Impeachment

[Kirkland Laing]

Well tits this quite differs from your first post on the subject. If you are calling Trump the most divisive president are you leaving aside the war presidents?

War presidents? Because half the nation doesn't want war and the other does? Well.... that's kind of unavoidable, isn't it.

We're not talking about differences in basic philosophies here. Even Presidents who have chosen to go to war have tried to unite the nation behind them.

We're talking about a POTUS who can barely hide his glee when people are going at each others' throats. The worse the carnage, the happier he is.

Historically I don’t think he is the most divisive president. Shit look at Carter and he didn’t use any bad words. I see all the hate, I think it gets a little overboard. I really don’t see any of his policies or deregulation’s as bad. He says stupid stuff it doesn’t really bother me that much. I do have some serious concerns over a certain faction of the democrats. Funny we don’t hear much about it but when the tea party was first around damn they were torn up and targeted by the IRS etc. now we have a group of people holding office that call certain parts of our law enforcement bodies evil. I’m not big on law enforcement I think they have too much power and don’t always use it properly but I wouldn’t call ICE workers Nazis and want them abolished. Anyway things are what they are, I get annoyed with Trump sometimes but the squad and the radical arm of the Dems seriously scare me. They want to do some frightening shit. I’ll take bad words and stupid tweets over that anyday. Talk about divisive

How was Carter divisive?

Yeah..... I'm kinda waiting to hear the tall story on how Carter was divisive. TBH, I think people just make shit up as they go along. I've never had that talent.

Ahhhh. You don’t think the nation was divided under carter? It wasn’t his bad words it was a little more than that. How about Nixon or Johnson or Lincoln or are we just talking about presidents who talk gruff and not policies. People were burning Carter effigies in the streets of America. People don’t like 18 percent interest rates and no gas in their car, Carter was very divisive in the country.

Twenty percent interest rates. How was Carter responsible for twenty percent interest rates? How was he responsible for petrol shortages? Significant numbers of Americans are going to react badly to negative externalities like soaring nterest rates and petrol shortages. This does not make the president at the time a divisive figure. Anyway two questions need answering here. We have a teachable moment.

U.S. history is littered with not-very-well-liked Presidents. Lousy economies... unpopular wars... overwhelmingly negative social issues. Whether or not an individual POTUS is to blame is the subject of never-ending debates. It doesn't make any one of them divisive figures. A divisive person is one who sets out to create conflict for conflict's sake. One who thrives at the creation of conflict, and fans the flames of confrontations. Up until now, all Presidents sought to unite the nation at one point or another. Call it love of country, or call it looking at the poll numbers. Whatever. No past President has blatantly thumbed his nose at his enemies, real or imagined, and thought more about payback and revenge rather than mending and moving forward. Carter may have well been to blame for many of the economic woes of the country during that time. He certainly got a horrible grade at foreign affairs, having been widely perceived as a wimp. Many saw Reagan as a welcome respite. But again..... Jimmy Carter was not a divisive person. Only blind Trump groupies cannot accept the fact that Trump is the most divisive POTUS in history.

We agree entirely about the divisive thing. Carter equalled Reagan's economic record though despite the oil price quadrupling overnight during the Iranian revolution. Back then the US economy was far more geared to the price of oil than it is now and it was disastrous. Carter appointed a Fed chairman to sort out the inflation the oil price rise caused and the Fed chair was responsible for the interest rates. Carter was called a wimp on foreign policy because the real tough guys wanted to invade Iran and Carter wouldn't. America failed to deal with an insurgency derived from five million Iraqi Sunnis, imagine how well things would have gone against fifty million Iranian Shiites boiling with anger at the country who kept the Shah in power for decades then invaded them for having overthrown him.

All Carter had to do to get an 80+% approval rating and guaranteed reelection was to hold interest rate increases for twelve months and invade Iran in the summer before the election. He held back from this. I can think of at least one subsequent president who wouldn't have done that. Carter basically resigned himself to being a one term prez to do what was right for the country, not himself. That's the opposite of weak. Oh, and he had to sell his fucking peanut farm before he took office because it could have caused a conflict of interest when he was president. Yeah.


Oh and just recently we find out that a GOP emissary was plotting with the Iranians not to release the hostages until after the election. You have Carter being called a wimp by the GOP for not invading Iran while they're plotting with Iran to try and fix the fucking election using American lives as bait. And of course Reagan did later trade arms for hostages, lie about it and eventually had to admit it. Maybe things haven't changed that much after all.


The hostage crisis doomed Mr. Carter’s presidency. And the team around Mr. Rockefeller, a lifelong Republican with a dim view of Mr. Carter’s dovish foreign policy, collaborated closely with the Reagan campaign in its efforts to pre-empt and discourage what it derisively labeled an “October surprise” — a pre-election release of the American hostages, the papers show.
The Chase team helped the Reagan campaign gather and spread rumors about possible payoffs to win the release, a propaganda effort that Carter administration officials have said impeded talks to free the captives.
“I had given my all” to thwarting any effort by the Carter officials “to pull off the long-suspected ‘October surprise,’” Mr. Reed wrote in a letter to his family after the election, apparently referring to the Chase effort to track and discourage a hostage release deal. He was later named Mr. Reagan’s ambassador to Morocco.
Mr. Rockefeller then personally lobbied the incoming administration to ensure that its Iran policies protected the bank’s financial interests.
The records indicate that Mr. Rockefeller hoped for the restoration of a version of the deposed government.


https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/29/w...se-papers.html

[Kirkland Laing]

I like the seventies white t shirt with a red neck. I bet that was a fucking transfer print too.

[TitoFan]

Well tits this quite differs from your first post on the subject. If you are calling Trump the most divisive president are you leaving aside the war presidents?

War presidents? Because half the nation doesn't want war and the other does? Well.... that's kind of unavoidable, isn't it.

We're not talking about differences in basic philosophies here. Even Presidents who have chosen to go to war have tried to unite the nation behind them.

We're talking about a POTUS who can barely hide his glee when people are going at each others' throats. The worse the carnage, the happier he is.

Historically I don’t think he is the most divisive president. Shit look at Carter and he didn’t use any bad words. I see all the hate, I think it gets a little overboard. I really don’t see any of his policies or deregulation’s as bad. He says stupid stuff it doesn’t really bother me that much. I do have some serious concerns over a certain faction of the democrats. Funny we don’t hear much about it but when the tea party was first around damn they were torn up and targeted by the IRS etc. now we have a group of people holding office that call certain parts of our law enforcement bodies evil. I’m not big on law enforcement I think they have too much power and don’t always use it properly but I wouldn’t call ICE workers Nazis and want them abolished. Anyway things are what they are, I get annoyed with Trump sometimes but the squad and the radical arm of the Dems seriously scare me. They want to do some frightening shit. I’ll take bad words and stupid tweets over that anyday. Talk about divisive

How was Carter divisive?

Yeah..... I'm kinda waiting to hear the tall story on how Carter was divisive. TBH, I think people just make shit up as they go along. I've never had that talent.

Ahhhh. You don’t think the nation was divided under carter? It wasn’t his bad words it was a little more than that. How about Nixon or Johnson or Lincoln or are we just talking about presidents who talk gruff and not policies. People were burning Carter effigies in the streets of America. People don’t like 18 percent interest rates and no gas in their car, Carter was very divisive in the country.

Twenty percent interest rates. How was Carter responsible for twenty percent interest rates? How was he responsible for petrol shortages? Significant numbers of Americans are going to react badly to negative externalities like soaring nterest rates and petrol shortages. This does not make the president at the time a divisive figure. Anyway two questions need answering here. We have a teachable moment.

U.S. history is littered with not-very-well-liked Presidents. Lousy economies... unpopular wars... overwhelmingly negative social issues. Whether or not an individual POTUS is to blame is the subject of never-ending debates. It doesn't make any one of them divisive figures. A divisive person is one who sets out to create conflict for conflict's sake. One who thrives at the creation of conflict, and fans the flames of confrontations. Up until now, all Presidents sought to unite the nation at one point or another. Call it love of country, or call it looking at the poll numbers. Whatever. No past President has blatantly thumbed his nose at his enemies, real or imagined, and thought more about payback and revenge rather than mending and moving forward. Carter may have well been to blame for many of the economic woes of the country during that time. He certainly got a horrible grade at foreign affairs, having been widely perceived as a wimp. Many saw Reagan as a welcome respite. But again..... Jimmy Carter was not a divisive person. Only blind Trump groupies cannot accept the fact that Trump is the most divisive POTUS in history.

We agree entirely about the divisive thing. Carter equalled Reagan's economic record though despite the oil price quadrupling overnight during the Iranian revolution. Back then the US economy was far more geared to the price of oil than it is now and it was disastrous. Carter appointed a Fed chairman to sort out the inflation the oil price rise caused and the Fed chair was responsible for the interest rates. Carter was called a wimp on foreign policy because the real tough guys wanted to invade Iran and Carter wouldn't. America failed to deal with an insurgency derived from five million Iraqi Sunnis, imagine how well things would have gone against fifty million Iranian Shiites boiling with anger at the country who kept the Shah in power for decades then invaded them for having overthrown him.

All Carter had to do to get an 80+% approval rating and guaranteed reelection was to hold interest rate increases for twelve months and invade Iran in the summer before the election. He held back from this. I can think of at least one subsequent president who wouldn't have done that. Carter basically resigned himself to being a one term prez to do what was right for the country, not himself. That's the opposite of weak. Oh, and he had to sell his fucking peanut farm before he took office because it could have caused a conflict of interest when he was president. Yeah.


Oh and just recently we find out that a GOP emissary was plotting with the Iranians not to release the hostages until after the election. You have Carter being called a wimp by the GOP for not invading Iran while they're plotting with Iran to try and fix the fucking election using American lives as bait. And of course Reagan did later trade arms for hostages, lie about it and eventually had to admit it. Maybe things haven't changed that much after all.


The hostage crisis doomed Mr. Carter’s presidency. And the team around Mr. Rockefeller, a lifelong Republican with a dim view of Mr. Carter’s dovish foreign policy, collaborated closely with the Reagan campaign in its efforts to pre-empt and discourage what it derisively labeled an “October surprise” — a pre-election release of the American hostages, the papers show.
The Chase team helped the Reagan campaign gather and spread rumors about possible payoffs to win the release, a propaganda effort that Carter administration officials have said impeded talks to free the captives.
“I had given my all” to thwarting any effort by the Carter officials “to pull off the long-suspected ‘October surprise,’” Mr. Reed wrote in a letter to his family after the election, apparently referring to the Chase effort to track and discourage a hostage release deal. He was later named Mr. Reagan’s ambassador to Morocco.
Mr. Rockefeller then personally lobbied the incoming administration to ensure that its Iran policies protected the bank’s financial interests.
The records indicate that Mr. Rockefeller hoped for the restoration of a version of the deposed government.


https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/29/w...se-papers.html

One thing about past Presidents. It's hard to erase baked-in impressions. The fact of the matter is, rightly or wrongly, that Carter is mostly remembered by many as a wimpy President who got "pie-in-the-face'd" by Iran. National self-image was at a near all-time low during those years. Skyrocketing oil prices, for whatever reason, didn't do much to help Carter's image. Now.... I don't pretend to know the details you mention behind these issues. But the cold fact is that Carter got the raw end of the stick in public opinion. Only later has he been appreciated as the elder statesman he became.

What I laugh about is the contention that Carter was somehow divisive because of those very things. It seems like a matter of convenience to interpret the word "divisive" in whatever way suits your fancy. As I said before, choosing a restaurant for a family outing can be divisive. Choosing a TV channel to watch can be divisive. A divisive PERSON is something else altogether. But I can't seem to get that point through.... not even with a jackhammer.

But back to Carter, he may have very well chosen to do what he thought was best for the country at the time. There are always going to the second-guessers who will see it differently.

[walrus]

This definition of divisive shit is a little played. We can hang on carter but he was just one example I brought up as many people who lived through the carter regime speak of it. In the end if you want to stick to trump being the most divisive president and use whatever definition you care to it is fine with me.

[TitoFan]

This definition of divisive shit is a little played. We can hang on carter but he was just one example I brought up as many people who lived through the carter regime speak of it. In the end if you want to stick to trump being the most divisive president and use whatever definition you care to it is fine with me.

Do these people you speak of say that Carter was an egotistical, vindictive son of a bitch who encouraged people to hate each other because of color or nationality?

Because if they did, that's news to me.

Was Carter hated by many? Damn straight. I myself think he was a weak President.

But being a divisive person and reveling on other people's hate is something else altogether.

But we'll never agree, so ces't la vie.

[El Kabong]

Do these people you speak of say that Carter was an egotistical, vindictive son of a bitch who encouraged people to hate each other because of color or nationality?

So I assume these are traits you assign to Trump?

[walrus]

Do these people you speak of say that Carter was an egotistical, vindictive son of a bitch who encouraged people to hate each other because of color or nationality?

So I assume these are traits you assign to Trump?

This is what makes having discussion difficult.

[El Kabong]

Do these people you speak of say that Carter was an egotistical, vindictive son of a bitch who encouraged people to hate each other because of color or nationality?

So I assume these are traits you assign to Trump?

This is what makes having discussion difficult.

I mean I get that some people don't like Trump which is fine, more power to you.

Vindictive son of a bitch? Maybe..depends on which person he's talking about. He doesn't seriously diss someone unless they've hit out at him.


"Encouraged people to hate each other because of skin color and nationality"....That's odd considering Trump has done nothing but attempt to sway Black voters who typically ONLY vote Democrat. Trump has said mean things about a certain slice of illegal immigrants and IMO rightfully so. Not everyone coming to the United States illegally is some kind of angel. The whole "very fine people on both sides" comment was seized upon by the media and spun into a folklore....what President Trump said was rather Presidential at the time, yet people got emotional about it and only hear those words through that filter of emotion.

[Kirkland Laing]

One thing about past Presidents. It's hard to erase baked-in impressions. The fact of the matter is, rightly or wrongly, that Carter is mostly remembered by many as a wimpy President who got "pie-in-the-face'd" by Iran. National self-image was at a near all-time low during those years. Skyrocketing oil prices, for whatever reason, didn't do much to help Carter's image. Now.... I don't pretend to know the details you mention behind these issues. But the cold fact is that Carter got the raw end of the stick in public opinion. Only later has he been appreciated as the elder statesman he became. What I laugh about is the contention that Carter was somehow divisive because of those very things. It seems like a matter of convenience to interpret the word "divisive" in whatever way suits your fancy. As I said before, choosing a restaurant for a family outing can be divisive. Choosing a TV channel to watch can be divisive. A divisive PERSON is something else altogether. But I can't seem to get that point through.... not even with a jackhammer. But back to Carter, he may have very well chosen to do what he thought was best for the country at the time. There are always going to the second-guessers who will see it differently.

He did get a raw deal with the public perception of him. This is because the public judge things via peculiar metrics. Try and explain GDP growth or monetary policy to ninety percent of the electorate and their eyes will glaze over after thrity seconds. But they understand high petrol prices. They understand inflation. And Carter wrongly got all the blame for these things. And while he was strong enough to resist an easy reelection by going to war the fact that he wouldn't go to war and was therefore weak was used, again wrongly, as a stick to beat him with because the public are unfortunately susceptible to being scared into wars by politicians.





Interestingly Carter was the last time America saw broadly shared prosperity. Storng unions and a top tax rate of 70% meant that CEO pay was only twenty times that of the average worker. Reagan came along and slashed the top rate and smashed the unions and wages haven't increased in real terms ever since, the proportion of national income claimed by labour has shrunk away, CEOs now earn three hundred times what the average worker makes, and debt and deficits have grown exponentially, the national debt trebling just in the eight years of Reagan. Inequality has skyrocketed and the anger created by all this has been channelled and used by -- another fucking right wing Republican who will wrongly get the credit for an economic expansion he had nothing to do with and this will be used, like Reagan's nonexistent economic achievements, to sell an ignorant public on future tax cuts and deregulation which will impoverish them even more in the decades to come. It's a bugger isn't it.

[walrus]

One thing about past Presidents. It's hard to erase baked-in impressions. The fact of the matter is, rightly or wrongly, that Carter is mostly remembered by many as a wimpy President who got "pie-in-the-face'd" by Iran. National self-image was at a near all-time low during those years. Skyrocketing oil prices, for whatever reason, didn't do much to help Carter's image. Now.... I don't pretend to know the details you mention behind these issues. But the cold fact is that Carter got the raw end of the stick in public opinion. Only later has he been appreciated as the elder statesman he became. What I laugh about is the contention that Carter was somehow divisive because of those very things. It seems like a matter of convenience to interpret the word "divisive" in whatever way suits your fancy. As I said before, choosing a restaurant for a family outing can be divisive. Choosing a TV channel to watch can be divisive. A divisive PERSON is something else altogether. But I can't seem to get that point through.... not even with a jackhammer. But back to Carter, he may have very well chosen to do what he thought was best for the country at the time. There are always going to the second-guessers who will see it differently.

He did get a raw deal with the public perception of him. This is because the public judge things via peculiar metrics. Try and explain GDP growth or monetary policy to ninety percent of the electorate and their eyes will glaze over after thrity seconds. But they understand high petrol prices. They understand inflation. And Carter wrongly got all the blame for these things. And while he was strong enough to resist an easy reelection by going to war the fact that he wouldn't go to war and was therefore weak was used, again wrongly, as a stick to beat him with because the public are unfortunately susceptible to being scared into wars by politicians.





Interestingly Carter was the last time America saw broadly shared prosperity. Storng unions and a top tax rate of 70% meant that CEO pay was only twenty times that of the average worker. Reagan came along and slashed the top rate and smashed the unions and wages haven't increased in real terms ever since, the proportion of national income claimed by labour has shrunk away, CEOs now earn three hundred times what the average worker makes, and debt and deficits have grown exponentially, the national debt trebling just in the eight years of Reagan. Inequality has skyrocketed and the anger created by all this has been channelled and used by -- another fucking right wing Republican who will wrongly get the credit for an economic expansion he had nothing to do with and this will be used, like Reagan's nonexistent economic achievements, to sell an ignorant public on future tax cuts and deregulation which will impoverish them even more in the decades to come. It's a bugger isn't it.

Kirk you have rewritten history for every middle class American who survived under carter. Stick to your graphs and trump is a Russian

[TitoFan]

One thing about past Presidents. It's hard to erase baked-in impressions. The fact of the matter is, rightly or wrongly, that Carter is mostly remembered by many as a wimpy President who got "pie-in-the-face'd" by Iran. National self-image was at a near all-time low during those years. Skyrocketing oil prices, for whatever reason, didn't do much to help Carter's image. Now.... I don't pretend to know the details you mention behind these issues. But the cold fact is that Carter got the raw end of the stick in public opinion. Only later has he been appreciated as the elder statesman he became. What I laugh about is the contention that Carter was somehow divisive because of those very things. It seems like a matter of convenience to interpret the word "divisive" in whatever way suits your fancy. As I said before, choosing a restaurant for a family outing can be divisive. Choosing a TV channel to watch can be divisive. A divisive PERSON is something else altogether. But I can't seem to get that point through.... not even with a jackhammer. But back to Carter, he may have very well chosen to do what he thought was best for the country at the time. There are always going to the second-guessers who will see it differently.

He did get a raw deal with the public perception of him. This is because the public judge things via peculiar metrics. Try and explain GDP growth or monetary policy to ninety percent of the electorate and their eyes will glaze over after thrity seconds. But they understand high petrol prices. They understand inflation. And Carter wrongly got all the blame for these things. And while he was strong enough to resist an easy reelection by going to war the fact that he wouldn't go to war and was therefore weak was used, again wrongly, as a stick to beat him with because the public are unfortunately susceptible to being scared into wars by politicians.





Interestingly Carter was the last time America saw broadly shared prosperity. Storng unions and a top tax rate of 70% meant that CEO pay was only twenty times that of the average worker. Reagan came along and slashed the top rate and smashed the unions and wages haven't increased in real terms ever since, the proportion of national income claimed by labour has shrunk away, CEOs now earn three hundred times what the average worker makes, and debt and deficits have grown exponentially, the national debt trebling just in the eight years of Reagan. Inequality has skyrocketed and the anger created by all this has been channelled and used by -- another fucking right wing Republican who will wrongly get the credit for an economic expansion he had nothing to do with and this will be used, like Reagan's nonexistent economic achievements, to sell an ignorant public on future tax cuts and deregulation which will impoverish them even more in the decades to come. It's a bugger isn't it.

You're a huge Carter fan. That much is clear. Unfortunately, as you well pointed out, 99.9% of the public electorate know diddly about hard core economics and just see the bottom line. Maybe the problem is communication. I know if I was President and had to make unpopular decisions and policies for the long term good of the country, I'd do my damnest to explain it (dumb it down, if you will) for the average voter. That goes for any leadership position, now doesn't it. I don't believe in doing things behind the scenes and expecting people to understand them without any attempt at explanations.

As much as you like Carter, you seem to dislike Reagan. Yet another example of perception and communication though, isn't it. Reagan is widely perceived as a better President than Carter, however false that may be. But why? Because Reagan was out there appealing like hell to the general public, and giving the people what they wanted, including the vision of a strong nation at a time when power was held at such a high level of importance. Those were the days of the "Evil Empire", as Reagan put it, much to the audience's glee. In retrospect it may or may not have made the most sense..... but Reagan was trying to feel the pulse of the nation.

In summary, it seems history is unfair to Presidents because not everybody is an economic genius to understand the finer points of the economy. But then again the public largely goes unaware because politicians are dreadfully inadequate in trying to explain the logic behind their decisions. So in a way you could say a lot of those public perceptions are well earned.

[walrus]

Ya Kirk the Carter doctrine worked out real well all these years didn’t it. I don’t think you even believe most of the shit you write. After the trump Russia spy thing with you I think you lost a step. Oh yeah you said you still think trump is a Russian asset right. Carter is a seriously cool human being but he was not anything special as a president. Unions you say, damn.

I will always say I look at Carter as a truly decent human being. You can go back and find NYT articles and other shit defending him saying “oh it wasn’t his fault” he did quite a number on the deficit and tied us in with the Saudis threatening war in a state of the union but he was a poor president no matter how you wish to attempt to rewrite history. I wish Kirk could come here and talk to some people who lived through Carter so he could hear what they have to say but alas I brought Carter up as one small example of divisiveness but apparently the definition is wrong and trump wants blacks and whites to hate each other or something now.

Carter did say something very interesting in a call he had with Trump. Carter pointed out China never wasted a dime on war. Sure they are at war with their own people to a degree but Carter was right about that. China uses loans like some countries use bombs. They invade with financial incentive. Anyone ever read that book about China landing ships in the US before Columbus, it was interesting.

[Kirkland Laing]

Ya Kirk the Carter doctrine worked out real well all these years didn’t it. I don’t think you even believe most of the shit you write. After the trump Russia spy thing with you I think you lost a step. Oh yeah you said you still think trump is a Russian asset right. Carter is a seriously cool human being but he was not anything special as a president. Unions you say, damn.

I will always say I look at Carter as a truly decent human being. You can go back and find NYT articles and other shit defending him saying “oh it wasn’t his fault” he did quite a number on the deficit and tied us in with the Saudis threatening war in a state of the union but he was a poor president no matter how you wish to attempt to rewrite history. I wish Kirk could come here and talk to some people who lived through Carter so he could hear what they have to say but alas I brought Carter up as one small example of divisiveness but apparently the definition is wrong and trump wants blacks and whites to hate each other or something now.

Carter did say something very interesting in a call he had with Trump. Carter pointed out China never wasted a dime on war. Sure they are at war with their own people to a degree but Carter was right about that. China uses loans like some countries use bombs. They invade with financial incentive. Anyone ever read that book about China landing ships in the US before Columbus, it was interesting.

What became known as the Carter Doctrine was basically a threat to the Soviet Union, who had just invaded Afghanistan and were desperate for some control over Arabian oil, to stay out of the Middle East or they'd face military action. It wasn't intended to be an open ended policy. In the half century since then things have changed a little bit, the Soviet Union fell apart and America's interests in the region have changed somewhat and so have her Middle East policy. Can you understand how things might change over fifty years? Interestingly Jimmy Carter was dead against invading Iraq and was very prescient as to what might happen if America did invade.

I don't need to talk to people who lived under Carter. As I've laid out in the post above, they have no idea what they're talking about. It would be like trying to explain basic economic concepts to you. It's just not going to work, is it. And where did you get "he did quite a number on the deficit" from? You either pulled this out of your arse or got bullshitted from some garbage internet source. The deficit actually fell under Carter from four percent of GDP at the start of his term to just over two percent when he left office.





Have you had a look at the states that voted for Carter in 1976?





Divisive has already been explained to you. You confused unpopular with divisive and are refusing to admit you're not very good with the English language. Idiot.



And yes, unions I say. Reagan smashing the unions is the reason wages have been stagnant since he took office. The lack of union power is the reason for the unchecked deregulation and tax cuts that have blown the national debt, inequality and the deficit, wrecked middle class incomes, the 2008 economic meltdown and more. It's the worst thing that has happened to America in the last century.

[walrus]

Ya Kirk the Carter doctrine worked out real well all these years didn’t it. I don’t think you even believe most of the shit you write. After the trump Russia spy thing with you I think you lost a step. Oh yeah you said you still think trump is a Russian asset right. Carter is a seriously cool human being but he was not anything special as a president. Unions you say, damn.

I will always say I look at Carter as a truly decent human being. You can go back and find NYT articles and other shit defending him saying “oh it wasn’t his fault” he did quite a number on the deficit and tied us in with the Saudis threatening war in a state of the union but he was a poor president no matter how you wish to attempt to rewrite history. I wish Kirk could come here and talk to some people who lived through Carter so he could hear what they have to say but alas I brought Carter up as one small example of divisiveness but apparently the definition is wrong and trump wants blacks and whites to hate each other or something now.

Carter did say something very interesting in a call he had with Trump. Carter pointed out China never wasted a dime on war. Sure they are at war with their own people to a degree but Carter was right about that. China uses loans like some countries use bombs. They invade with financial incentive. Anyone ever read that book about China landing ships in the US before Columbus, it was interesting.

What became known as the Carter Doctrine was basically a threat to the Soviet Union, who had just invaded Afghanistan and were desperate for some control over Arabian oil, to stay out of the Middle East or they'd face military action. It wasn't intended to be an open ended policy. In the half century since then things have changed a little bit, the Soviet Union fell apart and America's interests in the region have changed somewhat and so have her Middle East policy. Can you understand how things might change over fifty years? Interestingly Jimmy Carter was dead against invading Iraq and was very prescient as to what might happen if America did invade.

I don't need to talk to people who lived under Carter. As I've laid out in the post above, they have no idea what they're talking about. It would be like trying to explain basic economic concepts to you. It's just not going to work, is it. And where did you get "he did quite a number on the deficit" from? You either pulled this out of your arse or got bullshitted from some garbage internet source. The deficit actually fell under Carter from four percent of GDP at the start of his term to just over two percent when he left office. And I didn’t confuse anything somebody decided to change the game in mid play





Have you had a look at the states that voted for Carter in 1976?





Divisive has already been explained to you. You confused unpopular with divisive and are refusing to admit you're not very good with the English language. Idiot.



And yes, unions I say. Reagan smashing the unions is the reason wages have been stagnant since he took office. The lack of union power is the reason for the unchecked deregulation and tax cuts that have blown the national debt, inequality and the deficit, wrecked middle class incomes, the 2008 economic meltdown and more. It's the worst thing that has happened to America in the last century.

You probably don’t know this since you don’t live here but unions are one of the biggest reasons individual states have the deficits they do.

[TitoFan]

And yes, unions I say. Reagan smashing the unions is the reason wages have been stagnant since he took office. The lack of union power is the reason for the unchecked deregulation and tax cuts that have blown the national debt, inequality and the deficit, wrecked middle class incomes, the 2008 economic meltdown and more. It's the worst thing that has happened to America in the last century.

Again I'll insert the disclaimer that I'm no expert on unions..... but I'll mention the air traffic controllers strike of 1981. After Reagan fired them all, it got a little dicey there for awhile. PATCO probably thought they were irreplaceable. Yet somehow Reagan got them all replaced and after limping along a little bit with a makeshift force largely made up of Navy controllers and other such sources, the system quickly got back on track and PATCO learned a hard lesson.

I'm not a fan of unions myself, having had experience with them in the work environment. Maybe their origin was needed and well overdue. But like everything else that is created to right a wrong, many times the pendulum swings too far to the other side, creating totally new problems. I'm not gonna claim they're all bad... but certainly some unions have outlived their usefulness and should've probably morphed into something else a long time ago.