Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If there wasn't any amendment barring presidents from serving more than two terms, and President Ronald Reagan ran and won reelection in 1988, how would have America look like today?
Given that he was senile long before 1988, it would have depended on his advisers.
A Reagan third term would have been dominated by one unavoidable FACT Increasing mental emfeablement due to Alzheimer's disease. In reality Nancy Reagan stepped in and more or less ended former President Reagan's speaking engagements and campaigning with fellow GOP candidates in 1990. His public life was over. If he had been in the White House his VP Bush and other cabinet and Congressional powers would have had the duty to either relieve him of the Presidency with Bush becoming an acting President or the President after a resignation by Mr Reagan like Jerry Ford did in 1974 or act in the background as America slipped into a Regency period with Bush effectively running the Administration and Nancy taking care of Ronnie. Either way the USA would have been weakened at a time when the USSR broke up , Germany reunited, The long rule of Margret Thatcher came to an end, Iraq attacked Kuwait and the hardliners crushed the nascent lineralization in China in 1989. Not to mention the crisis in South Asia when India and Pakistan both entered the nuclear club and a nuclear conflict very possible in a region where these two nations had gone to war almost as frequently as the Israelis and the Arabs! I didn't forget about South Africa and the what if President De Klerk had kept Mandela on Robbins Island and continued to clamp down on the growing insurgence lead by the ANC
You're absolutely right about his mental state.
I dunno how much difference it would have made in foreign policy though. Bush I would have been pivotal, and I think we have enough evidence to see that while he was never a neocon, he was totally willing to take a hard line.
Since Bush I was effectively Ronnie's 3rd term, there wouldn't be a discernible difference.
negative.......when Reagan left and the Bush crowd took over that's when the GOP started losing ground......the Blue Collar Democrats left the Reagan coalition and returned to the Democrat Party.
in 1980 and 1984 Reagan built a big coalition and the Bush family came and blew that up......look what W Bush did, he basically ruined the GOP brand for years and gave the house, senate and the W.H. to the Democrats, that made possible for a Chicago Community organizer with NO experience win the W.H.
the Bush doctrine wasn't good for the party and Trump finally put the final nail in that coffin with Jeb Bush.
I wouldn't take anything from Mother Jones seriously.....they are a very far left wing "news" hack that hated Reagan and any conservative.
Did you read the article? Even one of Reagan's kids admits that he was senile in office. The information is all over the Internet and was in books before that. I chose Mother Jones as a source. Choose somebody else if it makes you feel better.
No such thing as trickle down economics. That's another thing in a long list that you have wrong.
Well, tell me what then; I had a pretty short list. Do you think at he would recognize today's Republican party with frontrunner Donald Trump? Raegan at least had some class. He would probably be a Democrat today.
We would have higher taxes and no semi auto rifles and GOP would call it wonderful
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.