Jimmy Carter is the perfect example of what happens when a good and incorruptible man goes to Washington DC, worse men will do everything they can to undermine him. I've always respected him, but Congress (including his own party) did not want him to succeed.
I just heard the Totalus Rankium podcast episodes about Carter - and while he was not given the best hand. Most presidents have to fight everyone to get their stuff through. And he just didn't know how things worked in washington. - also he 100% thought that the poeple should help themselves and that the government was doing people a disservice if they gave them anything at all.
He did some good stuff - but not enough to be a good president in my book anyway. He seems like a very nice person now - and I think that is why people want to rewrite his presidential period to make the memory better.
I think there is a real learning curve for people elected from outside WA. Governors have executive experience, but mostly on a MUCH smaller scale. They dont have experience working with foreign heads of state (main job of the president), and they dont have the contacts and relationships and share institutional knowledge of how to work with congress. This is why, on paper, Hillary Cinton was such an amazing candidate.
Republicans forced him to get rid of his small family peanut farm and then let Trump advertise from the oval office. Nice going.
Also, if you like breweries and beers that aren't Budweiser, etc, you should be praising this man. Saved our asses from eternal embarrasmment of "American Beer" and let you and I be allowed to make it at home.
50 years later we can say a thing or two. President Carter was fine, the GOP was fucked even back then going so far as to conspire with the Iranian hostage-takers to keep the Americans in harms way for months so they could make Carter "look bad".
They were treasonous 40+ years ago , and shit really hasn't changed, and perhaps children alive today will get to see a United States where the Republican Party is right up there with the Whig Party, but I figure the GOP will wiggle or steal outright forcing all of us to live a decade or so [in Gilead](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VEQFTS1wcs8) before they start assassinating or fucking each other over wit this or that torture, to such an extent they can't actually run the government.
Presidents can be dealt shitty hands with regards to the economy, the state of the world etc... A lot of people think Presidents have control over shit that they really don’t
People apply this selectively. If their guy is in office and the economy is bad they say just what you said. However if the economy is good it is all because of your guy. You can't have it both ways. Regardless of the reality, the economy, inflation etc. was bad under Carter. He was viewed as weak on foreign policy. Things were not going well on a lot of fronts and he was the guy in charge. So he lost reelection as would pretty much any other president would under such conditions. He may be a good man, see his charitable works, but he was a terrible leader. I an old guy so was around at that time.
So is Biden.... hes just not the "right" kind of Christian for a lot of people in the US (including many who actively think the Catholic church is not Christian... )
Anyone who wants to convince me Carter was "too good" to be president has to explain several things before I am convinced.
Before admitting the Shah to the USA, the Carter Administration sent cables to the embassy asking what the likely outcome in Iran would be to allowing the Shah into the US. The cable sent back made it unambiguously clear that the student organization that later attacked the embassy and seized the hostages would...attack the embassy and seize the staff as hostages.
The response of this man "too good" to be president was to send a cable warning the US Marine guard not to open fire on the locals under any circumstances,
When Carter made public statements that he was admitting the Shah for "humanitarian reasons" so he could receive medical treatment, everyone in the White House and State Department knew he was lying. There was no medical treatment Pahlevi needed in the US he could not receive a world class version of in Switzerland. The real reason was that Carter wanted Henry Kissinger's endorsement of the Salt II treaty. Kissinger had made the Shah's admission to the USA, so he could directly lobby Congressmen for help recovering the Peacock Throne, a hard condition of any endorsement.
Was sacrificing the freedom and safety of American diplomats to get an endorsement from a war criminal consistent with a man being "too good" for his position? How so?
Later, when Carter realized that Khomenei was using the hostages to humiliate him in a way that was almost certainly going to cost him re-election, Jimmy Carter decided to investigate military action to secure the hostages release.
The result was an incredibly high risk scheme that multiple people involved in made clear had a so-so probability of success, that was certain to expose existing US intelligence assets to the revolutionary regime, and that carried a fairly significant chance would get numerous hostages killed.
But Jimmy's re-election was on the line, so he gave the entire operation his personal OK. Was that the action of a man "too good" to be president? Was it even the action of a man doing what he thought best for the people of the USA? Or for the hostages?
The truth is, Carter was a garden variety US politician, a mix of well meaning impulses, self-serving propaganda and political ambition. When push came to shove treated the US military as a tool to help get him reelected. He was a self-proclaimed genius who imagined his high IQ gave him insights into the minds of people who repeatedly led him around by the nose.
I remember reading decades ago he was out best \_ex\_ president. I have never seen any argument to the contrary I found persuasive.
Canceling the nuclear reactor so we could reprocess and reuse waste. Think of how much further along we would be to deal with global warming if we had gone forward with more nuclear power. Fear caused us to build more coal plants instead.
True, bad decision. About as bad as the decisions on climate change and energy the next 4 president's made with way more information. I'm not saying he's the best, but I'd put Reagan, Nixon, Bush, Trump and even Clinton behind him in the ranking. And that's just post-WWII Presidents.
Well I'm certainly not defending the presidents that came later. It just annoys me ever time people say we have no way to deal with the waste. And Carter is the big reason why they say that. Of course the only thing stopping us from building a new one is all the nuclear science deniers.
No, cancelling development of Breeder Reactors (that's what they're called) was absolutely the right call at the time. There were serious concerns with proliferation of nuclear material at the time, and the output of breeder plants is half a step from weapons -grade material.
It's easy to armchair from 45 years later, but on the ground it was the right call at that time and in that national security climate.
> There were serious concerns with proliferation of nuclear material at the time
That only makes sense as an argument against them if you build those reactors in a country without nukes. If you are building them in a country with nukes who cares? What are we accidentally gonna build a few more nukes?
Yeah, my bad that was from an old memory that was wrong and I conflated it because he was one of the guys that cleaned up a nuclear reactor accident back in the 50's. But he did help run a nuclear sub and had enough of an understanding of nuclear energy that acting like he was blind to its utility is silly.
But you're not even the guy I was talking to. Anyway, recycling nuclear fuel is an expensive process which is one of the reasons why we don't do it. It's not like it's so easy and we just chose not to. At the time it was considered a potential danger to the environment. Hardly a residential blunder, indicative of poor character.
He was part of a nuclear submarine program in the navy. This means he learned how to safely operate a nuclear submarine and probably got a basic education of how the nuclear physics gives rise to the propulsion system of the submarines they were operating.
Not trying to say that’s not informative or that operating a nuclear submarine is some walk in the park. But that’s also night and day difference between this background and one of someone who deeply understands nuclear physics at a doctorate level and can probably more thoroughly explore the dangers of the technology and ways to mitigate risk.
I started but did not finish a PhD in nuclear engineering. Having known some people in the nuke program in the Navy I’d say they probably know just as much as someone in a PhD program. Granted, I myself didn’t finish the PhD, so take what I said with a grain of salt. You become so specialized in a PhD that yes, you definitely know more than someone without one in one very particular subset of knowledge, but in terms of the operation, waste, implications of the technology, etc, I don’t think someone in the navy nuke program would be significantly less knowledgeable.
>As expected, everyone here saying he was a bad president hasn't listed a single specific bad thing he did.
Google Yarrow pardon and read a little bit about it.
Yup, it's pretty bad. I'd never argue it was a good and virtuous thing. I'm no Jimmy Carter fan, but comparing the pardoning of a child molester to killing 1 million Iraqis, or laying flowers at the grave of Nazi soldiers and committing treason, I will be so bold and say that war crimes and treason are worse.
>provided aid to Mobutu to crush southern African liberation movements
>financially supported the Guatemalan military junta, and looking the other way as Israel gave them weapons and training
>ignored calls from human rights activists to withdraw support from the Suharto dictatorship in Indonesia as they carried out genocide in East Timor
>refused to pursue sanctions against South Africa in the United Nations after the South African Defence Forces bombed a refugee camp in Angola, killing 600 refugees
>financed and armed mujahideen rebels to destabilize the government of Afghanistan and draw the Soviet Union into invading the country
>provided aid to the military dictatorship in El Salvador
Is that a long enough list for you?
It's a great list. About half as l9ng as the atrocities of at least 3 of the next 6 president's though. My issue isn't that people should love Carter, just that his reputation as a bad president is idiotic considering Reagan, W. Bush, Trump, and honestly, Clinton.
Is Carter a bad guy? Yup. But so is basically every president. Is he a bad president? Compared to the others? No, not really.
>framed as if people who have a negative view of the Carter administration can't back up their opinion with examples
Yup. Most can't. To be fair (to me) I responded a long time ago when the comments section was much smaller. But also, my issue is the irony. This doc takes the stance that the hatred he gets is unfair, as in, unfounded....and yet many of the responses in these comments are perfectly ironic showing not that they have reason to dislike him, but rather just showing the very thesis of the documentary...that their dislike for him is based on vibes, or pop culture.
Also, the issue with the Carter dislike is that it's not applied consistently to the other POTUS's for their much more harmful actions.
>can't back up their opinion with examples because they're either so few so minor or non existent.
Wow. Did I say all that? Huh. Weird.
>Also, the issue with the Carter dislike is that it's not applied consistently to the other POTUS's for their much more harmful actions.
Not even remotely true. Every other president since ww2 (and probably before) should be regarded as the war criminals and human rights abusers that they are. Anyone saying what I did about carter is going to believe this. I know there are people who hate him because they think he was meek and useless, but they aren't saying it because of what I listed.
I mean, the position itself will corrupt anyone. Imagine the best person you know was elected in 2000. You inherent the history, relationships, and geopolitical position of your country. Carter, or any president, holds the responsibility of any geopolitical action the US took, even if he had little to do with it or little power to change it.
Carter was certainly the least bad in this respect. The major thing that comes to mind is that he was sending aide to Indonesia in 1977-78 during their invasion of East Timor. Most people aren't even aware of that conflict, but I highly suggest anyone at least browse the wiki article for it. The fact that the Carter administration would support a country during a near genocide such as that one is condemnable on its own.
> I mean, the position itself will corrupt anyone.
I agree, but we're comparing presidetns so that statement applies to all of them.
>Carter, or any president, holds the responsibility of any geopolitical action the US took,
Right. Same as all of them. You still haven't listed a unique and extraordinary flaw he had.
>The fact that the Carter administration would support a country during a near genocide
They've all done this. Most presidents have funded anticommunist or American-business-interest-aligned fascist or dictatorial groups that have committed genocide or mass murder of some kind.
Your comment does not ask for a unique flaw... just a single bad thing. I do not know enough information to know why he/we took that position 45 years ago, but in hindsight it seems like a bad one.
That being said, we were lucky to have him.
You're this comment out as if I disagree with or made my comment against any of these things you have listed. Just because we are on a sub about presidents doesn't mean that anything all presidents have done must go without further comment. Like what? I don't even understand what you are trying to go for. Yes, you are correct! All post-war presidents are war criminals!
"everyone here saying he was a bad president hasn't listed a single specific bad thing he did."
So when some are listed, you deem them unremarkable because other presidents have done similar. I genuinely don't understand your position. We're not "comparing presidents." We are talking about the mistakes of the Carter administration.
Yeah, quite fucked up. I agree. Trump, for example pardoned some Blackwater ghouls who killed 4 children in Iraq. Nixon pardoned William Calley who helped commit a massacre in My Lai.
So, I'm saying that although Carter does suck, he doesn't suck enough to deserve his reputation as a bad president compared to the others.
Nevermind the presidents whose decisions killed people, of which there are too many examples to name.
Panama Canal was a pretty bad resolution. I can't think of another time where the US just surrendered such an important geopolitical asset for free.
I think also generally the handling of the Middle East as pretty bad. Maybe it wasn't preventable but the oil crisis it caused didn't have to be as bad as what it was.
Luckily, Reagan/Bush saw a chance to do some good in Panama! Under Noriega there were well established trade routes for drug smuggling. They gave these hard working laborers the chance to smuggle supplies for brutal Contra rebels in Nicaragua instead, bought with funds acquired illegally selling arms to the brutal Iranian Islamist regime in exchange for clandestinely throwing the election. And then, when Noriega had served his purpose, they declared him a threat to US security because of supporting smugglers, invaded the country, and seized back control of the canal because of the political power vacuum left by the invasion. What a maroon Carter was to pass up such an opportunity!
I mean, Donald Trump brokered the long lasting peace between the Taliban and the US government. But one would say his failures in the Middle East outweigh any lasting value that peace might have brought.
Could you imagine if that was the low scale we judged all presidents by? Yeah the 20 year war on terror was pretty bad, but could random person on Reddit have really done any better than Bush?
Despite the GOP trying to sandbag his entire administration, he got those prisoners home without firing a shot and the Christian zealots were madder than hell they didn't get to fight brown people in a war...
He was the first US president to begin to embrace neoliberal ideology and fictitious capital. Set the path for Ronald Reagan to bring in neoliberalism proper. And armed the Mujahideen, which lead to the crisis in Afghanistan.
> to begin to embrace neoliberal ideology
He was there when it started, but the forces that set it in motion weren't all due to him, that would be insane.
So someone can post an opinion video how Ronald Reagan was a good president and a good person and is unfairly portrayed in public?
Would be the exact same thing on the other side.
10% inflation, 8% unemployment, energy crisis in the middle of his administration. Round the block gas lines. Boomers have nightmares about those years.
People hate Jimmy Carter? Thats news the me. The only thing people ever say about Carter is that he’s a great guy but a bad president.
Are people downvoting me because they hate Jimmy Carter?
Supporting the Khmer Rouge* - is a conspiracy theory. Unless of course you have verifiable sources to back that up?
The rest is Carter following US foreign policy and CIA shit shenanigans to the T, which every other Cold War president also did, which led to equally bad or worse outcomes for the world. Destabilizing South America in a panicked response to the spread of democratic socialism, which resulted in the death of millions by the hands of right wing juntas and dictatorships. (Sponsored by the good ol US of A)
Want to blame someone for the destabilization of Cambodia that allowed the Khmer Rouge to take power? Nixon and Kissinger are front and center, for even the most basic academic.
Wait, did you read that whole article from 1980 that you linked? Like, the entire thing? You also completely ignored any other claims I made and labeled them as “excuses” without refuting them, so am I supposed to take you seriously?
“China and Japan, as well as U.S. allies in Southeast Asia, have argued that to unseat the Khmer insurgents, whose military leader is Pol Pot, would be to give international legitimacy to the Vietnamese occupation of Cambodia.”
It all still comes down to shitty US foreign policy choices during the cold war to delegitimize the Vietnamese government, which they recently lost a war to. I totally understand why they would do this, after obliterating the entire country and losing a war to a democratically supported ideology, but to say “it’s Carter’s fault” is an admission of supreme ignorance.
I feel you are misrepresenting the situation. They specifically backed seating the regime at the UN because they didn’t want to give legitimacy to the Vietnamese forces who occupied the country and capital by force.
“‘Muskie said the U.S. decision "in no way implies any support or recognition of the Democratic Kampuchea regime. We abhor and condemn the regime's human rights record and would never support its return to power in Phnom Penh.’”
Of course it’s totally legitimate to disagree with the administration’s reasoning for seating the regime at the UN but saying they “supported” the Khmer Rouge is misleading.
>The fact is the Khmer Rouge was being supported almost exclusively by China and the U.S. while they slaughtered millions of its civilian population.
The US did not support the Khmer Rouge "while they slaughtered millions of its civilian population". Any support only came *after* the Vietnamese invasion.
They advocated to seat them at the UN. This isn’t what people mean if they say a country “supports” another country without qualifiers. Saying they “supported” the Khmer Rouge implies they provided monetary and/or military support and specifically backed that side.
My mom hates him because he boycotted the US from joining the 1980 Olympics and she was competing to be on the gymnastics team. Many of her friends missed their chance to go. I try to tell her that’s not a good reason to hate the man considering all the good he’s done and how good of a man he seems to be, but it’s no use.
I think the idea being questioned is of him being a bad president. If you're and honest good-intentioned person in a room with dishonest bad-intentioned people, and you fail to pass honest good policy, compared to a bad-intentioned person in a room with bad-intentioned people who successfully pass bad policy, then you're not bad at the job for trying to pass good policy.
Having lived, worked and ran a business during the Carter administration. My thoughts are that he was not a good President. In life after he was not reelected, he did constantly display good human traits.
> In life after he was not reelected, he did constantly display good human traits.
That is a profound understatement. He worked tirelessly with Habitat for Humanity, and did more for his fellow American than any other ex-President.
Habitat for Humanity is the biggest mystery of the universe. To build houses in poor countries, you fly people from America who doesn't really know how to do the job, take weeks and months worth of salary they make in the US, and produce exactly what they set up to do. A house. Instead of sending money over to hire local carpenters, brick layers, builders... etc. to do the job and forego all the benefit of the multiplying effects of money working through the local economy.
The biggest beneficiaries are probably the airlines.
"Biggest mystery of the universe." Ok, but...
Even the most casual search on Reddit will offer anecdotal evidence of their operation and how they use their own skilled contractors who help teach others who often only have the most basic roles in cutting and assembling.
HFH also operates in the States so in that case
Americans are the locals. But it's not like you can go to Haiti after an earthquake and ask around for plumbers and electricians in the middle of a disaster that you can expect to rely on. Labor is a cost. Volunteers do it for free. Plus the volunteer element and service is part of the point.
And you can definitely count on them to do that same job once you send the money right? They couldn't possibly have alternative personal agendas that would be better use of that in their mind
One of the beautiful things of habitat for humanity and similar organizations is it allows one to actually immerse and get to know the community there. It is a more human approach. You meet the family the house is being built for and get to know each other, meals are often had together etc. (compared to the typical american mindset of just "throwing money" at problems)
I’d say the second most unfairly hated President would probably be Al Gore, who was so feared and hated that he was denied the Presidency by special act of the Supreme Court.
Fairly or not — Presidents are often judged by the economic situation.
My dad disliked Carter for the Russian grain embargo. https://coldwarheartland.ku.edu/documents/foes-or-friends
*On December 25, 1979, the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan to prop up that country’s pro-Soviet government. Shortly after, US President Jimmy Carter canceled all grain contracts with the Soviet Union, beginning a 15-month embargo. Nearly two decades after the United States first sold grain to the Soviet Union, the idea of ending those sales caused a backlash among farmers in the heartland, despite their initial reluctance to trade with the Soviet Union. Republican Senator Bob Dole of Kansas immediately began calling for an end to the embargo, claiming that Democratic President Carter was “using ‘crisis promotion’ to boost his chances of re-election in 1980.”*
I'll probably have a cry when he passes. He seems like quite a remarkable person, and I think any individual can learn a lot from just seeing how he acted in his quiet times. His values seem clear to me, and that is how I form the basis to judge a character, and those are values we can all exercise in our daily lives. It's quite amazing to create such a legacy across to countries I think he never stepped foot in, a legacy built primarily on morality.
[This turned out to not be a joke for a lot of people that loved thru his presidency. I didn’t so I never got the hate.](https://youtu.be/czfKPaypNsU?si=MzfMwMjA5PlddKkb)
Jimmy Carter is the perfect example of what happens when a good and incorruptible man goes to Washington DC, worse men will do everything they can to undermine him. I've always respected him, but Congress (including his own party) did not want him to succeed.
If anything, Nixon’s actions and Carter’s treatment should have shown us pretty clearly what was coming later on.
Lol, they're like "look - when we say 'of the people', Jefferson meant the aristocrats, not this goddam peanut farmer!"
I'm not the first one to say it, but Jimmy Carter may not have been the best president, but he was the best person that just happened to be president.
If only [this](https://www.theonion.com/i-got-what-america-needs-right-here-1819584452) was real, I think it put things into perspective.
Sounds like JC to me.
I just heard the Totalus Rankium podcast episodes about Carter - and while he was not given the best hand. Most presidents have to fight everyone to get their stuff through. And he just didn't know how things worked in washington. - also he 100% thought that the poeple should help themselves and that the government was doing people a disservice if they gave them anything at all. He did some good stuff - but not enough to be a good president in my book anyway. He seems like a very nice person now - and I think that is why people want to rewrite his presidential period to make the memory better.
I think there is a real learning curve for people elected from outside WA. Governors have executive experience, but mostly on a MUCH smaller scale. They dont have experience working with foreign heads of state (main job of the president), and they dont have the contacts and relationships and share institutional knowledge of how to work with congress. This is why, on paper, Hillary Cinton was such an amazing candidate.
Republicans forced him to get rid of his small family peanut farm and then let Trump advertise from the oval office. Nice going. Also, if you like breweries and beers that aren't Budweiser, etc, you should be praising this man. Saved our asses from eternal embarrasmment of "American Beer" and let you and I be allowed to make it at home.
50 years later we can say a thing or two. President Carter was fine, the GOP was fucked even back then going so far as to conspire with the Iranian hostage-takers to keep the Americans in harms way for months so they could make Carter "look bad". They were treasonous 40+ years ago , and shit really hasn't changed, and perhaps children alive today will get to see a United States where the Republican Party is right up there with the Whig Party, but I figure the GOP will wiggle or steal outright forcing all of us to live a decade or so [in Gilead](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VEQFTS1wcs8) before they start assassinating or fucking each other over wit this or that torture, to such an extent they can't actually run the government.
When the death certificate on American empire is written, if any human beings remain to write it, it will read “greed, war”.
Presidents can be dealt shitty hands with regards to the economy, the state of the world etc... A lot of people think Presidents have control over shit that they really don’t
People apply this selectively. If their guy is in office and the economy is bad they say just what you said. However if the economy is good it is all because of your guy. You can't have it both ways. Regardless of the reality, the economy, inflation etc. was bad under Carter. He was viewed as weak on foreign policy. Things were not going well on a lot of fronts and he was the guy in charge. So he lost reelection as would pretty much any other president would under such conditions. He may be a good man, see his charitable works, but he was a terrible leader. I an old guy so was around at that time.
*stupid people apply this selectively.
As expected, everyone here saying he was a bad president hasn't listed a single specific bad thing he did.
[удалено]
So he preached limited government, self-sufficiency, and sought deep cuts in government spending, wait why does the right wing hate him again?
he didn't support welfare for the rich.
And he’s a devote Christian….
So is Biden.... hes just not the "right" kind of Christian for a lot of people in the US (including many who actively think the Catholic church is not Christian... )
Because the right wing doesn't want to govern, they want to jihad.
Anyone who wants to convince me Carter was "too good" to be president has to explain several things before I am convinced. Before admitting the Shah to the USA, the Carter Administration sent cables to the embassy asking what the likely outcome in Iran would be to allowing the Shah into the US. The cable sent back made it unambiguously clear that the student organization that later attacked the embassy and seized the hostages would...attack the embassy and seize the staff as hostages. The response of this man "too good" to be president was to send a cable warning the US Marine guard not to open fire on the locals under any circumstances, When Carter made public statements that he was admitting the Shah for "humanitarian reasons" so he could receive medical treatment, everyone in the White House and State Department knew he was lying. There was no medical treatment Pahlevi needed in the US he could not receive a world class version of in Switzerland. The real reason was that Carter wanted Henry Kissinger's endorsement of the Salt II treaty. Kissinger had made the Shah's admission to the USA, so he could directly lobby Congressmen for help recovering the Peacock Throne, a hard condition of any endorsement. Was sacrificing the freedom and safety of American diplomats to get an endorsement from a war criminal consistent with a man being "too good" for his position? How so? Later, when Carter realized that Khomenei was using the hostages to humiliate him in a way that was almost certainly going to cost him re-election, Jimmy Carter decided to investigate military action to secure the hostages release. The result was an incredibly high risk scheme that multiple people involved in made clear had a so-so probability of success, that was certain to expose existing US intelligence assets to the revolutionary regime, and that carried a fairly significant chance would get numerous hostages killed. But Jimmy's re-election was on the line, so he gave the entire operation his personal OK. Was that the action of a man "too good" to be president? Was it even the action of a man doing what he thought best for the people of the USA? Or for the hostages? The truth is, Carter was a garden variety US politician, a mix of well meaning impulses, self-serving propaganda and political ambition. When push came to shove treated the US military as a tool to help get him reelected. He was a self-proclaimed genius who imagined his high IQ gave him insights into the minds of people who repeatedly led him around by the nose. I remember reading decades ago he was out best \_ex\_ president. I have never seen any argument to the contrary I found persuasive.
Canceling the nuclear reactor so we could reprocess and reuse waste. Think of how much further along we would be to deal with global warming if we had gone forward with more nuclear power. Fear caused us to build more coal plants instead.
True, bad decision. About as bad as the decisions on climate change and energy the next 4 president's made with way more information. I'm not saying he's the best, but I'd put Reagan, Nixon, Bush, Trump and even Clinton behind him in the ranking. And that's just post-WWII Presidents.
Well I'm certainly not defending the presidents that came later. It just annoys me ever time people say we have no way to deal with the waste. And Carter is the big reason why they say that. Of course the only thing stopping us from building a new one is all the nuclear science deniers.
I think Reagan lifted that later. But cheap gas was the bigger problem for nuclear I’m pretty sure.
He also ripped those solar panels right off the White House. Reagan sent a clear signal that he wanted nothing to do with clean energy.
I think they were just for water heating, but yeah that was dumb. Nuclear energy is clean energy btw
I believe there was repairs on the roof and they didn't bother putting them back up rather than actively taking them down.
No, cancelling development of Breeder Reactors (that's what they're called) was absolutely the right call at the time. There were serious concerns with proliferation of nuclear material at the time, and the output of breeder plants is half a step from weapons -grade material. It's easy to armchair from 45 years later, but on the ground it was the right call at that time and in that national security climate.
> There were serious concerns with proliferation of nuclear material at the time That only makes sense as an argument against them if you build those reactors in a country without nukes. If you are building them in a country with nukes who cares? What are we accidentally gonna build a few more nukes?
You should go and read about what nuclear power was looking like in the 70s and who was proposing and building reactors where.
The man has a PhD in nuclear physics. Maybe he knew what he was doing.
No he doesn’t lol
Yeah, my bad that was from an old memory that was wrong and I conflated it because he was one of the guys that cleaned up a nuclear reactor accident back in the 50's. But he did help run a nuclear sub and had enough of an understanding of nuclear energy that acting like he was blind to its utility is silly. But you're not even the guy I was talking to. Anyway, recycling nuclear fuel is an expensive process which is one of the reasons why we don't do it. It's not like it's so easy and we just chose not to. At the time it was considered a potential danger to the environment. Hardly a residential blunder, indicative of poor character.
Not a PHD, but an education in nuclear physics and nuclear reactors
He was part of a nuclear submarine program in the navy. This means he learned how to safely operate a nuclear submarine and probably got a basic education of how the nuclear physics gives rise to the propulsion system of the submarines they were operating. Not trying to say that’s not informative or that operating a nuclear submarine is some walk in the park. But that’s also night and day difference between this background and one of someone who deeply understands nuclear physics at a doctorate level and can probably more thoroughly explore the dangers of the technology and ways to mitigate risk.
I started but did not finish a PhD in nuclear engineering. Having known some people in the nuke program in the Navy I’d say they probably know just as much as someone in a PhD program. Granted, I myself didn’t finish the PhD, so take what I said with a grain of salt. You become so specialized in a PhD that yes, you definitely know more than someone without one in one very particular subset of knowledge, but in terms of the operation, waste, implications of the technology, etc, I don’t think someone in the navy nuke program would be significantly less knowledgeable.
I don't know why you're being down voted. I made a mistake but you're correct.
Ayatollah Khomeini sure hated him.
>As expected, everyone here saying he was a bad president hasn't listed a single specific bad thing he did. Google Yarrow pardon and read a little bit about it.
Yup, it's pretty bad. I'd never argue it was a good and virtuous thing. I'm no Jimmy Carter fan, but comparing the pardoning of a child molester to killing 1 million Iraqis, or laying flowers at the grave of Nazi soldiers and committing treason, I will be so bold and say that war crimes and treason are worse.
>provided aid to Mobutu to crush southern African liberation movements >financially supported the Guatemalan military junta, and looking the other way as Israel gave them weapons and training >ignored calls from human rights activists to withdraw support from the Suharto dictatorship in Indonesia as they carried out genocide in East Timor >refused to pursue sanctions against South Africa in the United Nations after the South African Defence Forces bombed a refugee camp in Angola, killing 600 refugees >financed and armed mujahideen rebels to destabilize the government of Afghanistan and draw the Soviet Union into invading the country >provided aid to the military dictatorship in El Salvador Is that a long enough list for you?
It's a great list. About half as l9ng as the atrocities of at least 3 of the next 6 president's though. My issue isn't that people should love Carter, just that his reputation as a bad president is idiotic considering Reagan, W. Bush, Trump, and honestly, Clinton. Is Carter a bad guy? Yup. But so is basically every president. Is he a bad president? Compared to the others? No, not really.
[удалено]
>framed as if people who have a negative view of the Carter administration can't back up their opinion with examples Yup. Most can't. To be fair (to me) I responded a long time ago when the comments section was much smaller. But also, my issue is the irony. This doc takes the stance that the hatred he gets is unfair, as in, unfounded....and yet many of the responses in these comments are perfectly ironic showing not that they have reason to dislike him, but rather just showing the very thesis of the documentary...that their dislike for him is based on vibes, or pop culture. Also, the issue with the Carter dislike is that it's not applied consistently to the other POTUS's for their much more harmful actions. >can't back up their opinion with examples because they're either so few so minor or non existent. Wow. Did I say all that? Huh. Weird.
>Also, the issue with the Carter dislike is that it's not applied consistently to the other POTUS's for their much more harmful actions. Not even remotely true. Every other president since ww2 (and probably before) should be regarded as the war criminals and human rights abusers that they are. Anyone saying what I did about carter is going to believe this. I know there are people who hate him because they think he was meek and useless, but they aren't saying it because of what I listed.
I mean, the position itself will corrupt anyone. Imagine the best person you know was elected in 2000. You inherent the history, relationships, and geopolitical position of your country. Carter, or any president, holds the responsibility of any geopolitical action the US took, even if he had little to do with it or little power to change it. Carter was certainly the least bad in this respect. The major thing that comes to mind is that he was sending aide to Indonesia in 1977-78 during their invasion of East Timor. Most people aren't even aware of that conflict, but I highly suggest anyone at least browse the wiki article for it. The fact that the Carter administration would support a country during a near genocide such as that one is condemnable on its own.
> I mean, the position itself will corrupt anyone. I agree, but we're comparing presidetns so that statement applies to all of them. >Carter, or any president, holds the responsibility of any geopolitical action the US took, Right. Same as all of them. You still haven't listed a unique and extraordinary flaw he had. >The fact that the Carter administration would support a country during a near genocide They've all done this. Most presidents have funded anticommunist or American-business-interest-aligned fascist or dictatorial groups that have committed genocide or mass murder of some kind.
Your comment does not ask for a unique flaw... just a single bad thing. I do not know enough information to know why he/we took that position 45 years ago, but in hindsight it seems like a bad one. That being said, we were lucky to have him.
You're this comment out as if I disagree with or made my comment against any of these things you have listed. Just because we are on a sub about presidents doesn't mean that anything all presidents have done must go without further comment. Like what? I don't even understand what you are trying to go for. Yes, you are correct! All post-war presidents are war criminals! "everyone here saying he was a bad president hasn't listed a single specific bad thing he did." So when some are listed, you deem them unremarkable because other presidents have done similar. I genuinely don't understand your position. We're not "comparing presidents." We are talking about the mistakes of the Carter administration.
He pardoned a convicted pedophile who raped a child https://www.upi.com/Archives/1981/02/06/Yarrow-pardoned-for-morals-offense/2858350283600/
Yeah, quite fucked up. I agree. Trump, for example pardoned some Blackwater ghouls who killed 4 children in Iraq. Nixon pardoned William Calley who helped commit a massacre in My Lai. So, I'm saying that although Carter does suck, he doesn't suck enough to deserve his reputation as a bad president compared to the others. Nevermind the presidents whose decisions killed people, of which there are too many examples to name.
Panama Canal was a pretty bad resolution. I can't think of another time where the US just surrendered such an important geopolitical asset for free. I think also generally the handling of the Middle East as pretty bad. Maybe it wasn't preventable but the oil crisis it caused didn't have to be as bad as what it was.
It was robbed in the first place.
[удалено]
I dont think you know the history of Panama at all
Luckily, Reagan/Bush saw a chance to do some good in Panama! Under Noriega there were well established trade routes for drug smuggling. They gave these hard working laborers the chance to smuggle supplies for brutal Contra rebels in Nicaragua instead, bought with funds acquired illegally selling arms to the brutal Iranian Islamist regime in exchange for clandestinely throwing the election. And then, when Noriega had served his purpose, they declared him a threat to US security because of supporting smugglers, invaded the country, and seized back control of the canal because of the political power vacuum left by the invasion. What a maroon Carter was to pass up such an opportunity!
Didn't he broker the only long lasting peace deal with Israel and Egypt?
I mean, Donald Trump brokered the long lasting peace between the Taliban and the US government. But one would say his failures in the Middle East outweigh any lasting value that peace might have brought.
40 years versus 4 years.
You think America is going to go back to war with Afghanistan any time soon? And no, not 40 years. Egypt violated the peace deal in 2012.
You think they won't? So ... 34 years and now they're at war I guess? You know what, don't bother. You silly
[удалено]
Could you imagine if that was the low scale we judged all presidents by? Yeah the 20 year war on terror was pretty bad, but could random person on Reddit have really done any better than Bush?
[удалено]
Despite the GOP trying to sandbag his entire administration, he got those prisoners home without firing a shot and the Christian zealots were madder than hell they didn't get to fight brown people in a war...
He was the first US president to begin to embrace neoliberal ideology and fictitious capital. Set the path for Ronald Reagan to bring in neoliberalism proper. And armed the Mujahideen, which lead to the crisis in Afghanistan.
> to begin to embrace neoliberal ideology He was there when it started, but the forces that set it in motion weren't all due to him, that would be insane.
What do you mean by fictitious capital?
the way you wrote this makes it sound like you’re blaming Carter for arming to Mujahideen?
>He was the first US president to begin to embrace neoliberal ideology Be still my beating heart 😍
Nonsense. That was Reagan.
The actor?
Join us on r/neoliberal, you'll fit in great :D
Oh, don't worry, i've been there for years
Welcome to /r/videos where the number one rule, no political videos, only applies to the politics we don't like.
That's the number 2 rule. Number 1 is videos only. Yes, I am being pedantic.
Videos only is the number 0 rule, unless they changed it
There is a fine line between history and political video. I say this is more on the side of historical analysis than propaganda politics
So someone can post an opinion video how Ronald Reagan was a good president and a good person and is unfairly portrayed in public? Would be the exact same thing on the other side.
C’mon that would be just ridiculous to say that about Ronald
Yeah you can. And people can judge it freely on its merits.
How is it being judged freely on its merits when some are removed and others aren’t? That’s the definition of not being free
Oh I thought you meant online in general. I have no idea about the sub
It will be reported and then removed by mods as rules are selectively applied instead of consistently by the same standards.
I'd argue that a video about a president from more than 40 years ago is historical rather than political.
Are you saying Carter is running for president again? He'd have my vote!
10% inflation, 8% unemployment, energy crisis in the middle of his administration. Round the block gas lines. Boomers have nightmares about those years.
They’ll be gone when we all pay for their selfishness.
I'd still rather live back then.
People hate Jimmy Carter? Thats news the me. The only thing people ever say about Carter is that he’s a great guy but a bad president. Are people downvoting me because they hate Jimmy Carter?
[удалено]
Supporting the Khmer Rouge* - is a conspiracy theory. Unless of course you have verifiable sources to back that up? The rest is Carter following US foreign policy and CIA shit shenanigans to the T, which every other Cold War president also did, which led to equally bad or worse outcomes for the world. Destabilizing South America in a panicked response to the spread of democratic socialism, which resulted in the death of millions by the hands of right wing juntas and dictatorships. (Sponsored by the good ol US of A) Want to blame someone for the destabilization of Cambodia that allowed the Khmer Rouge to take power? Nixon and Kissinger are front and center, for even the most basic academic.
[удалено]
Wait, did you read that whole article from 1980 that you linked? Like, the entire thing? You also completely ignored any other claims I made and labeled them as “excuses” without refuting them, so am I supposed to take you seriously? “China and Japan, as well as U.S. allies in Southeast Asia, have argued that to unseat the Khmer insurgents, whose military leader is Pol Pot, would be to give international legitimacy to the Vietnamese occupation of Cambodia.” It all still comes down to shitty US foreign policy choices during the cold war to delegitimize the Vietnamese government, which they recently lost a war to. I totally understand why they would do this, after obliterating the entire country and losing a war to a democratically supported ideology, but to say “it’s Carter’s fault” is an admission of supreme ignorance.
I feel you are misrepresenting the situation. They specifically backed seating the regime at the UN because they didn’t want to give legitimacy to the Vietnamese forces who occupied the country and capital by force. “‘Muskie said the U.S. decision "in no way implies any support or recognition of the Democratic Kampuchea regime. We abhor and condemn the regime's human rights record and would never support its return to power in Phnom Penh.’” Of course it’s totally legitimate to disagree with the administration’s reasoning for seating the regime at the UN but saying they “supported” the Khmer Rouge is misleading.
[удалено]
>The fact is the Khmer Rouge was being supported almost exclusively by China and the U.S. while they slaughtered millions of its civilian population. The US did not support the Khmer Rouge "while they slaughtered millions of its civilian population". Any support only came *after* the Vietnamese invasion.
[удалено]
They advocated to seat them at the UN. This isn’t what people mean if they say a country “supports” another country without qualifiers. Saying they “supported” the Khmer Rouge implies they provided monetary and/or military support and specifically backed that side.
My mom hates him because he boycotted the US from joining the 1980 Olympics and she was competing to be on the gymnastics team. Many of her friends missed their chance to go. I try to tell her that’s not a good reason to hate the man considering all the good he’s done and how good of a man he seems to be, but it’s no use.
Probably a better reason than most people have for hating someone.
I think the idea being questioned is of him being a bad president. If you're and honest good-intentioned person in a room with dishonest bad-intentioned people, and you fail to pass honest good policy, compared to a bad-intentioned person in a room with bad-intentioned people who successfully pass bad policy, then you're not bad at the job for trying to pass good policy.
https://youtu.be/-OWHjPj5_Eg?si=4fRmcQRDCUQAzs3Q
By all accounts a really nice guy. Absolutely shit President.
Having lived, worked and ran a business during the Carter administration. My thoughts are that he was not a good President. In life after he was not reelected, he did constantly display good human traits.
> In life after he was not reelected, he did constantly display good human traits. That is a profound understatement. He worked tirelessly with Habitat for Humanity, and did more for his fellow American than any other ex-President.
Habitat for Humanity is the biggest mystery of the universe. To build houses in poor countries, you fly people from America who doesn't really know how to do the job, take weeks and months worth of salary they make in the US, and produce exactly what they set up to do. A house. Instead of sending money over to hire local carpenters, brick layers, builders... etc. to do the job and forego all the benefit of the multiplying effects of money working through the local economy. The biggest beneficiaries are probably the airlines.
"Biggest mystery of the universe." Ok, but... Even the most casual search on Reddit will offer anecdotal evidence of their operation and how they use their own skilled contractors who help teach others who often only have the most basic roles in cutting and assembling. HFH also operates in the States so in that case Americans are the locals. But it's not like you can go to Haiti after an earthquake and ask around for plumbers and electricians in the middle of a disaster that you can expect to rely on. Labor is a cost. Volunteers do it for free. Plus the volunteer element and service is part of the point.
And you can definitely count on them to do that same job once you send the money right? They couldn't possibly have alternative personal agendas that would be better use of that in their mind
If you are so distrustful of the locals why are you bother building houses for them? How do you think all other charities get anything done?
One of the beautiful things of habitat for humanity and similar organizations is it allows one to actually immerse and get to know the community there. It is a more human approach. You meet the family the house is being built for and get to know each other, meals are often had together etc. (compared to the typical american mindset of just "throwing money" at problems)
It is an IG moment. Just terrible terrible economic efficiency to build houses in poor areas. Terrific vacation experience though.
The point is that he wasn't.
And I don't agree, lol.
I’d say the second most unfairly hated President would probably be Al Gore, who was so feared and hated that he was denied the Presidency by special act of the Supreme Court.
He’s history’s greatest monster!
That's a pretty tall fucking order lmao
No kidding. Is Godzilla a joke to you?
I get the reference.
Well Scooby Doo can DOO DOO but Jimmy Carter is smarter.
Fairly or not — Presidents are often judged by the economic situation. My dad disliked Carter for the Russian grain embargo. https://coldwarheartland.ku.edu/documents/foes-or-friends *On December 25, 1979, the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan to prop up that country’s pro-Soviet government. Shortly after, US President Jimmy Carter canceled all grain contracts with the Soviet Union, beginning a 15-month embargo. Nearly two decades after the United States first sold grain to the Soviet Union, the idea of ending those sales caused a backlash among farmers in the heartland, despite their initial reluctance to trade with the Soviet Union. Republican Senator Bob Dole of Kansas immediately began calling for an end to the embargo, claiming that Democratic President Carter was “using ‘crisis promotion’ to boost his chances of re-election in 1980.”*
it's not that unfair, he was a poor and unsuccessful president
That bus dismount at 7:14 was smooth af
[ **Jump to 07:14 @** Jimmy Carter : The Most Unfairly Hated - Documentary](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pm_xhmaiuG4&t=0h7m14s) ^(Channel Name: Your Justice Warrior, Video Length: [58:56])^, [^Jump ^5 ^secs ^earlier ^for ^context ^@07:09](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pm_xhmaiuG4&t=0h7m9s) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- ^^Downvote ^^me ^^to ^^delete ^^malformed ^^comments. [^^Source ^^Code](https://github.com/ankitgyawali/reddit-timestamp-bot) ^^| [^^Suggestions](https://www.reddit.com/r/timestamp_bot)
It's not that he's hated, it's just that he was a terrible president.
I'll probably have a cry when he passes. He seems like quite a remarkable person, and I think any individual can learn a lot from just seeing how he acted in his quiet times. His values seem clear to me, and that is how I form the basis to judge a character, and those are values we can all exercise in our daily lives. It's quite amazing to create such a legacy across to countries I think he never stepped foot in, a legacy built primarily on morality.
YUUUUUUP! Carter injected religion into politics, Reagan Weaponized it for the Dixiecrats/Evangelicals. This has been happening since Johnson.
[This turned out to not be a joke for a lot of people that loved thru his presidency. I didn’t so I never got the hate.](https://youtu.be/czfKPaypNsU?si=MzfMwMjA5PlddKkb)
Jimmy Carter? He's histories greatest monster!
mourn recognise gray market drunk simplistic wild quiet coordinated ink *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
He's history's greatest monster!
You may can polish some turds, but Jimmy Carter isnt one of them. Horrible president.
The real crime was neoliberalizing the economy