View Poll Results: If Reagan was alive, and running against Obama, who would you vote for?

Voters
46. You may not vote on this poll
  • Reagan

    24 52.17%
  • Obama

    22 47.83%
Page 7 of 8 FirstFirst ... 5678 LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 76

Thread: If Reagan were running...

  1. #61
    Professor
    Amigo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    South Carolina
    Last Seen
    04-27-13 @ 11:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    1,945

    Re: If Reagan were running...

    Quote Originally Posted by TheNextEra View Post
    millions used to say the Earth was flat as well. Having a bunch of people say something, doesn't make it true by that alone.
    Can you even take in a little sence of humor? I guess not!
    Quote Originally Posted by AdamT on Nov 8th, 2012 View Post
    Over the next four years the economy will continue to rebound and we will gradually get deficits under control. The real esate market will rebound, unemployment will fall to 6.5% or below, and GDP growth will stand at 3.5 - 4%. We won't be in any wars. And conservatives will still be whining.

  2. #62
    Professor
    Amigo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    South Carolina
    Last Seen
    04-27-13 @ 11:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    1,945

    Re: If Reagan were running...

    Quote Originally Posted by TheDemSocialist View Post
    That doesnt move away from the facts...

    Raised taxes
    Granted amnesty to millions
    Tripled the federal budget deficit
    Grew the size of the federal gov
    "My dream became a world free of nuclear weapons"
    Is that Obama you're refering to? Because Reagan never raised taxes, regreted that he granted amnesty, but it wasn't millions. He did not increase the debt, he even tried to decrease them, but Tipover O'Neill didn't let him, andh he downsized the government.
    Quote Originally Posted by AdamT on Nov 8th, 2012 View Post
    Over the next four years the economy will continue to rebound and we will gradually get deficits under control. The real esate market will rebound, unemployment will fall to 6.5% or below, and GDP growth will stand at 3.5 - 4%. We won't be in any wars. And conservatives will still be whining.

  3. #63
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Last Seen
    09-24-17 @ 04:38 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    29,261

    Re: If Reagan were running...

    Quote Originally Posted by Amigo View Post
    Is that Obama you're refering to? Because Reagan never raised taxes, regreted that he granted amnesty, but it wasn't millions. He did not increase the debt, he even tried to decrease them, but Tipover O'Neill didn't let him, andh he downsized the government.
    For the self employed payroll taxes doubled.

  4. #64
    Gradualist

    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Last Seen
    09-25-17 @ 12:48 PM
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    34,949
    Blog Entries
    6

    Re: If Reagan were running...

    Quote Originally Posted by Amigo View Post
    Is that Obama you're refering to? Because Reagan never raised taxes, regreted that he granted amnesty, but it wasn't millions. He did not increase the debt, he even tried to decrease them, but Tipover O'Neill didn't let him, andh he downsized the government.


    Do you live on the same planet on us? Or are you just rejecting reality?
    As governor of Cali Reagan signed into law the larges tax increase in the history of the State. He endorsed a $1 billion per year tax increase while governor of California. As president Reagan raised taxes in 1982, 83, and 86.

    And yes Reagan did increased the deficit. The debt increasing to nearly $3 trillion. It nearly tripled from $935.1 billion to $2.8 trillion...

    And no the amnesty bill did grant nearly 3 million illegal immigrants amnesty.

    Reagan also bailed out social security... I thought that was a "ponzie scheme"?

    And no federal spending did increase under Reagan..

    Can you not live up to the facts?


  5. #65
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,937

    Re: If Reagan were running...

    Quote Originally Posted by Amigo View Post
    Is that Obama you're refering to? Because Reagan never raised taxes, regreted that he granted amnesty, but it wasn't millions. He did not increase the debt, he even tried to decrease them, but Tipover O'Neill didn't let him, andh he downsized the government.
    Umm....

    1. Yes Reagan did raise taxes, unless you're going with "Presidents can't raise taxes, only congress can" in which case you're either ignoring that Presidents have to sign off on the bills OR you'd have to not give credit to Reagan for cutting taxes

    2. Yes, the National Debt did rise under Reagan thenfore he did increase it unless...again...you're going with "Presidents don't pass budgets, congress does" in which case again you're either ignoring that Reagan signed them or you're in a position where you can't criticize Obama for spending

    3. Depends on your definition of government. If its money spent, then yes he did. If its people employed, then you could say he both grew it and cut it in specific ways.

  6. #66
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,937

    Re: If Reagan were running...

    Quote Originally Posted by TheDemSocialist View Post
    That doesnt move away from the facts...

    Raised taxes
    Granted amnesty to millions
    Tripled the federal budget deficit
    Grew the size of the federal gov
    "My dream became a world free of nuclear weapons"
    Again, one would only be able to claim that if they're choosing to ignore the context of the political atmosphere Obama and Reagan each belong in or are just being plainly dishonest.

    Also, there's nothing inherently socially liberal about a dream of a world without nuclear weapons. There's nothing in conservative ideology that suggests one couldn't have such a dream. The difference however is whether its a dream or a goal, if its an idealistic statement with the realistic undrestanding of its inability to occur or if its an actual functional statement that someone is logically working towards.

    I dream of a world where war no longer occurs. I realize however that such a thing is just that, a dream, for which human nature makes it impossible for such to happen. I dream of a world where people don't have to worry about protecting their families. Unfortunately, that's just a dream not reality and as such I support firearm ownership. Having a dream of a world where there is no nuclear weapons is perfectly acceptable within conservative ideology...believing that such a dream can ever FULLY come to reality and thus using the government to force it to try and make it there is not.

  7. #67
    Gradualist

    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Last Seen
    09-25-17 @ 12:48 PM
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    34,949
    Blog Entries
    6

    Re: If Reagan were running...

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    Again, one would only be able to claim that if they're choosing to ignore the context of the political atmosphere Obama and Reagan each belong in or are just being plainly dishonest.
    What context?

    Also, there's nothing inherently socially liberal about a dream of a world without nuclear weapons. There's nothing in conservative ideology that suggests one couldn't have such a dream.
    I was going for how when Obama was scrutinized by a lot on the right and the right wing media about how he signed the nuclear treaty with Russia...


  8. #68
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,937

    Re: If Reagan were running...

    Quote Originally Posted by TheDemSocialist View Post
    What context?
    Check post 36 for the specifics. One example is that the mentality by Democrats and Republicans in the 1980s and the 2000s in regards to the importance of compromise and the danger and/or benefits of acting ideologically are drastically and understandably different due to historical situations regarding party power.

    Prior to Reagan coming in, the general status quo and expectation within government was that you would have a Congress that was Democraticly controlled. Anything other than this was an absolute anomoly. As such, for Republicans to have a chance of getting any sort of push for their ideology they had to start from a position where they were compromising or moderating their ideological beliefs from the very beginning. On the flip side, at that time, it was far safer for a Democratic congressional member to act in very ideological way as there was little fear that ideological positioning would significantly harm the party or their chance to push their ideas.

    Flip to the modern time, and history since Reagan has provided a strikingly different picture from leading into the 1980s. Control of the congress is an ever shifting thing now that could swap at any time. Long held control is no longer the norm but rather an anomoly. Republicans now see that, after years of having little chance for a congressional foothold, they have a chance to actually get some time periods of power. As such, there is no longer the feeling that they must start from a compromised or moderated position of the view they hold because there's now an actual chance they could have the government structure at some point to get what they want done without compromise or moderation of it. On the flip side, Democrats have begun to moderate themselves a bit, seeking to latch a bit more onto populism in hopes of grasping control for longer periods by appearing moderate and taking a slower approach of getting their ideological things pushed (See: 2006 and winning thanks to blue dogs yet functioning solidly left in the american sense).

    The increase of Republican control in congress has reduced the necessity for Republicans to start from a moderated/compromised position on issues. That's not suggesting that Republicans then were less ideologically right than those now; what it suggests was an acceptance then that they would not have a chance to fully inact their ideology so they had to take what they can get. On the flip side, the decrease in Democratic dominance of Congress has caused Democrats to attempt to appear to move more towards the center in hopes of staving off a full switch to Republican dominance.

    I was going for how when Obama was scrutinized by a lot on the right and the right wing media about how he signed the nuclear treaty with Russia...
    While both wanted to reduce nuclear arms of Russia in exchange for us reducing arms, when one dives into the details of what the two different proposals did and aimed for there were differences. To suggest that they have a similar view on the issue because when looked at from a very macro view point, then we could also say that George Bush and Barack Obama have the same views on health care because both sought to reform it with further government options, or state that Dick Cheney supports gay rights more than Barack Obama.

  9. #69
    Sage
    disneydude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 05:00 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    25,129

    Re: If Reagan were running...

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    Check post 36 for the specifics. One example is that the mentality by Democrats and Republicans in the 1980s and the 2000s in regards to the importance of compromise and the danger and/or benefits of acting ideologically are drastically and understandably different due to historical situations regarding party power.

    Prior to Reagan coming in, the general status quo and expectation within government was that you would have a Congress that was Democraticly controlled. Anything other than this was an absolute anomoly. As such, for Republicans to have a chance of getting any sort of push for their ideology they had to start from a position where they were compromising or moderating their ideological beliefs from the very beginning. On the flip side, at that time, it was far safer for a Democratic congressional member to act in very ideological way as there was little fear that ideological positioning would significantly harm the party or their chance to push their ideas.

    Flip to the modern time, and history since Reagan has provided a strikingly different picture from leading into the 1980s. Control of the congress is an ever shifting thing now that could swap at any time. Long held control is no longer the norm but rather an anomoly. Republicans now see that, after years of having little chance for a congressional foothold, they have a chance to actually get some time periods of power. As such, there is no longer the feeling that they must start from a compromised or moderated position of the view they hold because there's now an actual chance they could have the government structure at some point to get what they want done without compromise or moderation of it. On the flip side, Democrats have begun to moderate themselves a bit, seeking to latch a bit more onto populism in hopes of grasping control for longer periods by appearing moderate and taking a slower approach of getting their ideological things pushed (See: 2006 and winning thanks to blue dogs yet functioning solidly left in the american sense).

    The increase of Republican control in congress has reduced the necessity for Republicans to start from a moderated/compromised position on issues. That's not suggesting that Republicans then were less ideologically right than those now; what it suggests was an acceptance then that they would not have a chance to fully inact their ideology so they had to take what they can get. On the flip side, the decrease in Democratic dominance of Congress has caused Democrats to attempt to appear to move more towards the center in hopes of staving off a full switch to Republican dominance.



    While both wanted to reduce nuclear arms of Russia in exchange for us reducing arms, when one dives into the details of what the two different proposals did and aimed for there were differences. To suggest that they have a similar view on the issue because when looked at from a very macro view point, then we could also say that George Bush and Barack Obama have the same views on health care because both sought to reform it with further government options, or state that Dick Cheney supports gay rights more than Barack Obama.
    Interesting analysis, but not very accurate. The GOP of the 70's and 80's was much more Barry Goldwater-ish than todays GOP. The GOP of Reagan was not controlled by evangelicals nor was the GOP concerned about advancing their radical social agenda.
    <font size=5><b>Its been several weeks since the Vegas shooting.  Its it still "Too Early" or can we start having the conversation about finally doing something about these mass shootings???​</b></font>

  10. #70
    Angry Former GOP Voter
    Fiddytree's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:46 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    25,635

    Re: If Reagan were running...

    Quote Originally Posted by disneydude View Post
    Interesting analysis, but not very accurate. The GOP of the 70's and 80's was much more Barry Goldwater-ish than todays GOP. The GOP of Reagan was not controlled by evangelicals nor was the GOP concerned about advancing their radical social agenda.
    Forgetting the Northern Republicans or Rockefeller Republicans who were much more "moderate", including the President of the United States Richard Nixon? Are you forgetting the recoiling of the Right at the sight of the counterculture and its remnants by the 1970s? There was a burgeoning effect of the religious Right at around this time. It was not as centered as it is now, but let's not forget the composition of the big tent.
    Last edited by Fiddytree; 01-18-12 at 07:21 PM.
    Michael J Petrilli-"Is School Choice Enough?"-A response to the recent timidity of American conservatives toward education reform. https://nationalaffairs.com/publicat...-choice-enough

Page 7 of 8 FirstFirst ... 5678 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •