r/Conservative • u/[deleted] • May 22 '17
Sidebar Tribute: Governor Ronald Reagan
This week's sidebar tribute goes to Ronald Reagan, who before serving as president, was governor of California from 1967-1975.
Today, the University of California, Berkeley and the surrounding neighborhood are Antifa's playground. Back in the 60s, just as today, Berkeley was rife with lawless commies, often threatening or enacting vandalism and violence.
However unlike current California Governor Jerry "Moonbeam" Brown, Reagan knew that the only way to foster a stable environment was through ensuring law and order. If rioters and protesters got their way by using extra-legal methods, there would be no end to their anarchy and the foundations of our democratic society would weaken.
Reagan set an example for how to deal with Antifa and other insurgent commie groups: through the use of lawful force to uphold order and protect the rights of people to assemble, speak, and learn without threats of physical violence and property destruction.
15
u/FePeak Fight like a Leftist May 22 '17 edited May 22 '17
My thoughts exactly.
"Negotiate? What is there to negotiate?"
Something you'll never hear the GOP ever say.
Not unless the Ann Coulter wing takes complete control.
Shame he compromised and gave illegals Amnesy in 1986, for the empty promise of a secure border. He thus helped paved the way for the destruction of the United States.
7
May 22 '17
[deleted]
-4
u/FePeak Fight like a Leftist May 22 '17
Except he had complete authority to remove invaders. And didn't.
He protected Afghanistan's borders more than America's.
3
May 22 '17
Trump is already halfway to Reagan's 2 million just by keeping executive amnesty in place.
4
u/tehForce Nobody's Alt But Mine May 22 '17
A tarnished legacy is not a failed Presidency.
-1
u/FePeak Fight like a Leftist May 22 '17
Legacy? He gave amnesty to those who invaded America while shipping Stingers to the Mujahideen-- fighters against invaders who marched across the Friendship Bridge.
This was during his second term.
10
u/tehForce Nobody's Alt But Mine May 22 '17
He also pummeled Libya after the bombing.
He also pushed the USSR to the point that they fell apart.
1
u/FePeak Fight like a Leftist May 22 '17
The USSR was destined for collapse before Reagan even ran.
What he did really well was sell the (admittedly extremely important)story of capitalism vs communism, in a generation defining manner. And for that he has my utmost respect.
9
u/tehForce Nobody's Alt But Mine May 22 '17
It was destined to fail and he recognized how to set the fast forward button.
But I suppose in your eyes he has left no legacy but domestic policy compromise that didn't pan out.
-1
2
u/darthhayek Libertarian Conservative May 22 '17
I'm of the controversial opinion that amnesty was a good idea since the country sees what happened to California as a consequence.
6
u/FePeak Fight like a Leftist May 22 '17
since the country sees what happened to California as a consequence.
You think logic works with morons who wanted more MENA refugees AFTER Paris?
2
May 22 '17 edited May 22 '17
Lol. Reagan helped in the "destruction of the United States" with illegal immigrants... said the guy who voted for a president who decided to keep Obama's executive amnesty...
Edit: got your hyperbolic quote wrong
1
u/FePeak Fight like a Leftist May 22 '17
Reagan paved the way for it, and normalized the pro-illegal immigration right.
Oh, and I'm FOR not opposing any Trump Impeachment if he doesn't get deporting.
Depending on how it plays, that'll generate the necessary anger to achieve my policy desires-- one way or another. It's not like the post-Hillary/Obama, post-Berkeley America is a nation of laws.
PS- Reagan blew out the deficit. Put not your faith in princes; idolatry involving Saint Reagan won't save you. He didn't even stand up for Judge Sessions or Justice Bork.
7
May 22 '17
Reagan was the best post-WWII president by a wide margin. Not a saint, but a good messenger, and decent president. And his deficit pales in comparison with Trump's here, and he actually inherited the business end of a recession from his predecessor. Something something not faith in princes.
Reagan paved the way for it, and normalized the pro-illegal immigration right.
So Reagan is why Trump lied to his followers and left executive amnesty in place? This doesn't require the legislature. He could have flipped the switch on DACA. As it stands, it looks like he'd rather these people have anchor babies while the clock ticks and they still accept applicants.
You aren't getting your "policy desires", but you will give Trump a free pass because it's about the personality of Trump and not the policies, and he's "different".
DACA, a strong position against Russia, bigger arms deals with the Saudis than Obama, half-assed Repeal and Replace. Something that will likely look like the meager Bush tax cuts when it's done in the Senate, unreformed entitlements, 600 Billion deficit. Hard to imagine Jeb Bush doing things differently, but that's okay, because at least it's Trump.
0
u/FePeak Fight like a Leftist May 22 '17
Something something not faith in princes.
Oh, boy. Mate, I just told you I'm fine with his impeachment if my policy goals aren't met.
You aren't getting your "policy desires", but you will give Trump a free pass because it's about the personality of Trump and not the policies, and he's "different".
More reading, less projecting. Please.
7
May 22 '17 edited May 22 '17
Oh, boy. Mate, I just told you I'm fine with his impeachment if my policy goals aren't met.
Pretty stupid. I'm not. Good heavens, he'd better be charged with misdemeanors or high crimes for me to be okay with it. Him being a garbage president doesn't have anything to do with it, but that's only because I do place a shred of faith in the constitution. You don't rationalise the head of state being removed because he doesn't behave how you want.
More reading, less projecting. Please.
A fairly accurate projection, if I had to guess. The fact that you just ripped Reagan for something the Democrats reneged on and said nothing about the weak-willed current occupant of the white house who has acquiesced to Obama's executive amnesty betrays your leanings here.
-2
u/FePeak Fight like a Leftist May 22 '17 edited May 22 '17
You don't rationalise the head of state being removed because he doesn't behave how you want.
He swore to protect the United States and its Constitution.
Wilful dereliction of duty, or gross negligence if not deliberate and political abandonment of this oath, are grounds for impeachment.
The fact that you just ripped Reagan for something the Democrats reneged on and said nothing about the weak-willed current occupant of the white house who has acquiesced to Obama's executive amnesty betrays your leanings here.
Is English a second language? I just said, again, that I'm in favor of removing him on that charge alone.
It's like I'm communicating with a SJW.
6
May 22 '17
Yawn. SJW? You can do better than a baseline Trump-worshipper insult. The mindless insults from that tribe are substantially less disheartening than the lack of imagination.
If you're calling for Trump's impeachment right now because of DACA, this is the first you've mentioned it since he's been inaugurated. It kinda seems like you're only pretending to care about it now because I've pointed out your inconsistency in blaming Reagan. And "policy desires" are how you just rationalized it a few comments up. "Policy desires" are bad reasons for impeachment. If you truly believe Trump is doing something unconstitutional by keeping DACA in place (which campaign Trump might also pretend to agree with) - fine, but that doesn't have much to do with "policy desires"
2
u/darthhayek Libertarian Conservative May 22 '17
Trump-worshipper insult
you're kidding, right
5
May 22 '17
Going around calling people SJW's who aren't? It's pretty common for the real worshipful to go around and call conservatives who disagree with them on something unrelated to "social justice" SJW's. Here, we are talking about whether "policy desires" are good justification for supporting impeachment, and he's saying I argue like an SJW...
→ More replies (0)2
May 23 '17
[deleted]
2
u/FePeak Fight like a Leftist May 23 '17
Independent power? Bork had almost none during the Nixon controversy.
4
May 23 '17
[deleted]
3
u/jub-jub-bird Conservative May 24 '17
but I don't know why we look up to him as the conservative figure head.
Because he was a deeply principled conservative before it was de rigueur in the Republican party. He was instrumental in the formation of the modern conservative movement and won it's first (and only?) major political victory changing the course of American history shifting it in a conservative direction for a generation.
He sucked at gun rights and immigration
He was dealing with a Democratic majorities and a much more liberal Republican party and compromise is a political necessity no matter how firm your convictions.
On gun rights he advocating abolishing the ATF, defeated the hand gun ban & the Firearm Owners Protection Act was a case of two steps forward and one step back ending abuses by the ATF and making a firearms registry illegal while banning fully automatic machine guns. Reagan after being president supported the Brady bill but I suspect that was more personal loyalty to a friend shot in the attempt on his life than anything else.
On immigration it was a case of one step forward and two steps back. The bill allowed a one time amnesty and in return made it illegal to hire illegals & required employers to attest to their employees immigration status and called for increased funding for border security. The idea was "OK we'll normalize the status of people already here but allow no more in". IF it had included the border security funding it probably would have been an OK compromise. BUT, border security funding was put off for another bill and the Democrats reneged on the quid pro quo which is why Republicans have ever since then been unwilling to compromise on any immigration reform without border security being addressed first.
2
4
May 22 '17
[deleted]
4
u/JumpyPorcupine Minnesota Nationalist May 22 '17
John F. Kennedy would be a conservative today. Hence why I admire him so much.
"Ask not what your country can do for you"
3
u/AsksTrumpSupporters May 22 '17
Totally agreed on Eisenhower and Kennedy being impressive presidents. Kennedy turned down Operation Northwoods like a champion, and Eisenhower's speech on the military-industrial complex is one of the most iconic speeches of American history.
Imagine if the conservatism of today mirrored the conservatism of Eisenhower's age!
7
May 22 '17
High taxes and Keynesianism? Sounds terrible and not very conservative to me.
3
u/darthhayek Libertarian Conservative May 22 '17
The high taxes are somewhat exaggerated I believe. It's also a little less controversial before 50 years of mass immigration.
3
May 22 '17
If I may suggest next week's sidebar quote:
The chief objection to liberal moralism, in fact, is that it is immoral. This is equally true of all ideologies that dispense with realities they can't include in their visions. The economy, they think, has failed; the family has failed; the church has failed; the whole world has failed. But their visions have never faileD, no matter what their cost in waste of human lives and possibilities. The dream itself is sovereign; to reject it is to be guilty of refusing to aspire; to embrace it is to lay claim to a moral blank check. As Burke said of the French revolutionaries: "In the manifest faulure of their abilities, they take credit for their intentions."
-- Joseph Sobran
8
May 22 '17 edited May 22 '17
It cracks me up that the people who voted for Trump, a president who now supports DACA, are claiming that Reagan, who made a deal that the democrats reneged on, is the real problem.
Edit: Reagan was a great president, but no one's perfect. Trump, who will get a free pass on not deporting 11 million by these same Reagan critics (who, it will turn out, really just want amnesty from an orange guy) broke his first illegal immigration promise on day one when he didn't immediately repeal Obama's unconstitutional EO's on illegal immigration
7
May 22 '17
As a supporter of Reagan and Trump I can admit that Reagan helped pave the way for millions of illegals to enter this country. What's laughable is that you think Trump's actions (or inaction) on immigration is somehow the same or worse than Reagans. Because this is far bigger than 11 million. They already butchered the constitution to allow the children of illegal immigrants born in the U.S to become U.S citizens. And you aren't stupid, so you know that Trump would be touching the 3rd rail if he began deporting millions of illegals. Trump did what Reagan failed to do, he is securing the borders.
8
May 22 '17 edited May 22 '17
Trump did what Reagan failed to do, he is securing the borders.
I'll believe it when I see it.
Because this is far bigger than 11 million.
I know, right? And he won't even start small with that 11 million. So we should cheer on the thousand or two he's deported, because thousands are way bigger than 11 million, or something.
They already butchered the constitution to allow the children of illegal immigrants born in the U.S to become U.S citizens
Reagan did that? Kinda seems like that might not have been him.
3
May 22 '17
I'll believe it when I see it.
You are already seeing tougher enforcement and you are seeing planning for a border fence. So you will be waiting for congress to put the final pieces in place.
I know, right? And he won't even start small with that 11 million. So we should cheer on the thousand or two he's deported, because thousands are way bigger than 11 million, or something.
Yeah, because 11 million is small. Republicans can't even fund a wall, can you imagine the costs to hire thousands more border enforcement agents and the cost to relocate and sort through millions of illegals. Not to mention dealing with the blowback from the entirely of the Democratic party, sanctuary cities and dealing Mexico. Mass protests would be the least of Trumps worry. Funny how you talk about waiting to see but you have no interest in waiting to see with Trump. Meanwhile we have seen what came from Reagan and you aren't willing to admit that Trump is on track to succeed so long as congress backs him up.
Reagan did that? Kinda seems like that might not have been him.
No, but now it's much harder to address illegal immigration now that millions more Americans are children of illegal immigrants. Reagan gave amnesty to over 2 million out of 5... now there are 11 million and they have far more rights and benefits than they did 30 years ago.
Making them harder to deport..but you know all of this. All one as to do is look at hispanics as a percentage of the total population today relative to 1986 to see the impact of those pro immigrant policies Reagan helped enact. And to understand that Trump would have to do what Reagan never even dreamt of, all while facing opposition from both parties. Factor in the manufactured scandals and media opposition and it necessary clear that deporting 11 million would indeed be the 3rd rail. So name a president who has touched the 3rd rail and tell me if they ever survived it.
5
May 22 '17
You are already seeing tougher enforcement and you are seeing planning for a border fence. So you will be waiting for congress to put the final pieces in place.
If history is our teacher, we'll be waiting decades, and you're talking about a marginal step up in enforcement. We aren't talking about changing the tide by millions.
So name a president who has touched the 3rd rail and tell me if they ever survived it.
If you're talking about the ACTUAL third rail, entitlements, evidently Reagan did that. Staved off social security collapse by a few years. On the other hand, if you're talking about the third rail you just invented - enforcing the law - and is one Trump literally campaigned on (gee, I wonder if deporting illegal immigrants is really an untouchable and unelectable subject, or if that's just what Trump voters are telling themselves in anticipation of Trump's failures).
Reagan gave amnesty to over 2 million out of 5... now there are 11 million and they have far more rights and benefits than they did 30 years ago.
yes, even though Trump has essentially granted amnesty to only half the number Reagan did by cementing Obama's EO, it's only half a year in. I bet he finds a way to let the other 10 million stay, making him far worse than whatever amnesty is being attributed to Reagan (who at least secured an admittedly faulty deal beforehand. Trump didn't even need that to sell out on executive amnesty). He even alluded to a separate "disposition" on those already here during his August speech last year.
As it turns out, Trump voters are okay with getting a deal about 5x worse in terms of amnesty than Reagan in return for the same nebulous promises of immigration enforcement from a Congress that won't prioritize that. (What, like 50% more border patrol officers and a fence that might raise the prices of illegal border crossing by a few bucks at most?)
3
May 22 '17 edited May 22 '17
If history is our teacher, we'll be waiting decades, and you're talking about a marginal step up in enforcement. We aren't talking about changing the tide by millions.
Yes, I'm talking a solid first step after decades of neglect.
If you're talking about the ACTUAL third rail, entitlements, evidently Reagan did that. Staved off social security collapse by a few years.
No he didn't. In case you didn't know, the 3rd rail kills. Reagan bought some time, that's it. Raising taxes isn't reform and it definitely didn't involve touching the 3rd rail. He looked at it and hopped over it.
On the other hand, if you're talking about the third rail you just invented - enforcing the law - and is one Trump literally campaigned on (gee, I wonder if deporting illegal immigrants is really an untouchable and unelectable subject, or if that's just what Trump voters are telling themselves in anticipation of Trump's failures).
I didn't invent reality. But you are right, Trump promised more than he could deliver (so far) Imagine a politician doing that. He's in good company with Reagan.
yes, even though Trump has essentially granted amnesty to only half the number Reagan did by cementing Obama's EO, it's only half a year in. I bet he finds a way to let the other 10 million stay, making him far worse than whatever amnesty is being attributed to Reagan (who at least secured an admittedly faulty deal beforehand. Trump didn't even need that to sell out on executive amnesty). He even alluded to a separate "disposition" on those already here during his August speech last year.
Nice spin. Over 30 years later and the results are staggering even if you believe the phony 11 million number. It's likely larger and the ramifications of deportation are much more serious now that the political systems in numerous states have been built around illegals. The demographics have shifted, the political climate has shifted, removing illegals just got 10 times more costly and difficult, so your spin falls flat.
As it turns out, Trump voters are okay with getting a deal about 5x worse in terms of amnesty than Reagan in return for the same nebulous promises of immigration enforcement from a Congress that won't prioritize that. (What, like 50% more border patrol officers and a fence that might raise the prices of illegal border crossing by a few bucks at most?)
It's not 5 times worse if you factor in the additional problems and costs that were created after politicians like Reagan essentially did nothing about illegal immigration the last 40 years. Thus the 3rd rail... if Trump "enforces the law" as you state the consequences would kill his presidency and any hope for progress in the Republican congress. You know it.. but you like it that way, it allows you to continue with your anti trump agenda. I'm pro Trump precisely because conservatives would be worse without him. You never wanted him and still want to see him topple. Act as concerned as you want, I'm not buying it.
1
May 22 '17 edited May 22 '17
Over 30 years layer and the results are staggering even if you believe the phony 11 million number.
I mean, I'm being charitable. If you think he'll give amnesty to more than that, by all means, go with your number. As a ratio of the total population, way worse than Reagan. You just whined about demographic shifts due to 2 million with amnesty. You're getting a lot worse with Trump if he implements comprehensive reform as he has hinted:) but oh, praise his name, while you curse Reagan, amirite? And the small bump in enforcement will totally work, amirite?
It's not 5 times worse if you factor in the additional problems and costs that were created after politicians like Reagan essentially did nothing about illegal immigration the last 40 years
If I understand your argument, you're okay with Trump granting amnesty to 1 million right now, and probably even okay with the 11 or 20 million (depending on whose alternate facts you're reading), because you think the future looks rosier with illegal immigration than it has in the past? Hahahaha
Edit: and yes, Social Security wasn't "fixed" by Reagan with a Democrat Congress. They kicked the can down the road... But the point was "Third Rail". You're redefining the term to mean illegal immigration, and the historic one is, you know, NOT that...
1
u/darthhayek Libertarian Conservative May 22 '17
I'm ok with amnesty after the wall is fully built and armed
2
2
u/ConservativeChicano Cruz Conservative May 23 '17
He had his faults, but overall a strong leader.
My favorite quote: "The most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help."
Truer words have never been spoken.
2
u/CharlesChrist May 24 '17
There were threads in askreddit where it's asked who was the best and worse President ever. Most Redditors in that sub think Reagan was terrible and Carter was good. Seems that Redditors have an upside down view of things.
2
3
u/readalanwatts May 22 '17 edited May 22 '17
Reagan set an example for how to deal with Antifa and other insurgent commie groups: through the use of lawful force to uphold order and protect the rights of people to assemble, speak, and learn without threats of physical violence and property destruction.
Yeah.. by signing the Mulford Act with the backing of the NRA, banning open carry in California, starting the crazy gun laws we see in California today. When police brutality was on the rise the Black Panthers open carried rifles in neighborhoods most affected by police brutality. Police Brutality went down, creating a perfect example of the 2nd amendment working. After Reagan signed the Mulford Act with the support of the NRA, police brutality continued to rise for the next few decades, eventually resulting the '92 riots and spiraling insane gun control laws.
So yeah, 'good job' Reagan.
7
May 22 '17
There's no left wing party in America. There's center right and far right. There needs to be a democratic socialist party.
That's gotta be my favorite quote of yours. So tell me, are you in favor of looser gun laws?
5
u/readalanwatts May 22 '17 edited May 22 '17
I am not a conservative, if you or anybody goes through my post history you'll see I'm left of democrats (and sorry there's one comment where I make fun of Buckley).
And yes I'm in favor of looser gun laws. It's one of the things you guys are right about and "the left" is wrong about.
American culture includes guns, and Americans will never stop loving guns. Super strict gun laws that work in other countries like Australia would never work here because we're not Australians.
Exercising 2nd amendment rights works. The Black Panthers in Oakland were successful in decreasing police brutality by simply exercising those rights when their government failed to serve them, and Reagan took that away from them by enacting stricter gun laws.
I have many many many criticisms of Reagan that you guys would disagree with me on, but this is one that we can agree on, which is why I commented. I usually just read here and don't comment because I don't want to get into tired arguments and start pointless shit but since I felt we could agree on this I commented.
3
May 23 '17
I agree with you actually. And by the way, there's a third party for you that I heard about called "The Socialism and Liberation Party" who are basically pro-2A Democratic socialists. Personally, I believe socialism and Liberation are complete opposites, but if they allow gun ownership, it means there's at least some factor of private property rights.
2
u/readalanwatts May 24 '17
Thanks I'll check them out, and thanks for the civility.
if they allow gun ownership, it means there's at least some factor of private property rights.
Just a note on this, in leftist thought there is a distinction between 'private property' and 'personal property'. Private property describe things that turn a profit - like a lathe in a factory, or the server in your office, or a house that is rented out. Personal property typically describe consumer goods an individual owns - like your gun or your bicycle or your toothbrush. Only crazy super idealistic people who think textbook communism is possible in our lifetimes (which Marx didn't even think) would want to abolish personal property.
We won't agree on classifying property that way but that's how a socialist party can reconcile accepting gun ownership.
1
May 25 '17
Just looked into them a bit more and they aren't just DemSocs; they're full on communists.
1
May 22 '17 edited May 22 '17
[deleted]
0
u/readalanwatts May 22 '17 edited May 22 '17
I'm not a concern troll *as you said before your edit, I'm not being disingenuous here.
And my personal beliefs don't make anything about Reagan signing the Mulford Act any less true. I'm not trying to troll, we can disagree on everything but still agree that signing the Mulford Act and enacting stricter gun control laws is a valid criticism of Reagan.
3
May 22 '17
[deleted]
4
u/readalanwatts May 22 '17
That's fair and since this is a sub for conservatives I'll retract the personal conclusion that can come off like that.
2
2
-5
u/HealthIndustryGoon May 22 '17
He had all the faults and none of the virtues of the fascist: malice without frankness; cruelty without courage; pomp without dignity.
3
May 22 '17
[deleted]
1
u/aboardthegravyboat Conservative May 22 '17
I got curious and googled it.
http://exiledonline.com/here-lies-the-worst-of-all-an-exile-tribute-to-ronald-reagan-part-1/
2
22
u/dontzu May 22 '17
His "Time for Choosing Speech" speech expresses the conservative principles so well. I listen to it from time to time whenever I feel the need to be inspired.
One thing I wish he hadnt done though was granting amnesty for illegal aliens though I wasn't old enough at the time to fully appreciate the context of the situation.