The large section of evangelicals who wholeheartedly support the three times married, materialistic, obsessed narcissistic bully and yet abandons this man.
A good soul: Jimmy Carter
- Thread starter sglowrider
- Start date
The large section of evangelicals who wholeheartedly support the three times married, materialistic, obsessed narcissistic bully and yet abandons this man.
I don't think anyone would argue that Mr. Carter isn't a fine human being. He was simply too decent a person to be a successful President.
That said, a 98 year old Jimmy Carter sounds pretty good compared to the current occupant.
That said, a 98 year old Jimmy Carter sounds pretty good compared to the current occupant.
Just because they claim to be Christians doesn’t make it so.
Well, perhaps he can clarify that he was only speaking hypothetically and that there really are some public policy positions of Carter that he agrees with.
I won't be holding my breath.
Eh yeah, you have a point. I probably would agree with some of Carter’s policy positions. I succumbed to the lack of nuance I regularly see.
Jimmy Carter's policies included the following as per Wikipedia and represent values which I would think both liberals and conservatives should agree upon....
Carter believed that previous administrations had erred in allowing the Cold War concerns and Realpolitik to dominate foreign policy. His administration placed a new emphasis on human rights, democratic values, nuclear proliferation, and global poverty.
Carter's timing as president included some difficult problems which weren't entirely of his making: OPEC raising oil prices, continuing inflation, Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, foreign trade dumping mostly by Japan (chemicals, autos, steel), Ted Kennedy running against him, lack of support by Dem Congressional leadership, having to run against Reagan who was one of the most popular candidates ever to seek the presidency., Iranian hostage crisis and fall of the Shah.
Honorable person whose timing to run for president following Watergate was perfect, but events at home and abroad offered some impossible challenges once in office
Of course all that is simplistic. We helped create a coup that put in power a ruthless dictator, the Shah. Everything bad in Iran flows from that point. So that graphic needs to go back to Ike and Churchill who ordered the coup. Surprisingly, it turns out if we install a dictator and prop him up for 20 years, some in that country begin to hate us.
If there is a single place to blame, in my view, the place would be the intelligence community for not predicting the fall of the Shah which left our diplomats completely vulnerable.
Yes, the statement "while disagreeing with every policy position he advances" illustrates great nuance and non-emotional thinking on your part. You basically are ueber rationalizing party hack...who cannot seem to own the man he supports. Gotta leave the "nuance" for later I guess so you can slip and slide away like usual.
That is correct but that does not justify Carter's clueless and cowardly response to the hostage situation. Carter himself reduced the rescue mission submitted to him by the Pentagon from 250 to 90 troops. A naval blockage, e.g. Cuban missile crisis, would have been a powerful non-combative option. No fly zone over the entire nation. Carter simply lacked the balls to take any action that would have resolved the situation while Reagan did it literally on Day One by doing nothing more than replacing Carter.
Do you know if this was part of Reagan’s cash for arms to Iran, that was transferred on to the Contra rebels in El Salvador? Or was that a separate deal?
All great in theory, but when backed up with SOFTSOFTSOFT leadership, implode within themselves. What we are dealing with today is the result of SOFT leadership (some call diplomacy) under decades of "leadership". I score it like this, Past Pub leadership 49% soft, past Dem leadership 51% soft. Maybe soft isn't it the proper description. It's been more, suckling type leadership (talking some talk, but not enough to jeopardize losing the tit).
Morrie, you are badly confused on chronology of events.
Iranian hostage crisis was 1979-81
Iran-Contra affair was 1985-87.
Obama's shameful cave-in on Iranian sanctions, 2015.
Trump shoves sanctions back up Iranian anus, 2018.
So the shameful payments to the Ayatollah was long after the election. Thanks for clearing that up.
You are badly confused on events of the last decade, perhaps blinded by your hate of Obama and your lemming like following of the inept Trump.
I think he was one of the most religiously devout, and probably one of the most genuinely nice, people we’ve elected President. I think he wanted to do real “good works” as President. His strong stance on human rights policy deserves respect and admiration. I voted for him, but ultimately came to believe he was one of more ineffective Presidents. That doesn’t mean he’s not still a good men, because he is by nearly all accounts. I don’t think he’s ever been “abandoned” by evangelicals, whatever that means. I think he’s well respected among Christians for his continued good works, especially with Habitat for Humanity.
Marvin, Carter's handling of the hostage crisis was shameful, Reagan's Iran-Contra BS was shameful and Obama's cowardly termination of the Iranian sanctions was shameful (not to mention the payouts). Trump re-imposing sanctions against the Iranian goons was honorable.
Similar threads
Come and get your girl, high ground Dems
- anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa
- The Water Cooler 2 3
Your personal favorite Top 10 Westerns
- anon_6hv78pr714xta
- The Water Cooler 2
Corporatism v. Free market
- anon_6hv78pr714xta
- The Water Cooler 2
