Vote Obiwan Kenobi 2016. He's our only hope.

@brainbomb so you're against Bernie Sanders because Congress wouldn't have let him pass the bills he wanted? That's why you'd rather have Hilary as president?

The reputation of the US was lost long ago when they started killing children in other countries to prevent future terrorists.

Brain doesn't know why he's so anti-Bernie, he just knows he is and always has been since the beginning.

That's just ridiculous logic to go by when electing a president

Peterlund, the fantasy world. I'm still waiting for it's exact location.

I supported Bernie. I eventually changed my mind. I became a Hillary supporter in early Feb. I didnt disagree with his policies but you said he never once told a mistruth

Telling people your policies are gonna be a reality with a political revolution isnt a lie really; but it definetely relies on senate-house-president under total dem control.

"Care to back that up, ND, or are you just gonna barf on the sidewalk and leave it for someone else to clean up?"

Maybe when ghug backs up his bullshit statement.

Sure thing. I'll even do it in a way that might appeal to you.

Reaganomics amounts to massive tax breaks to the wealthy while taxes on the lower and middle classes were consistently raised to try to lessen the impact on the suddenly rising national debt (tripled during his presciency). Obviously, the theory here was that leaving more money in the hands of the wealthy would allow them to create jobs. Instead, unemployment reached its highest point in the period between the great depression and the recent recession shortly after the implementation of Reaganomics and remained higher for the remainder of his presidency than it had been at the start. The legacy of Reaganomics is increased unemployment and the beginnings of the growth in the national debt that have brought it to where it is today.

Iran/Contra was far more of a scandal than anything Hillary Clinton has done that you find so detestable.

The man granted amnesty to a fuckton of illegal immigrants. I personally wouldn't be so against this, but I know you are, and he coupled it by removing the increased regulations on the hiring of illegal immigrants.

I could go on, but I'm bored. Learn to look objectively at your heroes.

Oh please. Carter was not the worst President since WWII. Not even close. Have you forgotten Bush? The guy who dismissed terrorism threats and let 9/11 happen, got the US into the two longest most intractable wars in US history, one based entirely on false premises, happily eviscerated much of the bill of rights, supported torture and enables the banking industry to bring the economy to its knees. It is like he is the worst of Carter, Johnson, Nixon, and Hoover all rolled into one guy!

Meanwhile I keep wondering how ND thinks Reagan was the best post WWII president when even if you think he did a good job (he didn't), Eisenhower still exists.

Yea didnt Eisenhower come up with the Interstate system, and desegregate the schools?

You can't credit Eisenhower with school integration. Brown vs. Board of Education was during his presciency, but it wasn't his decision, and he didn't exactly work very hard to ensure its enforcement, which meant that desegregation was a slow process that happened mostly after his presidency.

Really, I think one of the reasons so many (myself included) view the 1980s as a positive period in post-war American history is because of foreign policy and the economy.

I don't recall mass complaints about the economy during the 1980s. The economy grew at a sizable rate unlike the meager growth rates under Obama/Bush. Growth rates from 2000-2016 are very poor compared to the Reagan administration.

Dec 31, 1988 7.76%
Dec 31, 1987 7.57%
Dec 31, 1986 4.86%
Dec 31, 1985 7.37%
Dec 31, 1984 9.26%
Dec 31, 1983 11.39%
Dec 31, 1982 3.79%
Dec 31, 1981 9.69%
Dec 31, 1980 9.62%
http://www.multpl.com/us-gdp-growth-rate/table/by-year

Now we compare these growth rates to 2000-2016:

Jun 30, 2016 2.43%
Dec 31, 2015 3.00%
Dec 31, 2014 4.07%
Dec 31, 2013 4.31%
Dec 31, 2012 3.24%
Dec 31, 2011 3.64%
Dec 31, 2010 4.56%
Dec 31, 2009 0.11%
Dec 31, 2008 -0.92%
Dec 31, 2007 4.40%
Dec 31, 2006 5.12%
Dec 31, 2005 6.52%
Dec 31, 2004 6.31%
Dec 31, 2003 6.42%
Dec 31, 2002 3.76%
Dec 31, 2001 2.19%
Dec 31, 2000 5.50%

Reagan's foreign policy WAS a primary reason for the collapse of the Soviet Union. This brought an end to a forty year Cold War. It was also a liberating force for millions of people oppressed under mass murdering marxist regimes.

So if we grade based on foreign policy and the economy then Reagan was a successful president. Sure, you can dispute my claim that he was the MOST successful, but you can't dispute that he was successful.

I saw Ghug brought up some scandals, but his point is moot. Iran/Contra was nowhere near the level of the State Department pay for play scheme Clinton implemented, Benghazi, the server, Clinton Foundation's money laundering and plundering Haiti, etc. Ghug is comparing one event to an incalculable amount of Clinton scandals. Not even in the same ballpark.

Ogion says that Bush "dismissed terrorism" which is funny considering that Bill Clinton had an opportunity to take out Bin Laden and failed to do so. The failures of the Clinton administration led to 9/11 not Bush. Nice try, but you are wrong.

I could respond point by point to all of these leftist points, but I think I caught a few of the big ones and underscored my point that Reagan was the best.

Unfortunately, for the progressives, you can't rewrite hard data. So, nice try, but you lose.

After the Soviet Union collapsed. Rainbows formed between alaska and kamchatka. Both nations demilitarized, deleted all nukes ctrl z.

To be fair, growth is considerably easier coming off of the shitty stagflation period than it would be from the Clinton surplus period.

Unfortunately for those soviet bastards we won and Russian militarism died in the 1980's. To date russia has become a friendly force, populated by gnomes.

@Brainbomb: I am not disputing that Russia isn't a regional power, but they were a totally different force thirty years ago. Also, they no longer have a government that murders their own citizens by the tens of millions. We can thank the Reagan foreign policy for that.

No we cant. Lol.

Percentage GDP growth year over year decreases as a country grows bigger. If course the rates are smaller now. They were significantly higher under FDR, so you certainly can't use them to paint FDR as a demon and Reagan as a saint.

Whether you believe that Hillary's scandals are trumped up, as I do, or not, you can't argue that Iran/Comtra wasn't terrible, or that it wasn't an isolated incident. A huge number of his staff were implicated and in many cases found guilty in various corruption investigations.Reagan's foreign policy amounted to "fuck the commies". He supported oppressive capitalist regimes and toppled legitimately elected governments without a second thought if they were means toward that end, an end that you can't in good faith credit solely to him)(the Soviets destroyed themselves more than anyone did it for them).

Since you bring up terrorism, we can also look at how poor his record on terrorism was, often funding current or future terrorists and doing little to address the issue when it did come to a head. His tactical ignorance of the AIDS epidemic is also fun if we want to keep going.

You can't rewrite hard data, but you can certainly cherry pick and misinterpret it.

Well there is no point arguing with someone who is entrenched in their own ideology to the point where they are blinded. I am trying to have an open conversation here.

@TrPrado: Growth is an indication of the success of the current administration. It has always been seen that way.

Didnt Reagan have his own Benghazi too? The Beirut bombing? Back then a simple investigation was conducted and decided no wrongdoing or negligence..simple right

"Well there is no point arguing with someone who is entrenched in their own ideology to the point where they are blinded."

Lmao

Imagine if the deaths of 20+ people had happened. Benghazi was what 4? How do you explain this incomgruent approach to fact finding?

Incongruent*

"You can't rewrite hard data, but you can certainly cherry pick and misinterpret it."

@Ghug: Untrue. If I was going to cherry pick data then I wouldn't have given the data for the entire length of the Reagan, Bush/Obama administrations. I also provided the source so anyone can fact check it and I am not saying that there weren't other periods of higher growth. I am saying that the economy under Reagan was a period of growth and prosperity which is a contrast to the mess we are in now.

My criteria for judging Reagan as the "best" since WWII is a combination of economic growth and resounding success on the world stage through foreign policy. People asked what my criteria was and I gave it.

I never called FDR a "demon" or Reagan a "Saint" those are your words and you are attributing something to me which I never said. Classic misdirection tactic.

As to your analysis of GDP growth.. it's just completely wrong. The country has been 'growing' bigger for two hundred and fifty years. Nothing has changed in that regard. Stop trying to explain away the failings of the past sixteen years. I think Bush is among the worst, but Obama certainly tops him.

Fine, we will have to agree to disagree about the scandals. But, you are certainly cherry picking one issue whereas there is a massive amount of Clinton scandals for me to look at.

I never said Iran/Contra wasn't terrible. I said it doesn't compare to what Clinton or by extension the Clintons have done. We can debate the legitimacy of his actions by propping up certain types of governments, but that is something every American president has done until the current administration. It is universally accepted that the failings of Clinton/Obama foreign policy has led to the rise of radical Islamic terrorism and ISIS.

I am not going to touch on the 'moral majority' stuff. Each administration builds a coalition of voters. I can certainly point out flaws to Obama's coalition and progressive coalitions as well.

The only one misinterpreting the other party in this conversation and cherry picking data is you. Not me.

I'm Lebanese. Reagan gave the green light for the 1982 invasion of Lebanon. I'm not going to cover everything but here's a little tidbit. From the fifth of June to the end of August when Israel laid siege to Beirut, 17,000-19,000 people were killed.
There was also the invasion of Grenada. How can you believe he was a good man? Are you dumb? Is that the reason?