Major-Tom wrote:You posted a longer response, but you didn't address the meat of his post. Kowani brought up a valid point about Reagan's disastrous policies on the domestic and foreign fronts, and you brought up his speeches and his personal humor. That's not how that works. Jimmy Carter was a nice guy by all accounts, but I doubt you'd take that and use it as a reason to say he was a successful President, because he wasn't. The issue is the way Reagan's negative legacy has been glossed over because of his charisma and his personal qualities, not his qualities as a Commander in Chief.
In other words, being popular and funny doesn't make someone a good President, it makes them a good politician. Kowani also didn't attack you, he very validly brought up Reagan's foreign policy.
I don't believe the question was ever about what makes someone a good president. The question was "
Who are the political figures which you admire the most?" As I mentioned, this was a personal question about which politician I admire, and I answered it, and defended it, even though I never asked for my opinion to be debated. This is not about what "makes someone a good President".
As you seemed confused about, I responded to the fact that Kowani crossed out the statement that 'Reagan was overwhelming supported and made great speeches.' That is why I included the bits about his humor and speeches, as well as his factual popularity (525 electoral votes). It was never about what makes someone a good president, it was about my response to Kowani literally disputing Reagan's strong speeches and popularity.
Like I mentioned in my response to Kowani's "point", Reagan had a
strong foreign policy, which included military action that supported the United States' interests. To quote myself in whole, "
He was strong and no games in the fact that he took military action to support United States interests. He was also friendly and open in negotiations with the Soviet Union. He provided extensive aid to allies and friendly countries. He gained respect from most of Western Europe, and even the collapsing Eastern Bloc." I believe that answers the question over support to opposition groups in other countries fine.
Kowani's original respsonse ("
Reagan, who supported violent right-wing extremists in Angola, Nicaragua, Cambodia, amass-murdering dictatorship in El Salvador, invaded Grenada, had an "open and friendly foreign policy?"") neglected part of my quote that said "
strong, yet open and friendly foreign policy". Arguably, the word "
strong" already covers supporting groups in Central America and other countries. Like I said, that is why I admired Reagan, he
strongly supported U.S. interests. His original statement neglected key parts of my statement.
As I already said, this is my opinion, and that is not debatable or something that I asked for response to.
Kowani wrote:"violates my right to speak what I believe" lol what. I crossed out the bit about his communication because it wasn't relevant to the point I was making at all. I fully acknowledge that Reagan was a charismatic guy, it's just not part of the overarching discussion.
Why didn't you erase that crossed out bit then? You seemed all too happy to erase a key part of my opinion (strong foreign policy) for your response's advantage. Changing what I said violates my personal freedom of speech, as it literally erases my beliefs in turn for something that fits you better. By crossing out part of my opinion, it signals that you believe it is false or somehow not valid. If you mean otherwise, explicitly state it, instead of erasing or crossing out part of my opinion.
*
I will not entertain any more responses to my opinion, you guys can spin, skew, or simply cut out anything I say, and responding to people who will not be told otherwise is a waste of any sane person's time.*