Ronald Reagan vs. Margaret Thatcher

[Frozen Sky Ever Why]

Well?

[Murica!]

Is Hitler an option?

[Mr. Smith]

Write-in: cancer

But Thatcher if denied that, since UK politics are inherently farther left and she didn't sabotage any hostage crises.

[Illuminati Blood Drinker]

Write-in: cancer

[Antonio the Sixth]

Reagan by far.

[Mr. Smith]

Reagan by far.

But Thatcher is farther left and didn't randomly invade Grenada, and she certainly didn't sabotage any peace talks to get into power.

[Grumpier Than Thou]

literally suicide.

[Sopranos Republican]

Is Hitler an option?

[H. Ross Peron]

Is Hitler an option?

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Reagan by far.

But Thatcher is farther left and didn't randomly invade Grenada, and she certainly didn't sabotage any peace talks to get into power.

That didn't happen with Nixon and it didn't happen with Reagan. Try harder.

Obviously Thatcher.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Reagan by far.

But Thatcher is farther left and didn't randomly invade Grenada, and she certainly didn't sabotage any peace talks to get into power.

I'm not sure by what measure Thatcher would be "farther left" - she just happened to lead a country with a much more developed redistribution system, so she had more to work with. But she did much more damage to UK than Reagan did to America, and her neoliberalism was much more deep-rooted and articulate. Also, while Reagan was a hopeless buffoon with ridiculous ideas and policies, he doesn't strike me as a downright evil person like Thatcher.

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

Oh my.  I guess Reagan as he was harmless by himself, much like Dubya.

[Sprouts Farmers Market ✘]

Hey Maggie Thatcher, you're alright
Thanks to you I sleep at night
You're a very special lady!!

[Cassius]

Reagan by far.

But Thatcher is farther left and didn't randomly invade Grenada, and she certainly didn't sabotage any peace talks to get into power.

I'm not sure by what measure Thatcher would be "farther left" - she just happened to lead a country with a much more developed redistribution system, so she had more to work with. But she did much more damage to UK than Reagan did to America, and her neoliberalism was much more deep-rooted and articulate. Also, while Reagan was a hopeless buffoon with ridiculous ideas and policies, he doesn't strike me as a downright evil person like Thatcher.

At risk of sounding SWEish... wat?

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Thatcher

[Antonio the Sixth]

Reagan by far.

But Thatcher is farther left and didn't randomly invade Grenada, and she certainly didn't sabotage any peace talks to get into power.

I'm not sure by what measure Thatcher would be "farther left" - she just happened to lead a country with a much more developed redistribution system, so she had more to work with. But she did much more damage to UK than Reagan did to America, and her neoliberalism was much more deep-rooted and articulate. Also, while Reagan was a hopeless buffoon with ridiculous ideas and policies, he doesn't strike me as a downright evil person like Thatcher.

At risk of sounding SWEish... wat?

I obviously didn't expect you to agree.

[All Along The Watchtower]

Which version of Reagan? The Supply-Side Jesus/Second Coming version that has been popular among the American Right since the 90s, the Hopeless Buffoon version (as perceived by liberals and the Left), the Evil Corporate Stooge version (as also perceived by liberals and the Left), or any other numerous versions you can think of that are as much a projection of one's own biases as they are related to history?

[Sol]

Reagan by far.

But Thatcher is farther left and didn't randomly invade Grenada, and she certainly didn't sabotage any peace talks to get into power.

That didn't happen with Nixon and it didn't happen with Reagan. Try harder.

Obviously Thatcher.

Isn't Nixon pretty much established fact by this point:

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/06/yes-nixon-scuttled-the-vietnam-peace-talks-107623.html#.VNpa3fnF-So

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Reagan by far.

But Thatcher is farther left and didn't randomly invade Grenada, and she certainly didn't sabotage any peace talks to get into power.

That didn't happen with Nixon and it didn't happen with Reagan. Try harder.

Obviously Thatcher.

Isn't Nixon pretty much established fact by this point:

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/06/yes-nixon-scuttled-the-vietnam-peace-talks-107623.html#.VNpa3fnF-So

Elements of his campaign perhaps, but that article has no direct proof that he orchestrated the "treason" (if you want to call it that) himself. As the article noted, the South Vietnamese knew they'd get a better deal with Nixon before Chenault arrived.

[morgieb]

Is Hitler an option?

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

At least Thatcher's election meant that there were more women in important positions.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Reagan at least sounded affable and was probably a better politician than Thatcher, who largely got through her terms on the back of a ridiculous amount of luck and pushing problems into the future (much as her creepy fanbase will deny it).

[SWE]

Is Hitler an option?

[Mr. Smith]

Reagan by far.

But Thatcher is farther left and didn't randomly invade Grenada, and she certainly didn't sabotage any peace talks to get into power.

I'm not sure by what measure Thatcher would be "farther left" - she just happened to lead a country with a much more developed redistribution system, so she had more to work with. But she did much more damage to UK than Reagan did to America, and her neoliberalism was much more deep-rooted and articulate. Also, while Reagan was a hopeless buffoon with ridiculous ideas and policies, he doesn't strike me as a downright evil person like Thatcher.

Thatcher wasn't an actor either. She told it as she saw it. She's just Barry Goldwater with a mix of Richard Nixon's paranoia in comparison.

She's a principled one, or moreso far as I can tell.

That alone beats The Gipper and his ingenuine and pandering demeanor.

@CrabCake: That makes it worse, not better.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Thatcher wasn't a very principled politician. You can tell because she had electoral success three times. This is very rarely the marker of a principled politician.