allows a candidate to win even though another candidate got millions more votes had a lot to do with Trump winning
 
Yes. It's a beautiful thing isn't it?

The revenge of the Flyover States.

Versus Trump who went to northern Maine three times to get their ONE electoral vote.

http://www.pressherald.com/2016/11/...own-hands-after-bitter-presidential-campaign/

Trump takes 1 of Maine’s 4 electoral votes, in a first for the state
Hillary Clinton wins the state, but Donald Trump wins in the 2nd Congressional District as Maine splits its electoral votes for the first time.

Ok I understand now. So there was a quirk that allowed a part of Maine which was favorable to Trump's populism give him a usable vote.

Or a low hanging fruit his campaign guy was clever enough to see.

Speaking of re-framing things in a better light, is the popular story of the purpose of the electoral college accurate? In the time, giving the 'flyover states' a chance was perhaps secondary to the north/south divide. Maybe a bit of both.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/electoral-college-slavery-constitution
 
http://www.pressherald.com/2016/11/...own-hands-after-bitter-presidential-campaign/

Trump takes 1 of Maine’s 4 electoral votes, in a first for the state
Hillary Clinton wins the state, but Donald Trump wins in the 2nd Congressional District as Maine splits its electoral votes for the first time.

Ok I understand now. So there was a quirk that allowed a part of Maine which was favorable to Trump's populism give him a usable vote.

Or a low hanging fruit his campaign guy was clever enough to see.

Speaking of re-framing things in a better light, is the popular story of the purpose of the electoral college accurate? In the time, giving the 'flyover states' a chance was perhaps secondary to the north/south divide. Maybe a bit of both.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/electoral-college-slavery-constitution


Heh. Low hanging fruit to keep trying for one vote in a district that went to the dems in the previous election. I think that is called "campaigning."

Meanwhile Hillary failed to campaign in districts that solidly went with Obama the previous time. These were areas where she labeled them as deplorables, who would never vote for anyone other than some old white guy. Completely ignoring that they voted twice for a young black guy. This is called "not-campaigning." See if you can spot the difference. Hillary could not.
 
Heh. Low hanging fruit to keep trying for one vote in a district that went to the dems in the previous election. I think that is called "campaigning."

Meanwhile Hillary failed to campaign in districts that solidly went with Obama the previous time. These were areas where she labeled them as deplorables, who would never vote for anyone other than some old white guy. Completely ignoring that they voted twice for a young black guy. This is called "not-campaigning." See if you can spot the difference. Hillary could not.

Ok Treefrog, Hillary was a disaster, that does not make Trump Alexander the Great. He won a two horse race because of weird shit with Comey and a score of other things he had no hand in.

He did well in Maine. But was that from Trump's mind or something professional campaign strategists have been dying to try since the 1900s (or whenever) and one got the chance?


Edited: the way you wrote "in a district that went to the dems in the previous election" concerns me that you really don't have a grasp on reality.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top