Yes, the invasion of Grenada.. that compares to Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, the Cold War, and the massive drone attacks. Are you serious or trolling? If you are going to tell me that Reagan's invasion of Grenada is comparable to any of those other foreign policy actions undertaken by (D) and (R) administrations over the past sixty years then I suggest you look at the raw data for that action in Grenada and compare it to the data for those other events. After you do that come back and tell me which one was the most destructive and which one was the least destructive. Thanks!

@TrPrado: Actually since 2014 the economy has been showing less and less growth. I wouldn't characterize that as a fair recovery.

Really, we haven't seen growth this poor since the Great Depression. I am pretty sure we are in a new recession now, but no one wants to label it because it would hurt the Obama administration. We all know how much the political hacks in the media want to help the Democrats.

So Reagan is still a good man in your eyes because the wars he waged, and supported, were less destructive than wars others presidents waged?
I repeat my question in hope of an answer, are you stupid?

@Hannibal: No and I am not here to trade personal insults, but I do question the intellectual prowess of anyone who is seriously going to talk to me about Grenada.

But I can't help but think you are :(
Grenada doesn't matter is that it? The deaths of the inhabitants of a small unimportant island doesn't mean much to you I imagine. I take it back you're not stupid. You're just a horrible human being.

Okay, now you're definitely deflecting the discussion.

That was at ND

Oh I am deflecting by pointing out indicators in the data showing that there has been a terrible decrease in a so-called recovery? Mmkk

I am horrible for looking at economy indicators and foreign policy success? Did Reagan have faults? Sure, but every President has had faults. His faults were just far smaller than most.

No, you're deflecting from discussing with Hannibal.

Oh? Well, I just answered his question. Here let me quote myself:

"I am horrible for looking at economy indicators and foreign policy success? Did Reagan have faults? Sure, but every President has had faults. His faults were just far smaller than most."

We aren't in recession. We just had the first good year of number since the financial crisis. Which was caused by Republican districts policies. Financial crises take a long time to recover from so a six year lag is actually short. It was BY FAR the biggest economic disaster since the Great Depression (also cause by Republicans) so pointing to the difficulties of the economy during th Obama administration and blaming them on him makes as much sense as driving your car into a wall at sixty miles an hour and then saying it is the hospitals fault that you're still recovering a month later. It is absurd and just another example of conservative lies.

I can quote you too:

"I do question the intellectual prowess of anyone who is seriously going to talk to me about Grenada."

Now, now, TrPrado let's not do things out of context. The quote I just gave is my final answer to Hannibal. I am now awaiting his answer. That is how a conversation works.

"six year lag is actually short."
-HAHA, that's funny. Sounds like more excuses for the mess we are in.
-Also it was not solely caused by Republicans. Nice try.

Take a look at Japan, ND. Talk to actual economists. When the financial crisis hit, a number of economists were predicting it would take 10 to 15 years to pull out. Instead, the last year has shown the strongest growth in median incomes and declines in povery in twenty years.

And yeah, Bush's negligence and deregulation is what caused the financial crisis.

Reagan's faults were smaller than most? Why don't you make a list of all 44 presidents' faults and we'll see how this lines up. Passing off vague, vastly unjustifiable opinions as truth when you get called out for trying to deflect is just as bad as deflecting is in the first place.

https://youtu.be/CTa8H6vAMyQ

Truer words have rarely been said by bill maher

He pretty much crushed it. Watch that video it will change how you see reagan.

Presidents have limited impact on the economy, so focusing on that area of their administration isn't fruitful. http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/a-presidents-economic-decisions-matter-eventually/

Examine foreign relations seems to most reasonable place. Reagan, regardless of any other failings or successes, played a major role in the collapse of the Soviet Union, which should be to his credit. Obama has dealt capably with China, and his pivot appears to be sound policy. Especially clever was his trip to India.

We won't know if the moves into the South China Sea worked or not until well after Obama is out of office. Right now, it's up in the air. The TPP may not even happen. China may strong-arm US allies like the Philippines against us. Russia may pick a side, and it may very well not be the US's side. Trump may declare war on China once creditors stop giving him loans. Who knows?

The Soviet Union collapsed on itself. Reagan outspent the Soviet Union, massively inflating US debt that still lingers (in a much larger way) today. You can say that he deserves the credit, but the failure of the Soviet Union to maintain the influence that Stalin had before power was turned over and the failure of their economy when things didn't go perfectly as planned in the late 70s and early 80s are much more to blame. Likewise, Reagan was simply following in the footsteps of a plan 20 or 30 (or more) years in the making. He did what he needed to do, and he deserves credit for not letting politics get in the way of smart policy, but he did not by any means actually convince Gorbachev to tear down the wall. It should be no surprise, anyway, that the USSR fell - the Soviets wanted to turn people into robots, and people don't want to be robots.

Every four years it's the same story. The world watches in supposed disbelief as America prepares to elect someone the global media has spent the past year portraying as a pantomime villain. You get the usual nonsensical stories about Yanks promising to flee to Canada, excitable news reports revolving around the theme of the mythical nuclear button, and boring crap about various parts of the US being sent back x number of decades.

Then either the good guy wins, and four years of disappointment follows, or the bad guy wins, and it turns out to be not as bad as everyone expected.

Move along, nothing to see here.

@"America is one of the main sources of international war and instability. The world would be much better off if America just fucked off and stopped interfering like the imperialist 19th century power it still thinks it is."

The mistake is in thinking someone else wouldn't take America's place if they 'fucked off' - look at Syria, the US considered sending in ground troops, and rejected it. What happened, Russia got involved, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Hezzbollah and Possibly Iran, all have some involvement.

The US not acting like an Imperial power isn't a magic recipe for peace. The UN is a joke, and Having the US become an isolationist power (like most Libertarians dream) will not end well.

It will result in instability in many former US allies as the balance of power shifts. China vs Japan for regional control in east asia, Turkey, Saudi, Israel, Iran and Egypt all ightin over the middle east. Pakistan and Afghanistan, broadly messy south american nations, South Korea.

All while Russia and probably the UK and France decide they want to fill the void left by the US.

Also, all of what Octavious just said.

Agruing over which American President was the least shit is kinda pointless, you'll just end up covered in shit and everyone smells bad.

No president has been free to change the vested power interests and act freely. As such there is no point in comparing the tiny differences in policy, compared to the bigger picture of where the US is going both economically (see the occupy protests, and the popularity of Bernie Sanders) and internationally (see american imperialism, and decline)

@orthaic so you're saying that a world with one, near all-powerful superpower is better than a world without a superpower?

From a more moderate point of view the election is between:

A career politician with a scandal dotted history and questionable morale compass. Who would likely continue Obama policy domestically while directing a more interventionist foreign policy. Good points: possibility of reduced price education, possibility of an increased economy from military contracts die to conflict (we are a military economy after all). Bad points: definite increase in taxes, likely won't see a solution to our ever ballooning debt, and the loss of life associated with war.

A failed business man with little regard for the well being of the middle class. A racist misogynistic and overtly ignorant domestic policy which will do more to cause a civil conflict than it will unite. Likely alienate the US from global partners and shuffle the US's allies to more perfectly fit his skewed view of the world. Good points: I'm a white male so it can't get too bad for me under trump, likely would force international compliance with US demands out of fear. Bad points: see above as the worst is the same. But add the possibility of civil conflict and ever larger growth of debt from building a wall and deporting millions.

So in other words pick your poison or choose Gary Johnson.

"@orthaic so you're saying that a world with one, near all-powerful superpower is better than a world without a superpower?"

Not at all. I'm saying the it is naive to claim we'd all be better off if "America just..." - and not to offer a realistic alternative.

@CommanderByron Or Jill Stein...

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-10-04/which-states-can-gary-johnson-and-jill-stein-spoil

The realistic alternative would be a world multipolar world.