You May Have Amnesia

What the hell happen to you ?


1964 Ronald Reagan




2022 Donald Trump




Never seen such a political U-turn like this one....

a reply to: Kenzo
it's almost as if Reagan was warning against what could happen if we went with liberal policies, and Trump is explaining Reagan was right and here we are. Great contrast of the times, sad that we lived to see the fruition of stupid.

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: Kenzo
it's almost as if Reagan was warning against what could happen if we went with liberal policies, and Trump is explaining Reagan was right and here we are. Great contrast of the times, sad that we lived to see the fruition of stupid.

Indeed...

a reply to: network dude

Reagan wouldn’t side with the Russians over his own country. Reagan took a hard line with Russia .Reagan was a firm believer in the importance of alliances like NATO and wouldn’t have approved of Trump constantly chastising our allies while kissing up to enemies of the US like Russia .

a reply to: Kenzo

Right. He was speaking about “The Soviet Union”. The worlds largest Marxist Communist country to exist at the time. Since its failure Democrats have been making a push for it here. Now openly!

a reply to: Texastruth2

Well by looking it from here, quite near actually of Russia , it has looked like Putin pulled the USSR guy from grave and started giving Cardiac resuscitation to it

And by some levels or standarts, this newer revived USSR 2.0 guy is even more crazy than the original....i mean they take huge risk , act suicidal....completely nuts!

originally posted by: Kenzo
a reply to: network dude

Reagan wouldn’t side with the Russians over his own country.

That's an interesting way of looking at things considering Trumps entire platform is America first. If he gets re-elected, which seems very likely, that will be the voice of the country speaking. Trump is siding against the globalists, and he will give praise to any leader why chooses to do the same, it's just that not many of them do.

Reagan took a hard line with Russia .Reagan was a firm believer in the importance of alliances like NATO and wouldn’t have approved of Trump constantly chastising our allies while kissing up to enemies of the US like Russia .

If I'm not mistaken Reagan led through a period of the cold war, so he had to take a hard stance against Russia. Wikipedia states that Reagan labeled the Soviet Union an "evil empire" and predicted that Communism would be left on the "ash heap of history," while Thatcher inculpated the Soviets as "bent on world dominance."

You act like it's a good thing to automatically treat certain nations as enemies rather than try to be diplomatic and friendly the way Trump did. Yet when Trump took a hard stance against the communist party of China, a perfectly sensible stance to take, he's called a small minded racist. China is the model for our globalist future after all.

a reply to: ChaoticOrder


America first was also pre-WW2 movement with names like Charles Lindbergh , they opposed openly joining the fight against Nazis . Then Japanise attack Pearl harbour etc...and everything changes, even Lindbergh himself flying missions, in Pacific theatre if i understand corretly.

Russia is the evil empire still now, the game is still too same ....they are going backwards back to good ol USSR .

I blame also Europeans not giving enough military aid to Ukraine .

Go ask from East europeans are the Russians enemy or friend , the ex- ussr states....they have healthy sitrep about this, and that means war threat is possible , knowing how crazy Russian are .

a reply to: Kenzo

Maybe, I mean if one had amnesia, they wouldn't necessarily know it now would they?

A few key differences here, Russia is not the Soviet Union. If we were to go by your framing then the current POTUS would be doing everything in his power to fund (and profit) from the Soviet Union ala Ukraine.


It's not a difficult mind exercise to see that if we would have not meddled in Ukrainian policy since 2008 or so the trajectory would have been very different.

If war mongers from the UK would have allowed Ukraine to handle it's own business perhaps many young men would be having families currently instead of tombstones.

a reply to: JinMI

UK "warmongers"?

If we had not backed Ukraine, against an actual proper warmonger, many Ukrainians would be living under Putin's dictatorship and he would have had a green light to set his sights on other former Soviet vassal states to reestablish his beloved old late and unlamented Soviet Union.

a reply to: Oldcarpy2

Could, would, should...just a few examples. Believe me, we have our own with Lindsay Graham (who was instrumental in the Ukraine discord)

Boris made sure that Zelensky didn't go near a negotiating table.

a reply to: JinMI

I agree that with amnesia wouldn't necessarily know it ..or notice . However Ukraine is independent nation state , in which people wanted Independence before 2014 .

So by that it means they can decide do they want to live in Russian World or with the West . It was Russia/ Putin who started the 2014 campaigns , later in Crimea, and then 2022 bigger attack .

I like freedom . Being too close with Russia Ukraine would never really be free .

a reply to: JinMI

What do you think there was to negotiate, apart from surrender?

a reply to: Kenzo

That's about right except the part where Ukraine murdered it's own citizens and its oligarchs capitalized on eastern and western money.


I too like freedom. Being in a constant state of war is not freedom.

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: JinMI

What do you think there was to negotiate, apart from surrender?

A question that should have been very publicly asked and discussed prior to 100's of 1000's of dead civilians and soldiers alike, no?

a reply to: ChaoticOrder

America needs MORE of what keeps terrorists from attacking RUSSIA cargo ships and Navy ships sailing the Mideast.

Department of education has done a wonderful job of destroying civics courses (where they still have them) and History class.

If you dont understand your rights or your nations history of course the youth will be ignorant enough to fall for the allure of communism/socialism.

a reply to: JinMI

I was asking you that question.

There is "negotiation" and then there is "appeasement".

History tells us that when dealing with an expansionist Dictator, the latter is not a good idea.

a reply to: Oldcarpy2

Which from the point of view of Russia is exactly what is happening.

Right or wrong even though there are a few arguments to support Russias point of view due to NATO actions, which Ukraine isn't a part of......


Point being, this is all should have been done without US involvement and Johnson holding the IMF over Zelensky's head. Dealing with Russia required that diplomacy not subterfuge be a component IMO.

a reply to: JinMI

Again, what was there to negotiate?

Should the US have negotiated with Japan after Pearl Harbour?