ITT: objectively terrible leaders that are burning in hell today

>won cold war
Jesus fucking Christ. The cold war ended because Soviet economy was an unmitigated economic catastrophe thanks to the oil crash. It doesn't matter if US president was Ronald Reagan or Ronald McDonald, the USSR would have collapsed regardless.

t. vladmir

The peanut farmer hurt the USSR more than Reagan

>it's an Ameriblobs overrating their influence on global events episode

yes

>It's an "irrelevant country thinks their opinion matters" episode

t. Ameriblob

>WE COLLAPSED DA SOVIETS N SHIEET

he types, in American

*she

Zhe

Regan was a full cunt.

burning in hell is a loaded precept, like what version of Christianity are you basing it on?

they all just die, and so do we, and we have to live with the shame and guilt of being led by men like this.

>muh economy

Death squads in Central America and apartheid are fine. Saddam was a faggot on multiple occasions, but I concede that Iran should've been allowed to fuck Iraq.

>apartheid are fine

Pic related: (You)

>Death squads in Central America and apartheid are fine
please elaborate on these points

Well I agree, hence using the weasel word arguably. Also nixon opening to china made winning the cold war possible as well as other actions of previous administration s. Peanut did a good job of starting to raise def spending, bc b4 reagan dems were the guns party who incd def spending and every republican since eisenhower had dramatically decd def spending. Reagan has statues in eastern europe for a reason bc he was not only great at foriegn policy good cop bad cop w russia, but also was great at articulating liberal ideals domestically and abroad. His spending was to take advantage of a weak rus economy by making the economic cost of the cold war to expensive to be fought. He genuinely changed america and the world. So much so the democrats became practically republicans. Now did he single handly win no, but like nixon and jfk he played a huge part.

Not who you're replying to, but it's better than the existing alternative.

No one would hold the soviets to these standards. The other thing is deficit was worth it. It was not preferential, but a price of winning cold war. Def spending was like gambling. You ante up so much the other guy folds. the soviets could not afford to fight. Also dem congress passed his budgets! If reagan was a dictator and our gov had no seperation of power there would have been no deficit.

Is this obama or reagan? Leadership and charisma matter.

>B-But what about Obama!

Not on my Veeky Forums

>Iran Contra
>Revamped the war on Drugs
>had wife manage white house schedule via astrologer
>brought Fanatical Evangelicals back into mainstream politics
>all round pandering sleaze

I'd be more on board with Republican candidates if the party wasn't addicted to these 1 dimensional, scripted affable good ol' boy entertainers, as if they're some paragon of pure American values. Literally the only reason Reagan got an easy ride from the press was after his assassination attempt.

Ignore good things only focus on bad things. Not judging him relative to his contemporaries. My point is that given as a whole what he accomplished far outweighed the bad.

>Whataboutism
That's a fallacy.

Obama picked up an economy that had just been destroyed while Clinton, years before, could ride the DotCom bubble and got out before it exploded.
And all in all, it seems he did a nice job even if I strongly disagree with how next to nobody paid for the damage caused (although a rating company got their dues some months ago, so there's light at the end of the tunnel.
bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-01-19/ranking-the-obama-economy

>No one would hold the soviets to these standards
There aren't only two players in this game, you know. You could be one ounce less evil than the Russians and thus be "better" than them but at the end of the day you're still hurting innocents. I'm not sure the dead are glad it was American policy that killed them rather than those dreaded Soviets.

The existing alternative is so shit because of the way the removal of apartheid was handled, and because of how deep the divide and tension was in South Africa. That doesn't make Apartheid fine by any means

...

Ronald Reagan was just the sort of affable person I want to maintain dignity in office.

Regardless of where you fall with your political views, it's pretty well know from all sides that Ronald Reagan was a retard. His policies were standard conservative fare that aren't worth arguing over on Veeky Forums. They did what they've always done.

A large part of his enduring popularity is because he was a good public speaker, charming in talks, with prepared witty responses and he had a very well timed assassination attempt that created enough public sympathy that many members from both parties overlooked anything questionable he did.

>objectively terrible leaders that are burning in hell today

I'd argue that every single universally known leader would be burning in hell today. The entire process of getting to such position is very morally questionable if not outright evil by christian standards.

...

Unironically Hitler

Modern South Africa is a fucking joke, and we pretend it isn't because we want reality to fit our narrative, and not our narrative to fit our reality.
youtu.be/w3wp6fC7vbo
youtu.be/d5TD2HpXcH0
They're threatening genocide against the boers for land reform.

My wife was born there but she emigrated with her parents in '95. Her relatives still live there and often tell her what a colossal fucking shithole the country has became.

t. vladmir

It's spelled Vladimir you fucktard.

Let's not kid ourselves here. SA was a shithole for most of its residents under apartheid too. Now it's just a shithole for ALL of its residents.

Well, she's white. White people didn't have it bad during apartheid, it was pretty much a first world country for them.

I think Regan was consider great because he came after that jack off Carter

Look I am not argueing the merits of obama. My point was in the pic they act as if charisma is not important to good leadership. Reagan was a highly effective leader. Wealth creation is more important than wealth distribution. You have to have wealth to distribute. Deficit was due to democratic controled congress who passed reagans budgets just as much as it was due to reagan. If reagan was a dictator than you could completely pegg him for deficit, but if he was a dictator there would have been no deficit. Defense spending was necessary to force russia to quit. They made compitition economically infeasible. Hell dems had incd defense spending dramatically by massive rates since woodriw wilson. Republicans since eisenhower always decd massively, until reagan.

Yes, latin america were not children. They also had their own agency. Not saying it was right, I would argue it was stupid. Except selling weapons to iran. That was good.

If you ignore arguements that you disagree with then of course ur right!

...

Iran is unironically the good guys in MENA affairs

The state was at least functional then.

You can go to hell for being a bad president/leader? That's retarded