Carter is considered by many to be the greatest president ever. Besides the numerous accomplishments listed https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/dec/30/jimmy-... I give him credit for two of Reagan's greatest legacies -- deregulation and beating inflation.
Carter deregulated government far more than Reagan did, and he was the one that appointed Volcker and took the political hit for the pain Volcker caused in taming inflation.
> Carter is considered by many to be the greatest president ever.
Certainly, I've frequently encountered the idea that he was the greatest ex-President ever, but hardly ever (anywhere on the political spectrum) that he was the greatest President ever.
History has come around a lot and Carter has been shown to have been a man ahead of his time. You are right that for many decades after his term he was not viewed favorably.
I like to think if we had heeded the points in the "malaise" speech things would be very different today, but we as a country really liked the "buy now pay later" Reagan plan.
Bush invaded Panama in 1989, and imprisoned its president, so technically he gave away your favorite canal. Besides it's called Panama Canal and not American Canal for a reason - perhaps it never belonged to us.
Every president since Carter has talked a tough foreign policy but then either wisely paid the enemy off (Bush's Iran-Contra arms deal, Obama's planeload of cash), or stupidly started new wars which have bankrupted our treasury.
And most of America would gladly trade out Trump, Vance and the current crop of idiots in favor of Jimmy Carter or Bush the Lesser any day of the week.
That's how far the steward class of this nation has fallen.
> And most of America would gladly trade out Trump, Vance and the current crop of idiots in favor of Jimmy Carter or Bush the Lesser any day of the week.
I doubt that. In the 2024 election he won the electoral college handily and also won the popular vote. Kind of hard to argue he wasn’t America’s choice.
He was under 1% of the popular vote for 2024, so not handedly, he didn't even get close the previous two times. If we didn't have DEI for red states, aks electoral college he would have never been president. Only 25ish% of Americans voted for him this last time so what are you getting at? Unless he goes full dictator, I imagine Republicans are in trouble once their daddy is gone.
That 25% turns out to over 77 million people. Reducing voting results to percentages is a bit silly in my opinion. We both major parties, including minority parties, are composed of autonomous individuals with individual worldviews that are shaped by their unique life experiences that are capable of sharing their ideas with others while simultaneously consuming new ideas, including those from faceless actors who may have a vested interest in seeing a particular group rise to power, then act on them.
I have yet to see either major party present some message where some level of respect is required to even acknowledge that someone thinks differently than another, irrespective of the validity of their ideas, even if it’s completely illogical. The mainstream discourse I read typically descends into insults, which doesn’t help anything.
However, I feel we’re past a point in which this is even possible given the polarization of viewpoints. That snowball has been rolling for over two decades it seems.
>... and also won the popular vote. Kind of hard to argue he wasn’t America’s choice.
I guess the smartass ("teeeeechnically") way to argue against that is that for the popular vote Harris/Walz won 48.34%, Trump/Vance won 48.81%, and "other" candidates got 1.85%, for a total of 50.19% to Trump/Vance's 48.81%.
And that's not even counting the people who didn't vote. Most of whom have definitely had enough of Trump at this point.
Sometimes I think the political types and the elites don't realize how big of a minority they represent because they live in echo chambers that always tell them what they want to hear.
Maybe the Democrats should have presented a cohesive and attractive proposition to them? It's not like they didn't just have four years to build and enact one and then campaign on it instead of chasing the donor class for the nth time!
> Sometimes I think the political types and the elites don't realize how big of a minority they represent because they live in echo chambers that always tell them what they want to hear.
Coming to that conclusion yet not realizing that it applies perfectly to your own negative opinion of President Trump is pretty funny.
I get reminded, with my votes for independent parties, of how big a minority I represent in this nation literally every election. The difference between you and I is that I know I'm in the minority. Conservative and liberal voters feel they are in the majority. You're actually shocked that so many people are vehemently opposed to your policies. You genuinely believe the entire world believes in the policies you believe in because, surprise, surprise, everyone in your world does believe in those policies.
In other words, your "echo chamber" has fooled you.
That is what's dangerous. Getting taken in by your own propaganda. In the military back in the day they called it Incestuous Amplification.
Whatever. Not worth trying to explain. Just try to do yourself a favor and remember that the purpose of your propaganda is to fool the enemy, not yourself.
I’m not shocked that about half the country doesn’t agree. I just find it funny that that half of the country does not realize that the other half of the country is still half of a country.
Let's do the math, the population of the US is roughly 340M, Trump got 77M votes in 2024. That is 22.65% of Americans. So nowhere near half, not even a full quarter. Approx 174M are eligible to vote, so not even close to being half because more than half of the population doesn't, won't or can't vote.
If you're going to ascribe intentions to the non-voting public, then sure you can come up with whatever stats you'd like. I don't see how any of that is meaningful. You're just taking your own personal biases and echo chamber, and assuming that the entire non-voting public shares your views.
The only hard facts we have are the actual votes that were cast. And of those he came out on top of in both the electoral college and the popular vote. Any other interpretation is an attempt to weasel out of those undeniable truths.
I'm still baffled how he sided with the Khmer Rouge when Vietnam invaded Cambodia and justifiability so, even after what they did during the Ba Chúc massacre.
Noam Chomsky liked the KR as well. I suppose for a time they had a very good image among the left, and it's easy to judge things in hind sight without knowing what they knew at the time. There might have been info about the atrocities, without it being credible yet.
I'm thinking congress should award Trump a one time trillion dollar "performance bonus" for his first three months. He won the white house fair and square and lets face it, the happier we keep Trump, the better off we'll be in the long run. And I just do not see how one trillion dollars wouldn't just make Trump's day! The US can just print the money after all. This way, the sudden influx of that much cash would at once let Trump be the "first trillionaire" (an obvious ego win), AND a trillion fucking dollars has GOT to keep Trump occupied for at least a bit of his term and every day we can last without another tariff just means that much more of a soft landing in our new roll as the newest third world country.
If we can all get on board and write our senators and congress people we can get this done, and I just don't see any downsides to this at all? Cause lets face it folks, as marvelous and miraculous as Trumps days in office have been, I just don't think he's going to get the pope gig.
IMO it should be an expectation that all former presidents live the rest of their lives in quiet contrition and penitence. No matter how careful, how conscientious, you are leaving that office with blood on your hands and stains on your soul. It should be considered a calling with a very high personal cost, not a position of victory or honor.
My great grandfather's joke was always "There's only one man I'd vote for, and I won't run." The office attracts people who are there for the wrong reasons, with Carter being the exception that proves the rule.
"The major problem—one of the major problems, for there are several—one of the many major problems with governing people is that of whom you get to do it; or rather of who manages to get people to let them do it to them.
To summarize: it is a well-known fact that those people who must want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it.
To summarize the summary: anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job."
Reagan was one of the worst Presidents the US has ever had so it’s not much of a bar.
Helped spread the AIDS crisis, the catastrophic war on drugs, planted the seeds of anti-government sentiment, promoted and sold snake oil in the form of trickle down economics. He exploded debt and cut down on social spending. He should have been impeached and possibly imprisoned for Iran Contra.
The long lasting damage that Reagan inflicted upon America in modern history will be second only to the Mango Mussolini.
Well Bush had his wars with millions in casualties and cost in the trillions, causing a refugee crisis that boosted the far right all over Europe. So, you know, it's a tight race.
Carter told America it faced hard problems, and that it has soul searching to do, that it had to keep improving its moral and spiritual (and economic) fiber.
Reagan stood up and said, "It's Morning again in America", that all the hard and bad was behind, economically but also spiritually. We didn't have to do anything other for the future, for other people, for social wellbeing: we can just enjoy right now however we want. https://youtu.be/pUMqic2IcWA
The American temperament alas resoundingly went with option #2.
It'll be interesting to see if Dear Leader today inspires a fanaticism or belief willing to make people sacrifice today. The tariff test will surely shake a lot of people. I'm not sure what or how Carter sold the difficulties faced, and how tough times were necessary, but I sure don't see much but bluster anger and vague gesticulation as we are being steered directly into extreme hardship today. Sorry but like, factory jobs are shit servitude, and the American cost of living forever make us incredibly uncompetitive, and now trying to build the factories is fantastically expensive because of tariffs.
Reagan benefited from the hard choices Carter made, including deregulation of the transport industries (especially trucking, but also airlines) that made it expensive and hard for companies to get their goods shipped to market.
It was also Carter that appointed Volcker to jack up interest rates to end stagflation (that Carter gets blamed for, but inherited from Nixon). There's a (probably apocryphal) story that Carter asked Volcker if he could end the whole inflationary mess and Volcker said he could, but that it'd likely cost him election. Carter said do it.
Carter's deregulations (including many other industries, like allowing home brewing and therefore the entire microbrewery market) have mostly stood the test of time because they were market-oriented. Most of the deregulation that has happened since (especially under Reagan and Clinton) was more "business friendly" and has led to lots of financial crisis (savings and loan, long term capital, 2008 crisis, etc).
It didn't help that for all his character and long term thinking, Carter was a terrible public speaker. Even though I admire him, I never feel inspired when I see any video of him speaking as president. He felt unpresidential for the opposite reasons that Trump is - he feels too meek.
> Genuine question: how much credibility should then people give to Trump's "I inherited this mess from Biden..."?
Pretty much none..except maybe the deficit, but republicans don't exactly deserve a pass on that, either. I mean, just listen to Trump talk. Any "good" news is because of him; any "bad" news is because of Biden. He's a grifter.
The tragedy is that of all the developed countries, the USA had the most growth and lowest inflation under Biden - if anything his administration did pretty darn well, but they just couldn't communicate it or it wasn't good enough to voters. Because monetary inflation tends to take time to work its way through the economy, the COVID pumping and cheques sent out under Trump could arguably be more to blame than anything Biden did (this is arguable either way at this point, though - it takes a lot of time to sift through and understand all the economic data).
Trump has no basic understanding of economics. Unless you want to hoard dollars to sit and do nothing with, you cannot have a trade surplus with every country in the world - and the deficit is only in goods. The USA has service surpluses with most of the world and investment dollars are still coming back into the USA. Trade deficits in durable goods are actually a symptom of wealth.
None - because it wasn't a mess. We had a strong and growing economy and a legit plan to boost American manufacturing. Everything we are experiencing right now is a Trump foot-gun.
I would consider us lucky to ever have a person like this serve us again. Instead we're on the Biff Tannen timeline.
Jimmy Carter was a terrible President. He’s a fine person, but a terrible commander and chief.
Heck, he even gave away the Panama Canal! That’s some serious lack of forward thinking.
Carter is considered by many to be the greatest president ever. Besides the numerous accomplishments listed https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/dec/30/jimmy-... I give him credit for two of Reagan's greatest legacies -- deregulation and beating inflation.
Carter deregulated government far more than Reagan did, and he was the one that appointed Volcker and took the political hit for the pain Volcker caused in taming inflation.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43871492 (elaborates on my two points)
> Carter is considered by many to be the greatest president ever.
Certainly, I've frequently encountered the idea that he was the greatest ex-President ever, but hardly ever (anywhere on the political spectrum) that he was the greatest President ever.
History has come around a lot and Carter has been shown to have been a man ahead of his time. You are right that for many decades after his term he was not viewed favorably.
> Carter is considered by many to be the greatest president ever.
Citation needed. This is the first time I've ever heard such a wild claim.
> Besides the numerous accomplishments listed https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/dec/30/jimmy-...
That opinion piece was written by a former member of the Carter administration.
I like to think if we had heeded the points in the "malaise" speech things would be very different today, but we as a country really liked the "buy now pay later" Reagan plan.
Bush invaded Panama in 1989, and imprisoned its president, so technically he gave away your favorite canal. Besides it's called Panama Canal and not American Canal for a reason - perhaps it never belonged to us.
Every president since Carter has talked a tough foreign policy but then either wisely paid the enemy off (Bush's Iran-Contra arms deal, Obama's planeload of cash), or stupidly started new wars which have bankrupted our treasury.
That was a good thing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camp_David_Accords
Still miles ahead of Trump or GWB.
And most of America would gladly trade out Trump, Vance and the current crop of idiots in favor of Jimmy Carter or Bush the Lesser any day of the week.
That's how far the steward class of this nation has fallen.
Trump is the weakest muppet of them all, biden, obamas redline reappears in ukraine. The commander in chief does nothing ..
> And most of America would gladly trade out Trump, Vance and the current crop of idiots in favor of Jimmy Carter or Bush the Lesser any day of the week.
I doubt that. In the 2024 election he won the electoral college handily and also won the popular vote. Kind of hard to argue he wasn’t America’s choice.
He was under 1% of the popular vote for 2024, so not handedly, he didn't even get close the previous two times. If we didn't have DEI for red states, aks electoral college he would have never been president. Only 25ish% of Americans voted for him this last time so what are you getting at? Unless he goes full dictator, I imagine Republicans are in trouble once their daddy is gone.
That 25% turns out to over 77 million people. Reducing voting results to percentages is a bit silly in my opinion. We both major parties, including minority parties, are composed of autonomous individuals with individual worldviews that are shaped by their unique life experiences that are capable of sharing their ideas with others while simultaneously consuming new ideas, including those from faceless actors who may have a vested interest in seeing a particular group rise to power, then act on them.
I have yet to see either major party present some message where some level of respect is required to even acknowledge that someone thinks differently than another, irrespective of the validity of their ideas, even if it’s completely illogical. The mainstream discourse I read typically descends into insults, which doesn’t help anything. However, I feel we’re past a point in which this is even possible given the polarization of viewpoints. That snowball has been rolling for over two decades it seems.
>... and also won the popular vote. Kind of hard to argue he wasn’t America’s choice.
I guess the smartass ("teeeeechnically") way to argue against that is that for the popular vote Harris/Walz won 48.34%, Trump/Vance won 48.81%, and "other" candidates got 1.85%, for a total of 50.19% to Trump/Vance's 48.81%.
And that's not even counting the people who didn't vote. Most of whom have definitely had enough of Trump at this point.
Sometimes I think the political types and the elites don't realize how big of a minority they represent because they live in echo chambers that always tell them what they want to hear.
Maybe those other people should've voted? We all knew what was at stake. It's not like he hadn't been president before!
Maybe the Democrats should have presented a cohesive and attractive proposition to them? It's not like they didn't just have four years to build and enact one and then campaign on it instead of chasing the donor class for the nth time!
Yes, they could’ve done better. Mistakes were made, as they say.
> Sometimes I think the political types and the elites don't realize how big of a minority they represent because they live in echo chambers that always tell them what they want to hear.
Coming to that conclusion yet not realizing that it applies perfectly to your own negative opinion of President Trump is pretty funny.
Guy?
I get reminded, with my votes for independent parties, of how big a minority I represent in this nation literally every election. The difference between you and I is that I know I'm in the minority. Conservative and liberal voters feel they are in the majority. You're actually shocked that so many people are vehemently opposed to your policies. You genuinely believe the entire world believes in the policies you believe in because, surprise, surprise, everyone in your world does believe in those policies.
In other words, your "echo chamber" has fooled you.
That is what's dangerous. Getting taken in by your own propaganda. In the military back in the day they called it Incestuous Amplification.
Whatever. Not worth trying to explain. Just try to do yourself a favor and remember that the purpose of your propaganda is to fool the enemy, not yourself.
I’m not shocked that about half the country doesn’t agree. I just find it funny that that half of the country does not realize that the other half of the country is still half of a country.
Let's do the math, the population of the US is roughly 340M, Trump got 77M votes in 2024. That is 22.65% of Americans. So nowhere near half, not even a full quarter. Approx 174M are eligible to vote, so not even close to being half because more than half of the population doesn't, won't or can't vote.
If you're going to ascribe intentions to the non-voting public, then sure you can come up with whatever stats you'd like. I don't see how any of that is meaningful. You're just taking your own personal biases and echo chamber, and assuming that the entire non-voting public shares your views.
The only hard facts we have are the actual votes that were cast. And of those he came out on top of in both the electoral college and the popular vote. Any other interpretation is an attempt to weasel out of those undeniable truths.
What a solipsistic tantrum.
I'm still baffled how he sided with the Khmer Rouge when Vietnam invaded Cambodia and justifiability so, even after what they did during the Ba Chúc massacre.
Noam Chomsky liked the KR as well. I suppose for a time they had a very good image among the left, and it's easy to judge things in hind sight without knowing what they knew at the time. There might have been info about the atrocities, without it being credible yet.
that was then, and this is now "Inside Trump's 100 days of presidential profit": https://www.axios.com/2025/05/02/trump-crypto-world-liberty-...
The crime family grift is only getting started, alas. UAE using Trump coin to do a $2B transaction, days before they get approval for a big weapons purchase. https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-open-corruption-hits-next-1...
All while basically shutting down crypto regulations or enforcement. Emoluments have never been so obvious & visible.
I'm thinking congress should award Trump a one time trillion dollar "performance bonus" for his first three months. He won the white house fair and square and lets face it, the happier we keep Trump, the better off we'll be in the long run. And I just do not see how one trillion dollars wouldn't just make Trump's day! The US can just print the money after all. This way, the sudden influx of that much cash would at once let Trump be the "first trillionaire" (an obvious ego win), AND a trillion fucking dollars has GOT to keep Trump occupied for at least a bit of his term and every day we can last without another tariff just means that much more of a soft landing in our new roll as the newest third world country.
If we can all get on board and write our senators and congress people we can get this done, and I just don't see any downsides to this at all? Cause lets face it folks, as marvelous and miraculous as Trumps days in office have been, I just don't think he's going to get the pope gig.
IMO it should be an expectation that all former presidents live the rest of their lives in quiet contrition and penitence. No matter how careful, how conscientious, you are leaving that office with blood on your hands and stains on your soul. It should be considered a calling with a very high personal cost, not a position of victory or honor.
My great grandfather's joke was always "There's only one man I'd vote for, and I won't run." The office attracts people who are there for the wrong reasons, with Carter being the exception that proves the rule.
"The major problem—one of the major problems, for there are several—one of the many major problems with governing people is that of whom you get to do it; or rather of who manages to get people to let them do it to them.
To summarize: it is a well-known fact that those people who must want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it.
To summarize the summary: anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job."
- Douglas Adams
> with Carter being the exception that proves the rule.
Could you clarify what you mean by this?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exception_that_proves_the_rule...
Thanks for the link. I'm familiar with the expression, but I can't make sense of how GP is bringing it to bear.
Yes, he did sign up for the job, but his charity work afterwards says a lot. The joke is he was too good of a person to be president.
Looking back, I think Pres. Carter was far better then he if given credit for.
I do fully believe, even at the time, he would have been much much better than Reagan ever was. Plus we would not be saddled with Trump at this point.
Reagan was one of the worst Presidents the US has ever had so it’s not much of a bar.
Helped spread the AIDS crisis, the catastrophic war on drugs, planted the seeds of anti-government sentiment, promoted and sold snake oil in the form of trickle down economics. He exploded debt and cut down on social spending. He should have been impeached and possibly imprisoned for Iran Contra.
The long lasting damage that Reagan inflicted upon America in modern history will be second only to the Mango Mussolini.
I won't disagree. Still, I'd gladly take the Reagan/Bush era Republicans of the 80's over what we see today...
Well Bush had his wars with millions in casualties and cost in the trillions, causing a refugee crisis that boosted the far right all over Europe. So, you know, it's a tight race.
I was referring to Bush H, not W. I agree W was terrible.
Ah of course, honestly didn't even remember H existed. That's the kind of R presidency you want (if you have to).
Carter told America it faced hard problems, and that it has soul searching to do, that it had to keep improving its moral and spiritual (and economic) fiber.
Reagan stood up and said, "It's Morning again in America", that all the hard and bad was behind, economically but also spiritually. We didn't have to do anything other for the future, for other people, for social wellbeing: we can just enjoy right now however we want. https://youtu.be/pUMqic2IcWA
The American temperament alas resoundingly went with option #2.
It'll be interesting to see if Dear Leader today inspires a fanaticism or belief willing to make people sacrifice today. The tariff test will surely shake a lot of people. I'm not sure what or how Carter sold the difficulties faced, and how tough times were necessary, but I sure don't see much but bluster anger and vague gesticulation as we are being steered directly into extreme hardship today. Sorry but like, factory jobs are shit servitude, and the American cost of living forever make us incredibly uncompetitive, and now trying to build the factories is fantastically expensive because of tariffs.
Reagan benefited from the hard choices Carter made, including deregulation of the transport industries (especially trucking, but also airlines) that made it expensive and hard for companies to get their goods shipped to market.
It was also Carter that appointed Volcker to jack up interest rates to end stagflation (that Carter gets blamed for, but inherited from Nixon). There's a (probably apocryphal) story that Carter asked Volcker if he could end the whole inflationary mess and Volcker said he could, but that it'd likely cost him election. Carter said do it.
Carter's deregulations (including many other industries, like allowing home brewing and therefore the entire microbrewery market) have mostly stood the test of time because they were market-oriented. Most of the deregulation that has happened since (especially under Reagan and Clinton) was more "business friendly" and has led to lots of financial crisis (savings and loan, long term capital, 2008 crisis, etc).
It didn't help that for all his character and long term thinking, Carter was a terrible public speaker. Even though I admire him, I never feel inspired when I see any video of him speaking as president. He felt unpresidential for the opposite reasons that Trump is - he feels too meek.
>It was also Carter that appointed Volcker to jack up interest rates to end stagflation (that Carter gets blamed for, but inherited from Nixon).
Genuine question: how much credibility should then people give to Trump's "I inherited this mess from Biden..."?
> Genuine question: how much credibility should then people give to Trump's "I inherited this mess from Biden..."?
Pretty much none..except maybe the deficit, but republicans don't exactly deserve a pass on that, either. I mean, just listen to Trump talk. Any "good" news is because of him; any "bad" news is because of Biden. He's a grifter.
The tragedy is that of all the developed countries, the USA had the most growth and lowest inflation under Biden - if anything his administration did pretty darn well, but they just couldn't communicate it or it wasn't good enough to voters. Because monetary inflation tends to take time to work its way through the economy, the COVID pumping and cheques sent out under Trump could arguably be more to blame than anything Biden did (this is arguable either way at this point, though - it takes a lot of time to sift through and understand all the economic data).
Trump has no basic understanding of economics. Unless you want to hoard dollars to sit and do nothing with, you cannot have a trade surplus with every country in the world - and the deficit is only in goods. The USA has service surpluses with most of the world and investment dollars are still coming back into the USA. Trade deficits in durable goods are actually a symptom of wealth.
None - because it wasn't a mess. We had a strong and growing economy and a legit plan to boost American manufacturing. Everything we are experiencing right now is a Trump foot-gun.
[flagged]
[dead]
[flagged]