Reaganists may not support ISIS and La Raza and the Muslim Brotherhood front groups, but they sure do support the low tax, low spend, small weak govt ideal of the Reaganites.
1. That's not what you implied in the post that was addressed, you implied that Reaganites were supporting ISIS , La Raza and so forth. You seem to have back tracked, or perhaps the initial post was poor wording on your part.
2.
So far as Finances -Tax and spend yada yada yada , different times and agendas require differing approaches -
No two snowflakes are alike - neither are any two situations, eras and sets of variables identical. In the Reagan era we were in a debacle with the "Evil Empire" aka the USSR - Reagan militaristic spending and the Soviet attempts to match American Resolve under Reagan brought about the collapse of the USSR - that and one of other personal Heroes Mikhail Gorbachevv- but thats another issue altogether.
3. So far as Reagan Conservatives and Eisenhower conservatives ... WTF ... You think conservatives are like goose stepping libtards parroting whatever agenda Big Brother throws their way -
it'll never happen . Conservatives are free thinking individuals - not the mindless imbecillic puppets that the left idealizes.
There are many breeds of Conservatives - all under one banner but all free thinkers - the worst of our breed being the "Goldwater" conservatives. -
No two snowflakes are alike
1. I most certainly did NOT imply that or anything else. The
"for them" I mentioned is ISIS and La Raza and the Muslim Brotherhood. I never imply, insinuate or infer ANYTHING,,,EVER. If I have something to say, I say it. If it appeared to you that I was implying something, that's in YOUR head, not mine. The
"they" sure do support the low tax, low spend, small weak govt ideal of the Reaganites, is ISIS, MB, La Raza, etc.
The rest of your post is a bit vague, so I'll just pass on any response for it, except to say that NO, Reaganists are NOT free thinkers. That's why they are Reaganists. They all have something in common. They support low taxes, even on the rich (which only a minority of people in America support, according to a litany of polls), and this consequently means low spending, which consequently leads to a smaller, and therefore weaker govt, without the funds to support a robust homeland security, national defense, FBI, CIA, military, infrastructure, police on all levels, fire depts, ICE, CBP, etc. This goes in the opposite direction of Conservatism, for which all these departments are critical to CONSERVE America's traditional identity and way of life.
There is also a lot of money needed to fight off America's internal enemies who, over the past few decades have been characteristically using the courts to dismantle our way of life. Some of these enemies are the ACLU, SPLC, La Raza, MALDEF, LULAC, MECHA, gay rights gooneybirds, and the many Muslim Brotherhood front groups. They go judge-shopping (as Pat Buchanan eloquently put it) and when the find just the right judge for their purposes, they sue. These court battles are like military battles in one respect. They both cost a lot of MONEY.
So you're either willing to go to bat for America, and our tradition ways of life (Ex. marriage-a man & woman) or you're not. If you're not, you're not a Conservative in my book. I see these expensive, protectionist needs as a lot more important than keeping some movies star's after tax income up above $10 Million/year. Top 5 US movie stars are at $100 Million/year income. I'd rather see our US troops getting a big slice of that.
