A Republican Who Wasn't A Vampire Feasting On The Life Blood Of Real Americans

othershoe1030 wrote:Ike makes many excellent points and coming from a top notch military man. I have trouble even imagining what our landscape might look like if we weren't pouring so much wealth into "defense" spending. Power grids, communications systems, recycling and renewable energy, medical advances, the list goes on.

But of course politicians of both parties love to bring jobs home to their districts and hate shutting down production of tanks etc. even though they are not wanted by the military so they've cleverly spread many programs out across the country giving every state a dog in the fight and few programs are terminated. Indeed, when will we learn?

This chart only addresses those programs known as welfare but is interesting nonetheless.

(CNSNews.com) - Barack Obama was the first president of the United States to spend more on “means-tested entitlements”—AKA welfare—than on national defense, according to data published by his own Office of Management and Budget.

Historical tables that the OMB posted on the Obama White House website, include annual totals for both “national defense” spending and “means-tested entitlement” spending going back to fiscal 1962--which is three years before President Lyndon Johnson signed legislation creating the Medicaid program, a means-tested entitlement that together with the Children's Health Insurance Program enrolled 74,407,191 beneficiaries as of November 2016.

In every year from fiscal 1962 through fiscal 2014, total national defense spending exceeded means-tested entitlement spending.



https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/terence-p-jeffrey/obama-was-first-president-spend-more-welfare-defense

bigdog wrote:Reagan was so popular he got away with Iran Contra.

Deus X wrote:

bigdog wrote:Reagan was so popular he got away with Iran Contra.

List of Reagan administration convictions.

Challenged by a conservative to present evidence that Reagan ran the most corrupt administration of the 20th century, I assembled this list of convicts from Reagan's ranks.

[...]

"By the end of his term, 138 Reagan administration officials had been convicted, had been indicted, or had been the subject of official investigations for official misconduct and/or criminal violations. In terms of number of officials involved, the record of his administration was the worst ever."

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2005/10/17/157477/-


That's not exactly "getting away with it".

Floridatexan wrote:  I really wonder how far Reagan's dementia had gone in the last few years of his term.  I think HW was running the whole show.  Another "conspiracy theory" for you...the connection between John Hinckley, Jr. and the Bush family.

Deus X wrote:

Floridatexan wrote:  I really wonder how far Reagan's dementia had gone in the last few years of his term.  I think HW was running the whole show.  Another "conspiracy theory" for you...the connection between John Hinckley, Jr. and the Bush family.

People who overestimate their political knowledge are more likely to believe conspiracy theories

People who overestimate their understanding of political issues are more likely to believe conspiracy theories, according to new research that appears in the European Journal for Social Psychology.

“Conspiracy theories about government actors and institutions are widespread across the political ideological spectrum,” remarked study author Joseph A. Vitriol, a postdoctoral research associate at Lehigh University. “These beliefs attribute outsized influence to hidden actors or clandestine groups who are perceived as the root cause of an important world event, action, or outcome.”

[...]

“We find that inflated confidence in one’s understanding of politics and public policy is associated with the tendency to believe in political conspiracies,” Vitriol told PsyPost. “That is, people who overestimate how well they understand political phenomena are more likely to believe that hidden actors or clandestine groups are conspiring in wide-ranging activities to influence important world actions, events, and outcomes.”

The researchers found this was particularly true after the election for individuals who supported the losing candidate, Hillary Clinton. In other words, Clinton supporters who were overconfident about their political knowledge became even more likely to endorse conspiracy beliefs after she was defeated.

https://www.psypost.org/2018/06/people-overestimate-political-knowledge-likely-believe-conspiracy-theories-51447




Transcript of a recent phone call:

Unknown subject: Hello, is this Alex Jones?

Alex Jones: Yes, this is Alex Jones.

Unknown subject: Oh, great. Mr. Jones, I have a candidate for your show. This nutjob believes John Hinckley Jr. was an operative of the Bush family. How crazy is that? It's perfect for your show.

Telstar wrote:

bigdog wrote:Yep, one of my earliest memories was of going to an Eisenhower rally at Brownsville Elementary with my parents and seeing all the I Like Ike buttons. I had no idea what a president was at the time, but I knew Ike must be a really popular person.
I had to look up the Hinkley-Bush story because I'd never heard it. The only link I could find from a near credible source was this one:

https://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/2016/01/28/author-roger-stones-latest-conspiracy-theory-george-h-w-bush-behind-reagan-assassination-attempt/

The cbslocal station I thought might be credible until I saw it was an interview from Roger Stone. I'm afraid that part of it makes me think it's pretty unlikely to be true.  I do think HW was the mastermind behind Iran-Contra though, and I remember the fight between him and Al Haig over who was in control of the country while Reagan was in the hospital. Haig came on TV and said "I am in charge." What an arrogant as-hole he was. Fun times compared to now.

bigdog wrote: Haig came on TV and said "I am in charge."

Deus X wrote:

bigdog wrote: Haig came on TV and said "I am in charge."

What complete horseshit! What Haig said was "I am in control here, in the White House, pending the return of the Vice-President."

I disagreed with much of what Haig said and did but I never considered him anything but an honorable man. Misrepresenting his words and then trashing him for it is DIShonorable.

Here's a video of that moment:

bigdog wrote:Not really intentional. It's the way I remembered it from over 30 years ago. I also remember a lot of controversy on the news over his statement, but I was apparently wrong about the exact words he said. I admit that.

I don't admit that anyone owes Al Haig any kind of apology over anything though.  See, this is from Wikipedia, so I'm wondering if there are two different instances of him saying he was in control-one where he said it and one where he explained it, possibly the one you posted.
Wikipedia says:
After Reagan won the 1980 presidential election, he nominated Haig to be his secretary of state. After the attempted assassination of Ronald Reagan, Haig asserted "I am in control here," allegedly suggesting (erronerously since 1947, when the Speaker of the House of Representatives was designated the second in the line of succession after the Vice President) that he served as acting president in Reagan's and Bush's absence, later iterating that he meant that he was functionally in control of the government.


And here's the problem- he was not even third in line after the VP. The speaker of the House owned that right and Haig basically usurped it by claiming it belonged to him. He said on the tape you posted that he was third in line behind the VP. That was either ignorance of something he should have well known or a seizure of authority he did not have a right to.  He had no right to be "functionally in control of the government."
Like I said, I don't think Haig is owed any apologies.

bigdog wrote:I'm not sure what a "monica giver" is, but I've never made any secret of the fact that I was not a Democrat until Bill Clinton came into office. It took me a couple of years of his administration, of seeing that Dems could be reasonable and moderate people too, before I made the change. I'd already gone indy over George HW's first Iraq war, his turning our police forces into thieves who confiscated the property of even the innocent, and who was probably the mastermind to Iran Contra.
But up until HW, I was a faithful Republican, even working in some of the campaign Headquarters here locally. My conscience would not let me remain one, and it will never let me go back that direction again.
The party that could hold Goldwater and Rockefeller and Nixon in it and not explode is gone forever.

Well, I guess I do probably know what a monica giver is, and I know the damage Reagan did to this country. But I wouldn't refer to him in those terms. I really can't think of any US POTUS that deserves total hatred except for Trump. He's made everyone else seem palatable. I give Reagan credit for good intentions
And wherever Sinatra is, I hope he's enjoying himself. He's sure given me a lot of listening pleasure in my lifetime.