OT- Jimmy Carter has died at 100

Status
Not open for further replies.

615dawg

Well-known member
Jun 4, 2007
5,657
1,422
113
I won’t argue whether he was good/bad as a president, but not qualified? Farmer, war hero, governor, married to the same woman for 80 years… how was he not qualified?
He was certainly over his head when he got to DC. 1976 Governors aren't like 2024 Governors. He even said this in interviews - he was over his head.

He gets a bad rep for being one of the worst Presidents in history but I give him the benefit of the doubt. He brought his staff from Atlanta and DC ate him alive. He won because of Watergate and was trounced in 1980.

His handlers made inflation worse, talked him into giving away the Panama Canal, and allows the crisis in Iran. I don't think he did any of it personally. I think he had terrible advisors that hated the country post-Vietnam.
 
Last edited:

Anon1717806835

Well-known member
Jun 7, 2024
336
866
93
He was certainly over his head when he got to DC. 1976 Governors aren't like 2024 Governors. He even said this in interviews - he was over his head.

He gets a bad rep for being one of the worst Presidents in history but I give him the benefit of the doubt. He brought his staff from Atlanta and DC ate him alive. He won because of Watergate and was trounced in 1980.

His handlers made inflation worse, talked him into giving away the Panama Canal, and allows the crisis in Iran. I don't think he did any of it personally. I think he had terrible advisors that hated the country post-Vietnam.
He was unfortunate in that he had several bad things happen that were not really his fault or out of his control. He was the complete opposite of Bill Clinton in many many ways. Clinton was lucky to preside over probably the most uneventful 8 years in history of the Nation.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MoronDawg

615dawg

Well-known member
Jun 4, 2007
5,657
1,422
113
He was unfortunate in that he had several bad things happen that were not really his fault or out of his control. He was the complete opposite of Bill Clinton in many many ways. Clinton was lucky to preside over probably the most uneventful 8 years in history of the Nation.
Agreed. They were both Southern governors that were over their heads. One had crisis after crisis, one had the mainstreaming of computing.

I've never been a big fan of modern (20th century to present) governors as President. We had four out of five from 1977-2008 and all had mixed reviews. Wilson and FDR did more damage to this country than any two Presidents in history.

If you divide the Presidents into former Governors, former members of Congress and former Military, the Military group has the best record. History will tell us how Businessman does.
 
Last edited:

615dawg

Well-known member
Jun 4, 2007
5,657
1,422
113
War hero? He graduated from the Naval Academy in 1946 and never went to war.
A simple mistake. No malice was meant. Carter went to Annapolis but WW2 had ended and he never saw action in Korea or Vietnam.
 
  • Like
Reactions: HotMop

msudogsrule

New member
Aug 22, 2012
52
8
8
A simple mistake. No malice was meant. Carter went to Annapolis but WW2 had ended and he never saw action in Korea or Vietnam.
I was mostly referring to the Chalk River Meltdown incident that he led the repair operations of while in the Navy. Being lowered into highly radioactive water to repair a partial meltdown takes more guts than most of us have. I shouldn’t have said war hero. My apologies.
 

615dawg

Well-known member
Jun 4, 2007
5,657
1,422
113
I was mostly referring to the Chalk River Meltdown incident that he led the repair operations of while in the Navy. Being lowered into highly radioactive water to repair a partial meltdown takes more guts than most of us have. I shouldn’t have said war hero. My apologies.
Unqualified may have been a tough word, but who is qualified? I stand by the point that he was in over his head, and his staff from Georgia got railroaded. Carter had a very interesting relationship with Congress. They hated each other and it caused things to get worse.

The American people saw failure after failure and responded in 1980 at the ballot box. We don't live in that America anymore. We regularly reward failure.
 

CEO2044

Active member
May 11, 2009
1,726
336
83
Regardless of his politics, he seemed to be a good person at his core that cared about people. I’m too young to have an opinion on how he was as a leader, but I admired how active he stayed into his 90’s serving others. He struck me as a genuine person.
 

mstateglfr

Well-known member
Feb 24, 2008
13,968
3,850
113
He was certainly over his head when he got to DC. 1976 Governors aren't like 2024 Governors. He even said this in interviews - he was over his head.

He gets a bad rep for being one of the worst Presidents in history but I give him the benefit of the doubt. He brought his staff from Atlanta and DC ate him alive. He won because of Watergate and was trounced in 1980.

His handlers made inflation worse, talked him into giving away the Panama Canal, and allows the crisis in Iran. I don't think he did any of it personally. I think he had terrible advisors that hated the country post-Vietnam.
The US shouldn't have had control of the Canal in the first place. It was a complete sham of an agreement that allowed the US to have it in the first place.
I genuinely think that anyone who has read how the Canal came to be will conclude the US' actions were shady as 17 and unethical.
If they don't, I genuinely believe it is just them being inconsistent and dismissive in order to maintain a narrative they need to cling to.

Carter seemed like a genuinely great person who didnt succeed in DC. He has some stuff to be blamed for, but Panama isn't one. We shouldn't have ever controlled it in the first place, much less after how we made it happen.
 

dog99walker

Well-known member
Jul 16, 2021
986
1,162
93
I campaigned around the state and nation for him in 1976. I knew him and members of his staff. He was a good man with good intentions. That doesn’t work well in Middle Eastern politics, especially when you consider the years of CIA aid to the Shah of Iran and his brutal regime. Inflation came with the rapid rise of oil prices. (His fault?). We were reeling from the loss of Vietnam. (His fault?). It was post-Watergate America.

Carter worked to establish oil independence from OPEC. He stood up to Soviet aggression in Afghanistan. He lead a Western boycott of the Moscow Olympics. He began the push for alternative fuel sources. He brought peace between Israel and Egypt. He increased military funding for arms that Ronald Reagan took credit for, later. But, it’s the economy stupid. Guilty or not Carter lost in 1980.

His humanitarian efforts for the rest of his life was worthy of his Nobel Prize for Peace. He built 4,300 houses for the poor. He helped oversee democratic elections around the world. He never stopped teaching Sunday School in his hometown of Plain, GA, until he was 98. Carter’s life was a life well lived.
 

Howiefeltersnstch

Well-known member
Dec 28, 2019
1,259
1,471
98
The US shouldn't have had control of the Canal in the first place. It was a complete sham of an agreement that allowed the US to have it in the first place.
I genuinely think that anyone who has read how the Canal came to be will conclude the US' actions were shady as 17 and unethical.
If they don't, I genuinely believe it is just them being inconsistent and dismissive in order to maintain a narrative they need to cling to.

Carter seemed like a genuinely great person who didnt succeed in DC. He has some stuff to be blamed for, but Panama isn't one. We shouldn't have ever controlled it in the first place, much less after how we made it happen.
The whole point is we made it happen. There would not even be a country named Panama but for us. Who would have dug it out and built it ? The Colombians ? None of those countries could have accomplished such an amazing feat. And yes we wanted it and created it for our own benefit. Why is that a bad thing ?
 

dawgoneyall

Active member
Nov 11, 2007
3,373
135
63
The US shouldn't have had control of the Canal in the first place. It was a complete sham of an agreement that allowed the US to have it in the first place.
I genuinely think that anyone who has read how the Canal came to be will conclude the US' actions were shady as 17 and unethical.
If they don't, I genuinely believe it is just them being inconsistent and dismissive in order to maintain a narrative they need to cling to.

Carter seemed like a genuinely great person who didnt succeed in DC. He has some stuff to be blamed for, but Panama isn't one. We shouldn't have ever controlled it in the first place, much less after how we made it happen.
Petty much on any subject your view seems wrong.
You have a gift.
 

Pookieray

Active member
Oct 14, 2012
584
405
63
The US shouldn't have had control of the Canal in the first place. It was a complete sham of an agreement that allowed the US to have it in the first place.
I genuinely think that anyone who has read how the Canal came to be will conclude the US' actions were shady as 17 and unethical.
If they don't, I genuinely believe it is just them being inconsistent and dismissive in order to maintain a narrative they need to cling to.

Carter seemed like a genuinely great person who didnt succeed in DC. He has some stuff to be blamed for, but Panama isn't one. We shouldn't have ever controlled it in the first place, much less after how we made it happen.
Odd, I thought we paid for the canal to be built, protected it during WW2, Korean War and Vietnam and up to the time it was turned over.
 

Bobby Ricigliano

Well-known member
Jul 27, 2011
2,082
724
113
The US shouldn't have had control of the Canal in the first place. It was a complete sham of an agreement that allowed the US to have it in the first place.
I genuinely think that anyone who has read how the Canal came to be will conclude the US' actions were shady as 17 and unethical.
If they don't, I genuinely believe it is just them being inconsistent and dismissive in order to maintain a narrative they need to cling to.
It wouldn’t exist if not for the US.
 

mstateglfr

Well-known member
Feb 24, 2008
13,968
3,850
113
It wouldn’t exist if not for the US.
So ends justify the means.

Your comment is simply incorrect - you don't know it wouldn't exist.
But even if it didn't exist, that doesn't mean what the US did was justified.
We signed an agreement with someone from 17ing France the night before a meeting and then said 'yep, that agreement holds up' when Panama's delegation came to the US.
 

Anon1717806835

Well-known member
Jun 7, 2024
336
866
93
The US shouldn't have had control of the Canal in the first place. It was a complete sham of an agreement that allowed the US to have it in the first place.
I genuinely think that anyone who has read how the Canal came to be will conclude the US' actions were shady as 17 and unethical.
If they don't, I genuinely believe it is just them being inconsistent and dismissive in order to maintain a narrative they need to cling to.

Carter seemed like a genuinely great person who didnt succeed in DC. He has some stuff to be blamed for, but Panama isn't one. We shouldn't have ever controlled it in the first place, much less after how we made it happen.
Did you do a co-op year in France and take US History while you were there, buy any chance?
 

Bobby Ricigliano

Well-known member
Jul 27, 2011
2,082
724
113
So ends justify the means.

Your comment is simply incorrect - you don't know it wouldn't exist.
But even if it didn't exist, that doesn't mean what the US did was justified.
We signed an agreement with someone from 17ing France the night before a meeting and then said 'yep, that agreement holds up' when Panama's delegation came to the US.
Who would have built it, then?
 
  • Like
Reactions: WilCoDawg

Villagedawg

Well-known member
Nov 16, 2005
1,021
626
113
9,000 guard members served in Vietnam and 156 were killed. Plus they had to take care of civil unrest such as Kent State.
Really? Tens of thousands dodged Vietnam by joining the guard. That includes George W as well as my father. I say this as a national guard veteran myself. The guard today is barely even related to the Vietnam era guard. It was as much a dodge as moving to Canada. Just for those who couldn’t afford the move for whatever reason. Who can blame them? A terrible war for no damn good reason.
 

L4Dawg

Well-known member
Oct 27, 2016
7,446
4,560
113
The US shouldn't have had control of the Canal in the first place. It was a complete sham of an agreement that allowed the US to have it in the first place.
I genuinely think that anyone who has read how the Canal came to be will conclude the US' actions were shady as 17 and unethical.
If they don't, I genuinely believe it is just them being inconsistent and dismissive in order to maintain a narrative they need to cling to.

Carter seemed like a genuinely great person who didnt succeed in DC. He has some stuff to be blamed for, but Panama isn't one. We shouldn't have ever controlled it in the first place, much less after how we made it happen.
We created Panama. It wouldn’t exist without us. We also built the canal. The canal made this country what it is. It is STILL of utmost strategic importance to us. We should have fought to keep it if necessary. The zone should have become a state. Carter was a dang idiot. He was one of the worst of all our presidents and he is responsible for a lot of the current mess the world is in. He has also been a pretty bad ex-president. He has lent legitimacy to some very bad actors over the years. The damage he has done is almost incalculable.
 

DesotoCountyDawg

Well-known member
Nov 16, 2005
23,731
12,491
113
The US shouldn't have had control of the Canal in the first place. It was a complete sham of an agreement that allowed the US to have it in the first place.
I genuinely think that anyone who has read how the Canal came to be will conclude the US' actions were shady as 17 and unethical.
If they don't, I genuinely believe it is just them being inconsistent and dismissive in order to maintain a narrative they need to cling to.
I don’t really have a problem with the decision to turn it over to Panama but there were pretty valid reasons why they had control of it in the first place.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CochiseCowbell

Leeshouldveflanked

Well-known member
Nov 12, 2016
11,690
5,783
113
Carter was the last Democrat my parents voted for…. And they only voted for him once. They voted Reagan when Carter ran for reelection.
 
  • Like
Reactions: eckie1

OG Goat Holder

Well-known member
Sep 30, 2022
9,185
8,568
113
He increased military funding for arms that Ronald Reagan took credit for, later. But, it’s the economy stupid.
Happens in every presidency, unfortunately. Like dude in Rudy said, the only person you have to prove something to in this life is yourself.
 

HotMop

Well-known member
May 8, 2006
5,372
2,433
113
Really? Tens of thousands dodged Vietnam by joining the guard. That includes George W as well as my father. I say this as a national guard veteran myself. The guard today is barely even related to the Vietnam era guard. It was as much a dodge as moving to Canada. Just for those who couldn’t afford the move for whatever reason. Who can blame them? A terrible war for no damn good reason.
K
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Get unlimited access today.

Pick the right plan for you.

Already a member? Login