I remember seeing frat boys / sorority girls in the southern US wear Reagan-Bush ‘84 shirts in like the mid 2010s, as if it were a retro-fashion statement. So I guess the flavor-aid was that strong, or their inheritances will be substantial and they will still have that hegemonic reign in that region. In a sense, they’ll be the millennials/Gen zers who will become the neo-boomers down the line.
For more edification there's also Leeja Miller's take on Reagan ( on YouTube )
There's plenty of intersection with the listed issues, but yes Reagan was also the first of the GOP manchurian candidates meant to accellerate the cold war to move the US further towards authoritarianism and white Christian nationalism. (Look up Peaceful Coexistence or Мирное сосуществование) which Nixon brought back from China and we were considering to ease cold-war tensions. But Reagan was also a Christian eschatologist, and wanted to see the apocalypse during his presidency.
Fun drinking game, have a drink when Leeja Miller inadvertently gets to Ronald Reagan. Take another drink when Leeja goes "Of course it's fucking Ronald Reagan."
True. I come from a Mormon family. They loved Reagan. His policies were always justified to them over years of mental gymnastics to explain it away. The issues were always projected onto progressives. Conservatives in a nutshell.
To be fair 6(corruption, though not a surprise),2(Afghanistan), and 1(fucking up mental health definitions) are the only ones I think people might not generally know?
Most people know (5)reaganomics fucked us and is still fucking us. Most know (4)he ignored AIDS. Most know (3)he fucked unions.
Read number six and thought that this must be an old article. 2016, they got it in just under the deadline. The guy that got elected that year surpassed Regan in only one term.
You could argue that merely being investigated shouldn't count, but that would be a stupid argument. Of course being investigated counts. Plenty of people live their entire lives without being the subject of an investigation of any sort, you know?
I don't disagree with the premise of the article, but whoever wrote this is a lazy twat. Is "your argument is stupid" the best they could really do here?