I've got to go back to this post, which I don't really like because I feel like I'm defending Trump. He's called in the press, well lthe huffpost if you can call that press, a liar (politician?), misogynist, xenophobe, etc all essentially true, of course, but a strong indictment given the relative insanity of everyone else in the race. In his case I continue to think it's an act but if I'm in a concentration camp in 4 years I'll have to admit its why I like Kasich (I'm not going to trade one raving maniac for another). But trump isn't the bad guy. Bush created ISIS and therefor Trump's candidacy. The national debt has been a problem since Lincoln (another republican) and it actually helps when its managed correctly, but you can see the country getting out of hand starting with Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon in Vietnam and while we worked our way with the technology revolution out of that quamire of stupidity, it remains to be see whether we can do so at this point of time. And while it's hard not to admit it was the right thing at the time, Nixon created modern China with its economic war machine (see world war c and china's weaponized economy published by yours truely). Nixon actually did a lot of things right for such a d*ckhead, so maybe TRump's what we need.
I'd otherwise wonder about all the ado about donald trump who is nothing more than a rich democrat, which happens to be the definition of a republican. Trickle down economics makes more sense if the trickle is coming out of your bank account, right? Et tu Reagonomics?
I had one of the heart things today, where your heart stops beating for a moment or maybe it's just a pulled muscle close to the heart. They hurt and remind you how little time there is in a lifetime.
In the last article, the write says he's never been more depressed about politics (yeah, right, until he sees his readership triple) but seriously I just think this is theater. Yes, maybe it's the collapse of the Roman Empire, but if it is, it started with Bush II who did more to damage the status and security of the United States than any president after World War II in my unschooled opinion.
Jonah says: "One of the things I love about conservatism is that we argue about our principles; as I’ve written 8 billion times — more or less — we debate our dogma. I love our principled disagreements" but they don't debate their dogma so much as they accept certain principles as self evident when I don't believe self evidence has any meaning when you deny climate change (not global warming, but merely that the climate will, inevitably, change) and when you let religion dictate any part of your parties platform.
Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/432708/donald-trump-media-supporters-principles-conservatism?qd60XWxc0pkkuUJ3.01Ronald Reagan is sometimes portrayed as something of a minor god by Republicans. This article seems to follow this trend, talking about him have "core principles" even while admitting he didn't know the "fine points" of important government policy. I don't know what this guy is talking about, but Reagan's claim to fame was cutting taxes, which worked under the limited set of circumstances that he was into, and he was a natural leader and speaker (like clinton, imo) and both lied through their teeth when they needed to. On Reagan's watch Russia wasn't saved (at least not yet) but Germany was reunited which seemed like a good idea. However, also on his watch the US government acted to undermine other countries in a frighteningly similar way to the way we intervened in cuba and set the precedent for us making such a royal f*ck up of the middle east. Talk about something that Obama did right and Reganish, tearing down the wall between the US and cuba. Very Reaganesque if you ask me, you didn't.
Considering the fact that I know more about how the universe works than anyone else (imo) you'd think I'd get more questions.
This reminds me of a funny story about how one of the famous WWII generals (or maybe it was his general father) used to pray with his mother before pictures of God and Jesus, but many years later realized the picture were General Lee and Longstreed from the confederate side of the Civil War.
But we're talking about the republican view of reagan which says you can't say anything about this guy even though he had some questionable practices that landed some in his administration in Prison. I think Reagan and Bill Clinton both had good presidencies. Carter was a good person, perhaps the best person in the last 50 years, to serve as president and his presidency might have been worse than Bush II's if it hadn't been for Reagan. Good guys don't necessarily make the best presidents.
Reagan is also compared a lot to Lincoln. How about Lincoln? Lincoln did a lot, but I"m not sure that he really had a great presidency on purpose. He didn't save the union, he had half the union defeat the other half. That's not really saving the union. He freed the slaves which you can't argue with, but you can point out that he did this in order to "save the union" and not because it was so darned obviously the right thing to do. I've read that he was a deporter, wanting to do what was economically impossible anyway, but morally pretty corrupt which was to send the slave population to Liberia or some similar place which sounds more like Trump than Reagan. If you study history (and I'm not sure you can say that about the writer for Huffpost or this Jason fellow) it's pretty bizarre.
Lincoln did as much by executive fiat as any president after or before and essentially defined the modern president whose power is difficult to limit.
What would Trump be? Maybe he'd be Reagan, maybe a bush, but he wouldn't be a carter.
No comments:
Post a Comment