What in the hell was Regan thinking and why don't people see how he destroyed America?

What was this guy thinking? Neither he nor anyone else had the foresight to see the illegals taking over? Why don't R's ever rip him for helping to destroy the right?

I really can't figure it out. The R's fucking love this guy, even though he did permanent damage to the R's and America .No one wants to mention him being responsible for all the illegals.

Because the "right" in America are brainwashed cucks

Hindsight is 20/20
Amnesty was supposed to be a one-time thing in exchange for strict immigration controls.
Of course the democrat congress double-crossed him and refused to control illegal immigration.
If you think this was his greatest mistake - congratulations, he agreed.
In the 1980s, spicification was not on anyone's mind, if it was, they figured it would be like the 1920s wave of immigrants.

>Hindsight is 20/20
Amnesty was supposed to be a one-time thing in exchange for strict immigration controls.
Of course the democrat congress double-crossed him and refused to control illegal immigration.
If you think this was his greatest mistake - congratulations, he agreed.
In the 1980s, spicification was not on anyone's mind, if it was, they figured it would be like the 1920s wave of immigrants.

Thanks for this.

I don't know why he even wanted to play the amnesty game.

good question

Reagan was barely thinking, being literally mentally ill during his second term, most of his anti-American policies like amnesty and gun control were pushed by LEFTIST NEOCON JEWS.

Not to mention Reaganomics causing a massive class income disparity over 20+ years

Dems controlled everything then. Nothing he could do even as the president. Something you retards never understand.

Reagan & Bush were neo-con cuckservatives
The type that want amnesty today

HOWEVER, it was not sold as an amnesty, it was not SUPPOSED to be an amnesty, there were promises of falls & fences & better enforcement which never came.

Reagan was senile most of his administration so blaming him is pointless, blame RINO's like GHWB

the "right" died after Goldwater

/thread

Reagan was hoodwinked, in exchange for the limited amnesty which was supposed to be 3x less than it actually was, we were supposed to have a fully funded border wall. The dems and rinos of the day fucked him over

No fault divorce is the one I take issue with more

>Reagan dindu nuffin

Barry was based.

This is tragically true.

congress promised a wall if he granted amnesty
he granted amnesty and the fucking rats in congress stabbed him in the back

>picture shows dems controlling everything in 1980
>amnesty act was in 86
>the american system is explicitly designed so that nobody controls everything under any circumstance
>"you retards just don't understand!"

Kids These Days also don't understand that back before about 2000, there was a lot of compromise and "horse trading" between the parties and branches of government. Things that didn't seem a big deal at the time were traded away routinely.
Today, obstruction is the default mode of engagement. Legislation, nominees, investigations, whatever. If Reagan was in today's political environment, or Trump in Reagan's, things would go a lot differently for both.

>Not to mention Reaganomics causing a massive class income disparity over 20+ years
Fuck off you retarded marxist.

income disparity was around long before Reaganomics
Reaganomics was attempted because it was thought it would ease the problem
Like Obamacare, it had the opposite effect

i know youre american, so its difficult to understand coloured graphs, but it clearly shows democrats with senate and house at end of his term you fucking mongoloid. they make the laws and pass bills, not the fucking president.

>What was this guy thinking?
That Democrats would keep their word, simple mistake when you consider he was one at one point in time.

in the 80s the dems controlled the house by a large margin

its fucking embarrassing when a leaf has to educate american-pinkos on how their own government opperates

that's nice, but that's not what you said. what you said was that the dems controlled everything.

you also skipped over the point about the american system never allowing one branch to have complete control. reagan had veto options.

maybe you should be worrying about your own fruity government intsead of trying to talk down to us about ours? :^)

why did the democrats win the senate and house?
how shitty of a president was reagan??

the gop is trash. at least the dems are honest about their genocidal globalist agenda. both parties are responsible for the destruction of our country and future and one day i hope the traitors on the right hang right next to their friends on the left. fuck them all

Looking at Trumps old tweets he asks basically the same thing. Why amnesty when they know theyll always vote democrat.. etc. He always talks about Regan but i think its some type of weird super secret 8 dimensional chess

It's also the reason why we have to get the wall. No matter how many we amnesty, when the democrats gain power in the future they will open the borders back just like they did the last amnesty. No deals can be struck. There has to be a physical barrier that will remain even when the Democrats control the presidency again.

That's one view. Here's another:
>1
RWR and GHWB, in the GOP primary debates for the 1980 presidential election both tried to one-up one-another for pity points in amnesty, especially for those that came as children
>2
Both RWR (former Democrat) and GHBW (lukewarm Republican) barely touched the illegal immigration question in the debates, and never touched legal immigration and birthright citizenship.
>3
RWR ended up picking GHWB as his VP, indicating a confluence of interests in the hands of a few, along with the foreign policy establishment (we need to let some spics in to show that we are acting in good faith so they don't fall to GOMMUNIZM) and economic policy establishment (Greenspan later admitted that low income immigration was needed to keep the US economy pumped from low wages), and "human rights" establishment.
>4
RWR and TO'N were in constant budget battles. Ronnie would have rather had Tipp come closer on economic policy (which is easy to reverse if the GOP regained the House) instead of coming closer in immigration policy (even though demographics are difficult to reverse no matter who is in charge) ergo the Simpson-Mazzozi "Compromise". This indicates that both RWR's fiscal and immigration policies were economic policy to the Reagan and his backers.
>5
The Simpson-Mazzoli act itself was never intended to be enforced in full, especially bu Reagan's "deregulatory" Justice and Labor departments. There wasn't a mass fine and arrest of construction firms not complying with E-Verify .
>6
When GHWB became president, he signed the INA 1990, which included an expanded immigration cap and the "Diversity Lottery". There was no intent to stop the flow of Brown.

Reagan was the epitome of repubs governing from the center. He was also the epitome of passing the buck but I repeat myself. W was unironically a better president

He was promised a wall in return but got screwed. Trump pushes for the wall first before anything else because he learned from that mistake.

Income disparity is the great red herring of the age. Firstly, income is widely determined by market forces. If there's an oversupply of people with few meaningful skills they will be paid what they're worth, i.e. not much. They are the trivial many. Rewards are gained by the vital few. Secondly, there is an implication that that those with high incomes have taken from those with low incomes. Nothing is further from the truth. Whether it be from ingenuity, hard work, or just plain dumb luck those who are not engaged in criminal enterprises such as drug trafficking, insider trading, or fraud have figured out how to maximise their rewards. Warren Buffet hasn't burgled my home. By and large, intelligence and conscientiousness are the two main determinants of financial success.

The Pareto Principle explains unequal distribution of wealth and well as the unequal distribution of many other things such as productivity.
>The 80/20 Rule means that in any situation, 20 percent of the inputs or activities are responsible for 80 percent of the outcomes or results.

Now, don't despair. Though your IQ is mostly fixed, people's intelligence and success varies across the many domains, such as social and intellectual. Your knowledge is variable and may be improved. Of course if you spend your effort learning deeply things that have little value, such as socialism, you'll have difficulty monetising it. Before you try some fix, be sure it's part of the problem. Further, understand actions has consequences. Let's say you want to "help the poor", but if your aid allows them to expand suboptimal outcomes such as more teenage and unwed pregnancy, who or what have you helped? Prisons and people hired to administer benefits programmes. Lastly, your conscientiousness is under your control.

>this post
you should rethink your life

Reagan sucked. Not only did he approve amnesty his economic policies increased the debt and started the outsourcing trend because muh job creators.

reagan wasn't thinking very much towards the end. he served as a warning for why you shouldn't elect celebrity puppets.

This rabbit hole goes down even further btw. INA 1965/Hart-Celler was passed bipartisanly. Democrats were more numerous in Congress at the time, so naturally they provided the most votes. What's interesting though is that a greater proportion of congressional Republicans compared to the proportion of congressional Democrats voted Yay.

Nixon. Ford. Reagan. Bush. Bush. These "Conservatives" conserved nothing, especially not our demographics. You could say that Nixon and Regan had a lot on their plates geopolitically which cut into Conservative social agendas like anti-immigration; sure. But you can't say that they foresaw the destruction of White America.

Reagan was a Democrat from California. Just because he changed parties doesn't mean he left his ideas at the door. He was an infiltrator, no doubt.

What's interesting is that a Conservatatian like Barry was probably the most free-market member of Congress at the time. He opposed GATT and "free trade" agreements, since not all FTAs necessitate free markets. He called them corporate giveaways. Goldwater had manufacturing and union backing because he was seen as a Protectionist, while JFK had high finance backing because he was seen as a free-trader.

>the outsourcing trend
Was started by Kennedy. In early 60s (1962 iirc) he lowered import barriers. One of the first victims was the footwear industry. The surge of imports, where retailers changed their suppliers from US makers to foreign, forced US manufacturers to shift production overseas. In 1964 just 4% of US footwear was imported. In 2014 footwear imports were 98.4% of the US market.

Income disparity is a bad thing dipshit, ubless your yearning for the return to serfdom open borders is promising

Maybe we shouldn't have expected Democrats to keep their word, but what about Republicans? Consider this; during GWB's term we had:
>GOP WH
>GOP Senate
>GOP House
>Majority GOP-picked judiciary
>GOP governorship plurality
>GOP state house plurality
>High GOP approval rating
Dubya had the mandate to push through a repeal and replace of 14th Amendment definitions of birthright Citizenship, rights, and privileges if he wanted to. Repealing INA 1990 and 1965. Ramped up border security. Deportations. Revamped EVerify and NSEERS. Forcing states to comply with ICE detainers. He squandered it on shit foreign, surveillance, and economic policies.

Perhaps they had been infected by the libertarian meme. Almost certainly, Joe McCarthy made nowhere near enough arrests.

Anyway, this gets me thinking; every Republican president from Nixon to Bush II (except Ford) had their foreign policy as the centerpiece of their presidency, with Bush I having Desert Storm and the Gulf War and Bush II having Iraqi Freedom. They always seem to ignore the issues at home. Trump, sadly, appears to be falling into the same pitfall, talking more about Iran and North Korea than he is, you know, building the damn wall that everyone sent him to Pennsylvania Avenue to build.

But on the other hand, Trump is not doing this as a call for regime change, as all prior Republican presidents have. Which begs the question as to what he's even trying to do, and how it could possibly be more important than his domestic policy

REAGAN BASICALLY KICK-STARTED THE GLOBALIZATION OF AMERICA

I DON'T GET WHY REPUBLICANS PRAISE HIM LIKE A HERO

based obama leaf

The watch see it, Trump is a puppet, like all politicians are puppets. Some puppets have more strings attached to victim groups, or to banking interests, or to PNAC Neocohens, and some have more strings attached to the general populace. Guys like George Wallace and Pat Buchanan didn't have enough strings to the establishment, so couldn't stay on stage. Guys like Jeb and HRC didn't have enough strings to the general populace, and would have been monstrous. Trump tries to keep just enough strings to the Israel and their FP to stay in stage, but he allowed us common people to attach strings of our own more than any other candidate.

When he says shit about tearing up the Iran Deal, or striking an Assad airbase, he's obviously playing to Israeli interests, but I think it's because he thinks he has to at this point. He didn't run with diaspora Jews, but he does do the whole Wilders thing to keep nice with ZioJews. If they're appeased, they won't chimp out in the Mideast, Ziovangelists won't chimp out against Trump, and he could focus more on domestic policy.

Here's another blackpill: many of the anti-immigration guys in Trumps circle- Anton, Bannon, (((Miller))), Kelly, Sessions, Dearborn, King, Cotton, Gohmert, Moore, Kobach, etc. are hardline pro-Israel, especially on FP.

I don't particularly care about Israel at this point. Their geopolitical influence doesn't matter anymore now that the Syrian civil war is effectively over and the migrant crisis has already happened. What I'm more concerned about is the tensions building in Saudi Arabia and particularly the danger of a war between them and Iran going hot, which would create a whole new wave of migrants.

Because he was tricked.

The Democrats who controlled Congress promised increased enforcement or something like a Wall if amnesty was passed. Most were migrant day laborers who didn't really bother anyone. The cucks in the GOP Establishment sold him on that "they're natural conservatives" bullshit. He also had bigger issues like the Cold War to deal with and didn't want to waste resources and political capital with mass deportations when the Soviets were really immediate threat.

As soon as it was passed, the Dems went back on everything they said they would give him. He knew he had been had. Until he died he always said it was the worst mistake he ever made.

And here is the thing: illegal immigration wasn't even close to the problem it is now. The country was still 90% white. It wasn't just the Reagan Amnesty that caused California to go blue. It was the continued illegal immigration afterwards.

It's ironic really. The same GOPe who so utterly despised Reagan now do nothing but sing his praised when they conspired with Democrats to create a permanent Democrat majority though displacing the historic American nation. Just like today.

He also started "gun control" in a major way down there.

The guy is one of the least Republican Republicans one could look at.

TLDR IMO the anti-spic guys are also Hawkish.
We arguably came to the point of no return by the end of Nixon's term. The ways his Treasury, Defense, and State departments facilitated the breakup of the PRC-USSR red hegemony, mended the Israeli-Arab relations, kept the currency propped up with agreements to denominate oil in USD, and expand purchasers of US treasuries globally meshed so clutch it gives me a hardon.

>when the Soviets were really [the] immediate threat.
Hardly.
Everything shows that the Soviets at the time were in turtle up mode, all the way to Yuri Andropov and Able Archer when Moscow was shitting bricks dead certain that America + NATO was about to ass rape them.
The USSR was largely a bluff in a Russian doll, that's why Leonid Brezhnev spent so much of the USSR's resources on attempting to catch up; only for Regan to do the same.

...

...

>muh alpha
He basically did the same as Trump:
Talk tough, be a daddy figure to lost faggots while riding the car against the wall.
Bush was the same..people were busy with telling everybody they would love to have a drink with him until the suddenly sat in a sportsbar watching the iraq war countdown on CNN.
America is too focused on personality and not content.

I get that. But the US didn't know that. I remember reading that the military did an appraisal of Soviet capabilities in the mid-80's and found out that their capabilities weren't half of what they thought they were. They threw the study out because they thought it too ridiculous to be true. Turns out, the Soviet's capabilities weren't even half of what the tossed out study said. I can't cite the actual study, because it was so long ago, however.

I would prefer if the US dropped Israel entirely, but Israel and their collaboraters wormes their way into the US establushment so thoroughly that no matter if we have socially Leftist free traders or socially Conservative Protectionists, Israeli interests will still get US attention. They will even use Syria CW as a blatant means of expansion. They will oppose Assad and support the Kurds even if it means delaying the way and displacing more muds into its borders on Jordan and into Europe. They will oppose shitty albeit stabilizing Shia forces but support even more shitty Sunni forces. They will hold Western powers hostage for support of their agendas.

I don't think the KSA and Iran's Cold and proxy wars would go hot and direct, simply because it's a no-win situation. The Iran-Iraq war is relatively fresh in the minds of MEers, and nobody, much less the shrewd top brass in both countries, would want that. An Iranian attack on KSA would mean the US bombing Tehran. A KSA attack on Iran would mean Iran taking Israel hostage (IDGAF, but it's a taboo for Ziocucks). Their conflict seems to be posed to be much longer and cooler. Same with the purges within KSA and to some extent UAE. It's probably going to be relatively quiet and slow as to not upset investors.

Also with McCarthy.

So long as Trump remains in the White House and Putin maintains a presence in Iran, it doesn't seem as if AIPAC has any power to do any more damage for the time being. Unless Israel tries to take Lebanon again, but that seems doubtful. The only thing I could see them trying to do is turn Yemen into another Syria, but I doubt they'd get America's help with that. We've got no Turkish pipeline going through there.

...