Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Statement on President Carter’s Health

cartercenter.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 190 posts

Re: Statement on President Carter’s Health

#91

Post by JKCalhoun »

wkat4242 wrote: post #2

I have a lot of respect for Carter. Not only did he really seem interested in world peace instead of the warmongering from the MIC, he also remained active for all these years furthering humanitarian causes. And he was a brilliant nuclear engineer who cleaned up a nuclear accident with this team in Canada. I know he wasn't popular in the US which I don't really understand. It sounds to me like he fought the vested bi…

I liked him (am American). He tried to bring the Metric system to the U.S., as en example.

I have a hilarious road trip Kodak photo from the 70's where our family are standing in front of a sign at some mountain pass in the Rocky Mountains and the sign gives the elevation in both feet and meters.

A recent Google street-view I found for the same location shows elevation in feet only.

To hell with Reagan.

Re: Statement on President Carter’s Health

#92

Post by pydry »

Forgeties79 wrote: post #68
version_five wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Related is the fact that most people who would be good politicians want nothing to do with politics and most that go into politics are the worst people to represent us. While i know it's too idealistic, I wish there could be some jury duty style model where real people are obliged to take on political duties

I hear this a lot but I think it’s kind of a cynical take. There are plenty of people who run for office because they genuinely care and genuinely believe they can make a difference. Of course there are power hungry sociopaths who make it. But there are 535 members of Congress, 50 governors, thousands of mayors and city council members and state reps, etc. They can’t all be terrible, yet I feel like the popular refra…

If you take principled stances you will generally end up making a lot of enemies of powerful interests. They will shred your character in public mercilessly and persistently even if your record is pretty much spotless.

It's much much easier to be casually evil and join a bloc of powerful interests who will take care of you and look after you if you happen to be caught in bed with a prostitute.

Re: Statement on President Carter’s Health

#93

Post by JKCalhoun »

coin wrote: post #23
doktorhladnjak wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Great person but he was unpopular as a president at the time because he failed to stop high inflation and to resolve the Iranian hostage crisis. The latter especially sunk his chances of re-election. So much of politics is about what happens when you’re in office, but also how you deal with what happens.

He did resolve the Iranian hostage crisis. It was just that the hostages weren't released until 20 minutes after Regan was sworn in.

Yeah, it was the first time (I was then a young adult) when I smelled a rat at the Presidential level. Even then I called bullshit – later to learn it was all part of a hostage-for-arms swap.

Disgusting.

Re: Statement on President Carter’s Health

#94

Post by andrewmcwatters »

ubermonkey wrote: post #34
wefarrell wrote: post #18

I’m a huge fan of the man despite the fact that I wasn’t alive when he was president. He strikes me as possibly the kindest, humblest and most compassionate man who has possibly ever occupied the Oval Office. The complaints about him that I’ve heard from the older generation of my family is that he was too nice and naive to run a superpower like the US.

I WAS alive — though a child - and I think you’re likely right. The only President of this era who I think might be as kind and compassionate is Obama. But Carter’s post-presidential years stand alone in their profound decency and generosity.

Right, the guy who received a Nobel Peace Prize for doing nothing and ordered missile strikes on people.

I can just never take those comments seriously.

I don't know much about Carter, but Obama's presidency is much more recent.

Re: Statement on President Carter’s Health

#95

Post by JKCalhoun »

michaelscott wrote: post #75
voz_ wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I know he wasn't popular in the US which I don't really understand. Note, these are not my opinions, but I am going to seek to answer this based on the things I have read on him. In short, the general opinion is that he was a weak, pitiful, activist president. His overtures toward peace, anti-imperialism, humanitarian causes were laden with activism rhetoric that one would normally use if they were outside the stru…

I think this a great summary. Carter is someone who, when looking back, seems very ahead of his time in his views. It's just that presidents are not assessed in a vacuum, and unfortunately he was not perceived as the president America needed at that point in its history.

> he was not perceived as the president America needed at that point in its history.

Or maybe he was. After Nixon/Ford people were tired of corrupt career positions. Carter was folksy, one of us.

Re: Statement on President Carter’s Health

#96

Post by blululu »

wefarrell wrote: post #35
whats_a_quasar wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unless you have sources, I don't think there's much evidence either that he fought big money or was driven out of office by them. He lost primarily because the economy was bad in the second half of his term, with inflation and oil supply shocks. Also, his adminstration botched the handling of the Iranian revolution, which lead to the hostage crisis, a huge public debacle. He was a competent president, but not flashy,…

Personally I don’t think the US should ever be expected to handle any foreign revolutions.

The Iranian revolution was not a big issue in the election. It was the fact that American embassy staff was held at gunpoint for nearly two years so they could put the Shah on Trial. People were not happy about that.

Re: Statement on President Carter’s Health

#97

Post by yyyk »

WJW wrote: post #73
version_five wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Related is the fact that most people who would be good politicians want nothing to do with politics and most that go into politics are the worst people to represent us. While i know it's too idealistic, I wish there could be some jury duty style model where real people are obliged to take on political duties

The "politician by random lottery" model has always seemed like it would get completely owned by those that don't get changed around every few years, like the civil service and the lobbyists. Even more than is already the case, since at least now you can have career politicians who can be trained by their parties in things like "dealing with lobbyists". Seriously, I love my mother but if she were the deliberate targe…

True, but we don't have to appoint everyone or even most positions that way. A small random element can actually help in keeping a system stable.

Re: Statement on President Carter’s Health

#98

Post by yellowapple »

Forgeties79 wrote: post #68
version_five wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Related is the fact that most people who would be good politicians want nothing to do with politics and most that go into politics are the worst people to represent us. While i know it's too idealistic, I wish there could be some jury duty style model where real people are obliged to take on political duties

I hear this a lot but I think it’s kind of a cynical take. There are plenty of people who run for office because they genuinely care and genuinely believe they can make a difference. Of course there are power hungry sociopaths who make it. But there are 535 members of Congress, 50 governors, thousands of mayors and city council members and state reps, etc. They can’t all be terrible, yet I feel like the popular refra…

It's hard to find solid numbers, but even assuming only 0.5% of Americans meet the criteria for a Narcissistic Personality Disorder diagnosis (https://www.therecoveryvillage.com/mental-health/narcissisti...), that's still 1,666,437 people - more than enough to fill nearly every (if not actually every, with room to spare) candidacy for every elected position in every level of American government. Solid numbers for Antisocial Personality Disorder (a.k.a. "sociopathy") are similarly hard to find, but are in all likelihood double that of NPD (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK546673/).

That is: yes, politicians can absolutely all be terrible.

Re: Statement on President Carter’s Health

#99

Post by rco8786 »

wkat4242 wrote: post #2

I have a lot of respect for Carter. Not only did he really seem interested in world peace instead of the warmongering from the MIC, he also remained active for all these years furthering humanitarian causes. And he was a brilliant nuclear engineer who cleaned up a nuclear accident with this team in Canada. I know he wasn't popular in the US which I don't really understand. It sounds to me like he fought the vested bi…

His popularity grew quite a bit after his presidential term, to be fair. I wasn’t around during his leadership so I can’t comment on what that was like. But he’s quite obviously a generous, honest, genuinely good human.

Re: Statement on President Carter’s Health

#100

Post by asveikau »

sfgoodforonce wrote: post #40

Carter blessed the re-election of Hugo Chavez as “free and fair” when he should have known better. Carter was ultimately a flawed man more beholden to leftism than to to truth. He was complicit in the total destruction of a country and that’s what he should be remembered for.

This is off topic for a thread about a dying man.

But I'll bite. There's lots of legit criticism of Chavez. However, democracy is not one. He was popular. I believe his elections were legit.

I also think it's a mistake to mix up Chavismo with the US right/left axis. Venezuela is not an extension of the United States. You can get into trouble when you mix up American political contrasts and inject them into places that work very differently. Chavez did not have anything in common with US democrats.

Post reply on HN