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

131–140 of 190 posts

Re: Statement on President Carter’s Health

#131

Post by quercusa »

woodruffw wrote: post #48
mikeyouse wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Meh.. the majority of the deregulation that Reagan is credited with actually happened under Carter (craft beer, trucking, airlines, oil, nuclear, natural gas), he appointed Volcker specifically to beat inflation who then spiked rates to 17% which caused the slowdown that likely contributed to Carter's reelection loss.. Noah Smith has a good post on the topic: https://noahpinion.substack.com/p/much-of-what-youve-heard…

Yep. Carter's folksy image obscures a lot of his domestic agenda in the American memory, but he was an economically conservative Democrat.

Are there any current national Democrats who would be to the right of Carter?

Re: Statement on President Carter’s Health

#132

Post by throwawaysleep »

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…

He failed to deal with Iran.

Re: Statement on President Carter’s Health

#133

Post by [deleted] »

ren_engineer wrote: post #83
woodruffw wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most US presidents (with a few conspicuous exceptions) experience post-presidential "glow": they become folksy pater familarum in the public's eye. Carter has experienced this more than most, in parts because (1) he's lived longer than every other president to have left office, and (2) he was widely perceived as being kind and genteel, too kind and genteel, while in office. Carter seems to be a genuinely good and kin…

>is greatest achievement on the domestic side is probably establishing the Department of Education (no mean feat!) going by pretty much every objective metric this has been a disaster for the US school system with how it changed teaching to be about hitting certain federally defined goals rather than actually teaching students

[deleted]

Re: Statement on President Carter’s Health

#134

Post by version_five »

Mountain_Skies wrote: post #120
WJW wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Selecting office holders in a similar manner to how jury pools are picked from the general population would lead to having leaders who are on average of average intelligence. As much as our current system is dysfunctional, and we like to call most politicians morons, the vast majority of them, with some notable exceptions, are of above average intelligence. But our system also selects for lots of negative traits like…

Did you watch the Simpsons where all the smart people took over running the city? Being "above average intelligence" is a pretty bad thing to select for when choosing a representative. We're not looking to them to be smart, we want them to represent our interests. I can almost see that many types of what we normally think of as intelligence would be undesirable. We're not looking to them for techicnal answers, we need representation and consensus building. Government has access to experts, it shouldn't be made up of them

Re: Statement on President Carter’s Health

#135

Post by chx »

coin wrote: post #7
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…

> really seem interested in world peace Definitely. He returned the Panama Canal to Panama because it's the right thing to do despite perhaps not being in the US' best interest. He advocated Palestine's rights despite all the resistance from the pro-Israel community.

He also signed SALT-II which got never ratified and returned the Hungarian Crown to Hungary (which was a Soviet satellite at the time). https://hu.usembassy.gov/embassy/budapest/embassy-history/re...

Re: Statement on President Carter’s Health

#136

Post by buildbot »

ineptech wrote: post #116
Miraste wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He was unpopular for a number of other reasons, some of which were just bad luck. Inflation was high, the economy was poor, there was a massive oil shortage, and the Iranian hostage crisis went poorly. There were a lot of smaller issues too, like the 55mph speed limit. While he had good intentions and was far more forward thinking than other presidents, he wasn’t an adept administrator and didn’t manage to get buy-in…

It should be pointed out that a lot of people believe the hostage crisis was not just mismanagement or bad luck, but collusion between the Reagan campaign and Iranian leadership to delay resolving the crisis until after the election. I think it's now widely agreed that Iran wanted Reagan to win and extended the hostage crisis for that reason, and that Reagan's campaign had back-channel communication with the Iranian…

Kissinger 100% committed treason by being the back channel here.

Re: Statement on President Carter’s Health

#137

Post by Waterluvian »

version_five wrote: post #134
Mountain_Skies wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Selecting office holders in a similar manner to how jury pools are picked from the general population would lead to having leaders who are on average of average intelligence. As much as our current system is dysfunctional, and we like to call most politicians morons, the vast majority of them, with some notable exceptions, are of above average intelligence. But our system also selects for lots of negative traits like…

Did you watch the Simpsons where all the smart people took over running the city? Being "above average intelligence" is a pretty bad thing to select for when choosing a representative. We're not looking to them to be smart, we want them to represent our interests. I can almost see that many types of what we normally think of as intelligence would be undesirable. We're not looking to them for techicnal answers, we nee…

Like most things, you want a balance. You do want bright people in those positions, but you want them acting in your interest while appreciating that your interest isn’t always the best interest. There’s a balance in that too. Sometimes people need to be fed vegetables.

Re: Statement on President Carter’s Health

#138

Post by starkd »

mikeyouse wrote: post #44
woodruffw wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most US presidents (with a few conspicuous exceptions) experience post-presidential "glow": they become folksy pater familarum in the public's eye. Carter has experienced this more than most, in parts because (1) he's lived longer than every other president to have left office, and (2) he was widely perceived as being kind and genteel, too kind and genteel, while in office. Carter seems to be a genuinely good and kin…

Meh.. the majority of the deregulation that Reagan is credited with actually happened under Carter (craft beer, trucking, airlines, oil, nuclear, natural gas), he appointed Volcker specifically to beat inflation who then spiked rates to 17% which caused the slowdown that likely contributed to Carter's reelection loss.. Noah Smith has a good post on the topic: https://noahpinion.substack.com/p/much-of-what-youve-heard…

he appointed Volcker towards the end of his term. Inflation had been a growing problem throughout all of the 70s. Read about Nixon's diastrous attempt at price controls. Ford had his WIP ("Whip Inflation Now") campaign.

Inflation was not fixed with just the hike in rates. It took well over a decade for it to come down to near zero rates. The hike in the fed fund rates sent the economy into stagflation. The economy was also aided by Reagan's tax cut package. It was passed by a Democrat House.

Re: Statement on President Carter’s Health

#139

Post by flandish »

buildbot wrote: post #136
ineptech wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It should be pointed out that a lot of people believe the hostage crisis was not just mismanagement or bad luck, but collusion between the Reagan campaign and Iranian leadership to delay resolving the crisis until after the election. I think it's now widely agreed that Iran wanted Reagan to win and extended the hostage crisis for that reason, and that Reagan's campaign had back-channel communication with the Iranian…

Kissinger 100% committed treason by being the back channel here.

It’s a sure bet to assume anything Kissinger did was treason, murderous, or a war crime. Pissing on his grave, when nature takes its (slow) course, will be a goal for plenty, I am sure.

In short: fuck that guy.

Post reply on HN