SCOTUS

[Non Sequitur]

Disagree. He was a very good president.

He was a good president if you ignore Iran-Contra and you ignore that he continued to support Saddam Hussein, even after it was revealed Hussein had used chemical weapons against his own people. You would also want to ignore that he tripled the national debt during his two terms and that under him the unemployment rate grew to over 10%. We should also ignore that his policies ushered in the Savings and Load crisis and that he opposed support for AIDs research and that he vetoed a bill supporting an end to apartheid in South Africa. We should also ignore that he leads even Trump in the number of Administration and Cabinet officials who were indicted for crimes, and like Trump, he never met a strong-man despot he didn't cozy up to (unless, of course they were communist, otherwise the more ruthless the better). There's a lot of other bad stuff that should probably be ignored if you want to call him a really good president, but I will grant you that he came off as affable and charismatic. I should disclose, however, that at the time Reagan was elected, there was no bigger Reagan fan on earth than I.

[YOhio]

He was a good president if you ignore Iran-Contra and you ignore that he continued to support Saddam Hussein, even after it was revealed Hussein had used chemical weapons against his own people. You would also want to ignore that he tripled the national debt during his two terms and that under him the unemployment rate grew to over 10%. We should also ignore that his policies ushered in the Savings and Load crisis and that he opposed support for AIDs research and that he vetoed a bill supporting an end to apartheid in South Africa. We should also ignore that he leads even Trump in the number of Administration and Cabinet officials who were indicted for crimes, and like Trump, he never met a strong-man despot he didn't cozy up to (unless, of course they were communist, otherwise the more ruthless the better). There's a lot of other bad stuff that should probably be ignored if you want to call him a really good president, but I will grant you that he came off as affable and charismatic. I should disclose, however, that at the time Reagan was elected, there was no bigger Reagan fan on earth than I.

Savings and Load

[Jeff Lebowski]

Ending the Cold War was pretty cool.

[USUC]

He was a good president if you ignore Iran-Contra and you ignore that he continued to support Saddam Hussein, even after it was revealed Hussein had used chemical weapons against his own people. You would also want to ignore that he tripled the national debt during his two terms and that under him the unemployment rate grew to over 10%. We should also ignore that his policies ushered in the Savings and Load crisis and that he opposed support for AIDs research and that he vetoed a bill supporting an end to apartheid in South Africa. We should also ignore that he leads even Trump in the number of Administration and Cabinet officials who were indicted for crimes, and like Trump, he never met a strong-man despot he didn't cozy up to (unless, of course they were communist, otherwise the more ruthless the better). There's a lot of other bad stuff that should probably be ignored if you want to call him a really good president, but I will grant you that he came off as affable and charismatic. I should disclose, however, that at the time Reagan was elected, there was no bigger Reagan fan on earth than I.

This is the most libertarian breakdown I've seen on here.

I'd still take Reagan over any of the presidents we've had over the last 30 years.

[Non Sequitur]

This is the most libertarian breakdown I've seen on here.

I'd still take Reagan over any of the presidents we've had over the last 30 years.

That's needlessly unkind.

[Non Sequitur]

Ending the Cold War was pretty cool.

That was an incredibly significant accomplishment, and I give him a ton of credit for that. He stood up to Russia, because he knew Russia was one of our greatest threats. It was true then, and it's true now. It's why I suggested earlier that Reagan must be rolling in his grave, watching the way Trump continually cowers and presents himself to Putin.

[Shaka]

He was a good president if you ignore Iran-Contra and you ignore that he continued to support Saddam Hussein, even after it was revealed Hussein had used chemical weapons against his own people. You would also want to ignore that he tripled the national debt during his two terms and that under him the unemployment rate grew to over 10%. We should also ignore that his policies ushered in the Savings and Load crisis and that he opposed support for AIDs research and that he vetoed a bill supporting an end to apartheid in South Africa. We should also ignore that he leads even Trump in the number of Administration and Cabinet officials who were indicted for crimes, and like Trump, he never met a strong-man despot he didn't cozy up to (unless, of course they were communist, otherwise the more ruthless the better). There's a lot of other bad stuff that should probably be ignored if you want to call him a really good president, but I will grant you that he came off as affable and charismatic. I should disclose, however, that at the time Reagan was elected, there was no bigger Reagan fan on earth than I.

I'll not comment on the other stuff but Reagan had a good point in oopposing the anti-apartheid bill. Ultimately, those sanctions hurt the blacks of South Africa far more than they did white South Africans. The South African government adapted and there were plenty of foriegn nations that were willing to do business with South Africa, many of them bad actors. Personally, I supported the bill but when I got to South Africa in 1989 I got to see firsthand why Reagan had concern. The notion that Reagan was pro-apartheid is nonsense. The disagreement was simply in the method to effect change. The same debate raged in South Africa.

Reform in South Africa was already in the pipe. The National Party was full of reformers like Pik Botha who knew the days of apartheid were numbered. The biggest concern was how to transition without the country going up in flames. It was interesting being there when Mandela got out. The consensus was that the AWB or some other fringe group would assasinate him and everything would go down the tubes. Fortunately, that didn't happen.

[frank ryan]

This is a good point. The only thing I think we can say with some degree of certainty is that Reagan would be pretty pissed that Republicans are resisting the chance to stick it to Russia.

Reagan would hate the hell out of Trump.
I think Reagan's robust commitment to NATO and national security were crucial. He'd probably want to kick the shit out of castrated Tucker Carlson for playing his own version of Hanoi Jane or Tokyo Rose.
His handling of a lot of other things, including confederate crap, was pretty shitty. His southern states strategy was seen as politically effective but not morally courageous.
Reagan had cross party appeal though and sure spoke about his political opposition a lot differently than Donald does.

[Clark Addison]

I am admittedly not a huge Reagan fan, but one of the things I really miss about his worldview was his optimism about America and its future. I leaned Democratic in the 80s and 90s, but one of the things that always bugged me about the Democrats at the time was that they were always whiny and negative about everything, while Reagan was always "America is so great that we will shoot down Russkie missiles with our space lasers and then help the world be as awesome as we are".

Today's Republican party is about as pessimistic, cynical, and conspiracy-minded as is possible. At least the Trump part of it is, which dominates. I miss the optimism.

[Commando]

I have mixed feelings about Reagan. Lots of bad domestic policies but a successful presidency and pretty great foreign policy. I also agree that Reagan treated his political adversaries the right way; the way Trump does it sucks balls and is frankly disqualifying(to say nothing about the myriad of other disqualifying traits and misdeeds). It's embarrassing so many people condone it.

[Non Sequitur]

I have mixed feelings about Reagan. Lots of bad domestic policies but a successful presidency and pretty great foreign policy. I also agree that Reagan treated his political adversaries the right way; the way Trump does it sucks balls and is frankly disqualifying(to say nothing about the myriad of other disqualifying traits and misdeeds). It's embarrassing so many people condone it.

I too have mixed feelings about Reagan, but it's mostly funeral vision. You go to a funeral and hear all the tributes and then the eulogy and forget what a dick the person was in real life.

[All-American]

I'm increasingly of the opinion that the worst-case scenario of the Trump 14th Amendment case is also the most likely outcome. SCOTUS may very well decide that the decision of the Colorado Supreme Court was wrong, but on purely procedural grounds-- i.e., that the State of Colorado either did not use or altogether lacks a procedure that can exclude a presidential candidate on the basis that the candidate was ineligible as a result of participating in an insurrection.

A ruling along those lines does not take off the table the notion that Trump did, in fact, participate in an insurrection, and therefore is, in fact, ineligible to be president. But a state might not get to adjudicate that question, at least not in advance of casting electoral votes or that president taking a seat. One theory, for example, is that the 14th amendment might make some officers ineligible to serve, but that doesn't mean they can't be voted on or even elected. That, they say, would allow a congressional supermajority to consider removing the disability between election and when the person takes office.

Anybody want to bet that Congress would be willing to do that for Trump?

If that's the road they go down, some frightening scenarios are on the table. They include Trump being on the ballot (itself shudder-worthy), getting the nomination, being elected, and then being denied access to the office-- possibly because the electoral college won't certify him (irony of ironies) or someone challenges his authority to act as president (possibly invoking the specter of removing him after he gains office).

Anybody want to bet that Trump would take that lying down?

Even if the Court reverses the Colorado Supreme Court, expect at least one or two justices to try on for size one of the nuttier theories that would take ineligibility off the table-- like the President not being an officer of the United States. Personally, I find that argument laughable-- is the Pope Catholic?-- but I think the appeal of reaching a more permanent answer to the 14th amendment question will be irresistible.

If the Court reverses on these purely procedural grounds, outcomes are very much in play that would make January 6 look like a tea party.

[Pelado]

I'm increasingly of the opinion that the worst-case scenario of the Trump 14th Amendment case is also the most likely outcome. SCOTUS may very well decide that the decision of the Colorado Supreme Court was wrong, but on purely procedural grounds-- i.e., that the State of Colorado either did not use or altogether lacks a procedure that can exclude a presidential candidate on the basis that the candidate was ineligible as a result of participating in an insurrection.

A ruling along those lines does not take off the table the notion that Trump did, in fact, participate in an insurrection, and therefore is, in fact, ineligible to be president. But a state might not get to adjudicate that question, at least not in advance of casting electoral votes or that president taking a seat. One theory, for example, is that the 14th amendment might make some officers ineligible to serve, but that doesn't mean they can't be voted on or even elected. That, they say, would allow a congressional supermajority to consider removing the disability between election and when the person takes office.

Anybody want to bet that Congress would be willing to do that for Trump?

If that's the road they go down, some frightening scenarios are on the table. They include Trump being on the ballot (itself shudder-worthy), getting the nomination, being elected, and then being denied access to the office-- possibly because the electoral college won't certify him (irony of ironies) or someone challenges his authority to act as president (possibly invoking the specter of removing him after he gains office).

Anybody want to bet that Trump would take that lying down?

Even if the Court reverses the Colorado Supreme Court, expect at least one or two justices to try on for size one of the nuttier theories that would take ineligibility off the table-- like the President not being an officer of the United States. Personally, I find that argument laughable-- is the Pope Catholic?-- but I think the appeal of reaching a more permanent answer to the 14th amendment question will be irresistible.

If the Court reverses on these purely procedural grounds, outcomes are very much in play that would make January 6 look like a tea party.

Agreed.

[Maximus]

Scotux now basing their whole agenda based on what helps trump

Yikes. Courts wouldn't stop. Him

[Non Sequitur]

Scotux now basing their whole agenda based on what helps trump

Yikes. Courts wouldn't stop. Him

I'm so beyond disgusted by this. I've always taken comfort thinking that the Supreme Court was the one institution that could ultimately be counted on to save us from ourselves, that they were above the fray. Turns out they're not. They're just another group of bought and paid for politicians.