Jimmy Carter has died

These articles aren't painting the condemning picture I think you are thinking they do.

If someone becomes president, and a foreign government is already falling apart, and you talk about options and what might become the new government, does that automatically make it your fault? The Shah wasn't a saint, and kind of created the situation.

If you want to place blame for Iran, it might need to go further back to Eisenhower and the Coup that put the Shah in power. The US actually overthrew a democratic country, to put the Shaw, a monarch back into power.

From there forward, every president had their hand in kicking Iran. Kennedy, LBJ, Nixon.

They were all involved. Why lay it at Carters feet?

Or go further back. The West, after WW2, purposely split up the Middle East in a way to keep it in Chaos.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sykes%E2%80%93Picot_Agreement

"The two diplomats' pencils divided the map of one of the most volatile regions in the world into states that cut through ethnic and religious communities."

Yup, none of this is particularly unknown or secretive for people who look and not interested in deliberate deception (Khomeini was delivered by Air France after all!) Yes, more specifically, Shah was an ally to Nixon and had put his eggs in that basket (to the degree that he attended Shah's funeral.) Once the tide turned and Ford lost, shit quickly hit the fan (a bit resembling how Biden treated MBS.)

The other funny and ironic thing is Shah was instrumental in mediating and shaping the deal between Sadat and Israel, but somehow he got the short end of the stick and was branded an asshole authoritarian dictator by US leftist media (see Mike Wallace 60 mins from 1976[1] for example) and Carter got the Nobel Prize.

P.S. for fun, compare to Wallace's attitude when he sat down with Khomeini only a few years later, with questions submitted and vetted in advance[2]! Oh well, how history is written and rewritten...

[1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9RH2wXQtFdo

[2]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dwyWI_jKQaw

Perhaps more context would be appreciated. I'm sure you can take out damning sentences from opinions of anyone who has tried to have any faith in the peace process in Palestine. It's absolutely ridiculous to try to paint Carter as some proponent for Hamas' violence.

Unlike, say, Netanyahu, who actively supported the radicalism of Hamas in order to preserve a valuable enemy https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/10/world/middleeast/israel-q...

And they were not removed by Reagan. The roof had to be redone and they were simply not re-installed because they leaked so badly and weren't worth the time and expense.

No the Carter solar panels were electric and not solar thermal.

I don't know enough about Coolidge to have my opinion be worth much here, and of course it's always fair to argue whether any win or loss during or after a president's term should be attributed to them, their predecessors, or (in the last case) their successors, but there's a lot of ground between "not really responsible for the Depression" and "the greatest president!" I would have been less surprised by the first claim, but it seemed like linguae was making the second.

Well, besides Vietnam, Cambodia, Nicaragua, Philippines, Zaire, Guatemala, Indonesia, South Africa, Afghanistan..

He didn't end the depression. it clearly continued right to wwii. You can dabate how things might have been if he had been allowed all his ideas (some of which were as undemocratic as what trump wants)

> won WWII

or so Hollywood would have us believe

Infrastructure was mostly built in Eisenhower's era, not FDR's. Helping Soviets during WWII was a major mistake and it can be personally attributed to FDR - a radical leftist - himself. Many people around him advised him of the dangers of helping Commies.

U.S. should have ignored Soviet-German war. Then finish Commies with nukes.

Exactly. FDR is the reason that the President today has an unbalanced amount of power compared to Congress.

That being said, back then, I would argue that the situation would have been very different had a lesser person than FDR been elected president, given the kind of political climate it was around the world.

One of these persons came to speak to my class when I was in elementary school. She was an elderly woman by then. She told us about her daily life in one of these concentration camps. I don't remember much. She definitely told us about the wooden buildings, and only being allowed to bring in what possessions they could carry in a suitcase. I think she also said that they recited the Pledge of Allegiance.

This includes real estate that is worth many billions now. The west coast was heavily farmed by Asian Americans, who lost their property to people who are still profiting from the theft to this day.

The family behind Kokuho Rose, a popular California sushi rice strain, was affected by this. While they didn't lose the land in the end, it was still stripped of anything of value and left to decay by their neighbors while they were in the camp.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koda_Farms

A Japanese American has also been credited with kicking off the California wine industry, and similarly had his land stolen during that era.

https://www.bbc.com/travel/article/20221113-kanaye-nagasawa-...

I’m not in USA and I don’t know about this story. Do you have a name for it so I can search?

Jesus Christ, dude.

Reagan and Volcker clashed (at least somewhat publicly). Not long after Reagan came to power, he pushed a massive tax cut that swelled the deficit. Volcker publicly complained that they were too early and were hindering his anti-inflationary work and then proceeded to significantly raise interest rates and only cut them in 1982 after taxes were raised (to lower than they were before the previous cut, but a significant raise nonetheless).

I’m not saying Reagan was right or wrong, but one could argue that he made the fight against inflation (and the early 1980s recession) worse than it would have been had he taken a more measured approach.

https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/interest-rate

"Both sides" doesn't really correspond with reality though. She made a concentrated effort to reach out to people on both sides, including the Cheneys, of all people.

"It feels like the left moved left"

In what way? If anything, Democrats have moved to the right on topics like border control and immigration, and haven't really moved strongly to either side on social issues like abortion or drugs, on education, gun control, campaign finance, trade, healthcare, or foreign policy.

> I think the same could have been said regardless of which candidate won.

I don't disagree. It's a matter of degrees, though. The post-WWII era was always going to go away when everyone who remembered WWII (or were children of those who fought it) passed away. That's kind of where we are now.

Maybe the left, as in those of us with relatively progreasive views, moved left. But as a result of that, no major party actually reflects outlr views. The Democratic party is not a progressive party, and spends almost all of its effort courting centrist and center-right voters, not sure what you mean about moderates not being catered to. They are, at the cost of completely alienating and disenfranchising the actual left.

I see this as the crux of most issues in modern American politics - that is, the primary elections… they act a feedback loop galvanizing each party. i.e. the fact that you can’t become “the repub/dem candidate” unless you represent the party’s values to the most extreme extent means the selection of a moderate candidate becomes increasingly unlikely with time.

> like the left moved left, the right moved right,

The only leftist pandering that Kamala offered was getting rid of taxes on tips (something that Trump offered first, actually), she seemed fairly center, or even a bit right of center (putting off far lefties) as Democrat presidential candidates are usually these days. Trump, likewise, didn't really veer right, he actually veered a bit left in offering to lower prices, make life easier, less wars, and stuff that you would not really hear from a far right candidate either (well, except for the ultra nationalism). I don't think left and right really describes our parties anymore.

> Said another way, I think a young Jimmy Carter type candidate would have wiped the floor with either side this election.

I don't think someone like young Jimmy Carter could get elected today, he is just too honest and wouldn't be promising enough short term juice. Most Americans are too inward focused for that kind of politician right now.

I'm not sure what you mean by the left moving left. In my view, if anything the left wing has been moving rightward for at least a couple decades. Just not as far or quickly right as the right wing.

There was an interesting article in the NYT recently by Nate Cohn (formerly of 538) on the realignment that seems to be happening in politics. It was an interesting read: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/12/25/upshot/trump-era-republic...

No way. Our politics are like a bar fight. Dirty and reactionary.

Even here on HN, the vibecession was in full tilt.

We are in post policy politics. It no-longer matters what you do, how intelligent or well executed your plans were, just what the messaging says. It is far easier to pick things that you can control messaging on and make them the issues, even when they aren't, than to actually take on the hard things that truly impact people's daily lives. That is what killed Carter's second term and that playbook has just gotten stronger in the years since.

messaging is hard when prices never went down… you can’t send economist/finacial times article explaining what biden was able to pull of (albeit the raising deficit) to a farmer in oklahoma who is paying 80% more for his groceries…

Incorrect. The U.S. was created by British settlers. The “operating system” of the country—everything from the legal system to the prevailing norms at elite institutions—remains Anglo-American, and has virtually nothing from any other culture.

Immigration has provided cheap labor, but at the cost of degrading our social and political systems. Irish and Italian immigration, for example, destroyed the founders’ vision of self governance and replaced it with political machines that mobile masses of low information immigrants to legitimize top-down authoritarian systems.

He's not joking. He's an immigrant himself. There is often the "pulling up the ladder" attitude from the ones who think they "deserved" their entry.

Pro-Israel, as far as the government is, is inherently an anti-two-state-solution position. How can there be peace with 2-3 million stateless people who have no way to defend themselves against a hostile nation?

You're talking about what Palestinians inherently "want", but that's not really related to peace. Peace exists when nations can deter each other. The USSR and the USA had peace despite each "wanting" to destroy the other because they had MAAD. Without that, imagine the carnage? It might have looked like what we see today in Gaza...

I agree with you, that I wish pro-either-country was a pro-peace position. Ultimately it will have to become one in Israel for the situation to change. No matter what Palestinians want, they don't have the firepower to change the calculus.

That is exactly what Israel wants, so they can expropriate Gaza permanently.

> Israel could expand in that direction again

I agree that Israel harbors Zionist destructive ambitions, but it doesn't really extend beyond "Greater Israel" which is the extent of Israel in Biblical times under King David and King Solomon. That does not extend in Egypt's direction, but it does include Lebanon, Syria and Jordan, so it's no coincidence that Israel has pushed in those directions (southern Lebanon, Golan Heights, and the West Bank).

The idea that you're driving here, that Israel is some kind of expansionist "empire", is, frankly, ridiculous. Have you ever actually looked at a map of the middle east? Israel makes up 0.1% of the ME. Egypt is 46 times the size of Israel. If you look at a map of the ME, Israel is barely a dot on there.

Talking about Israel, the 150th country in the world in size, in the same breath as China, Russia and the US - five of the largest countries in the world, is very weird.

Not by itself, not anymore, because of ACA. For most people, the most cost effective insurance is catastrophic major medical + self-pay for anything else. What passes for insurance now really isn’t “insurance” in the sense that completely expected, and even likely, events are covered. It’s more like paying for discount healthcare but has the major medical built in.

Everyone already has it, the cost is just absorbed by the public instead of being taken out of the taxes of the person receiving the emergency care, assuming they can’t afford the hospital bill.

Yeah, at those kinds of margins blaming any single factor is... a stretch.

There is a good chance that if the hostages had been released before election day that Carter would have won.

Hamilton Jordan, his chief of staff, wrote a book about Carter's last year in office. A lot of people thought Reagan was a clown. He was not as popular as his worshippers in the GOP like to think. Reagan was usually ahead of Carter in polls before the election, but usually by a few points, not the same margin as the final count.

The hostage crisis started on Nov 4, 1979; the one year anniversary of the hostages being taken was right on election day. A lot of media was running stories on the hostages in the week leading up to the election, particularly over the weekend. Jordan says there was a shift that took them all by surprise in its speed and magnitude. When you spend months only a point or two behind, it is easy to think you might win.

I tried to track down the reasoning (I mean you would think a right-leaning pro-business president would support the Metric system), this came up:

https://themetricmaven.com/terminating-metric-with-extreme-p...

He did sign the Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988 into law. The measure declared that the metric system of measurement to be the preferred measurement system for U.S. trade and commerce.

But he also defunded the US Metric Board.

I suspect he didn't care about metric enough to fight other conservatives over it.

One wonders what was going on during Lincoln's presidency that could have contributed to such a massive increase.

Sarcasm doesn't come across well in written comments.

It is true that Reagan campaigned against Carter's 'profligate' spending. But then it's also a fact that Carter (2.6% in 1980) had reduced Ford's deficit (4.1% in 1976) and then Reagan's deficit (5.9% in 1983) greatly increased Carter's. Reagan's Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney summarized the Reagan governing philosophy as deficits don't matter.

> But Anderson also pulled votes from more-or-less Republicans who didn't believe Reagan's assertion that cutting taxes and increasing spending would narrow the deficit.

When Reagan's own people said his economics were bullshit…

> Following Reagan's election, the "trickle-down" reached wide circulation with the publication of "The Education of David Stockman" a December 1981 interview of Reagan's incoming Office of Management and Budget director David Stockman, in the magazine Atlantic Monthly. In the interview, Stockman expressed doubts about supply side economics, telling journalist William Greider that the Kemp–Roth Tax Cut was a way to rebrand a tax cut for the top income bracket to make it easier to pass into law.[25] Stockman said that "It's kind of hard to sell 'trickle down,' so the supply-side formula was the only way to get a tax policy that was really 'trickle down.' Supply-side is 'trickle-down' theory."[25][26][27]

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trickle-down_economics#Reagan_...

Describes my father who voted for Anderson. He didn’t trust Reagan at all

> In the 1970s, the feared effect was global cooling

This is a common trope but it’s mostly been promoted by fossil fuel lobbyists to pretend climate scientists weren’t right than reality. That alternate history is mostly promulgated by the likes of noted-creationist Duane Gish or general purpose denialists like Stephen Milloy, but it doesn’t hold up when you look at the record.

People had been concerned about global warming since 1896, and scientists had been increasingly concerned before World War II. There were a handful of papers in the early 1970s predicting cooling based on aerosol effects BUT those did not reflect widespread consensus and other researchers at the same time published papers predicting warming, and those papers were considered stronger.

What most of this hangs off of is that Time magazine “Another Ice Age?” article which sounded dramatic but was actually inconclusive about the future. It sold a lot of issues, but it wasn’t exactly a climate science journal.

By the end of the 1970s, consensus had been reached that the earth was warming and most climate science research was focused on how it would happen rather than whether.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1

https://arstechnica.com/science/2016/06/that-70s-myth-did-cl...

> In the 1970s, the feared effect was global cooling.

Not really. From your Wikipedia link:

> In the scientific papers which considered climate trends of the 21st century, fewer than 10% were inclined towards future cooling, while most papers predicted future warming.[1] […] By the time the idea of global cooling reached the public press in the mid-1970s temperatures had stopped falling, and there was concern in the climatological community about carbon dioxide's warming effects.[4] In response to such reports, the World Meteorological Organization issued a warning in June 1976 that "a very significant warming of global climate" was probable.[5]

It was a small minority in the scientific community. The concern got blown out of proportion by some cover stories.

I'm not sure your article agrees that cooling was the dominant thought in the public sphere:

> "While neither scientists nor the public could be sure in the 1970s whether the world was warming or cooling, people were increasingly inclined to believe that global climate was on the move, and in no small way"

And it definitely wasn't in the scientific world:

> Concern peaked in the early 1970s, though "the possibility of anthropogenic warming dominated the peer-reviewed literature even then

Seems more likely that if Carter had an opinion it would be the scientific one, and even if he only read mass media on it he wouldn't necessarily think cooling was the dominant trend.

I was alive in the 1970's and I can tell you that aside from a Time magazine article, Global cooling was not a broadly feared effect.

I don't remember "global cooling" but to be fair, I was only 10 by 1980.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling - OK but do bear in mind that fags (cigarettes) were still being advertised as good for your health in the '70s.

Global cooling/warming was not really a feared effect back then - both were merely noted. What really concentrated the mind was the Cold War for the mainstream minded. For the usual bat shit loopy mob, there was the usual alien invasions and that!

I was a UK soldier's brat (my mum was a soldier too when she met dad but "retired" on advice when they married). We spent quite a lot of time in West Germany. I remember seeing Tupolev Bears and Badgers getting "lost" and being given directions by large fireworks with pilots strapped on top with a couple of side winder missiles and a cannon that fires rounds that they might fly into themselves.

OK it was the '70's. Dad's staff car was a Sioux or a Merc. 432s and 434s, Chieftains, Stalwarts, Saracens, Saladins and the rest would rumble around - that was just UK gear. West Germany had Leopards, Luchs (Lynx) and more. Phantoms, Starfighters, Buccaneers, Harriers and all the rest. I remember watching flights of Phantoms (four) lift off from say RAF Wildenrath, put their foot down (afterburner) and scoot off to whatever they had to do. It was quite deafening, and I was in a playground!

"Global cooling" - no, no idea!

I hope I have given you a mild flavour of just how unimportant the environment was generally considered back in the day by the general public. There was quite a lot of other things going on.

Nowadays, the weather rather speaks for itself.

OP > …real work on Climate Change would have begun in 1981…

I don’t think that’s incorrect even if you ascribe all of the era’s environmental decision making to energy scarcity.

Carter still set a goal of 20% renewable energy by 2020, and that still would have made a significant impact.

It seems obvious to me that environmental policy was in some part driven by concern for the environment itself, but that doesn’t change the simple statement that things would have been better if we’d followed it.

It wasn't that uneconomical because the back end of the fuel cycle is a relatively small part of the cost of nuclear power. So France and, for a time, the UK could continue to operate their white elephants. But other countries that were using their reprocessing services gradually fell away -- the separated plutonium has negative value. Even if the reprocessing were free, it would be cheaper to make fresh fuel from newly enriched uranium than to make MOX fuel with plutonium.

The world has converged on the most economical solution to spent fuel: dry cask storage. This is not an ultimate solution, but it forecloses no ultimate solution, and by delaying any such expensive step it minimizes the net present value of the cost of dealing with the waste. In the meantime, the spent fuel gradually cools off, rendering any future ultimate solution easier.

Reprocessing can be seen as a fossilized remnant of an earlier failed vision of where nuclear power was going to go. The vision was that nuclear power plants would be cheap, lots of them would be built, and then uranium would start to run out. Fuel would start getting expensive, so we'd have to move to breeder reactors. Fast breeders burn plutonium, so you want to start them with Pu separated from the earlier thermal reactors (and then continue to fuel them with Pu they themselves produce.)

But this vision never came to pass. Nuclear power plants turned out to be expensive and uranium remained cheap (and enrichment got cheap). Reprocessing ended up unneeded and unwanted. It really did serve as a cover for proliferation, too: Japan now has enough separated reactor grade Pu for about 1000 bombs. It's not as good as weapons grade but it can still serve for weapons if boosting is used to ameliorate premature initiation of the chain reaction.

There's an inversion of cause and effect here. Nuclear didn't fail because we didn't reprocess, we didn't reprocess because nuclear failed. To invert the actual causation is an example of cargo cult thinking.

A huge percentage of energy is used for household heating, solar water heaters were definitely a potential contributor to solving global warming (and other concerns of the day like air pollution, acid rain (solved!), peak oil (not a problem as it turns out), or just reducing oil dependency in general).

Solar electricity has become much, much, cheaper and more efficient since then, and heatpumps have made electric heating much more efficient, so solar hot water doesn't look like it's going to be the future (though new installations do still happen today, despite the advances in solar electric). It wasn't a bad bet at the time though.

Solar water heaters reduce the fossil fuel that would be used to heat the water, reducing CO2 emissions very slightly, and therefore can be part of the climate change solution.

Solar thermal water heaters are a retro technology at this point. It's simpler and easier to install PV panels driving a heat pump water heater.

Water heating is a sgnifant use of energy so an easy convert to solar there would be significant. Alone not enough of course but still significant

I am assuming the blue glow was due to Cherenkov radiation.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherenkov_radiation

Close representatives beg to differ, despite Congressional inquiries (which are by definition politically driven) not finding sufficient evidence. Several credible people either involved or in positions of know stand by the allegation.

> Nevertheless, several individuals—most notably, former Iranian President Abulhassan Banisadr, former Lieutenant Governor of Texas Ben Barnes, former naval intelligence officer and U.S. National Security Council member Gary Sick, and Barbara Honegger, a former campaign staffer and White House analyst for Reagan and his successor, George H. W. Bush—have stood by the allegation.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1980_October_Surprise_theory

I saw a tweet

Most of the storage challenges are political, rather than engineering.

There is so much fear around this stuff, but it's usually based on the incorrect notion that radioactive wastes is both super dangerous, and lasts forever. But this is not true. The super dangerous stuff doesn't hang around that long, whilst the stuff that does isn't that dangerous.

The super-duper dangerous radioactive waste has a relatively short half-life, and volume. The vast amount of waste is fairly benign.

It's a solvable problem.

The Hanford site could be solved with a bunch of cement but we promised to restore. Now of course we don't dump waste the same way.

Nuclear waste is much like the national debt. Future generations will be dealing with it. And that's certainly the case with Hanford.

Carter created the Synthetic Fuels Corporation, whose main remit was various coal-to-oil schemes. Add in 1980s tech and you end up with such incredible pollution* that even strip mining everything is more environmentally friendly.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synthetic_Fuels_Corporation

* You start from coal which has more carbon than oil in any grade you choose, and then add the extra inefficiency of the process so you need more coal than had you burnt it directly. It's like burning coal in a super inefficient manner.

So where should we put nuclear reactors then? Should we put a new California nuclear reactor in downtown San Francisco or Los Angeles? If nuclear proponents are saying nuclear technology is safe, then it shouldn't matter where we put it. It's just an education issue, right?

The problem is, that nobody really trusts nuclear, or more specifically nobody really trusts corporations with nuclear power. I will point out there's a high correlation between a given nuclear accident and a coverup of that nuclear accident.

No one could be held responsible for the people affected by either of those accidents. Metropolitan Edison was only responsible to the regulatory agencies and their shareholders. Russia was a dictatorship.

The problem with regulatory agencies in the US are, they're not directly voted in by the public and they can be corrupted by bribery or regulatory capture.

Further violating regulations results in monetary fines or maybe getting their license revoked, but not jail time for the bad actors.

I think it'd be easier to figure out how to manage that nuclear waste than burning humanity towards extinction and trying to deal with it when we get to it.

"I am the war president."

>He ended inflation by causing a brutal recession through extreme interest rate hikes, which resulted in an irreversible shift in economic paradigms which caused the US to abandon its industrial lead as we faced recession, idle capital accumulation, and mass unemployment

Neat. I'm born just in time for the sequel. I wonder how insulting it was back then to be told "we're doing fine" by the feds moments before disaster (that's where we are now).

wonder what we're moving to after the deficit economy. Can we do Coke bottle caps?

There was that coup Eisenhower OK'd in 1953. I can see how Carter not supporting another coup would be taken poorly.

Agreed, and that's always a problem when evaluating political (and some other) performance. It's easy to say 'they could have done better'; it's easy to say 'they couldn't have done more in the circumstances'.

> The centrist Dems always blame those further left, not themselves. They did it in 2016 and this year too.

well, unless there is an big untapped electorate even further left, that would make a lot of sense actually, wouldn't it?

I mean, Kennedy undoubtedly wanted to run. This isn't some niche conspiracy:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1980_United_States_presidentia...

"a few days before the announcement went badly, however. Kennedy gave an "incoherent and repetitive"[9] answer to the question of why he was running, and the polls, which showed him leading Carter by 58–25 in August now had him ahead 49–39."

Who knows how this could have gone had that interview not bombed his ratings.

I take it you haven't seen the documentary Weekend At Bernie's?

I’m not sure which immediate healthcare you’re talking about. Where I live in the US earliest available specialist I was seeking (nothing too special) was months away.

We do have highest spending for healthcare among peers, having healthcare universal wouldn’t necessary mean long wait times.

For the majority who are not denied our system is better. Waits are rarely long and that costs money as well.

i don't like the curret system but it isn't as bad as you would think if you read he comnents on the internet.

You think it's unfortunate that the majority of the population has not been bitten by a denial?

My post wasn't about universal healthcare, but to point out to the progressives who downvoted you that Ted was instrumental in thwarting it three different times, and that he likely did so for purely selfish reasons, and that given all of his other baggage--including the fact that he was the textbook definition of a "nepobaby," born with a silver spoon in his mouth, admitted to Harvard as a legacy, expelled for cheating on a Spanish test and then readmitted for "reasons"--he shouldn't have much posthumous appeal to non-boomer leftists, who obviously don't "remember where you were when JFK was shot."

And Maryland, where I'm from. Our most recent Republican governor ran for Senate, in the awkward position of trying to run away from Trump. It did not work.

Those Republican governors in blue states try to run as "old fashioned" conservatives, more about economic policy than culture war. It can work within the state but less well when the national platform is at stake.

I say "trivial" in that it did not actually change the core elements of private insurance and employer sponsorship. It's a slightly improved version of the old system -- one which recently provoked literal blood lust from both sides of the aisle.

Within that framework the changes can be seen as significant. But that framework is widely despised in the US and considered insane everywhere else.

Given current history, the Feds I guess. President is powerful, but he can't just dig an economy out of recession (which seems to be the times when we have huge swings, for the sake of change). Even if he could, the methods are so unpopular that you basically doom your campaign. Only a lame duck could afford that.

That's a part of why the Feds levy a lot of independence. In this case, what the people want isn't always the best for them.

No purse strings. No control over banking. No control over prices. No control over exchanges.

Tarrifs are a power of congress delegated to the president.

Sadly, things in the 80's tended to get few upvotes on YouTube. But Carter really was the real deal: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_%26_Rosalynn_Carter_Work...

> Habitat for Humanity might not be among the best major humanitarian charities

Habitat-NYC is an independent affiliate, with its own CEO and everything.

11 years old and I doubt HfH was spamming their channel with reactions, memes, and Crazy challenges (GONE SEXUAL!). A lot of the "good content" isn't as "watchable", sadly.

I am glad more and more well produced channels are starting to buck this trend though. They won't ever be Mr. Beast levels, but they amass a solid following.

I also do not understand who gives a shit about endorsements?! there has never been an endorsement that swayed any election, freaking every person that has shaken a hand or been in the same room with DJT (not to mention every person that has ever worked with him including ones he handpicked for highest positions in his previous administration) endorsed Harris… the endorsement charade needs to stop in America, it is the one of the stupiest things there is

that was fake news.

He did very much dislike the alternative, though.

In the same way Biden created the inflation, yes. Never mind the huge event that happened 4-5 years prior.

The economy doesn't turn on a dime.

Creating that perception is part of the president’s job though. One of the president’s roles is as a figurehead and they set the tone for the country. Setting an overwhelmingly bad tone across an entire nation that was so bad I even know about despite being born after the man even was president is awful.

So yes I’d say depressing and embarrassing hundreds of millions of people probably had a negative effect on the nation.

I can see it on the older generation’s faces when they talk about Carter. It’s a sad face on otherwise cheerful people.

I’m not going to gaslight them into believing he was actually great and they just didn’t know it.