thelinedrive No I supported my widowed Mom from the age of 16. I was an honor student. I had to drop out because Reagan cancelled her check as part of a budget cut. I was born in wedlock and do no meet any of the stereotypes that Republicans use to claim poor people are morally inferior . No Reagan my Mom would be alive and my life not destroyed.
Not if Carter had gone ahead with the air strike from the Coral Sea. Every plane on my old ship was bombed up, fueled, and ready to go when The Peanut chickened out.
thelinedrive Caused by Reagan,. Tragic life story. Is the purpose of government to destroy its citizens.Is it to have a foreign policy that destroys the Soviets but harms us ? If you think it was a necessary sacrifice it wasn’t since the Soviets were all ready on the way out. Isn’t the 7.4 % unemployment Reagan left office a recession? Who started free trade in 1986.? Outsourcing ? Service economy? Huge deficits.? Voodoo economics!
Jason Cuculo No, I just don’t care because I wasn’t making a statement about fucking Regan and even though I know how over hyped Regan’s policies are, but anecdotal stories no matter what are not a basis to make sound governmental decisions. And again I think Regan’s policy wasn’t great, but I wasn’t talking about Regan and didn’t ask for your life story. If you want to bug someone with that go to a therapist, a bar or talk to a friend. Not some random stranger.
I was born in Yugoslavia. I've effectively lived in 3 countries without ever moving xD For those of you, who are wondering, they are Yugoslavia, Serbia and Montenegro, Republic of Serbia
Do you think that Slobodan Milosevic was put in power by the United States and that was why the war broke out? Me and my friend Milan metrovits have a thery about that sorry im swedish with dyslexia
@@albinappelberg1637 As far as I know, he was elected after that time when Serbs were having a stint with communism. My dad told me that there was a lot of pressure to vote for him, whether at work, school or home. As far as his presidency is concerned, my dad liked it. Milosevic wasn't really believed to be hands-on when it came to physical work, so everyone who made an honest living was safe. I know this is weird to believe in the golden age of dictatorships, but the President didn't really bully the little guys, but instead focused on corruption. He cracked down on opposition (which was really corrupt back in the day), fake news and voter fraud. The Western powers saw this as dictatorial, but in reality, the guy was trying to fix their mistakes. Or at least that's what my parents told me. And when they toppled his regime back in 2000, it took about a few years for everything to get under control. Between 2001 and 2006, the mafia ran everything. They could literally walk into a cafe and shoot a few people in front of everyone. (NOTE: I grew up during the instability, in fact I was 2 years old when the bombs fell, and 4 - 9 when we had anarchy). It's a scary concept that someone from the outside can disrupt your reconstruction, so enjoy your democratic Sweden - truly, only the Scandinavians have figured it out :)
I usually agree that nuclear armageddon would be worse. And then there are the days when I hear anti-vaxxers on youtube and pray for the mushroom cloud.
This channel has a conservative bias. We're living in an alternate timeline where people think Reagan was a good president rather than the scandalous embarrassment he really was. Notice this video mentioned none of the negatives Reagan was known for. Mentions cutting taxes but no mention of what programs he cut...
Worth mentioning that Reagan presided over the death of labor unions in this country. No idea how Bush would've responded to the air traffic controller strike in 1981. Bush might've been just as big of a union buster tbh, curious how you'd see it.
@@JosefPiano Unions are the only thing that protects workers from their bosses using them essentially as slave labour. It's why Americans on average work far longer hours for far lower pay than most European countries, because the vast majority of Americans don't have any unions to advocate for their rights to be upheld. This overworking in turn leads to high levels of stress, heart attacks, and low work performance compared to said European nations due to everyone being too exhausted to work at full capacity. I honestly don't understand why you would ever be against unions unless you're a cheapskate ceo yourself who doesn't like being told no. Reagan and his policies have effectively brainwashed Americans to fight against their own interests and for companies to have unlimited power to treat them like garbage. It's very sad to see. You guys are one of the only western countries that have no right to vacations or maternity leave, and the way your workers are treated are slowly but surely sliding into Victorian levels of awful.
@Badger Source? My personal experience with unions has been slashed tires mandatory dues and rumors of political corruption. Don’t get me wrong there are certain professions that benefit from union protections like the mining industry however there are other examples of unions going too far or out right political corruption. Detroit used to be the center of a thriving auto industry before the unions got greedy and put GM on life support. Then you have the teacher’s unions being the single most corrupt institution since the military industrial complex. Teacher salary is paid by the government>unions dues are collected from Teacher salaries>union dues are donated to pro-teacher union candidates>candidates raise teacher salaries>union dues rise>union dues are donated>you get the idea. There’s a reason why organized crime got very friendly with unions.
@@alt5014 I mean I appreciate it as a joke. I get what you're saying, that we shouldn't worship other people or objects, but there are plenty of people who have paintings of Jesus, or photographs of people who look like Him on their wall. There are even movies which have other people portraying him, but they're (most of the time) just doing it for His glory, and no one is worshipping the portrayer themselves. None of us know exactly what Jesus looks like. Sure, we can make educated guesses, but the best way to visually symbolize Jesus is by using the long-retained cultural traditions which speculate His appearace: a man with brown hair, probably around shoulder length, commonly with some facial hair as well, with white or middle-eastern appearance, usually blue eyes, wearing white, gray, beige, or brown robes, and generally with a calm, serene appearance. Comically, this matches the appearance of Ewan McGregor's portrayal of Obi-Wan Kenobi in "Attack of the Clones". If a person looks at this character and interprets it as Jesus, then there's nothing wrong with that, but if you know who it is, it is rather funny to think that it was Jesus fighting battle droids in the Geonosion arena. Edit: Unless you were talking about the above reply, in which case I'm sorry to have explained this all to you, and you should have probably tagged him in your reply.
technically Napoleon did 9/11 considering the Napoleonic wars lead to ww1 and ww1 lead to ww2. ww2 to the cold war. the cold war to al qaeda, which did 9/11, and that lead too the conflicts we have today. so if you want to blame someone blame Napoleon
A lot of people like to make fun of Bush Sr. and Carter, and make people like Reagan bigger than life imagine and as a strong individual that everybody should aim to be. However, they two guys are very underrated, for once, they (Bush and Carter) were WW2 veterans (one was an air pilot, the other operated submarines). Bush graduated from Yale University, went to become an oil businessman in Texas, made millions of dollars, worked as an ambassador and CIA. Carter was also very impressive as well. He went to graduate as a freaking nuclear engineer (one of only two presidents who were engineers), worked on his broken family farm, made it profitable, became a very successful businessman in Georgia and become governor of his states (Reagan did too), and was (is) very religious by reading his bible onna weekly basis to this day. Far from the Looney socialist caricature that many conservative associate with him. Reagan in his personal life doesn't measure to these accomplishments. These two men are just guilty of not having the acting charisma BS. It saddens me that even to this day people only look at a facade, the acting charisma or false bravado when they look or choose our leaders, instead of looking at their records and let the facts speak for themselves.
In my opinion, I think the better way gets these hard working pragmatists to win for office is by recruting them. They need more than a campaign manager. Just hiring an acting coach, a fittness coach, and a make-up artist or/and anyther other proffessionals that will help them to become more charismatic, more charming, persuasive, and more entertainming towards their voters, which give them a better chance of winning.
I never thought much of Carter, until I saw what he did after his Presidency. What he does now. Now I see him as an amazing man who faced some very difficult issues while in office, who probably didn't know how to handle the press back then.
Carter is a great humanitarian, but, an awful President. The Presidency is a job where acting and charisma are far more important skills than would be the skillsets of an engineer or even a WW2 vet. I don't understand why you'd think that their engineering, farming or oil business is better than the tremendous communication abilities, negotiation skills and understanding of economics that Reagan possessed. Reaganomics is the same thing as trickle down, this is actually an economics 101 principle that is based on the fact that economic growth can only occur after investment. Tax breaks are given to Companies so they can hire more employees and purchase more equipment, to make more money. The Liberals like to spin this economic principle into claims of tax breaks for the wealthy when it's really incentives for the nations investors to invest more. This not only creates more jobs but it also creates additional tax contributors, thus generating more tax revenue for the Government all while creating jobs.
+geromino97 ??? do you even know history, FDR died before the end of WWII (actual end where europe was split in twp not the 'textbook' ending) and i believe Truman was the president afterwards he if anything escalated the cold war substantially
FDR was giving into Stalin due to failing health towards the end of his life. Had he lived to see the end of his 4th term then the Iron Curtain probably would have fallen across Japan as well. In our timeline, Truman had to deal with the Yalta Conference, which resulted in a split Europe thanks to FDR misunderstanding the intent of Stalin and the plans for a return to the old borders under Churchill. Had a new Conference on the outcome of Japan been held with Stalin, Mao, and FDR, an even worse scenario could have been had. With Mao and Stalin on good terms at the time the expansion of the Chinese and Russian spheres over Korea, Indochina, and even Japan would be very likely. However, unlike in Europe where the American, British, and French controlled Germany were able to coalesce into one unified West Germany, it is possible that Korea, Japan, and French Indochina would be split into three separate nations controlled by American, Chinese, and Russian interests respectively. This would have made East Asia into a far more volatile region than it was in our timeline, intensifying the cold war rather than relaxing it.
Good one. Bill would have unlikely won the primary in 1996 or thereafter. Hilary would be a nobody, and support for Obama would have been unlikely. Wow, a lot would've changed.
@@oldtwinsna8347 Obama would've won no matter what BECAUSE of what Bush Jr did. People were tired of Republicans. It was basically a swinging pendulum.
Willie Hardiman That assumes George W. Bush would run for President in the 2000s at all. He has said in the past he felt a lot of motivation in running for office after his father lost in 1992. So it all depends on how the following administration would have handled the Iraq WMD scare that began in the late 90s.
He'd promote things that'd ruin the economy, piss off literally everyone, and take credit for every possible success while blaming his failures on anyone that disagrees with him. So basically everything he does now, only without making a movie based on lies and promoted by people confusing themselves for scientists.
I think it’s interesting that after Reagan’s term so few of his policies got changed I personally think it’s because they were all such polarizing policies that no real change could be made
It is far from true that polarizing policies aren’t changed. Look at the Iran deal or border policies. They switched from Obama to Biden and trump. Reagan’s policies didn’t change because bush agreed with him in 88, and Clinton realized they were so popular he had to keep them to win in ‘92 and ‘96. Bush 2 then agreed as well.
1. What if China won Bokser Rebelion? 2. What if Isreal lost Isreal War For Independence? 3. What if Hitler never came to power? 4. What if Japan didn't attacked Pearl Harbour? 5. What if Italy never united? 6. What if France won Italian Wars? 7. What if France never sold Louisiana to USA?
What if Trotsky had become premier and ice-picked Stalin? Simple answer? No nationalist revisionism and the continuation of the USSR to this day. (I'm not a trot tho)
If Japanese decided to not open their borders then the US would have made them open their borders by force and Japan would have gone to the route of China and be divided by the western nations. If Japan would have never attacked Pearl Harbour it would have either retreated from Indochina, China and Korea (Not going to happen.) and remain an island nation, or its economy would have collapsed and it would have become a failed state.
My history teacher used to always tell the class, if someone is trying to teach you about politics and you already know that person’s politics beliefs, they have already failed you
Jonas P. True,but you can still.lose without drugs if Trump wants to take you college aid and income,or Reagan cancelled your Mom's check in the 1980's
Reagan was no fool. By proclaiming that, he threw the Soviets into a tizzy. He had no plans, at least not serious plans(the program has yet to be created) to actually go through with this. His whole intention was to get the Soviets off their cookie and it worked. Just trying to combat the possibility of this sent the Soviets into a flurry which eventually led to them bankrupting themselves into Glasnost. Reagan knew exactly what he was doing just like his hot mike moment when he said that the bombing was going to start in 5 minutes. He wanted the Soviets to think he was nuts and it worked.
Studa Baker The Soviets had already bankrupted themselves during their war and occupation of Afghanistan. The war against Afghanistan was like the Soviets’ Vietnam war. The entire reason why the Detente were accepted by both sides was that both the Soviets and Americans knew they couldn’t fund their armies if war broke out between them. Therefore Reagan only escalated tensions.
I'm guessing that the Soviets panicked because Star Wars was a pipe dream and there was nothing actually to steal to set them up in power again. RE: atomic bomb, B-27, etc.
What if Alexander's Empire never came down apart and continued unified and replaced Rome ? How would the Macedonians Look like? How Europe would be diffrent in terms of language and culture nowadays ?
Alexander didn't conquered Europe he conquered the middle east iran some of india and Egypt Europe during his time was some clans fighting each others with iron and wood and roman came after him not before him and there were nothing interisting to fight for there because Greeks was the only civilization in europe during his time he just affects the eastern world not the western and even if his empire remain there will be no effect on Europe (and sorry for my bad English I hope you understand my speech)
In hindsight, the election of 1980 may have been one of the worst elections in US history. Ronald Reagan launched a new guilded age. 2020 is now the culmination of 40 years of Reagan's politics. I can only hope that in 2024, we find our Teddy Roosevelt who can end this new gilded age.
@@prezmeji5641 i think Bernie sanders may go down as someone like William Jennings Bryan. Someone who brought populist ideas into the mainstream but couldn't quite get to the presidency.
i disagree reagen republicanism was replaced by neoconservatives ideology pretty much reagens economic legacy died out a lot of our economic problem stems from the fact that we have a mix and match of differing economic models for example the new deal was continued albeit more moderated
Reagan's team manipulated elections giving TOW missiles to Iran in exchange for keeping the hostages until after the election. Even though times were rough while Carter was president there was a large sense of community within the nation. The press and anecdotes highlight only the worst occurrences of human behavior while neglecting the overall sense of a common mission. People were carpooling for real, conserving water and power, schools were teaching the metric system, solar power innovation (6th grade mandatory public school project), community gardens, etc. Reagan had the solar panels removed from the White House before he moved in; a definite nod to the oil corporations that he was their man. long/short: Reagan era fed on and supported personal entitlement over community good.
@@lynnhettrick7588 fortunately we have a long record after his presidency to look on and see where his values laid. I read through some presidential papers recently and Carter was really fighting the machine trying to get reforms and reduction in CIA and military. Instead of Reagan blowing smoke while a conservative agenda stripped American institutions, Congress and bureaus wouldn't have had that cover. Plus I can guarantee he wouldn't have come near matching Reagan's bloated budget and massive debt increase - the largest in history till then. And while Carter was still a bit brainwashed anti-Communist, I don't believe he would have approached the escalation in "Axis of Evil" rhetoric that fueled the cold war (meaning insane payouts to oil industry and weapons companies).
Bush called Supply Side Economics "voodoo economics"... ... I suddenly have even more respect for former President George H.W. Bush than I originally did.
petargrad Supply Side Economics has not, and never has, successfully sustained itself in the history of capitalism. In every case (EVERY case) that it's been implemented en masse, a massive depression has snowballed out of control in the country that engaged in the practice. The perfect example is Japan. For decades after WW2 they practiced sensible economics based off the Keynesian model. Stable and consistent economic growth followed (first by U.S. investment, then through self sustainment of exports). In the 70s they were a highly prosperous, nearly completely self sufficinet nation with the potential to be the economic juggernaut of the Far East for the next Century. Then the late 80s rolled around and they decided to do away with hundreds of government oversights, give tax cuts to the wealthy, and allow massive margin buying of company stocks and mortage loans for individuals with dubious capacity to repay such investments if they went bust. The result? Within a decade they were the single most heavily indebted first world nation on Earth, with a record high unemployment rate and ridiculous levels of inflation. It took the re-implementation of regulations, taking bad global deals to restore faith, and lots of painful adjustments for the populace over the course of almost 30 years to fix what Supply Side Economics destroyed in 10. But no, I'm the moron. Yeah buddy, you keep drinking the kool-aid.
petargrad The wealth of the Reagan Era was due almost exclusively to the fact that Reagan sold us on doubling down on the Military Industrial Complex. When the Soviets actually fell, we no longer had a reason to justify our ridiculous expeditures, and those rich people we had been giving kickbacks to stopped investing whole hog in defense contractors. The aerospace industry collapsed overnight and we had ourselves a rather nasty recession (one that none other than Pres. Bush had to clean up). Supply side economics can give you lots of highs, but it's a roller coaster: and the lows often destroy the people and the economic lower end of the spectrum. There is zero stability in that model. And the last year of Reagan's term and all of Bush's proved that concretely.
Ok, here is the thing cutting taxes on the poor and the middle class and also in small business is a sensible option that actually does lead to economic growth, when the vast majority of your population (aka the poor and the middle class) have more money to spend on those sprawling small bussness that are oppening because the lower taxes on them make them competitive against massive multi-national corporations you actually make it so money moves around improving the economy by a LOT. Cutting taxes on the rich has being proven to have NO effect wathsoever except increasing the size of their bank account because suddenly it makes more sense to keep it there instead of opening new busness sicne its cheaper and safer to leave money in the bank. Then about regulation, the whole idea that the market will regulate companies worth billions of dollars is ludicrous, as proven by all the scandals that happen time and again inplaces with close to none regulation. The problem about regulations is not their existance, it's when they are so complex that NOONE can make sense of them instead of asking for less regulations, sicne that tends to cause serious problems including health issues on consumers and nearby population, leading in some cases even to death, the better alternative is demanding that the bullshit regulation in use must be made simple, understandable and sensible. There are no useless regulations in place, just uselessly complex ones that were made 50 - 60 yers ago and patched multiple times over the years making them into a frankenstein. You just need to actually write them again in a new way instead of keeping patching them left and right,
Democlis cutting taxes on anybody helps. Cutting taxes on the rich isn't "proven to do nothing", money doesn't sit idle in bank accounts, and that money gets invested into firms.
ryaamp12 Unless of course they invest their money in "safe havens" like precious metals, which other than *OCCASIONALLY* helping a mining group here or there is the market equivalent of stuffing your money under a mattress. Care to guess an extremely common practice for the rich if they fear a downturn in the market, tax increases, or any other fluctuation? Yeah, taking money out of circulation into "stable" things like this. Now "free market economics" says those individuals during market instability will dig down deep, see the problem, and invest their money in the problem areas and supplimentary areas *AT THE TIME OF THE CRISIS* to stabilize the market and then make their money back later. When you find an example of that that's *NOT* the government, let me know.
Neoliberalism would have happened anyway. Thatcher brought it in for England, and even the left wing in Australia lead by Paul Keating did the same thing. Neoliberalism was lead by private business from the 80's economic boom, not by politics itself.
@@obiwankenobi4252 did Reagan swim over to Australia and bury a bunch of coal and iron ore here? Did he go back in time and invest heavily in Japan after WW2 to make sure we'd have somewhere to offshore manufacturing to? I wasn't aware.
Technically, all presidents are given credit to whatever happens during their term(s). It doesn't matter whether or not they actually caused it in the first place.
hi there from Portugal... what if Portugal and Spain remained united in the XVII century? together we had the largest global empire in history, even larger than english empire
actually we were still independent, part of the agreement of the union was no discrimination of portuguese nobels, like Catalunha, it would still mantain its image, do not forget the union was like Uk nowadays, scotland is was not absorved into england...
same motto, (debatable on effectiveness) charisma tactics, trying to prosper the military/economy and kick whatever communist neighbors in the curb...........yeah it's pretty surprising actually
ehhh the only really similar thing between Trump and Reagan is the campaign motto other than that there pretty different and Trump has nowhere near the Charisma that Reagan had
@@Cookiesrfood they are actually very simular. Reagan pointed to the other "welfare queens", Trump "illegal immigrants." Both versions of tax cuts for the rich flowing down to recover the economy. The same slogan. Both cut regulations of businesses. Both focused on military spending. There are differences, Trump is way closer to the alt right for one. But what he is doing is not the first time it has been done, like most people seem to think, it's just the most extreme in the US to date. ADDED: No where in this post am I saying that trickle down economics works. It's been 2 YEARS since the beginning of this comment, and y'all have messaged me repeatedly it doesn't work. DUH! They still both tried it!
@@Patchuchan I never said that it did. I said that THEY used the concept. It's proven that it fails missierablely, They still backed it and claimed it works.
Reagan's expanded military was slashed almost in half by 1994. I damn near had to leave the service because half the Army literally vanished and it was a struggle to find a slot. The 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, and 24th Infantry Divisions, 2d and 3d Armored Divisions just went *poof*. (There are 10 Divisions on active duty today). The National Guard was similarly downsized.
I think some point in the future, this channel will either do What if Trump Became President? or What if Hillary Became President? I'm guessing either video will be posted in a gazillion years.
(Or Bernie.. Since he obviously should have... but y'kno, Basically rigged against him) (At least he would 100% Win against Dump unlike Shillary who is having an unsure chance)
There was absolutely ZERO chance for Bernie Sanders to be the nominee. Hillary has been wanting to be U.S. President since 2000. The Democrats decided to show a "united" front in 2016 to make sure she is the nominee, even if a lot of Democrats really did not want Hillary Clinton as their party's nominee.
Less homeless people would be severely mentally ill Because Reagan shut down state mental hospitals And they would improve as regulations increased (like psych units are now)
My only problem with your Bob Dole/Iraq War scenario is IF he overthrew Saddam, the Iraqi people were with us and would have been more cooperative than in the 2000's... a decade after we abandoned them to be slaughtered by Saddam's retribution in the 1990's. There would still be a power vacuum... but much less angst against the United States and our allies. Somehow, I still see the power struggle between Swartzkoff (sic?) and Powell tugging at the President's ear, and Dole would have probably done the same as Bush in siding with Powell.
Yeah it was probably a mistake to leave saddam in power and we probably wouldn't have seen as much conflict in Iraq than as in the later war. Much of the opposition came from Sunnis who feared the us putting in Shias who had the support of Iran. If this process occurs earlier Iran is not yet as powerful and the movement towards Kurdish independence isn't as strong. And this we have the potential for a much more stable Iraq combining the three groups I think it's difficult for us to process alternative history but very likely if saddam had been left in power by the second bush he would have been brought down by Iranian backed Shias eventually As part of the much wider conflict currently being fought
Thats completely illogical, Canada was not occupied by the nazis. Canada also has powerful allies such as the British empire to protect from annexation. The US cant just annex countries.
It's because people who live in California are easily lead, star struck, shallow, human beings. At least the ones that don't live in the slums, those individuals are too busy robbing each other to vote.
Its actually at 6:30 lol i cant believe i was motivated enought at 4:30am while watching on my xbox to nail down the exact frame - that was truly chilling - well done Cody!!! :)
Mike Haster totally agree why bomb Syria build your wall, drain the swamp, bring back jobs, why is Trump not getting along with Putin! I had high hopes of him but now I see he's no better than obama or bush!!! FUCK TRUMP
I never supported killary ! I was always a trump supporter ! And now he starts new wars ? What about america first ? The wall ? And now he goes to war to help muslims in syria ? Stupid ! WE should not care about syria or korea !
I despise the democrat party but Reagan was an awful president. He was no defender of freedom but an authoritarian who supported imperialism, enhanced the failing war on drugs, supported CIA backed regime changes, Central American death squads and many more things. He talked about reducing government while implementing mandatory minimum sentences and preventative detention.
Michael Lasuzzo Yes, I acknowledge Nixon launched the war on drugs and did terrible things while in office ie Cointelpro, Agent orange. Reagan had Iran-Contra, and he expanded the war on drugs that Nixon started by making marijuana a schedule 1 substance.
I honestly don’t really know, mate. The Republican Party wasn’t so uncompromising and polarized before 2016. They still kinda worked in bipartisanship. Even though some might label Reagan as an extremist, I think it would be kinda odd to blame Reagan for Trump. It’s kinda like blaming the Wright brothers for 9/11, and also - Reagan is a statesman. I won’t say whether or not he’s a great/odd one, but he is a statesman. Trump isn’t. He just came out of nowhere.
Her's one the podcaster missed bigtime. Reagan cut education funding by 30% (!) and maintained that percentage for 7 years. The public schools never recovered, suffering cut after cut after cut ever since. So, if Reagan had not been president, 1980's and 90's kids would've been better educated---contrast with 1960's and 70's era numbers---and many of the crises issues today would not exist.
I educate people about politics for a living. 1980: Your scenario is accurate. It's likely Bush would have chosen Dole as his VP. 1984: Bush is likely up against Gary Hart. The main thrust against Hart was he was weak on specifics, that hurt at a time the President (Reagan) was known for a very very specific thing; reaganomics. As well, running a policy wonk against a maverick hotshot is usually a politically smart decision, and so with the GOP running an egghead, the Democrats would have been better off running a rebel. In the election itself, I'm uncertain who Hart would have chosen as a VP, possibly Jackson. Hart however may not have been up to the challenge, and I could see a very very narrow win for Bush in 1984. 1988: Dole is likely the GOP Nominee, likely with Haig as his VP choice. I can still see Dukakis winning the Democratic nomination. The only way that would change is if Jackson was the VP nominee in 1984, and, if Hart screwed things up, making Jackson look calm, cool, and competent. Dukakis likely would take around 100 EVs but Jackson could take 150; either day Dole still wins. If, however, Hart had won the presidency... I actually don't see any difference; Dole wins, with Haig as VP. Hart likely wouldn't have taken more than 150 EVs. 1992: things return to normal for the most part; in terms of our timeline VS this new one. There is, however, one interesting possibility. IF Hart had won, and IF he'd been challenged by Jackson in 1988, and IF Dole had made foreign policy mis-steps... it's possible Ross Perot could have become President. Not likely, but possible. I say Clinton wins, and we return to something closer to normalcy, with it not really mattering won won the GOP Nomination in 1996; unless that person happens to be Ross Perot. This is possible if the election went to the house and many Republicans voted for Perot. Even if that happens I don't see Perot winning, but only coming very, very close. However, that does open up an interesting possibility: 2000: 99% chance that the election plays out as ours does, but if all those links in the improbable chain I've detailed earlier play out, Ross Perot is elected President of the US on the Republican Ticket; likely with W Bush as his VP.
8 лет назад+1
An entirely different US would need to exist for a Reagan type presidency to have never happened. A documentary called the Century of the Self has more details on the matter.
+Teddy Boragina I can agree with you up through '84. '88 becomes much more contentious, though, if Iran-Contra happens as it did in our history and becomes a thing in late '87 the way it did here. That was kept from becoming a thing on the level of Watergate only because of Regan's deft hand at media and spin coupled with his even by then notoriously hands off approach to running things leaving room for plausible deniability. Bush was notably much more hands on with those he delegated stuff to, leaving much less room to believe he didn't have some direct involvement, and was much less able to control messaging in the media than Regan suggesting he would have struggled at best to keep Iran-Contra from becoming for him what Watergate was for Nixon which would have made a Dem win in '88 an all but sure thing. Even if he had kept that from affecting the '88 election it would have been a stain that, with other issues G.W. already had, would have kept his son having any real chance in 2000. If the Dems took PotUS in '88, B. Clinton becomes less likely to have a chance at the office (it was his relative youth coupled with '92 being the first election where GenX was a really significant force that really won it for him) as whoever the Dem incumbent was (probably Hart/Gore or Hart/Biden) goes for a second term then in '94 his VP probably loses to Dole. Bill then probably suffers some scandal that causes him to exit politics before 2000. Gore probably tries to make a go of a 2000 run against Dole and gets the nod. It's probably not nearly as contentious as our 2000 election, but probably just about as close with Dole squeaking out a win. If Bush manages to keep Iran-Contra from being such a significant negative force or manages to somehow spin it into a positive I think you're correct for '88 and after. Not having the highly divisive and modern major party interaction defining Clinton and Bush presidencies changes the potential political climate too much to actually call beyond this point I think.
I was also thinking of Iran-Contra with regard to the '88 election. Plus, with Bush's "meh" attitude toward the domestic side of things - I'll bet he wouldn't have pushed deregulation as hard, and that could've had a major impact on the Black Friday Crash of '87. Perhaps the combination of Iran-Contra and the potential economic fallout from not deregulating could've push a Dem into the white house (and a few more into Congress as well), but I don't think it's clear which Dem. As I recall, there were quite a few candidates vying for the Democratic nomination (at least at first), and it was only after Gary Hart's scandal that Dukakis became the front runner. My impression of events like these is that they are heavily dependent on timing. If the scandal had broken a little sooner or later, someone else might've been the Dem's nominee; or, perhaps the scandal wouldn't have happened at all or wouldn't have been a big deal - I don't know and I don't think anyone could say with reasonable certainty. Overall though, I think this video gives too much credit to Reagan for the culture shift that happened during his two terms. Much of that could be credited the phase of the 'economic cycle' and the beginnings of the PC Revolution; not to mention, simple backlash against the 'old' attitudes of the 1970s.
Ross Perot ran because Bush and Clinton both supported NAFTA. Perot was anti NAFTA An Anti NAFTA candidate may have been the Dem nominee (Gephardt, Brown etc.), Perot wouldn't have run
The Mister Iraq would be engaged in a war with Saudi Arabia and other Gulf States perhaps Iraq would see sanctions from European countries. With Sudi Arabia in chaos the United States might have been able to strike some deal for oil to help keep prices low.
Kuqait would have fallen, there would be some gas issues in the states, bigger push for us oil, much more conflict in the M.E. as Saddam would have fought Saudi Arabia too probably, and then if he was still around the Arab Spring probably would have turned Iraq into MEGA SYRIA CIVIL WAR
“Reagan put his boot on its neck to kill it faster” oh. That’s topical for 2020 Edit: okay in hindsight I should have expected a political argument in the replies
Released video footage of the officers body cam and 2 autopsies from 2 different doctors shows that george floyd was on drugs and he couldn't breathe because of it, hence why he said he couldn't breathe while still in the car. Obviously the cop shouldn't have done that
@@imnotbrian6316 it wasn't racially motivated idiot he was just on drugs there is literal proof and you still decide to think it was, you're one of the reasons why this country has gone to shot
Cody, can you do a video about the Chinese revolutions. It could be a two parter. Part A: What if the 1911-Revolution never happened? Part B: What if the Communist didn't win the civil war in 1949?
I got an alternate history question: What if Donald Trump decided to ran for president in 2012 against Obama instead of Mitt Romney? Like how would the election fair off if 2012 was Obama vs Trump.
Joe Migliore horrible candidate* Obama would’ve won purely because liberals and minority groups are brain washed that he’s a good president because he’s black - ya know cause they hate white males.
Zach Cipp, you're a bit off. Obama didn't govern like a progressive, but he sure knew how to look like one. In reality, he and Hillary Clinton were pretty much the same in terms of policy (both center-right). Keep in mind, Hillary won the popular vote in 2016; Obama would have done the same in 2012, but he actually comes across as genuine, whilst Hillary is plastic and inauthentic.
Reason why Reagan didn’t run in your timeline: Instead of being diagnosed with Alzheimer's in 1994 he instead begins showing signs way back in 1980 just before he was supposed to begin campaigning. Fearing how quickly the disease would spread he decides to quietly back out of politics.
It would be interesting to think about other things, such as how the AIDs crisis would've been handled, if Reagan wasn't in office. We likely wouldn't have had the Just Say No and War on Drugs in the '80s. Reagan also dismantled mental health facilities but didn't replace them with anything, so everyone who needed mental healthcare ended up in prison or on the streets.
If this video tells me the Cold War never would have ended without Reagan I will actually get pissed. THE COLD WAR ENDED BECAUSE OF GORBACHEV, NOT REAGAN!
Yonathan Taye True,but even before Reagan the economy of USSR halted due to Leonid Sergeivitch Brezhnev.The oil glut of the 80's caused by Carter,the grain problems and embargo due to Afghan invasion by Soviets harmed the economy and so Gorbachev got in.
I lived this time and I recall very much how afraid I was when this maniac started to talk about a restricted on Europe only nuclear strike. You know what changed this nuts guy's minde? A film! After this lunatic had seen "The day after" he became aware about the fact that probably a nukleare strike wouldn't be a great idea. Wow, what if he had seen "Red Dawn"? He invated Grenada for no reason, he "joked" about bombing Moscow and if the CIA haven't recognized that the Sovjets took the military drill "Able Archer" for serious and convinced him to show his face at the Oval Office, they had killed us all. "Great President"? Certainly not.
Just got to love the Liberal biased opinions... "Reagan sucks! He was the worst president ever!" Ok, well who ended the cold war? Please, explain it to me, and with logic if you can find it.
![Eminem - Fuel (feat. JID) [Official Lyric Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/t5H_CewqpKA/mqdefault.jpg)
I love the fact that even in alternative history it is too absurd that Carter gets a second term.
thelinedrive No I supported my widowed Mom from the age of 16. I was an honor student. I had to drop out because Reagan cancelled her check as part of a budget cut. I was born in wedlock and do no meet any of the stereotypes that Republicans use to claim poor people are morally inferior . No Reagan my Mom would be alive and my life not destroyed.
Jason Cuculo I’m sorry but did I ask for your tragic life story batman
Not if Carter had gone ahead with the air strike from the Coral Sea. Every plane on my old ship was bombed up, fueled, and ready to go when The Peanut chickened out.
thelinedrive Caused by Reagan,. Tragic life story. Is the purpose of government to destroy its citizens.Is it to have a foreign policy that destroys the Soviets but harms us ? If you think it was a necessary sacrifice it wasn’t since the Soviets were all ready on the way out. Isn’t the 7.4 % unemployment Reagan left office a recession? Who started free trade in 1986.? Outsourcing ? Service economy? Huge deficits.? Voodoo economics!
Jason Cuculo No, I just don’t care because I wasn’t making a statement about fucking Regan and even though I know how over hyped Regan’s policies are, but anecdotal stories no matter what are not a basis to make sound governmental decisions.
And again I think Regan’s policy wasn’t great, but I wasn’t talking about Regan and didn’t ask for your life story. If you want to bug someone with that go to a therapist, a bar or talk to a friend. Not some random stranger.
I'm interested to see how "the War on Drugs" would play out in this timeline.
Jacob Zipoy Reagan didn’t start the War on Drugs, Nixon did so that would be for a video of what if Nixon was never elected.
Without Iran-contra at least there wouldn’t necessarily be such a huge crack cocaine problem.
And the AIDS epidemic, which he almost completely ignored.
@John Carosi Reagan basically reinstated a form of slavery with his prison industrial complex version. Fuck Reagan.
Fail like it always has.
Ronald Reagan? The actor!?
No. The American.
Yes.
Back to the future
airplanemaster1 Was Ronald Raegan a good actor?
Of course he was, he won the election.
But for real was he a good actor?
He was super popular in the 50s and went on to lead the screen actors guild
I was born in Yugoslavia. I've effectively lived in 3 countries without ever moving xD
For those of you, who are wondering, they are Yugoslavia, Serbia and Montenegro, Republic of Serbia
Nice.
People who lived in China during the 1900s: pathetic
Do you think that Slobodan Milosevic was put in power by the United States and that was why the war broke out? Me and my friend Milan metrovits have a thery about that sorry im swedish with dyslexia
@@albinappelberg1637 As far as I know, he was elected after that time when Serbs were having a stint with communism. My dad told me that there was a lot of pressure to vote for him, whether at work, school or home.
As far as his presidency is concerned, my dad liked it. Milosevic wasn't really believed to be hands-on when it came to physical work, so everyone who made an honest living was safe. I know this is weird to believe in the golden age of dictatorships, but the President didn't really bully the little guys, but instead focused on corruption. He cracked down on opposition (which was really corrupt back in the day), fake news and voter fraud. The Western powers saw this as dictatorial, but in reality, the guy was trying to fix their mistakes. Or at least that's what my parents told me.
And when they toppled his regime back in 2000, it took about a few years for everything to get under control. Between 2001 and 2006, the mafia ran everything. They could literally walk into a cafe and shoot a few people in front of everyone.
(NOTE: I grew up during the instability, in fact I was 2 years old when the bombs fell, and 4 - 9 when we had anarchy).
It's a scary concept that someone from the outside can disrupt your reconstruction, so enjoy your democratic Sweden - truly, only the Scandinavians have figured it out :)
@Jäger 072, man, those must have been some fun times
I think the most troubling change would be that Hank Hill just wouldn't be the same guy.
I sell gas, and gas related accessories.
This pains me heavily
+Rodney way dont you mean it pro-pains you deeply.
Or Stan Smith
What if George Washington became King of America?
Come on man I remember way back in 2013.
Assassin's Creed 3 DLC...
yep
so did you just make that or did you just have that account on standby waiting for this moment?
I would prefer Ben Franklin
At first I read the title as "What if Reagan was Never Pregnant"
I mean essentially that’s what this is. If nelle reagan was never pregnant that is
Nice 👌🏼
Probably would've been a similar timeline to ours
I love dyslexia 😂
Well, if Ronald Reagan's mother was never pregnant, Ronald Reagan would never have been born, so he would never have become president
The more I watch AlternateHistory, the more I think we live in the second darkest timeline, the darkest being nuclear Armageddon.
Well... third darkest. The second darkest is if the Nazis won WWII.
@@gwest3644 or perhaps if trotsky had came to power in the USSR
we're living in the best timeline because multiverse theory is bullshit
@@fiendish9474 Then you're on the wrong channel
I usually agree that nuclear armageddon would be worse. And then there are the days when I hear anti-vaxxers on youtube and pray for the mushroom cloud.
"Cody why are you talking about this App?"
"Because reasons." *money shower*
Love it because of the honesty 😂
What if Jeb Bush became the Emperor of mankind
Jeb!
Jeb:(
Jepard leapord
I'm not into politics. I love what Trump has done tho
You mean what if Bob Dole* became Emperor of Mankind?
I think the Iran Contra scandal should've been mentioned, if only to tie together the difference in foreign policy.
This channel has a conservative bias. We're living in an alternate timeline where people think Reagan was a good president rather than the scandalous embarrassment he really was. Notice this video mentioned none of the negatives Reagan was known for. Mentions cutting taxes but no mention of what programs he cut...
Clandestinemonkey Still not as embarrassing as bernie supporters, though
B. LaMou And the belief Reagan made an agreement that Iranian students should not free any hostages until he is elected
@@Clandestinemonkey "This Channel has a conservative bias" ...very funny!
@@clemsontiger001 yeah, like... dafuq do you confuse this for Z?
Worth mentioning that Reagan presided over the death of labor unions in this country.
No idea how Bush would've responded to the air traffic controller strike in 1981. Bush might've been just as big of a union buster tbh, curious how you'd see it.
Imo, unions were once needed (badly badly needed lol), but are now irrelevant and overpowered.
@@JosefPiano … no.
@@Noba46688 gimmie a reason why unions are needed today? Have you ever seen a Union construction worker? They are the slowest people ever!
@@JosefPiano Unions are the only thing that protects workers from their bosses using them essentially as slave labour. It's why Americans on average work far longer hours for far lower pay than most European countries, because the vast majority of Americans don't have any unions to advocate for their rights to be upheld. This overworking in turn leads to high levels of stress, heart attacks, and low work performance compared to said European nations due to everyone being too exhausted to work at full capacity. I honestly don't understand why you would ever be against unions unless you're a cheapskate ceo yourself who doesn't like being told no. Reagan and his policies have effectively brainwashed Americans to fight against their own interests and for companies to have unlimited power to treat them like garbage. It's very sad to see. You guys are one of the only western countries that have no right to vacations or maternity leave, and the way your workers are treated are slowly but surely sliding into Victorian levels of awful.
@Badger Source? My personal experience with unions has been slashed tires mandatory dues and rumors of political corruption.
Don’t get me wrong there are certain professions that benefit from union protections like the mining industry however there are other examples of unions going too far or out right political corruption. Detroit used to be the center of a thriving auto industry before the unions got greedy and put GM on life support.
Then you have the teacher’s unions being the single most corrupt institution since the military industrial complex.
Teacher salary is paid by the government>unions dues are collected from Teacher salaries>union dues are donated to pro-teacher union candidates>candidates raise teacher salaries>union dues rise>union dues are donated>you get the idea. There’s a reason why organized crime got very friendly with unions.
"If I could turn back time" I'd warn young Cody to enjoy that peaceful moment. I miss 2016
6:14 I appreciate the picture of Ewan McGregor as a representation of Jesus.
DAMN STRAIGHT SON!!!!!
@@alt5014 I mean I appreciate it as a joke. I get what you're saying, that we shouldn't worship other people or objects, but there are plenty of people who have paintings of Jesus, or photographs of people who look like Him on their wall. There are even movies which have other people portraying him, but they're (most of the time) just doing it for His glory, and no one is worshipping the portrayer themselves.
None of us know exactly what Jesus looks like. Sure, we can make educated guesses, but the best way to visually symbolize Jesus is by using the long-retained cultural traditions which speculate His appearace: a man with brown hair, probably around shoulder length, commonly with some facial hair as well, with white or middle-eastern appearance, usually blue eyes, wearing white, gray, beige, or brown robes, and generally with a calm, serene appearance. Comically, this matches the appearance of Ewan McGregor's portrayal of Obi-Wan Kenobi in "Attack of the Clones". If a person looks at this character and interprets it as Jesus, then there's nothing wrong with that, but if you know who it is, it is rather funny to think that it was Jesus fighting battle droids in the Geonosion arena.
Edit: Unless you were talking about the above reply, in which case I'm sorry to have explained this all to you, and you should have probably tagged him in your reply.
Well, He Has A High Ground...
@@Top_Hat_Man it’s over
obi wan kenobi
So basically your saying Reagan did 9/11?
9/11 was pretty much inevitable.
wrong Bush
i see i see
technically Napoleon did 9/11 considering the Napoleonic wars lead to ww1 and ww1 lead to ww2. ww2 to the cold war. the cold war to al qaeda, which did 9/11, and that lead too the conflicts we have today. so if you want to blame someone blame Napoleon
Ryan Murphy no its all of history and if God is real than god did 9/11?
I had to go back multiple times and laugh at it when the Ted Cruz pic faded to the zodiac killer. Best part of the vid
Omg didn’t notice that 😂
lmao did anyone else notice the zodiac killer flash over teds face
Brian James Lol I did too
Brian James same hahahaha sneaky
lyin' ted...
PrimalTheEmperor (primal9000) Right
I just saw a drawing of Ted Cruz over the picture of Ted Cruz there... oh wait...
A lot of people like to make fun of Bush Sr. and Carter, and make people like Reagan bigger than life imagine and as a strong individual that everybody should aim to be. However, they two guys are very underrated, for once, they (Bush and Carter) were WW2 veterans (one was an air pilot, the other operated submarines).
Bush graduated from Yale University, went to become an oil businessman in Texas, made millions of dollars, worked as an ambassador and CIA. Carter was also very impressive as well. He went to graduate as a freaking nuclear engineer (one of only two presidents who were engineers), worked on his broken family farm, made it profitable, became a very successful businessman in Georgia and become governor of his states (Reagan did too), and was (is) very religious by reading his bible onna weekly basis to this day. Far from the Looney socialist caricature that many conservative associate with him.
Reagan in his personal life doesn't measure to these accomplishments. These two men are just guilty of not having the acting charisma BS. It saddens me that even to this day people only look at a facade, the acting charisma or false bravado when they look or choose our leaders, instead of looking at their records and let the facts speak for themselves.
In my opinion, I think the better way gets these hard working pragmatists to win for office is by recruting them. They need more than a campaign manager. Just hiring an acting coach, a fittness coach, and a make-up artist or/and anyther other proffessionals that will help them to become more charismatic, more charming, persuasive, and more entertainming towards their voters, which give them a better chance of winning.
Amen 💯
I never thought much of Carter, until I saw what he did after his Presidency. What he does now. Now I see him as an amazing man who faced some very difficult issues while in office, who probably didn't know how to handle the press back then.
Carter is a great humanitarian, but, an awful President. The Presidency is a job where acting and charisma are far more important skills than would be the skillsets of an engineer or even a WW2 vet. I don't understand why you'd think that their engineering, farming or oil business is better than the tremendous communication abilities, negotiation skills and understanding of economics that Reagan possessed.
Reaganomics is the same thing as trickle down, this is actually an economics 101 principle that is based on the fact that economic growth can only occur after investment. Tax breaks are given to Companies so they can hire more employees and purchase more equipment, to make more money. The Liberals like to spin this economic principle into claims of tax breaks for the wealthy when it's really incentives for the nations investors to invest more. This not only creates more jobs but it also creates additional tax contributors, thus generating more tax revenue for the Government all while creating jobs.
@@yron33 the reagan tax cuts cause economic boom and trump same thing bush same thing it was clinton who caused 01 and 08
talks about jesus shows a picture of obi wan kanobi
DAMN STRAIGHT SON!!!
Same thing.
I mean...are they not the same person?
William Wykoff hail satan.
@William Wykoff pray to satan
“The anonymity of the Internet without any social retribution”
Wait, what? Oh, this video was uploaded in 2016.
Is it just me or does this timeline sound slightly better than our own?
Pretty much yeah
What if FDR[Franklin Delano Roosevelt] had lived to see the end of his 4th term?
cold war wouldn't have been as tense
+geromino97 ??? do you even know history, FDR died before the end of WWII (actual end where europe was split in twp not the 'textbook' ending) and i believe Truman was the president afterwards he if anything escalated the cold war substantially
He would be the oldest person in the world today.
FDR was giving into Stalin due to failing health towards the end of his life. Had he lived to see the end of his 4th term then the Iron Curtain probably would have fallen across Japan as well. In our timeline, Truman had to deal with the Yalta Conference, which resulted in a split Europe thanks to FDR misunderstanding the intent of Stalin and the plans for a return to the old borders under Churchill. Had a new Conference on the outcome of Japan been held with Stalin, Mao, and FDR, an even worse scenario could have been had. With Mao and Stalin on good terms at the time the expansion of the Chinese and Russian spheres over Korea, Indochina, and even Japan would be very likely. However, unlike in Europe where the American, British, and French controlled Germany were able to coalesce into one unified West Germany, it is possible that Korea, Japan, and French Indochina would be split into three separate nations controlled by American, Chinese, and Russian interests respectively. This would have made East Asia into a far more volatile region than it was in our timeline, intensifying the cold war rather than relaxing it.
Truman was an blustering buffoon.
Did he just use a picture of young Obi Wan to represent Jesus at 6:14 ?
Yes, yes he did.
i dont think jesus is worthy
Benjamin Grist but Obi-Wan is Jesus in Star Wars
xbaumann Does that make Darth Vader God?
Zandandido how?
5:00 "I really can't think of a reason why Reagan wouldn't run."
Maybe, instead of him not running, he was unalived by the bullet?
well, now that would be a shame. Reagan was a great president, thank god that didn't happen
If regen never became president this vid would be named what is regen became president
Neogamebeatz but what if he never ran
than this vid would be titled What if Reagan (lol almost wrote negan from the walking dead) ran for president
Neogamebeatz remember how we never thought of trump as president until he announced his campaign, it would be that way on regan
King Crazy did you even listen to the video
Except not spelled by a dumbass.
The Country would be better.
in what way?
Matthew Smith regan was a really good president for his time but kinda messed things up for today
Reagonomics actually led to a rise of unemployment, deficit, and income inequality. This would eventually go into today.
Again in what way?
Yeah, causing the downfall of the Soviet Union and getting the United States out of Carter's recession sure left the world in a bad place.
Here's an idea: What if George HW Bush won a second term?
Good one. Bill would have unlikely won the primary in 1996 or thereafter. Hilary would be a nobody, and support for Obama would have been unlikely. Wow, a lot would've changed.
OH GOD! WE WOULD DIE!
@@oldtwinsna8347 Obama would've won no matter what BECAUSE of what Bush Jr did. People were tired of Republicans. It was basically a swinging pendulum.
@@williehardiman6766 Not if he didn't win the primary to even be the presidential candidate.
Willie Hardiman That assumes George W. Bush would run for President in the 2000s at all. He has said in the past he felt a lot of motivation in running for office after his father lost in 1992. So it all depends on how the following administration would have handled the Iraq WMD scare that began in the late 90s.
Man, I can’t believe you didn’t mention the drug war, one of the most oppressive domestic policies ever implemented in the US.
Started by Nixon. Funding changed under Reagan but little else.
sentencing changed. ppl got longer sentences more often. the modern era of mass incarceration rly began in earnest
@@ideologybot4592
What if Gore had won in 2000?
He technically did, heheh :P
He techinically didn't. He didn't get the delegates.
Qopel life would be better
MAN-BEAR-PIG
He'd promote things that'd ruin the economy, piss off literally everyone, and take credit for every possible success while blaming his failures on anyone that disagrees with him. So basically everything he does now, only without making a movie based on lies and promoted by people confusing themselves for scientists.
I think it’s interesting that after Reagan’s term so few of his policies got changed
I personally think it’s because they were all such polarizing policies that no real change could be made
It is far from true that polarizing policies aren’t changed. Look at the Iran deal or border policies. They switched from Obama to Biden and trump.
Reagan’s policies didn’t change because bush agreed with him in 88, and Clinton realized they were so popular he had to keep them to win in ‘92 and ‘96. Bush 2 then agreed as well.
I have a suggestion for a video.
What if Harambe was never assasinated.
a better world
*YOU FORGOT TO SAY DICKS OUT!*
We wouldn't have this shitty meme and no one would know who harambe is
+superwafflemaster123 What are you talking about? Harambe had information which could bring down Hillary, he would be remembered for a millennia.
yessss
I love the fact that Alternate History Hub acknowledges that Ted Cruz was the Zodiac killer.
LMAO
What if Japanese Isolationism never ended?
1. What if China won Bokser Rebelion?
2. What if Isreal lost Isreal War For Independence?
3. What if Hitler never came to power?
4. What if Japan didn't attacked Pearl Harbour?
5. What if Italy never united?
6. What if France won Italian Wars?
7. What if France never sold Louisiana to USA?
What if Trotsky had become premier and ice-picked Stalin? Simple answer? No nationalist revisionism and the continuation of the USSR to this day. (I'm not a trot tho)
The US made sure Japan's isolationism ended
The USA pulled the trigger on Pearl Harbor.
If Japanese decided to not open their borders then the US would have made them open their borders by force and Japan would have gone to the route of China and be divided by the western nations.
If Japan would have never attacked Pearl Harbour it would have either retreated from Indochina, China and Korea (Not going to happen.) and remain an island nation, or its economy would have collapsed and it would have become a failed state.
What if Al Gore won a recount in Florida, & became the 43rd President of the United States ?
Many many good things would have happened. No invading of Iraq, no further deregulation on industry, and probably no "Patriot Act."
He DID win!! Jeb Bush fucked with the votes in Florida and stole the election for his big brother!!!!
No, the electoral college dod what it does best: defeat the purpose of a democratic vote
leland frame of course he did
Clarence Cardenas neither the republicans or the democrats have ended the patriot act it needs to go the way of the alien and sedition acts
The Gipper looks down upon us from his giant eagle in the sky.
majestic
AlternateHistoryHub do what if George Washington became king I saw someone else suggest it its a good idea
Nah, He looking up from hell
What if diesel fuel never existed.
Beautiful
My history teacher used to always tell the class, if someone is trying to teach you about politics and you already know that person’s politics beliefs, they have already failed you
Winners don’t do drugs.
Weiners don't do drugs.
Whiners don’t do drugs
Jonas P. True,but you can still.lose without drugs if Trump wants to take you college aid and income,or Reagan cancelled your Mom's check in the 1980's
Wieners don't do drugs
Except steroids, in which case use lots of drugs
Everyone laughs at lasers and force Fields but imo it makes more sense to focus on shooting nukes down vs killing the enemy worse than they kill us.
That is true but you have to admit Reagan’s idea was ludicrous and his rhetoric caused tensions to grow exponentially.
Reagan was no fool. By proclaiming that, he threw the Soviets into a tizzy. He had no plans, at least not serious plans(the program has yet to be created) to actually go through with this. His whole intention was to get the Soviets off their cookie and it worked. Just trying to combat the possibility of this sent the Soviets into a flurry which eventually led to them bankrupting themselves into Glasnost. Reagan knew exactly what he was doing just like his hot mike moment when he said that the bombing was going to start in 5 minutes. He wanted the Soviets to think he was nuts and it worked.
Studa Baker The Soviets had already bankrupted themselves during their war and occupation of Afghanistan. The war against Afghanistan was like the Soviets’ Vietnam war. The entire reason why the Detente were accepted by both sides was that both the Soviets and Americans knew they couldn’t fund their armies if war broke out between them. Therefore Reagan only escalated tensions.
@@nathanszurek5838 And he won.
I'm guessing that the Soviets panicked because Star Wars was a pipe dream and there was nothing actually to steal to set them up in power again. RE: atomic bomb, B-27, etc.
What if Alexander's Empire never came down apart and continued unified and replaced Rome ? How would the Macedonians Look like? How Europe would be diffrent in terms of language and culture nowadays ?
Alexander didn't conquered Europe he conquered the middle east iran some of india and Egypt Europe during his time was some clans fighting each others with iron and wood and roman came after him not before him and there were nothing interisting to fight for there because Greeks was the only civilization in europe during his time he just affects the eastern world not the western and even if his empire remain there will be no effect on Europe
(and sorry for my bad English I hope you understand my speech)
If his empire remained, they would be able to take over any civilization that formed in Europe, depending on how long it remained.
but what if the Greeks wanted to conquer the whole Europe also ?
What if Santorino never blew up the city Atlantis and the Minoans (where Atlantis was part of) took Romes place 1000+ years before Rome did?
Angelo Ramos KOSOV IS A COUNTRY!!
In hindsight, the election of 1980 may have been one of the worst elections in US history. Ronald Reagan launched a new guilded age. 2020 is now the culmination of 40 years of Reagan's politics. I can only hope that in 2024, we find our Teddy Roosevelt who can end this new gilded age.
Either that, or time machine back to the 50s to save Reagans acting career!
Could have been with Bernie Honestly
@@prezmeji5641 i think Bernie sanders may go down as someone like William Jennings Bryan. Someone who brought populist ideas into the mainstream but couldn't quite get to the presidency.
@@m.robert123 that’s very true
i disagree reagen republicanism was replaced by neoconservatives ideology pretty much reagens economic legacy died out a lot of our economic problem stems from the fact that we have a mix and match of differing economic models for example the new deal was continued albeit more moderated
6:29 THE ZODIAC STRIKES AGAIN
lol I was going to comment on that one frame. sweet memes cody
i choked when i saw that
SWEET MEMES ARE MADE OF THESE
Stanley traveled the world and the seven seas, everybody's looking some memes
Where did these meme come from? I've seen it before(once) and it caught me completely off guard.
Reagan's team manipulated elections giving TOW missiles to Iran in exchange for keeping the hostages until after the election. Even though times were rough while Carter was president there was a large sense of community within the nation. The press and anecdotes highlight only the worst occurrences of human behavior while neglecting the overall sense of a common mission. People were carpooling for real, conserving water and power, schools were teaching the metric system, solar power innovation (6th grade mandatory public school project), community gardens, etc. Reagan had the solar panels removed from the White House before he moved in; a definite nod to the oil corporations that he was their man.
long/short: Reagan era fed on and supported personal entitlement over community good.
I often wonder what would've happened if Carter had gotten a second term and Reagan had lost in 1980.
@@lynnhettrick7588 fortunately we have a long record after his presidency to look on and see where his values laid. I read through some presidential papers recently and Carter was really fighting the machine trying to get reforms and reduction in CIA and military. Instead of Reagan blowing smoke while a conservative agenda stripped American institutions, Congress and bureaus wouldn't have had that cover. Plus I can guarantee he wouldn't have come near matching Reagan's bloated budget and massive debt increase - the largest in history till then.
And while Carter was still a bit brainwashed anti-Communist, I don't believe he would have approached the escalation in "Axis of Evil" rhetoric that fueled the cold war (meaning insane payouts to oil industry and weapons companies).
Bush called Supply Side Economics "voodoo economics"...
...
I suddenly have even more respect for former President George H.W. Bush than I originally did.
petargrad
Supply Side Economics has not, and never has, successfully sustained itself in the history of capitalism. In every case (EVERY case) that it's been implemented en masse, a massive depression has snowballed out of control in the country that engaged in the practice.
The perfect example is Japan. For decades after WW2 they practiced sensible economics based off the Keynesian model. Stable and consistent economic growth followed (first by U.S. investment, then through self sustainment of exports). In the 70s they were a highly prosperous, nearly completely self sufficinet nation with the potential to be the economic juggernaut of the Far East for the next Century. Then the late 80s rolled around and they decided to do away with hundreds of government oversights, give tax cuts to the wealthy, and allow massive margin buying of company stocks and mortage loans for individuals with dubious capacity to repay such investments if they went bust. The result? Within a decade they were the single most heavily indebted first world nation on Earth, with a record high unemployment rate and ridiculous levels of inflation. It took the re-implementation of regulations, taking bad global deals to restore faith, and lots of painful adjustments for the populace over the course of almost 30 years to fix what Supply Side Economics destroyed in 10.
But no, I'm the moron. Yeah buddy, you keep drinking the kool-aid.
petargrad
The wealth of the Reagan Era was due almost exclusively to the fact that Reagan sold us on doubling down on the Military Industrial Complex. When the Soviets actually fell, we no longer had a reason to justify our ridiculous expeditures, and those rich people we had been giving kickbacks to stopped investing whole hog in defense contractors. The aerospace industry collapsed overnight and we had ourselves a rather nasty recession (one that none other than Pres. Bush had to clean up).
Supply side economics can give you lots of highs, but it's a roller coaster: and the lows often destroy the people and the economic lower end of the spectrum. There is zero stability in that model. And the last year of Reagan's term and all of Bush's proved that concretely.
Ok, here is the thing cutting taxes on the poor and the middle class and also in small business is a sensible option that actually does lead to economic growth, when the vast majority of your population (aka the poor and the middle class) have more money to spend on those sprawling small bussness that are oppening because the lower taxes on them make them competitive against massive multi-national corporations you actually make it so money moves around improving the economy by a LOT.
Cutting taxes on the rich has being proven to have NO effect wathsoever except increasing the size of their bank account because suddenly it makes more sense to keep it there instead of opening new busness sicne its cheaper and safer to leave money in the bank.
Then about regulation, the whole idea that the market will regulate companies worth billions of dollars is ludicrous, as proven by all the scandals that happen time and again inplaces with close to none regulation. The problem about regulations is not their existance, it's when they are so complex that NOONE can make sense of them instead of asking for less regulations, sicne that tends to cause serious problems including health issues on consumers and nearby population, leading in some cases even to death, the better alternative is demanding that the bullshit regulation in use must be made simple, understandable and sensible. There are no useless regulations in place, just uselessly complex ones that were made 50 - 60 yers ago and patched multiple times over the years making them into a frankenstein. You just need to actually write them again in a new way instead of keeping patching them left and right,
Democlis cutting taxes on anybody helps. Cutting taxes on the rich isn't "proven to do nothing", money doesn't sit idle in bank accounts, and that money gets invested into firms.
ryaamp12
Unless of course they invest their money in "safe havens" like precious metals, which other than *OCCASIONALLY* helping a mining group here or there is the market equivalent of stuffing your money under a mattress.
Care to guess an extremely common practice for the rich if they fear a downturn in the market, tax increases, or any other fluctuation? Yeah, taking money out of circulation into "stable" things like this.
Now "free market economics" says those individuals during market instability will dig down deep, see the problem, and invest their money in the problem areas and supplimentary areas *AT THE TIME OF THE CRISIS* to stabilize the market and then make their money back later.
When you find an example of that that's *NOT* the government, let me know.
Neoliberalism would have happened anyway. Thatcher brought it in for England, and even the left wing in Australia lead by Paul Keating did the same thing. Neoliberalism was lead by private business from the 80's economic boom, not by politics itself.
However, in this timeline, there is no economic boom
fuckin neoliberalism, how could we have gotten it to not work, a world without neoliberals is a better world
@@obiwankenobi4252 did Reagan swim over to Australia and bury a bunch of coal and iron ore here? Did he go back in time and invest heavily in Japan after WW2 to make sure we'd have somewhere to offshore manufacturing to? I wasn't aware.
Fuck neoliberalism, all my homies ride with classical liberalism
"Neoliberalism" doesn't exist, it's a wrong and false concept made by a marxist who didn't understand nor about economy nor about liberalism
Congrats on hitting a million subs
Quickman may win yeah congrats Peter (the narrator's name)
You forgot the bit about how he cut inflation by something like 11% over the course of his term
I need my Byzantium video so badly!
Please Cody !
I still have cookies!
🍪
I'd like to see something like that as well, Byzantium surviving is certainly one of the more plausible alternate history scenarios.
GREEK FIRE BABY!
5:42 And Stalin stood there in front of the red fla-
Reagan: WAIT JUST A MINUTE
Cody Greenland Stalin died in 1953. The Soviet economy was already collapsed he just yanked the feet of a hanging man!
Reagan was Liberty Prime in human flesh
What if Martin Luther King Jr. was elected president?
He never would've run.
I don't think corpses can become president.
HoopsAndDinoMan well, then people just try to kill him harder, however if he suddenly escaped death then he probably would have been a good president
The Pyro Gamer lol
It happened in Fringe.
Summary. Regan took credit for countless things that would have happened without him.
...so, in other words, he was a politician?
Technically, all presidents are given credit to whatever happens during their term(s). It doesn't matter whether or not they actually caused it in the first place.
He didn't really do it, his party faithful did.
MsZeitgeist85 most retarded comment
Without Reagan America would be run by USSR today.
I appreciate that you referred Regan’s economics as being “supply side” as apposed to the propaganda “trickledown.”
They’re also known as “voodoo” economics.
They’re also known as “voodoo” economics.
hi there from Portugal...
what if Portugal and Spain remained united in the XVII century?
together we had the largest global empire in history, even larger than english empire
Ronaldo would've won a world cup.
Portugal got fucked by that unification, so if Portugal is not what it could have been now it would just be as bad...
Brazil would have eventually got its independence as did every country in the world... expect from Africa!
Your culture would be dying to the hands of castilian nationalism.
Greetings from a castilian-imposed territory.
actually we were still independent, part of the agreement of the union was no discrimination of portuguese nobels, like Catalunha, it would still mantain its image, do not forget the union was like Uk nowadays, scotland is was not absorved into england...
Huh. I never really realized how much Trump is doing that was what Reagan did.
same motto, (debatable on effectiveness) charisma tactics, trying to prosper the military/economy and kick whatever communist neighbors in the curb...........yeah it's pretty surprising actually
ehhh the only really similar thing between Trump and Reagan is the campaign motto other than that there pretty different and Trump has nowhere near the Charisma that Reagan had
@@Cookiesrfood they are actually very simular. Reagan pointed to the other "welfare queens", Trump "illegal immigrants." Both versions of tax cuts for the rich flowing down to recover the economy. The same slogan. Both cut regulations of businesses. Both focused on military spending. There are differences, Trump is way closer to the alt right for one. But what he is doing is not the first time it has been done, like most people seem to think, it's just the most extreme in the US to date.
ADDED: No where in this post am I saying that trickle down economics works. It's been 2 YEARS since the beginning of this comment, and y'all have messaged me repeatedly it doesn't work. DUH! They still both tried it!
@@piperdragon3200 Trickle down economics never works.
@@Patchuchan I never said that it did. I said that THEY used the concept. It's proven that it fails missierablely, They still backed it and claimed it works.
Ted Cruz is Kevin from the office confirmed
GeneralMailMan If Kevin also murdered people in Southern California
When me president, They see... They see...
zodiac killer was in the bay area
Reaganomics destroyed the middle class in America.
Well yes but actually yes
Didn’t he lower taxes for the middle class? I don’t actually know; I’m asking.
But also, how did he ruin it?
Reagan's expanded military was slashed almost in half by 1994. I damn near had to leave the service because half the Army literally vanished and it was a struggle to find a slot. The 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, and 24th Infantry Divisions, 2d and 3d Armored Divisions just went *poof*. (There are 10 Divisions on active duty today). The National Guard was similarly downsized.
Brian Huss No cold war,before 911 so it made sense.
Brian Huss considering the Soviets were falling apart and our worst enemies were dictators in the Middle East it made sense to cut the budget.
Best I could tell in 94 the defense budget was cut by about $10 billion, which would have made it only a 5% total cut at most
This isn’t true. Military spending was cut a bit, but the budget didn’t get slashed in half.
thank god
I think some point in the future, this channel will either do What if Trump Became President? or What if Hillary Became President?
I'm guessing either video will be posted in a gazillion years.
(Or Bernie.. Since he obviously should have... but y'kno, Basically rigged against him)
(At least he would 100% Win against Dump unlike Shillary who is having an unsure chance)
Sucks we didn't see Bernie facing Trump yesterday.
Honestly, I don't think much is going to happen if Hillary becomes president. Although if Trump does, we're in a world of shit.
There was absolutely ZERO chance for Bernie Sanders to be the nominee. Hillary has been wanting to be U.S. President since 2000. The Democrats decided to show a "united" front in 2016 to make sure she is the nominee, even if a lot of Democrats really did not want Hillary Clinton as their party's nominee.
***** Now you sound like Trump. Just because someone says "Wrong" does not make them right. Provide me evidence and reason to contradict my comment.
I feel like you went in to more depth than you usually do. Thank you for that. 😃
Less homeless people would be severely mentally ill
Because Reagan shut down state mental hospitals
And they would improve as regulations increased (like psych units are now)
WAIT A SECOND THIS MEANS REAGAN CAUSED 9/11 BUSH IS INNOCENT !!
Viruse you have finally awakened.
Viruse: if America never did happen, 9/11 wouldn't have happen there for the founding fathers did 9/11, Bush is innocent.
It was Reagan that funded the Taliban, but they warned Bush that they would attack. He was so fucking retarded and didn't know how to react.
Bill Clinton caused it
Yo mama caused it
jk
Lol the way you described Reagan along with the sunglasses is amazing 😆 😮
Leon Klein Forgot to mention or show that Reagan sees the world through "Rosey colored glasses!"
My only problem with your Bob Dole/Iraq War scenario is IF he overthrew Saddam, the Iraqi people were with us and would have been more cooperative than in the 2000's... a decade after we abandoned them to be slaughtered by Saddam's retribution in the 1990's. There would still be a power vacuum... but much less angst against the United States and our allies. Somehow, I still see the power struggle between Swartzkoff (sic?) and Powell tugging at the President's ear, and Dole would have probably done the same as Bush in siding with Powell.
Yeah it was probably a mistake to leave saddam in power and we probably wouldn't have seen as much conflict in Iraq than as in the later war. Much of the opposition came from Sunnis who feared the us putting in Shias who had the support of Iran.
If this process occurs earlier Iran is not yet as powerful and the movement towards Kurdish independence isn't as strong.
And this we have the potential for a much more stable Iraq combining the three groups
I think it's difficult for us to process alternative history but very likely if saddam had been left in power by the second bush he would have been brought down by Iranian backed Shias eventually
As part of the much wider conflict currently being fought
This is something I'd prefer not to think about
*All these impostors and you now*
Are you the ghost of Ronald Reagan
Mr. Reagan we need you
@@ITzpaulmiddleton Worst president of all time nobody needs him
You’re not very bright are you
What if the U.S annexed Canada after World War II
No alternative history
What if the U.S. annexed Canada during the War of 1812.
you mean what if canada annexed the us...
Thats completely illogical, Canada was not occupied by the nazis. Canada also has powerful allies such as the British empire to protect from annexation. The US cant just annex countries.
Canada could not annex the USA and the USA could not annex Canada anytime after the War of 1812.
Wow a lot of actors become governor of California
GET TO THE CHOPPER
It *is* California. The state that loves their celebrities so much, they don't go to prison, but do become Governor.
there are a shit load of them back there, so I think its all down to statistics and wealth!
And has done a good job too! :)
It's because people who live in California are easily lead, star struck, shallow, human beings. At least the ones that don't live in the slums, those individuals are too busy robbing each other to vote.
6:29
Ted Cruz is the Zodiac Killer confirmed.
Lol slow down the playback speed and pause best comparison ever
Ted Cruz is Kevin Malone from The Office
The Meme Hogs he can't be both?
Its actually at 6:30 lol i cant believe i was motivated enought at 4:30am while watching on my xbox to nail down the exact frame - that was truly chilling - well done Cody!!! :)
The second I saw this I thought. Great question. Good Job Alternate History!
What if Trump won the electio.. oh shit nevermind
Mike Haster totally agree why bomb Syria build your wall, drain the swamp, bring back jobs, why is Trump not getting along with Putin! I had high hopes of him but now I see he's no better than obama or bush!!!
FUCK TRUMP
Stop trying to get attention, we know your a clinton supporter
I never supported killary ! I was always a trump supporter ! And now he starts new wars ? What about america first ? The wall ? And now he goes to war to help muslims in syria ? Stupid ! WE should not care about syria or korea !
What would happen if Deez Nuts won the election?
everyone would get it
I despise the democrat party but Reagan was an awful president. He was no defender of freedom but an authoritarian who supported imperialism, enhanced the failing war on drugs, supported CIA backed regime changes, Central American death squads and many more things. He talked about reducing government while implementing mandatory minimum sentences and preventative detention.
Yes...
funny that you should say that. I constantly have conservatives accuse me of being liberal and liberals accuse me of being conservative
Gert De Keersmaeker sounds like you're a left wing libertarian then (social democrat maybe?)
Interceptor810 thank you! Fuck Reagan I hope he's burning in hell.
Interceptor810 I think you got Nixon and Reagan mixed up.
Michael Lasuzzo
Yes, I acknowledge Nixon launched the war on drugs and did terrible things while in office ie Cointelpro, Agent orange. Reagan had Iran-Contra, and he expanded the war on drugs that Nixon started by making marijuana a schedule 1 substance.
This scenario seems much better in every concievable way. Reagan more or less ensured the extreme polarization of today's politics
I honestly don’t really know, mate. The Republican Party wasn’t so uncompromising and polarized before 2016. They still kinda worked in bipartisanship.
Even though some might label Reagan as an extremist, I think it would be kinda odd to blame Reagan for Trump. It’s kinda like blaming the Wright brothers for 9/11, and also - Reagan is a statesman. I won’t say whether or not he’s a great/odd one, but he is a statesman. Trump isn’t. He just came out of nowhere.
Her's one the podcaster missed bigtime. Reagan cut education funding by 30% (!) and maintained that percentage for 7 years. The public schools never recovered, suffering cut after cut after cut ever since. So, if Reagan had not been president, 1980's and 90's kids would've been better educated---contrast with 1960's and 70's era numbers---and many of the crises issues today would not exist.
And we wouldn’t have as many problems with underpaid teachers. And less “save the children!” nonsense.
Anyone else notice how much funnier Cody's editing has gotten?
Humble is an understatement xD
just look at Carter's face in the vid 2:04
I educate people about politics for a living.
1980: Your scenario is accurate. It's likely Bush would have chosen Dole as his VP.
1984: Bush is likely up against Gary Hart. The main thrust against Hart was he was weak on specifics, that hurt at a time the President (Reagan) was known for a very very specific thing; reaganomics. As well, running a policy wonk against a maverick hotshot is usually a politically smart decision, and so with the GOP running an egghead, the Democrats would have been better off running a rebel. In the election itself, I'm uncertain who Hart would have chosen as a VP, possibly Jackson. Hart however may not have been up to the challenge, and I could see a very very narrow win for Bush in 1984.
1988: Dole is likely the GOP Nominee, likely with Haig as his VP choice. I can still see Dukakis winning the Democratic nomination. The only way that would change is if Jackson was the VP nominee in 1984, and, if Hart screwed things up, making Jackson look calm, cool, and competent. Dukakis likely would take around 100 EVs but Jackson could take 150; either day Dole still wins. If, however, Hart had won the presidency... I actually don't see any difference; Dole wins, with Haig as VP. Hart likely wouldn't have taken more than 150 EVs.
1992: things return to normal for the most part; in terms of our timeline VS this new one. There is, however, one interesting possibility. IF Hart had won, and IF he'd been challenged by Jackson in 1988, and IF Dole had made foreign policy mis-steps... it's possible Ross Perot could have become President. Not likely, but possible. I say Clinton wins, and we return to something closer to normalcy, with it not really mattering won won the GOP Nomination in 1996; unless that person happens to be Ross Perot. This is possible if the election went to the house and many Republicans voted for Perot. Even if that happens I don't see Perot winning, but only coming very, very close. However, that does open up an interesting possibility:
2000: 99% chance that the election plays out as ours does, but if all those links in the improbable chain I've detailed earlier play out, Ross Perot is elected President of the US on the Republican Ticket; likely with W Bush as his VP.
An entirely different US would need to exist for a Reagan type presidency to have never happened. A documentary called the Century of the Self has more details on the matter.
+Teddy Boragina I can agree with you up through '84.
'88 becomes much more contentious, though, if Iran-Contra happens as it did in our history and becomes a thing in late '87 the way it did here. That was kept from becoming a thing on the level of Watergate only because of Regan's deft hand at media and spin coupled with his even by then notoriously hands off approach to running things leaving room for plausible deniability. Bush was notably much more hands on with those he delegated stuff to, leaving much less room to believe he didn't have some direct involvement, and was much less able to control messaging in the media than Regan suggesting he would have struggled at best to keep Iran-Contra from becoming for him what Watergate was for Nixon which would have made a Dem win in '88 an all but sure thing. Even if he had kept that from affecting the '88 election it would have been a stain that, with other issues G.W. already had, would have kept his son having any real chance in 2000.
If the Dems took PotUS in '88, B. Clinton becomes less likely to have a chance at the office (it was his relative youth coupled with '92 being the first election where GenX was a really significant force that really won it for him) as whoever the Dem incumbent was (probably Hart/Gore or Hart/Biden) goes for a second term then in '94 his VP probably loses to Dole. Bill then probably suffers some scandal that causes him to exit politics before 2000. Gore probably tries to make a go of a 2000 run against Dole and gets the nod. It's probably not nearly as contentious as our 2000 election, but probably just about as close with Dole squeaking out a win.
If Bush manages to keep Iran-Contra from being such a significant negative force or manages to somehow spin it into a positive I think you're correct for '88 and after.
Not having the highly divisive and modern major party interaction defining Clinton and Bush presidencies changes the potential political climate too much to actually call beyond this point I think.
I was also thinking of Iran-Contra with regard to the '88 election. Plus, with Bush's "meh" attitude toward the domestic side of things - I'll bet he wouldn't have pushed deregulation as hard, and that could've had a major impact on the Black Friday Crash of '87.
Perhaps the combination of Iran-Contra and the potential economic fallout from not deregulating could've push a Dem into the white house (and a few more into Congress as well), but I don't think it's clear which Dem.
As I recall, there were quite a few candidates vying for the Democratic nomination (at least at first), and it was only after Gary Hart's scandal that Dukakis became the front runner. My impression of events like these is that they are heavily dependent on timing. If the scandal had broken a little sooner or later, someone else might've been the Dem's nominee; or, perhaps the scandal wouldn't have happened at all or wouldn't have been a big deal - I don't know and I don't think anyone could say with reasonable certainty.
Overall though, I think this video gives too much credit to Reagan for the culture shift that happened during his two terms. Much of that could be credited the phase of the 'economic cycle' and the beginnings of the PC Revolution; not to mention, simple backlash against the 'old' attitudes of the 1970s.
Ross Perot ran because Bush and Clinton both supported NAFTA. Perot was anti NAFTA
An Anti NAFTA candidate may have been the Dem nominee (Gephardt, Brown etc.), Perot wouldn't have run
I fell like an easier way to make the alternate timeline is to say that he got assasinated, since he almost died
why did you just do a scarce
D O U B L E U P L O A D
DavidsGamesOfficial a what?
HE SAID D O U B L E U P L O A D!
I don't get why scarce gets shit for double uploads.
the fuck is scarse?
what if America didn't get involved with Iraq's invasion of Kuwait
Nothing would change.
Saudi Arabia and gulf would have fought Iraq. Not sure if they should succeed.
I'm guessing gasoline would be something like fifty dollars a gallon.
The Mister Iraq would be engaged in a war with Saudi Arabia and other Gulf States perhaps Iraq would see sanctions from European countries. With Sudi Arabia in chaos the United States might have been able to strike some deal for oil to help keep prices low.
Kuqait would have fallen, there would be some gas issues in the states, bigger push for us oil, much more conflict in the M.E. as Saddam would have fought Saudi Arabia too probably, and then if he was still around the Arab Spring probably would have turned Iraq into MEGA SYRIA CIVIL WAR
Fun fact. Ronald Raygun wasn't actually a Ray gun and his name stems from the German word Rahgen, which means 'to reign' - rather appropriate I think.
“Reagan put his boot on its neck to kill it faster” oh. That’s topical for 2020
Edit: okay in hindsight I should have expected a political argument in the replies
Released video footage of the officers body cam and 2 autopsies from 2 different doctors shows that george floyd was on drugs and he couldn't breathe because of it, hence why he said he couldn't breathe while still in the car. Obviously the cop shouldn't have done that
@@s.c5714 Yea no. www.nytimes.com/2020/06/25/opinion/george-floyd-toxicology-report-drugs.html
None of that here, fucking political bullshit
@@imnotbrian6316 it wasn't racially motivated idiot he was just on drugs there is literal proof and you still decide to think it was, you're one of the reasons why this country has gone to shot
I'm Not Brian “Opinion”
He is right about us in Texas. We're red as all hell
It's true, except in Houston and Austin.
except San Antonio* Really, the major cities are blue surrounded by an ocean of red.
+Maro Megathron Dallas is more purple I think.
No! Well, yeah. There are some democrats here....
I like how all the Texans are converging here. Before you know it we're gonna secede from the comment section.
Reagan was shot, that is how it could have been different.
Cap'n Crunch If Hinkley used a 357 magnum or a Colt 44 revolver, Reagan would not survive facts!
Left wing terrorism being encouraged
Ah...Typical lefties violent lunatics
@ shut up u idiot this actually fucking happened u dense cabbage
@ i mean yeah, i wish reagen was eting dirt lol. But OP is not pushing for terrorism you dolt, it actually almost happened
@@KiraDidNoWrong8274 I mean, Reagan is eating dirt now and has been for the past 16 years if that pleases you.
Then Back to the Future wouldn't have Doc Brown questioning about an actor being the president.
Cody, can you do a video about the Chinese revolutions. It could be a two parter. Part A: What if the 1911-Revolution never happened? Part B: What if the Communist didn't win the civil war in 1949?
I love the little display of Reagan attacking taxes with a sword. Makes me laugh
I got an alternate history question:
What if Donald Trump decided to ran for president in 2012 against Obama instead of Mitt Romney? Like how would the election fair off if 2012 was Obama vs Trump.
Grateful Zimm He would have lost, its very difficult to beat a sitting president, and Obama was a lot more charismatic than Trumps's other opponents.
Obama would have defeated him easily. He was a great candidate and could be witty on his feet instead of stoic and somehow inauthentic like Hillary.
Joe Migliore horrible candidate* Obama would’ve won purely because liberals and minority groups are brain washed that he’s a good president because he’s black - ya know cause they hate white males.
He tried to, but dropped out almost immediately
Zach Cipp, you're a bit off. Obama didn't govern like a progressive, but he sure knew how to look like one. In reality, he and Hillary Clinton were pretty much the same in terms of policy (both center-right). Keep in mind, Hillary won the popular vote in 2016; Obama would have done the same in 2012, but he actually comes across as genuine, whilst Hillary is plastic and inauthentic.
Jimmy Carter's portrait is like "Hide the Pain Harold". It's hilarious!
Did anyone notice the zodiac killer over Ted Cruz for half a second??
Reason why Reagan didn’t run in your timeline:
Instead of being diagnosed with Alzheimer's in 1994 he instead begins showing signs way back in 1980 just before he was supposed to begin campaigning. Fearing how quickly the disease would spread he decides to quietly back out of politics.
6:27 thanks for spreading the truth
It would be interesting to think about other things, such as how the AIDs crisis would've been handled, if Reagan wasn't in office. We likely wouldn't have had the Just Say No and War on Drugs in the '80s. Reagan also dismantled mental health facilities but didn't replace them with anything, so everyone who needed mental healthcare ended up in prison or on the streets.
Nice reference there with Cruz being the Zodiac Killer.
HOLY SHIT! ITS SOLVED!
I laughed out loud when I read "It's me Bob Dole your leader" and "Hail the Dole"
What if Donald and Hillary were married
jaredhal0 there is so much wrong with your comment
Trump did nail Hillary on the debates
SKADOOSH divorce and Hillary's child isn't inbreed.
Trump and Hillary would probably love each other as much as Hillary and Bill love each other
Hillary would probably murder Donald trump and then blame it on bill Clinton.
Everyones lives would be better🙌🏻🙌🏻🙌🏻
If this video tells me the Cold War never would have ended without Reagan I will actually get pissed. THE COLD WAR ENDED BECAUSE OF GORBACHEV, NOT REAGAN!
Yonathan Taye True,but even before Reagan the economy of USSR halted due to Leonid Sergeivitch Brezhnev.The oil glut of the 80's caused by Carter,the grain problems and embargo due to Afghan invasion by Soviets harmed the economy and so Gorbachev got in.
An excerpt from Mortal Kombat 11:
Geras: Actors leave no mark on history.
Johnny Cage: Ronald! Reagan!
Geras: The exception that proves the rule.
What about "what if the Soviet Union never fell"
Slugs Uploads They would of had to adorn a more Chineselike economic model,so their would be no cold war or Putin.
its the same exact video
If Yeltsin is Assassinated before August 1991
@@matthewtuckman4447 Yeltsin massively screwed up
@@jasoncuculo7035 exactly
8:39 that aged about as good as keith richards if you asked me
I lived this time and I recall very much how afraid I was when this maniac started to talk about a restricted on Europe only nuclear strike. You know what changed this nuts guy's minde? A film! After this lunatic had seen "The day after" he became aware about the fact that probably a nukleare strike wouldn't be a great idea. Wow, what if he had seen "Red Dawn"? He invated Grenada for no reason, he "joked" about bombing Moscow and if the CIA haven't recognized that the Sovjets took the military drill "Able Archer" for serious and convinced him to show his face at the Oval Office, they had killed us all. "Great President"? Certainly not.
That to me makes a great President
+A.D. we get it , you knock up your cousin in your trailer.
Just got to love the Liberal biased opinions... "Reagan sucks! He was the worst president ever!" Ok, well who ended the cold war? Please, explain it to me, and with logic if you can find it.
Aidan Weiand and who is giving Putin their empire back? you stupid stupid peckerwoods.