Hacker News Reader

Comment by 0xWTF | Hacker News Reader

That has only been the case since 2008. Obama had no choice but manage the fallout of the Bush admin's record-setting-for-the-time fuck-ups.

Reagan followed a fairly positively stated agenda. Clinton pursued a fairly positive agenda. George the 2nd followed a fairly positive, if misguided, agenda. And then it became a reactive shitshow.

View on HN

Reagan did what exactly? Are you thinking of the secret deal he struck with Iran for them to not release the hostages, in exchange for him giving them weapons illicitly, or are you referring to the disastrous trickle-down Reaganomics system that hollowed out the middle class to enrich the wealthy, or his handling of the AIDS crisis, or his crushing of the air traffic controllers, or the war on drugs, or something else?

careful, boomers have selective memory... the 80's was some sort of fever dream

You forgot turning the mentally ill out into the streets (literally).

The GP said "stated agenda", which is true and important. Reagan openly talked about 'Morning in America', freedom around the world ('Mr. Gorbechev, tear down this wall.'), etc.

You're right that Reagan did a lot that was negative, but it's a significant difference from current leaders who openly disdain positive things and encourage people to embrace hatred, violence, warfare, corruption, oppression, etc.

no GP definitely did not. The GP said and I quote, "positively stated agenda". The 'positively' which you intentionally left off carries the weight.

Wasn't it reactive from the start? From (mostly journalistic) history I've read, GBII started their administration by refusing to do all sorts of things because the adminstration associated them with Clinton, including listening to Richard Clarke's, a carryover advisor's, warnings about terrorist threats.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com