Is Ronald Reagan partly responsible for Donald Trump being president?

[The Arizonan]

Think about it, Ronald Reagan picked George H.W. Bush as his running mate. If George H.W. Bush never became vice president and then president, it wouldn't have led to George W. Bush becoming president. Dubya did a lot of damage during his presidency and that led to Barack Obama getting elected and having to clean up his predecessor's mess. Unfortunately, the Republicans were brazenly unfair to Obama and ruined his chances of having an outstanding presidency which led to Hillary Clinton losing to Donald Trump.

[OSR stands with Israel]

No picking HW was a great choice, as HW was one of the best VP's ever and was the best possible choice to succeed Reagan.


You wanna blame a politician for Trump, its Newt Gingrich , who shares much of the responsibilty for today's divisive politics.

[Gay Republican]

Think about it, Ronald Reagan picked George H.W. Bush as his running mate. If George H.W. Bush never became vice president and then president, it wouldn't have led to George W. Bush becoming president. Dubya did a lot of damage during his presidency and that led to Barack Obama getting elected and having to clean up his predecessor's mess. Unfortunately, the Republicans were brazenly unfair to Obama and ruined his chances of having an outstanding presidency which led to Hillary Clinton losing to Donald Trump.

So basically if we didn't make the decisions that we did in the past none of what happened today would have happened?

Genius logic bro.  Genius!

[Sir Mohamed]

Nah, besides the fact that the assumption Trump had not happened without the Bushes is pure speculation, there is way too much time in between. There are millions of option how events would or could have play(ed) out if you change one minor thing. It's like making Eisenhower responsible for Watergate, because he picked Nixon as his VP. Or: Watergate is JFK's fault since he selected Johnson as his running mate. Without Johnson, Kennedy had lost, Nixon would have been president 1961-69 and less paranoid, therefore no Watergate or no Carl Bernstein/Bob Woodward researching the story. I'm even skeptical on assumptions like that Gerald Ford winning 1976 would have prevented the GOP from trending to the right. It may have prevented President Reagan, but not the partisan shift towards the right.

[uti2]

Think about it, Ronald Reagan picked George H.W. Bush as his running mate. If George H.W. Bush never became vice president and then president, it wouldn't have led to George W. Bush becoming president. Dubya did a lot of damage during his presidency and that led to Barack Obama getting elected and having to clean up his predecessor's mess. Unfortunately, the Republicans were brazenly unfair to Obama and ruined his chances of having an outstanding presidency which led to Hillary Clinton losing to Donald Trump.

So basically if we didn't make the decisions that we did in the past none of what happened today would have happened?

Genius logic bro.  Genius!

There is a reasonable argument to be made that the anti-intellectualism cultivated by Reagan and perfected by W. Bush paved the way for Trump.

[uti2]

Nah, besides the fact that the assumption Trump had not happened without the Bushes is pure speculation, there is way too much time in between. There are millions of option how events would or could have play(ed) out if you change one minor thing. It's like making Eisenhower responsible for Watergate, because he picked Nixon as his VP. Or: Watergate is JFK's fault since he selected Johnson as his running mate. Without Johnson, Kennedy had lost, Nixon would have been president 1961-69 and less paranoid, therefore no Watergate or no Carl Bernstein/Bob Woodward researching the story. I'm even skeptical on assumptions like that Gerald Ford winning 1976 would have prevented the GOP from trending to the right. It may have prevented President Reagan, but not the partisan shift towards the right.

An argument can be made that neither Perot nor Trump would've run if not for their grudges against the Bushes and their relative friendliness with the Clintons. In other words, the Bushes rubbed them the wrong way, while inoffensive Clinton-style centrism made them content with the possibility that the nature of their vicious anti-Bush campaigns would lead to a neoliberal Clinton defeating a badly damaged Bush.

[mvd10]

Think about it, Ronald Reagan picked George H.W. Bush as his running mate. If George H.W. Bush never became vice president and then president, it wouldn't have led to George W. Bush becoming president. Dubya did a lot of damage during his presidency and that led to Barack Obama getting elected and having to clean up his predecessor's mess. Unfortunately, the Republicans were brazenly unfair to Obama and ruined his chances of having an outstanding presidency which led to Hillary Clinton losing to Donald Trump.

So basically if we didn't make the decisions that we did in the past none of what happened today would have happened?

Genius logic bro.  Genius!

There is a reasonable argument to be made that the anti-intellectualism cultivated by Reagan and perfected by W. Bush paved the way for Trump.

Or that the shift in economic policy caused by Reagan paved the way for someone with Trump's ideology. Yeah, I guess you could say that Reagan is "responsible" for Trump, but not just because he picked HW Bush. And basically all presidents the past 36 years are "responsible" for Trump in their own ways.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Think about it, Ronald Reagan picked George H.W. Bush as his running mate. If George H.W. Bush never became vice president and then president, it wouldn't have led to George W. Bush becoming president. Dubya did a lot of damage during his presidency and that led to Barack Obama getting elected and having to clean up his predecessor's mess. Unfortunately, the Republicans were brazenly unfair to Obama and ruined his chances of having an outstanding presidency which led to Hillary Clinton losing to Donald Trump.

So basically if we didn't make the decisions that we did in the past none of what happened to
day would have happened?

Genius logic bro.  Genius!

There is a reasonable argument to be made that the anti-intellectualism cultivated by Reagan and perfected by W. Bush paved the way for Trump.

except Reagan's main adivsors werent anti intellectuals , and in many ways they were intellectuals .Milton Friedman , George Shultz , Art Laffer are all intellectuals .


Reagan also did better with college graduates than people who had a high school education or less

[uti2]

Think about it, Ronald Reagan picked George H.W. Bush as his running mate. If George H.W. Bush never became vice president and then president, it wouldn't have led to George W. Bush becoming president. Dubya did a lot of damage during his presidency and that led to Barack Obama getting elected and having to clean up his predecessor's mess. Unfortunately, the Republicans were brazenly unfair to Obama and ruined his chances of having an outstanding presidency which led to Hillary Clinton losing to Donald Trump.

So basically if we didn't make the decisions that we did in the past none of what happened to
day would have happened?

Genius logic bro.  Genius!

There is a reasonable argument to be made that the anti-intellectualism cultivated by Reagan and perfected by W. Bush paved the way for Trump.

except Reagan's main adivsors werent anti intellectuals , and in many ways they were intellectuals .Milton Friedman , George Shultz , Art Laffer are all intellectuals .


Reagan also did better with college graduates than people who had a high school education or less

The Laffer Curve is the epitome of anti-intellectualism. Old School Coolidge style conservatives knew that the only way to balance the budget was to cut spending.

http://centredelangues.ens-lyon.fr/anglais/espace-etudiants/retire/the-transatlantic-circulation-of-ideas-and-policies/class-7-hayek-and-friedman-come-to-britain/Wayne%20Parsons%20-%20The%20Power%20of%20the%20Financial%20Press.pdf

See Page 80/149.

[TheSaint250]

Hey while we're at it, let's connect Julius Caesar to Trump:

Caesar was a Roman leader --> the Romans controlled much of the Mediterranean region and beyond, even having some land in modern-day Germany --> Trump is German

CAESAR CAUSED TRUMP

[OSR stands with Israel]

Think about it, Ronald Reagan picked George H.W. Bush as his running mate. If George H.W. Bush never became vice president and then president, it wouldn't have led to George W. Bush becoming president. Dubya did a lot of damage during his presidency and that led to Barack Obama getting elected and having to clean up his predecessor's mess. Unfortunately, the Republicans were brazenly unfair to Obama and ruined his chances of having an outstanding presidency which led to Hillary Clinton losing to Donald Trump.

So basically if we didn't make the decisions that we did in the past none of what happened to
day would have happened?

Genius logic bro.  Genius!

There is a reasonable argument to be made that the anti-intellectualism cultivated by Reagan and perfected by W. Bush paved the way for Trump.

except Reagan's main adivsors werent anti intellectuals , and in many ways they were intellectuals .Milton Friedman , George Shultz , Art Laffer are all intellectuals .


Reagan also did better with college graduates than people who had a high school education or less

The Laffer Curve is the epitome of anti-intellectualism. Old School Coolidge style conservatives knew that the only way to balance the budget was to cut spending.

http://centredelangues.ens-lyon.fr/anglais/espace-etudiants/retire/the-transatlantic-circulation-of-ideas-and-policies/class-7-hayek-and-friedman-come-to-britain/Wayne%20Parsons%20-%20The%20Power%20of%20the%20Financial%20Press.pdf

See Page 80/149.

The laffer curve was in my economic text book in college and we were taught it .


It is correct as if taxes get to high the goverment will lose revenue, and in 1981 taxes were clearly too high .

[uti2]

Think about it, Ronald Reagan picked George H.W. Bush as his running mate. If George H.W. Bush never became vice president and then president, it wouldn't have led to George W. Bush becoming president. Dubya did a lot of damage during his presidency and that led to Barack Obama getting elected and having to clean up his predecessor's mess. Unfortunately, the Republicans were brazenly unfair to Obama and ruined his chances of having an outstanding presidency which led to Hillary Clinton losing to Donald Trump.

So basically if we didn't make the decisions that we did in the past none of what happened to
day would have happened?

Genius logic bro.  Genius!

There is a reasonable argument to be made that the anti-intellectualism cultivated by Reagan and perfected by W. Bush paved the way for Trump.

except Reagan's main adivsors werent anti intellectuals , and in many ways they were intellectuals .Milton Friedman , George Shultz , Art Laffer are all intellectuals .


Reagan also did better with college graduates than people who had a high school education or less

The Laffer Curve is the epitome of anti-intellectualism. Old School Coolidge style conservatives knew that the only way to balance the budget was to cut spending.

http://centredelangues.ens-lyon.fr/anglais/espace-etudiants/retire/the-transatlantic-circulation-of-ideas-and-policies/class-7-hayek-and-friedman-come-to-britain/Wayne%20Parsons%20-%20The%20Power%20of%20the%20Financial%20Press.pdf

See Page 80/149.

The laffer curve was in my economic text book in college and we were taught it .


It is correct as if taxes get to high the goverment will lose revenue, and in 1981 taxes were clearly too high .

You probably read about the Ptolemaic system in an astronomy textbook too.

Reagan single-handedly transformed the US from the largest creditor nation into the largest debtor nation in the world within 8 years. That's why Bush called it Voodoo economics in 1980.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Think about it, Ronald Reagan picked George H.W. Bush as his running mate. If George H.W. Bush never became vice president and then president, it wouldn't have led to George W. Bush becoming president. Dubya did a lot of damage during his presidency and that led to Barack Obama getting elected and having to clean up his predecessor's mess. Unfortunately, the Republicans were brazenly unfair to Obama and ruined his chances of having an outstanding presidency which led to Hillary Clinton losing to Donald Trump.

So basically if we didn't make the decisions that we did in the past none of what happened to
day would have happened?

Genius logic bro.  Genius!

There is a reasonable argument to be made that the anti-intellectualism cultivated by Reagan and perfected by W. Bush paved the way for Trump.

except Reagan's main adivsors werent anti intellectuals , and in many ways they were intellectuals .Milton Friedman , George Shultz , Art Laffer are all intellectuals .


Reagan also did better with college graduates than people who had a high school education or less

The Laffer Curve is the epitome of anti-intellectualism. Old School Coolidge style conservatives knew that the only way to balance the budget was to cut spending.

http://centredelangues.ens-lyon.fr/anglais/espace-etudiants/retire/the-transatlantic-circulation-of-ideas-and-policies/class-7-hayek-and-friedman-come-to-britain/Wayne%20Parsons%20-%20The%20Power%20of%20the%20Financial%20Press.pdf

See Page 80/149.

The laffer curve was in my economic text book in college and we were taught it .


It is correct as if taxes get to high the goverment will lose revenue, and in 1981 taxes were clearly too high .

You probably read about the Ptolemaic system in an astronomy textbook too.

Reagan single-handedly transformed the US from the largest creditor nation into the largest debtor nation in the world within 8 years. That's why Bush called it Voodoo economics in 1980.

The Laffer curve does not say that if you keep cutting taxes you will get more revenue, all it says is if you raise it beyond a certian point the amount of revenue you receive will decrease.

[uti2]

Think about it, Ronald Reagan picked George H.W. Bush as his running mate. If George H.W. Bush never became vice president and then president, it wouldn't have led to George W. Bush becoming president. Dubya did a lot of damage during his presidency and that led to Barack Obama getting elected and having to clean up his predecessor's mess. Unfortunately, the Republicans were brazenly unfair to Obama and ruined his chances of having an outstanding presidency which led to Hillary Clinton losing to Donald Trump.

So basically if we didn't make the decisions that we did in the past none of what happened to
day would have happened?

Genius logic bro.  Genius!

There is a reasonable argument to be made that the anti-intellectualism cultivated by Reagan and perfected by W. Bush paved the way for Trump.

except Reagan's main adivsors werent anti intellectuals , and in many ways they were intellectuals .Milton Friedman , George Shultz , Art Laffer are all intellectuals .


Reagan also did better with college graduates than people who had a high school education or less

The Laffer Curve is the epitome of anti-intellectualism. Old School Coolidge style conservatives knew that the only way to balance the budget was to cut spending.

http://centredelangues.ens-lyon.fr/anglais/espace-etudiants/retire/the-transatlantic-circulation-of-ideas-and-policies/class-7-hayek-and-friedman-come-to-britain/Wayne%20Parsons%20-%20The%20Power%20of%20the%20Financial%20Press.pdf

See Page 80/149.

The laffer curve was in my economic text book in college and we were taught it .


It is correct as if taxes get to high the goverment will lose revenue, and in 1981 taxes were clearly too high .

You probably read about the Ptolemaic system in an astronomy textbook too.

Reagan single-handedly transformed the US from the largest creditor nation into the largest debtor nation in the world within 8 years. That's why Bush called it Voodoo economics in 1980.

The Laffer curve does not say that if you keep cutting taxes you will get more revenue, all it says is if you raise it beyond a certian point the amount of revenue you receive will decrease.

The model would put the theoretical peak at 65-70%, yet it is inconsistently used to justify 25% tax rates.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

This thread is so stupid, but Gateway's protestations are too.

[TheElectoralBoobyPrize]

Think about it, Ronald Reagan picked George H.W. Bush as his running mate. If George H.W. Bush never became vice president and then president, it wouldn't have led to George W. Bush becoming president. Dubya did a lot of damage during his presidency and that led to Barack Obama getting elected and having to clean up his predecessor's mess. Unfortunately, the Republicans were brazenly unfair to Obama and ruined his chances of having an outstanding presidency which led to Hillary Clinton losing to Donald Trump.

So basically if we didn't make the decisions that we did in the past none of what happened today would have happened?

Genius logic bro.  Genius!

There is a reasonable argument to be made that the anti-intellectualism cultivated by Reagan and perfected by W. Bush paved the way for Trump.

Or that the shift in economic policy caused by Reagan paved the way for someone with Trump's ideology. Yeah, I guess you could say that Reagan is "responsible" for Trump, but not just because he picked HW Bush. And basically all presidents the past 36 years are "responsible" for Trump in their own ways.

I would argue G.H.W Bush probably deserves the least blame because he only served one term. The other two-term presidents deserve blame...Obama by virtue of actually being the president (and had been for awhile) when Trump was nominated and elected but also because of the weak economy during his presidency, Dubya because the Iraq War and the weak economy during his presidency made right-leaning voters question traditional Republican domestic and foreign policies, and Clinton because of NAFTA and MFN status for China.

[SWE]

The lions share of the blame rests on George Washington, as every presidency has created the circumstances leading to the next.

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

No. If anything, blame goes to the Supreme Court ruling in Bush's favor in 2000, stealing the election and leading to a failure.

[dw93]

Nixon and Reagan both paved the way to Trump with the Southern Strategy, so both are partially responsible.

[RFayette]

Every President from George Washington to Barack Obama is partly responsible for Trump being President, with the butterfly effect being what it is.

[Co-Chair Bagel23]

What's the point? I can blame this all on Adam and Eve too, everything is connected.

[catographer]

Ronald Reagan is just as much responsible for Donald Trump as any former President in American history, or for that matter any unusually influential individual. The logic here is very flawed. Past leads to present; done. Applies to anything.

Gavrillo Princip > WWI > WWII > Cold War > Reagan > HW > W > Obama > Trump
Princip's mom > WWI > WWII > Cold War > Reagan > HW > W > Obama > Trump
Trump's mom > Trump
Hitler's mom > Hitler > WWII > Cold War > Reagan > HW > W > Obama > Trump

[OSR stands with Israel]

The fact that Reagan is responsible for W let alone Trump is hilarious .

If Clinton wasn't so unpopular in his first two years W  would have lost in 1994 meaning W never becomes president.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

No; George W. Bush and Obama are.