Liz Peek: What Trump DIDN'T do in 2017: President's hysteria-prone critics must be sorely disappointed

[Merle 458]

2 hours ago, Steeleballz said:

 

   Reagan's biggest contribution to ending the Soviet Union was supporting and arming groups like the Mujahideen. The consequences of that aspect of the Reagan doctrine are still being felt today. The Soviet Union would have ended with or without Reagan. It was crushed under it's own weight and most of that pressure came from within. We give him too much credit for a truly historic speech without acknowledging how destructive many of his policies towards ending the Soviet Union ended up being.

 

  I think it's fair to say Reagan help speed the collapse of the Soviet Union (in any way he could), but the debate should not be over Reagan's policies towards the Soviet Union, it should be whether the immense collateral damage was worth it for something that was going to happen anyway. 

Yea its too bad Carter didn't get reelected. I'm sure he would have shown those evil Soviets a thing or two and the economy would have surely flourished as well. LOL

Edited January 8, 2018 by Merle

[Steeleballz 7,550]

1 hour ago, Merle said:

Yea its too bad Carter didn't get reelected. I'm sure he would have shown those evil Soviets a thing or two and the economy would have surely flourished as well. LOL

 

  It makes little sense to bring up Carter in this context. The Soviet Union would have ended regardless of who the US president was, and the US economy would have improved coming out of a recession regardless of who won that election. It's never hard to see why hyper partisan politics continues to flourish in this country.

[TBoneTX 45,294]

1 hour ago, Steeleballz said:

Carter in this context. The Soviet Union would have ended regardless

Their economy would have cratered because of the U.S.'s refusal to participate in the Moscow Olympics.

[Steeleballz 7,550]

1 minute ago, TBoneTX said:

Their economy would have cratered because of the U.S.'s refusal to participate in the Moscow Olympics.

 

  Most of the impetus for the end of the Soviet Union can be linked to Gorbachev. Ending the Brezhnev doctrine, Glasnost, Perestroika were all Gorbachev's policies. If you talk to any old timers in Russia who miss the Soviet days, to this day, most of them would like to tear Gorbachev a new one, but many couldn't even tell you who Reagan was.

 

  Even here, there was very little attribution to Reagan for all this at the time. We sometimes forget that Reagan's "tear down the wall" speech came when he was already a lame duck and got very little media attention. His policy of funding rebels was so unpopular that nobody even wanted to talk about it. Granted media was different in those days,  but history has been favorable to Reagan's legacy in a way that it never was when the events were actually occurring.

[jayjayj 571]

43 minutes ago, Steeleballz said:

 

  Most of the impetus for the end of the Soviet Union can be linked to Gorbachev. Ending the Brezhnev doctrine, Glasnost, Perestroika were all Gorbachev's policies. If you talk to any old timers in Russia who miss the Soviet days, to this day, most of them would like to tear Gorbachev a new one, but many couldn't even tell you who Reagan was.

 

  Even here, there was very little attribution to Reagan for all this at the time. We sometimes forget that Reagan's "tear down the wall" speech came when he was already a lame duck and got very little media attention. His policy of funding rebels was so unpopular that nobody even wanted to talk about it. Granted media was different in those days,  but history has been favorable to Reagan's legacy in a way that it never was when the events were actually occurring.

 

That is the strange thing about history, it does tend to come after events happen.

[Steeleballz 7,550]

6 minutes ago, jayjayj said:

 

That is the strange thing about history, it does tend to come after events happen.

 

  Correct, so at the end of his 8 years, there was a historical perspective on Reagan's presidency that was different from the nostalgia tainted one that we see today. It has been said many times that nostalgia often clouds ones perspective and judgement. Check with the MAGA folks in a few years.

[jayjayj 571]

6 minutes ago, Steeleballz said:

 

  Correct, so at the end of his 8 years, there was a historical perspective on Reagan's presidency that was different from the nostalgia tainted one that we see today. It has been said many times that nostalgia often clouds ones perspective and judgement. Check with the MAGA folks in a few years.

 

There is a reason that people say, "Hindsight is 20/20".  They don't say, "Current sight is 20/20", do they?  I wonder why that is?  

[Steeleballz 7,550]

7 minutes ago, jayjayj said:

 

There is a reason that people say, "Hindsight is 20/20".  They don't say, "Current sight is 20/20", do they?  I wonder why that is?  

 

   People say a lot of things. While catchy, hindsight is not really 20/20. There's no way to really know what would have happened for better, for worse or what would have been the same. We may be able to analyze facts better from a historical perspective, but we can't surmise the history that was not written. If I had to bet, it would be that 100 years from now, every president from Ford through Obama will be remembered as run of the mill average. Trump is still writing his legacy, but likely will end up in that group too.

[jayjayj 571]

7 minutes ago, Steeleballz said:

 

   People say a lot of things. While catchy, hindsight is not really 20/20. There's no way to really know what would have happened for better, for worse or what would have been the same. We may be able to analyze facts better from a historical perspective, but we can't surmise the history that was not written. If I had to bet, it would be that 100 years from now, every president from Ford through Obama will be remembered as run of the mill average. Trump is still writing his legacy, but likely will end up in that group too.

Of course it isn't 20/20, but there is a reason why people say that so often.  When you look at events from a historical perspective, you almost always have more information available to make more accurate judgements.  

[Dashinka 24,505]

10 hours ago, Steeleballz said:

 

  It makes little sense to bring up Carter in this context. The Soviet Union would have ended regardless of who the US president was, and the US economy would have improved coming out of a recession regardless of who won that election. It's never hard to see why hyper partisan politics continues to flourish in this country.

I agree, Socialism always fails, it is just a matter of time.

[Dashinka 24,505]

8 hours ago, Steeleballz said:

 

  Most of the impetus for the end of the Soviet Union can be linked to Gorbachev. Ending the Brezhnev doctrine, Glasnost, Perestroika were all Gorbachev's policies. If you talk to any old timers in Russia who miss the Soviet days, to this day, most of them would like to tear Gorbachev a new one, but many couldn't even tell you who Reagan was.

 

  Even here, there was very little attribution to Reagan for all this at the time. We sometimes forget that Reagan's "tear down the wall" speech came when he was already a lame duck and got very little media attention. His policy of funding rebels was so unpopular that nobody even wanted to talk about it. Granted media was different in those days,  but history has been favorable to Reagan's legacy in a way that it never was when the events were actually occurring.

So are you saying is that capitalism caused the SU to fail?

[Dashinka 24,505]

Remember, Reagan was one of the worst presidents ever according to some in the MDL.  He completely destroyed the middle class which is no longer present in the US.  We now just have a few “Haves” with all the money and everyone else.

[yuna628 9,676]

9 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

Remember, Reagan was one of the worst presidents ever according to some in the MDL.  He completely destroyed the middle class which is no longer present in the US.  We now just have a few “Haves” with all the money and everyone else.

Reagan was a nice guy actually, nor was he the worst President either as some would claim. There are certainly far worse Presidents in our history. However, we do need to look at the economic factors that happened under his leadership. By all accounts middle class income was better than the 70s, barely. However it did not continue on the steady and healthy growth that had happened in the 50s and 60s. There were a lot of promises made that didn't happen the way they were said they would. We did not see a larger bump in growth until the Clinton era. There were a lot of factors that drove this too. The perception of Reaganomics did not help either - the very wealthy flourished tremendously, giving a boon to wallstreet. But nowhere else exactly felt like they were economically safe enough. I think ultimately, the premise of increasing wealth to the rich in the hope that they will reinvest and grow the economy doesn't always pan out. It denies the basic moral failure of greed, and does not acknowledge the other problems it creates (it reminds me a good deal of Ballard's book High-Rise). We had a great deal of debt back then. I remember how things were for my family back then, and the reality was we were not better off. Things very much improved in the 90s. We'd do well to remember Reagan neither being a President of some lofty standard nor just ''the worst''.

[TBoneTX 45,294]

9 hours ago, Steeleballz said:

at the end of his 8 years, there was a historical perspective on Reagan's presidency that was different from the nostalgia tainted one that we see today. It has been said many times that nostalgia often clouds ones perspective and judgement.

Just at the mere thought of same, I pine with palpable longing in regard to the idea of a second Carter term.  Oh, the domestic and international glory that might have been...

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

1 hour ago, yuna628 said:

Reagan was a nice guy actually, nor was he the worst President either as some would claim. There are certainly far worse Presidents in our history. However, we do need to look at the economic factors that happened under his leadership. By all accounts middle class income was better than the 70s, barely. However it did not continue on the steady and healthy growth that had happened in the 50s and 60s. There were a lot of promises made that didn't happen the way they were said they would. We did not see a larger bump in growth until the Clinton era. There were a lot of factors that drove this too. The perception of Reaganomics did not help either - the very wealthy flourished tremendously, giving a boon to wallstreet. But nowhere else exactly felt like they were economically safe enough. I think ultimately, the premise of increasing wealth to the rich in the hope that they will reinvest and grow the economy doesn't always pan out. It denies the basic moral failure of greed, and does not acknowledge the other problems it creates (it reminds me a good deal of Ballard's book High-Rise). We had a great deal of debt back then. I remember how things were for my family back then, and the reality was we were not better off. Things very much improved in the 90s. We'd do well to remember Reagan neither being a President of some lofty standard nor just ''the worst''.

James Earl Carter was the worst President in Modern History. No argument there. Followed closely by pick a Bush and Obama