hokiewolf said:

---

caryking said:

---

TheStorm said:

---

caryking said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

caryking said:

---

NCTrafficMan said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

cowboypack02 said:

---

Can we get back to the Roe v. Wade debate?

---

That's up to BBW120G

---

Watch out or he will call you MARXIST again in bold font.

For some strange reason he considers that to be the worst insult of all time.

A BOLD word. That means he REALLY means it lol.

---

What's interesting is that people, that are truly conservative, are called the "far right wing". Would you rather be called "far left wing"?

---

if you're truly conservative then you're nowhere near the far right

---

Well, the media has a hard time defining the difference between "far right" and "conservative". Perhaps, Hokie, you can help with discerning the differences. I'd like to know the differences...

---

In the very first election right after I turned 18, and where I was eligible to vote in 1980 - I voted for a man named Ronald Reagan.

I voted for him again in 1984.

---

Yea, and I see a lot of the same policies between Regan and Trump. Also, both were snookered into believing the Republican Party had their back.

---

Blasphemous

---

How so?

hokiewolf said:

---

caryking said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

caryking said:

---

TheStorm said:

---

caryking said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

caryking said:

---

NCTrafficMan said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

cowboypack02 said:

---

Can we get back to the Roe v. Wade debate?

---

That's up to BBW120G

---

Watch out or he will call you MARXIST again in bold font.

For some strange reason he considers that to be the worst insult of all time.

A BOLD word. That means he REALLY means it lol.

---

What's interesting is that people, that are truly conservative, are called the "far right wing". Would you rather be called "far left wing"?

---

if you're truly conservative then you're nowhere near the far right

---

Well, the media has a hard time defining the difference between "far right" and "conservative". Perhaps, Hokie, you can help with discerning the differences. I'd like to know the differences...

---

In the very first election right after I turned 18, and where I was eligible to vote in 1980 - I voted for a man named Ronald Reagan.

I voted for him again in 1984.

---

Yea, and I see a lot of the same policies between Regan and Trump. Also, both were snookered into believing the Republican Party had their back.

---

Blasphemous

---

How so?

---

the only similarity to Regan and Trump is they were both President. That's about it

---

Hokie, I know you can do better than that... I clearly said "same policies" and you responded with "blasphemous". So, I asked "how so"?

Can you at least state the policies that were not similar?

BTW, your response is what makes some just go "scorched earth" on you...

caryking said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

caryking said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

caryking said:

---

TheStorm said:

---

caryking said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

caryking said:

---

NCTrafficMan said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

cowboypack02 said:

---

Can we get back to the Roe v. Wade debate?

---

That's up to BBW120G

---

Watch out or he will call you MARXIST again in bold font.

For some strange reason he considers that to be the worst insult of all time.

A BOLD word. That means he REALLY means it lol.

---

What's interesting is that people, that are truly conservative, are called the "far right wing". Would you rather be called "far left wing"?

---

if you're truly conservative then you're nowhere near the far right

---

Well, the media has a hard time defining the difference between "far right" and "conservative". Perhaps, Hokie, you can help with discerning the differences. I'd like to know the differences...

---

In the very first election right after I turned 18, and where I was eligible to vote in 1980 - I voted for a man named Ronald Reagan.

I voted for him again in 1984.

---

Yea, and I see a lot of the same policies between Regan and Trump. Also, both were snookered into believing the Republican Party had their back.

---

Blasphemous

---

How so?

---

the only similarity to Regan and Trump is they were both President. That's about it

---

Hokie, I know you can do better than that... I clearly said "same policies" and you responded with "blasphemous". So, I asked "how so"?

Can you at least state the policies that were not similar?

BTW, your response is what makes some just go "scorched earth" on you...

---

We'll, if you want to worship at the alter of a grifter, then I guess I deserve to be given scorched earth treatment.

This article sums things up nicely.

https://www.aei.org/articles/why-attempts-to-compare-donald-trump-to-ronald-reagan-fall-flat/

caryking said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

caryking said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

caryking said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

caryking said:

---

TheStorm said:

---

caryking said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

caryking said:

---

NCTrafficMan said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

cowboypack02 said:

---

Can we get back to the Roe v. Wade debate?

---

That's up to BBW120G

---

Watch out or he will call you MARXIST again in bold font.

For some strange reason he considers that to be the worst insult of all time.

A BOLD word. That means he REALLY means it lol.

---

What's interesting is that people, that are truly conservative, are called the "far right wing". Would you rather be called "far left wing"?

---

if you're truly conservative then you're nowhere near the far right

---

Well, the media has a hard time defining the difference between "far right" and "conservative". Perhaps, Hokie, you can help with discerning the differences. I'd like to know the differences...

---

In the very first election right after I turned 18, and where I was eligible to vote in 1980 - I voted for a man named Ronald Reagan.

I voted for him again in 1984.

---

Yea, and I see a lot of the same policies between Regan and Trump. Also, both were snookered into believing the Republican Party had their back.

---

Blasphemous

---

How so?

---

the only similarity to Regan and Trump is they were both President. That's about it

---

Hokie, I know you can do better than that... I clearly said "same policies" and you responded with "blasphemous". So, I asked "how so"?

Can you at least state the policies that were not similar?

BTW, your response is what makes some just go "scorched earth" on you...

---

We'll, if you want to worship at the alter of a grifter, then I guess I deserve to be given scorched earth treatment.

This article sums things up nicely.

https://www.aei.org/articles/why-attempts-to-compare-donald-trump-to-ronald-reagan-fall-flat/

---

Here is my take on some of the points in the article…

Both realized the deficit was a problem. They both wanted to solve entitlement programs. One big difference: Trump had lost the manufacturing base to other countries. Reagan still had it. Trumps idea was to bring manufacturing back, so, people could work themselves out of entitlements (a long term plan). One other thing: he didn't believe that the people most affected by outsourcing should take the brunt of cuts. To a degree, I agree with the sentiment, even though I believe all entitlements are unconstitutional!

They both deregulated dang near everything. They both lowered taxes. They both believed in getting the economy rolling, in order work down deficits, even though neither accomplished their goals. They both worked with hapless Democrats and Republicans!

Trump shaved trillions off the Federal Reserve balance sheet. That's something nobody talks about. Currently, the Democrats have monetized all deficit spending. It sits on the Federal Reserve balance sheet. That has inflated the money supply, thus caused overall inflation (war on oil hasn't helped either).

One thing the article doesn't point out is very simple to understand. Reagan and Trump had two different economies to work with. The actions that Reagan and Volkert did are not possible today…

So, I say the article is misleading…. Also, to prove my point…. The 1st qtr negative GDP would have been positive, if the trade imbalance wasn't so massive! Just think about that!

---

I believe you believe that those where Trumps policies. I don't believe that Trump believed in those policies.

Trump did nothing to work down deficits, not in 4 years he was in office was there an approved budget.

hokiewolf said:

---

caryking said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

caryking said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

caryking said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

caryking said:

---

TheStorm said:

---

caryking said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

caryking said:

---

NCTrafficMan said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

cowboypack02 said:

---

Can we get back to the Roe v. Wade debate?

---

That's up to BBW120G

---

Watch out or he will call you MARXIST again in bold font.

For some strange reason he considers that to be the worst insult of all time.

A BOLD word. That means he REALLY means it lol.

---

What's interesting is that people, that are truly conservative, are called the "far right wing". Would you rather be called "far left wing"?

---

if you're truly conservative then you're nowhere near the far right

---

Well, the media has a hard time defining the difference between "far right" and "conservative". Perhaps, Hokie, you can help with discerning the differences. I'd like to know the differences...

---

In the very first election right after I turned 18, and where I was eligible to vote in 1980 - I voted for a man named Ronald Reagan.

I voted for him again in 1984.

---

Yea, and I see a lot of the same policies between Regan and Trump. Also, both were snookered into believing the Republican Party had their back.

---

Blasphemous

---

How so?

---

the only similarity to Regan and Trump is they were both President. That's about it

---

Hokie, I know you can do better than that... I clearly said "same policies" and you responded with "blasphemous". So, I asked "how so"?

Can you at least state the policies that were not similar?

BTW, your response is what makes some just go "scorched earth" on you...

---

We'll, if you want to worship at the alter of a grifter, then I guess I deserve to be given scorched earth treatment.

This article sums things up nicely.

https://www.aei.org/articles/why-attempts-to-compare-donald-trump-to-ronald-reagan-fall-flat/

---

Here is my take on some of the points in the article…

Both realized the deficit was a problem. They both wanted to solve entitlement programs. One big difference: Trump had lost the manufacturing base to other countries. Reagan still had it. Trumps idea was to bring manufacturing back, so, people could work themselves out of entitlements (a long term plan). One other thing: he didn't believe that the people most affected by outsourcing should take the brunt of cuts. To a degree, I agree with the sentiment, even though I believe all entitlements are unconstitutional!

They both deregulated dang near everything. They both lowered taxes. They both believed in getting the economy rolling, in order work down deficits, even though neither accomplished their goals. They both worked with hapless Democrats and Republicans!

Trump shaved trillions off the Federal Reserve balance sheet. That's something nobody talks about. Currently, the Democrats have monetized all deficit spending. It sits on the Federal Reserve balance sheet. That has inflated the money supply, thus caused overall inflation (war on oil hasn't helped either).

One thing the article doesn't point out is very simple to understand. Reagan and Trump had two different economies to work with. The actions that Reagan and Volkert did are not possible today…

So, I say the article is misleading…. Also, to prove my point…. The 1st qtr negative GDP would have been positive, if the trade imbalance wasn't so massive! Just think about that!

---

I believe you believe that those where Trumps policies. I don't believe that Trump believed in those policies.

Trump did nothing to work down deficits, not in 4 years he was in office was there an approved budget.

---

So, are you saying Reagan reduced the deficit during his term?

At least he had a budget.

hokiewolf said:

---

At least he had a budget.

---

Hokie, this is becoming a waste of time…. I made a statement of similarities between Trump and Reagan and all you've done is post slingers without any substance. Come on, I 'now you can do better…

Be careful as this might be why you're called… one of those people…. You know the ones I'm talking about, right?

BTW, you do know that congress passes bills to appropriate money. The president is the person that's supposed to execute those bills within a functioning government…

caryking said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

At least he had a budget.

---

Hokie, this is becoming a waste of time…. I made a statement of similarities between Trump and Reagan and all you've done is post slingers without any substance. Come on, I 'now you can do better…

Be careful as this might be why you're called… one of those people…. You know the ones I'm talking about, right?

BTW, you do know that congress passes bills to appropriate money. The president is the person that's supposed to execute those bills within a functioning government…

---

I guess what I'm trying to say Cary is that I can say there's a lot of policy similarities between Trump and George HW Bush too.

It all comes down to execution. And I don't think Trump executed his policies as well as Regan.

Regan to me epitomized the best a President can be in the modern era. Trump did not come close to that standard.

https://instagr.am/p/CgNYdfcua5S

hokiewolf said:

---

caryking said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

At least he had a budget.

---

Hokie, this is becoming a waste of time…. I made a statement of similarities between Trump and Reagan and all you've done is post slingers without any substance. Come on, I 'now you can do better…

Be careful as this might be why you're called… one of those people…. You know the ones I'm talking about, right?

BTW, you do know that congress passes bills to appropriate money. The president is the person that's supposed to execute those bills within a functioning government…

---

I guess what I'm trying to say Cary is that I can say there's a lot of policy similarities between Trump and George HW Bush too.

It all comes down to execution. And I don't think Trump executed his policies as well as Regan.

Regan to me epitomized the best a President can be in the modern era. Trump did not come close to that standard.

---

I think that's actually a fair point.

I thought that Trump did good on things like immigration, but on federal spending he did not do very well at all

#1 it's spelled "Reagan"...

Hokie, how old were you when Reagan was in office since you're such an expert on him? I've seen you post previously about having school age kids in other threads, and so yeah, it's a valid question.

(Watch him turn out to be older than me)

Hokie, I'm a huge Reagan person. If you haven't been to the Reagan Library, you should try to go. It's awesome, inspiring, and so much more. So, yea… I get how great Reagan was!

Based on my previous post, the economic circumstances were so different between Reagan and Trump. These differences are really what makes execution so hard to compare. Also, remember, as your article was pointing out negative aspects, they fail to say repealing and replacing the Obamacare system has to begin with the Republicans leading both houses. Too many people have said (dang, I can't remember who) the inability to get Republican leadership to move on repeal and replace of Obamacare was a tragedy.

In summary, both Presidents were successful and both had loses…. Remember who legalized 15M illegally crossed Hispanics…

TheStorm said:

---

#1 it's spelled "Reagan"...

Hokie, how old were you when Reagan was in office since you're such an expert on him? I've seen you post previously about having school age kids in other threads, and so yeah, it's a valid question.

(Watch him turn out to be older than me)

---

early 40s. I was a kid when he was President but I've read four books on him.

hokiewolf said:

---

TheStorm said:

---

#1 it's spelled "Reagan"...

Hokie, how old were you when Reagan was in office since you're such an expert on him? I've seen you post previously about having school age kids in other threads, and so yeah, it's a valid question.

(Watch him turn out to be older than me)

---

early 40s. I was a kid when he was President but I've read four books on him.

---

So essentially, you were an infant when he was first elected... and then maybe 4 or 5 when he was re-elected...

TheStorm said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

TheStorm said:

---

#1 it's spelled "Reagan"...

Hokie, how old were you when Reagan was in office since you're such an expert on him? I've seen you post previously about having school age kids in other threads, and so yeah, it's a valid question.

(Watch him turn out to be older than me)

---

early 40s. I was a kid when he was President but I've read four books on him.

---

So essentially, you were an infant when he was first elected... and then maybe 4 or 5 when he was re-elected...

---

so?

TheStorm said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

TheStorm said:

---

#1 it's spelled "Reagan"...

Hokie, how old were you when Reagan was in office since you're such an expert on him? I've seen you post previously about having school age kids in other threads, and so yeah, it's a valid question.

(Watch him turn out to be older than me)

---

early 40s. I was a kid when he was President but I've read four books on him.

---

So essentially, you were an infant when he was first elected... and then maybe 4 or 5 when he was re-elected...

---

But... he's read some books on him. Automatically making him an expert.

Anyone that has followed his posts must know that anything and everything he's said is the gospel truth....except when he lies, makes up ridiculous hypotheticals to derail threads, makes purposefully obtuse statements to derail threads, obsesses over me and a few others incessantly... other than that.... he's an expert....LMAO...

hokiewolf said:

---

BBW12OG said:

---

TheStorm said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

TheStorm said:

---

#1 it's spelled "Reagan"...

Hokie, how old were you when Reagan was in office since you're such an expert on him? I've seen you post previously about having school age kids in other threads, and so yeah, it's a valid question.

(Watch him turn out to be older than me)

---

early 40s. I was a kid when he was President but I've read four books on him.

---

So essentially, you were an infant when he was first elected... and then maybe 4 or 5 when he was re-elected...

---

But... he's read some books on him. Automatically making him an expert.

Anyone that has followed his posts must know that anything and everything he's said is the gospel truth....except when he lies, makes up ridiculous hypotheticals to derail threads, makes purposefully obtuse statements to derail threads, obsesses over me and a few others incessantly... other than that.... he's an expert....LMAO...

---

says the guy who butts into a conversation not involving him

---

LOL... damn dude.... you really are a sad little man...

Derp...derp...derp...derp.......

Packchem91 said:

---

TheStorm said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

TheStorm said:

---

#1 it's spelled "Reagan"...

Hokie, how old were you when Reagan was in office since you're such an expert on him? I've seen you post previously about having school age kids in other threads, and so yeah, it's a valid question.

(Watch him turn out to be older than me)

---

early 40s. I was a kid when he was President but I've read four books on him.

---

So essentially, you were an infant when he was first elected... and then maybe 4 or 5 when he was re-elected...

---

LOL, so can we never discuss Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, King, etc anymore, since we weren't of age when they were doing their things?

---

Do you think I would know more about those guys than someone who was there with them at the time?

TheStorm said:

---

Packchem91 said:

---

TheStorm said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

TheStorm said:

---

#1 it's spelled "Reagan"...

Hokie, how old were you when Reagan was in office since you're such an expert on him? I've seen you post previously about having school age kids in other threads, and so yeah, it's a valid question.

(Watch him turn out to be older than me)

---

early 40s. I was a kid when he was President but I've read four books on him.

---

So essentially, you were an infant when he was first elected... and then maybe 4 or 5 when he was re-elected...

---

LOL, so can we never discuss Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, King, etc anymore, since we weren't of age when they were doing their things?

---

Do you think I would know more about those guys than someone who was there with them at the time?

---

So were you hanging out with Nixon when he was in Cali....otherwise, how do you know more than Hokie?

To answer your question --- if you read a well-researched book on the lives of those guys, you may well know them more completely than some of the people they hung out with. Looking back also gives a perspective that those in teh midst of the times may not have appreciated.

Look at Kennedy -- to most Americans who lived in his time, he was a Camelot. In reality, he was a lout. How did we learn that?

TheStorm said:

---

Packchem91 said:

---

TheStorm said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

TheStorm said:

---

#1 it's spelled "Reagan"...

Hokie, how old were you when Reagan was in office since you're such an expert on him? I've seen you post previously about having school age kids in other threads, and so yeah, it's a valid question.

(Watch him turn out to be older than me)

---

early 40s. I was a kid when he was President but I've read four books on him.

---

So essentially, you were an infant when he was first elected... and then maybe 4 or 5 when he was re-elected...

---

LOL, so can we never discuss Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, King, etc anymore, since we weren't of age when they were doing their things?

---

Do you think I would know more about those guys than someone who was there with them at the time?

---

Depends on how that aware that someone was and where they were getting their news from, no different than now.

I imagine there were significant swaths of society without the means, interest, education, or freedom to consume much factual news about their political leaders.

There's also the issue of news of the present day being politicized vs. rearward-looking historical assessments being more sober and clear-eyed since they're removed from the emotion of the moment and they've got the benefit of hindsight.

Freedom of choice!

Civilized said:

---

TheStorm said:

---

Packchem91 said:

---

TheStorm said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

TheStorm said:

---

#1 it's spelled "Reagan"...

Hokie, how old were you when Reagan was in office since you're such an expert on him? I've seen you post previously about having school age kids in other threads, and so yeah, it's a valid question.

(Watch him turn out to be older than me)

---

early 40s. I was a kid when he was President but I've read four books on him.

---

So essentially, you were an infant when he was first elected... and then maybe 4 or 5 when he was re-elected...

---

LOL, so can we never discuss Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, King, etc anymore, since we weren't of age when they were doing their things?

---

Do you think I would know more about those guys than someone who was there with them at the time?

---

Depends on how that aware that someone was and where they were getting their news from, no different than now.

I imagine there were significant swaths of society without the means, interest, education, or freedom to consume much factual news about their political leaders.

There's also the issue of news of the present day being politicized vs. rearward-looking historical assessments being more sober and clear-eyed since they're removed from the emotion of the moment and they've got the benefit of hindsight.

---

Last paragraph is good. I've looked at newspaper, from the 1700's and the use of satire was extremely prevalent then. So, while not living then, we could draw a conclusion that politics were rough, back then; however, the instantaneous access was not…

caryking said:

---

Civilized said:

---

TheStorm said:

---

Packchem91 said:

---

TheStorm said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

TheStorm said:

---

#1 it's spelled "Reagan"...

Hokie, how old were you when Reagan was in office since you're such an expert on him? I've seen you post previously about having school age kids in other threads, and so yeah, it's a valid question.

(Watch him turn out to be older than me)

---

early 40s. I was a kid when he was President but I've read four books on him.

---

So essentially, you were an infant when he was first elected... and then maybe 4 or 5 when he was re-elected...

---

LOL, so can we never discuss Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, King, etc anymore, since we weren't of age when they were doing their things?

---

Do you think I would know more about those guys than someone who was there with them at the time?

---

Depends on how that aware that someone was and where they were getting their news from, no different than now.

I imagine there were significant swaths of society without the means, interest, education, or freedom to consume much factual news about their political leaders.

There's also the issue of news of the present day being politicized vs. rearward-looking historical assessments being more sober and clear-eyed since they're removed from the emotion of the moment and they've got the benefit of hindsight.

---

Last paragraph is good. I've looked at newspaper, from the 1700's and the use of satire was extremely prevalent then. So, while not living then, we could draw a conclusion that politics were rough, back then; however, the instantaneous access was not…

---

100%.

Politics was a messy game from the jump and the mainstream media was never some unbiased beacon of objectivity that people make the historical standard out to be. Papers in the 1800's were trying to drive sales just like today.

Hell when you go back and read snippets of those old papers I'd say journalistic standards are noticeably higher today, as crazy as that sounds given we all know how liberal j-schools and the preponderance of news sources trend. Papers back then read way more like tabloids than factual news sources.

Civilized said:

---

caryking said:

---

Civilized said:

---

TheStorm said:

---

Packchem91 said:

---

TheStorm said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

TheStorm said:

---

#1 it's spelled "Reagan"...

Hokie, how old were you when Reagan was in office since you're such an expert on him? I've seen you post previously about having school age kids in other threads, and so yeah, it's a valid question.

(Watch him turn out to be older than me)

---

early 40s. I was a kid when he was President but I've read four books on him.

---

So essentially, you were an infant when he was first elected... and then maybe 4 or 5 when he was re-elected...

---

LOL, so can we never discuss Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, King, etc anymore, since we weren't of age when they were doing their things?

---

Do you think I would know more about those guys than someone who was there with them at the time?

---

Depends on how that aware that someone was and where they were getting their news from, no different than now.

I imagine there were significant swaths of society without the means, interest, education, or freedom to consume much factual news about their political leaders.

There's also the issue of news of the present day being politicized vs. rearward-looking historical assessments being more sober and clear-eyed since they're removed from the emotion of the moment and they've got the benefit of hindsight.

---

Last paragraph is good. I've looked at newspaper, from the 1700's and the use of satire was extremely prevalent then. So, while not living then, we could draw a conclusion that politics were rough, back then; however, the instantaneous access was not…

---

100%.

Politics was a messy game from the jump and the mainstream media was never some unbiased beacon of objectivity that people make the historical standard out to be. Papers in the 1800's were trying to drive sales just like today.

Hell when you go back and read snippets of those old papers I'd say journalistic standards are noticeably higher today, as crazy as that sounds given we all know how liberal j-schools and the preponderance of news sources trend. Papers back then read way more like tabloids than factual news sources.

---

no argument from me...

That said, perhaps people accept news more (in general) literally than they use too...

Civilized said:

---

caryking said:

---

Civilized said:

---

TheStorm said:

---

Packchem91 said:

---

TheStorm said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

TheStorm said:

---

#1 it's spelled "Reagan"...

Hokie, how old were you when Reagan was in office since you're such an expert on him? I've seen you post previously about having school age kids in other threads, and so yeah, it's a valid question.

(Watch him turn out to be older than me)

---

early 40s. I was a kid when he was President but I've read four books on him.

---

So essentially, you were an infant when he was first elected... and then maybe 4 or 5 when he was re-elected...

---

LOL, so can we never discuss Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, King, etc anymore, since we weren't of age when they were doing their things?

---

Do you think I would know more about those guys than someone who was there with them at the time?

---

Depends on how that aware that someone was and where they were getting their news from, no different than now.

I imagine there were significant swaths of society without the means, interest, education, or freedom to consume much factual news about their political leaders.

There's also the issue of news of the present day being politicized vs. rearward-looking historical assessments being more sober and clear-eyed since they're removed from the emotion of the moment and they've got the benefit of hindsight.

---

Last paragraph is good. I've looked at newspaper, from the 1700's and the use of satire was extremely prevalent then. So, while not living then, we could draw a conclusion that politics were rough, back then; however, the instantaneous access was not…

---

100%.

Politics was a messy game from the jump and the mainstream media was never some unbiased beacon of objectivity that people make the historical standard out to be. Papers in the 1800's were trying to drive sales just like today.

Hell when you go back and read snippets of those old papers I'd say journalistic standards are noticeably higher today, as crazy as that sounds given we all know how liberal j-schools and the preponderance of news sources trend. Papers back then read way more like tabloids than factual news sources.

---

People in general have lost the ability to think critically in today's society.

caryking said:

---

Civilized said:

---

caryking said:

---

Civilized said:

---

TheStorm said:

---

Packchem91 said:

---

TheStorm said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

TheStorm said:

---

#1 it's spelled "Reagan"...

Hokie, how old were you when Reagan was in office since you're such an expert on him? I've seen you post previously about having school age kids in other threads, and so yeah, it's a valid question.

(Watch him turn out to be older than me)

---

early 40s. I was a kid when he was President but I've read four books on him.

---

So essentially, you were an infant when he was first elected... and then maybe 4 or 5 when he was re-elected...

---

LOL, so can we never discuss Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, King, etc anymore, since we weren't of age when they were doing their things?

---

Do you think I would know more about those guys than someone who was there with them at the time?

---

Depends on how that aware that someone was and where they were getting their news from, no different than now.

I imagine there were significant swaths of society without the means, interest, education, or freedom to consume much factual news about their political leaders.

There's also the issue of news of the present day being politicized vs. rearward-looking historical assessments being more sober and clear-eyed since they're removed from the emotion of the moment and they've got the benefit of hindsight.

---

Last paragraph is good. I've looked at newspaper, from the 1700's and the use of satire was extremely prevalent then. So, while not living then, we could draw a conclusion that politics were rough, back then; however, the instantaneous access was not…

---

100%.

Politics was a messy game from the jump and the mainstream media was never some unbiased beacon of objectivity that people make the historical standard out to be. Papers in the 1800's were trying to drive sales just like today.

Hell when you go back and read snippets of those old papers I'd say journalistic standards are noticeably higher today, as crazy as that sounds given we all know how liberal j-schools and the preponderance of news sources trend. Papers back then read way more like tabloids than factual news sources.

---

no argument from me...

That said, perhaps people accept news more (in general) literally than they use too...

---

I'd argue people have become accustomed to team-based news. We trust the news from our preferred sources, and think the other side is lying.

cowboypack02 said:

---

Civilized said:

---

caryking said:

---

Civilized said:

---

TheStorm said:

---

Packchem91 said:

---

TheStorm said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

TheStorm said:

---

#1 it's spelled "Reagan"...

Hokie, how old were you when Reagan was in office since you're such an expert on him? I've seen you post previously about having school age kids in other threads, and so yeah, it's a valid question.

(Watch him turn out to be older than me)

---

early 40s. I was a kid when he was President but I've read four books on him.

---

So essentially, you were an infant when he was first elected... and then maybe 4 or 5 when he was re-elected...

---

LOL, so can we never discuss Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, King, etc anymore, since we weren't of age when they were doing their things?

---

Do you think I would know more about those guys than someone who was there with them at the time?

---

Depends on how that aware that someone was and where they were getting their news from, no different than now.

I imagine there were significant swaths of society without the means, interest, education, or freedom to consume much factual news about their political leaders.

There's also the issue of news of the present day being politicized vs. rearward-looking historical assessments being more sober and clear-eyed since they're removed from the emotion of the moment and they've got the benefit of hindsight.

---

Last paragraph is good. I've looked at newspaper, from the 1700's and the use of satire was extremely prevalent then. So, while not living then, we could draw a conclusion that politics were rough, back then; however, the instantaneous access was not…

---

100%.

Politics was a messy game from the jump and the mainstream media was never some unbiased beacon of objectivity that people make the historical standard out to be. Papers in the 1800's were trying to drive sales just like today.

Hell when you go back and read snippets of those old papers I'd say journalistic standards are noticeably higher today, as crazy as that sounds given we all know how liberal j-schools and the preponderance of news sources trend. Papers back then read way more like tabloids than factual news sources.

---

People in general have lost the ability to think critically in today's society.

---

Preach.

Exacerbated by the confirmation bias and echo chambers that develop when we lazily consume news as fed to us by the algorithms at Twitter, Facebook, and You Tube instead of reading contextualized long-form articles and studies.

Packchem91 said:

---

caryking said:

---

Civilized said:

---

caryking said:

---

Civilized said:

---

TheStorm said:

---

Packchem91 said:

---

TheStorm said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

TheStorm said:

---

#1 it's spelled "Reagan"...

Hokie, how old were you when Reagan was in office since you're such an expert on him? I've seen you post previously about having school age kids in other threads, and so yeah, it's a valid question.

(Watch him turn out to be older than me)

---

early 40s. I was a kid when he was President but I've read four books on him.

---

So essentially, you were an infant when he was first elected... and then maybe 4 or 5 when he was re-elected...

---

LOL, so can we never discuss Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, King, etc anymore, since we weren't of age when they were doing their things?

---

Do you think I would know more about those guys than someone who was there with them at the time?

---

Depends on how that aware that someone was and where they were getting their news from, no different than now.

I imagine there were significant swaths of society without the means, interest, education, or freedom to consume much factual news about their political leaders.

There's also the issue of news of the present day being politicized vs. rearward-looking historical assessments being more sober and clear-eyed since they're removed from the emotion of the moment and they've got the benefit of hindsight.

---

Last paragraph is good. I've looked at newspaper, from the 1700's and the use of satire was extremely prevalent then. So, while not living then, we could draw a conclusion that politics were rough, back then; however, the instantaneous access was not…

---

100%.

Politics was a messy game from the jump and the mainstream media was never some unbiased beacon of objectivity that people make the historical standard out to be. Papers in the 1800's were trying to drive sales just like today.

Hell when you go back and read snippets of those old papers I'd say journalistic standards are noticeably higher today, as crazy as that sounds given we all know how liberal j-schools and the preponderance of news sources trend. Papers back then read way more like tabloids than factual news sources.

---

no argument from me...

That said, perhaps people accept news more (in general) literally than they use too...

---

I'd argue people have become accustomed to team-based news. We trust the news from our preferred sources, and think the other side is lying.

---

This is true too.

The frustrating thing is that it's possible to acknowledge bias without necessarily considering the information factually incorrect and disregarding it outright.

I'm aware that Fox leans right, especially with their talking head opinion shows. That said I don't consider Fox *News* to be nearly as far right as their editorial shows. The same is true of all networks. Don Lemon is not reporting the news. Tucker Carlson is not reporting the news.

Take January 6. The sitting president lied about winning what he described as a "stolen" election, said he and his supporters should never concede the election, and encouraged thousands of people to march on the Capital with the intent of undermining Congress' election certification. That's factual. Debating the "why" and what happened after is more understandable but the who/what/when/where isn't in question.

Problem is that so many get sucked into the "why" and "whataboutisms" of Tucker/Cuomo/Lemon that the who/what/when/where gets called into question by association and stymies actual productive, critical discourse. (To cowboy's point)

You can say this about any president or event but it becomes especially pronounced for presidential politics. Biden is no different. His mental acuity, age, inflationary effects of the third round of stimulus, broadening of government size and reach, attempts to simultaneously appeal to the activist wing of the Democratic party and also moderates, etc. are all fair game.

We' be soooo much better off if we could agree on the 80% that's fairly dry and just debate the 20% but social media and talking heads run completely counter to that type of discourse. When you see the proportion of news production and consumption that's just opinion vs. actual news reporting, it's easy to see why we are where we are.