Jimmy Carter Named Most Trusted U.S. Politician in New Poll.....

MMC said:

I wonder why No one was mentored by Dodge. He was Ike's Budget director.....I use to run around with one of his quotes in my sig. Until I switched it out.

Click to expand...

IKE watch spending very closely, in fact in two of this eight years as president, there were surpluses that actually brought down the debt. IKE would raise taxes if he thought the budget wouldn't be balanced and he would lower them if the government was going to have a surplus. When IKE entered office the national debt stood at 266 billion, when he left office it stood at 288 billion.

Amadeus said:

Regardless of what you think of him as a president, he embodies some of the best qualities of humanity. Of course, you need to take off your rancid partisan hat to see it.

Click to expand...

I don't think partanship has much to do with it where it comes to his humanitarian efforts. As a POTUS he was a dismal failure, but as a humanitarian he's right in his wheelhouse. Even the partisans recognise that.

ric27 said:

Seriously, you need to start cracking some books on real history....

That pos Carter on, the Iranian hostage crisis - he did nothing, he sent a message to the Islamic world that the US was a worthless paper tiger. This fueled radical Islam, which at the time was a distinct minority in the Islamic world. He is the Godfather of Hamas, Al Qaeda, Hezbollah, Islamic Brotherhood, and other modern day terror organization

Don't forget the fuel shortages and gas lines, interest rates, mortgage rates of 18%, double digit unemployment rates, etc, etc


Oh crap, I was forgetting...how he defunded the military and intelligence community, *the Panama Canal (Canal Zone) was lost

Just the thought that Carter was President is truly disgusting

Click to expand...

It looks like all Carter needs is a Charlie Chaplin moustache to complete your caricature of him.

Perotista said:

You missed the biggest glaring difference. In those attacks during Bush, it was admitted, terrorist attack, terrorist attack, terrorist attack. Benghazi, it was a video attack, an incensed mob over a video, not a terrorist attack.

Click to expand...

Why is that glaring difference?

If Obama, or anyone in State or Defense, had been able to make decisions that would have prevented these deaths, how the event was initially characterized would be irrelevant, the fact that nothing could have been done to save these people does not change the fact that characterization after the fact is irrelevant to the core facts surrounding the murder of these good people.

Look, if political decisions in contradiction to standard procedure had prevented actions that would have saved these folks, then America would be outraged, but the reason America is not outraged is because that is simply not the case.

If that understanding changes with new facts, then opinions will change, but you have to see that the GOP outrage is based entirely on being mad about stuff of which there is no evidence had happened.

As Hillary said (and is not always quoted out of context) “With all due respect, the fact is we have four dead Americans. Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night who decided they’d go kill some Americans, what difference at this point does it make?”

Are we really so petty that how the attack was immediately characterized is the most important thing in the world? How would understanding that better save lives? How would learning that this was political save lives?

And beyond that, what if we ultimately find out the description is true that this was neither a pre-planned coordinated attack, nor a spontaneous uprising based on a video, but in fact an opportunistic attack by people intent on an attack at some point, that took advantage of the timing and the events in Egypt.

The GOP is attempting to smear the administration on the basis of a bunch of "what if they were thinking this..." arguments with no basis in fact.

Amadeus said:

It looks like all Carter needs is a Charlie Chaplin moustache to complete your caricature of him.

Click to expand...

Not really, pretty accurate assessment of him as a POTUS. As a humanitarian he shines where he failed as president.

Rocketman said:

My family operated a business back then and almost went under paying 18+% on loans and inflation over 20%. It was awful

Click to expand...

It was awful, and Carter caused it to be more awful by appointing Volcker.

Volcker made it worse so it could get better. How did it work out for you after the policies of Carter's appointee began to show results?

Would you rather a couple of bad years followed by a few good decades, or just a couple of slightly less crappy years followed by a couple of much crapper decades?

Carter made a long term decision when his re-election relied on short term opinions. THAT IS LEADERSHIP!

CaptinSarcastic said:

It was awful, and Carter caused it to be more awful by appointing Volcker.

Volcker made it worse so it could get better. How did it work out for you after the policies of Carter's appointee began to show results?

Would you rather a couple of bad years followed by a few good decades, or just a couple of slightly less crappy years followed by a couple of much crapper decades?

Carter made a long term decision when his re-election relied on short term opinions. THAT IS LEADERSHIP!

Click to expand...

His policies put to many people under to ever give him credit for anything good. With our current sitting President, Carter is now the 2nd worst leader in my lifetime.

jonny5 said:

For the purpose of politics, that's fine. But this particular event should stand on its own. Either something is wrong now or it isn't. And what was wrong in the past doesn't matter.

Click to expand...

There should be two questions asked about Benghazi, what could we have done better to protect these people, and what should we change to prevent this from happening again.

Everything else is political.

Rocketman said:

His policies put to many people under to ever give him credit for anything good. With our current sitting President, Carter is now the 2nd worst leader in my lifetime.

Click to expand...

That really doesn't make any sense as a response to my assertion.

If you disagree with what I have said, debate it, but you seem to be saying that it doesn't matter if his policies led to decades of good growth, that couple of bad years makes it an emotional decision not to give him credit even if he is entitled to credit.

Perotista said:

IKE watch spending very closely, in fact in two of this eight years as president, there were surpluses that actually brought down the debt. IKE would raise taxes if he thought the budget wouldn't be balanced and he would lower them if the government was going to have a surplus. When IKE entered office the national debt stood at 266 billion, when he left office it stood at 288 billion.

Click to expand...

I know that.....I was wondering what happened to Dodge? Why Dodge didn't mentor anyone going forward?

CaptinSarcastic said:

Why is that glaring difference?

If Obama, or anyone in State or Defense, had been able to make decisions that would have prevented these deaths, how the event was initially characterized would be irrelevant, the fact that nothing could have been done to save these people does not change the fact that characterization after the fact is irrelevant to the core facts surrounding the murder of these good people.

Look, if political decisions in contradiction to standard procedure had prevented actions that would have saved these folks, then America would be outraged, but the reason America is not outraged is because that is simply not the case.

If that understanding changes with new facts, then opinions will change, but you have to see that the GOP outrage is based entirely on being mad about stuff of which there is no evidence had happened.

As Hillary said (and is not always quoted out of context) “With all due respect, the fact is we have four dead Americans. Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night who decided they’d go kill some Americans, what difference at this point does it make?”

Are we really so petty that how the attack was immediately characterized is the most important thing in the world? How would understanding that better save lives? How would learning that this was political save lives?

And beyond that, what if we ultimately find out the description is true that this was neither a pre-planned coordinated attack, nor a spontaneous uprising based on a video, but in fact an opportunistic attack by people intent on an attack at some point, that took advantage of the timing and the events in Egypt.

The GOP is attempting to smear the administration on the basis of a bunch of "what if they were thinking this..." arguments with no basis in fact.

Click to expand...

Just give it some time, I see a big difference, you do not. If you are right it will come out. Sooner or later these things do. I am not upset about it or do I think I need to jump right in and defend the president, but I am not a partisan and certainly not any devotee to the either of the two major parties.

Right now what bothers me some, yet unproven is that if threats, coercion etc was used to stop witnesses from telling their stories, then this becomes a big thing to me. If the state department turned down request for security even though a known threat existed, no big deal to me. I have seen state do that many times through the last 46 years and many administrations. It is states mentality. But it will be the attempts to silence people if that is true that I will sit up and start to take notice.

Perotista said:

Just give it some time, I see a big difference, you do not. If you are right it will come out. Sooner or later these things do. I am not upset about it or do I think I need to jump right in and defend the president, but I am not a partisan and certainly not any devotee to the either of the two major parties.

Right now what bothers me some, yet unproven is that if threats, coercion etc was used to stop witnesses from telling their stories, then this becomes a big thing to me. If the state department turned down request for security even though a known threat existed, no big deal to me. I have seen state do that many times through the last 46 years and many administrations. It is states mentality. But it will be the attempts to silence people if that is true that I will sit up and start to take notice.

Click to expand...

I don't disagree as a matter of principal, but from what I have seen, these "whistleblowers" do not earn the label. IMHO, a whistleblower is someone who wants to report a crime and is threatened with negative consequences if they do. Someone who wants to disagree with their bosses assessment and characterization is not a whistleblower. If you disagreed with your boss and went public with that disagreement, you are not likely to have a great career path with that boss. If that boss committed a crime, and threatened you if you made that crime public, you are still not going to have a great career path with that boss, but that boss is not going to have a great career path either.

Do you see the difference?

I see this as a witch hunt for one simple reason. An investigation means that a crime has been committed and the process begins to find out who did it. A witch hunt is a process where an evident is investigated to try and find a crime committed by a specific party.

We know there was a crime in Benghazi, that is the murder of the diplomats, and that is being investigated.

Beyond that, the investigation should be on what could have been done differently for the purpose of making changes in the future, and if a crime is uncovered in that process, fine, investigate it.

Do you see the difference?

I would not normally be too bothered by this stuff, but I remember White Water and the disaster that was for this country, over nothing. White Water was the reason that we allowed the Independent Counsels law to expire in 1999. With enough resources and a mission to find a crime, a crime is going to be found, eventually, even if they have to cause the crime to prosecute it.

Democrats have never seemed too keen on the whole Witch Hunt thing, and even Watergate only ultimately moved toward impeachment because of Republican support.

Maybe that's the key, if only one party is pursuing a thing, it is probably partisan politics.

Amadeus said:

It's also interesting to note that many right-wing politicians and spiritual leaders on the right were/are TRULY anti-Semites, yet they continue to receive accolades by some of the same people who would criticize Carter.

Click to expand...

It is working the other way around, here. You defend Carter because you share his hatred for Israel and because he is on the left. Nobody here in this thread had defended a right wing antisemite, however, much less offer them accolades.

Just because you arean extreme partisan, that does not mean others are. I happen to think Bush2 is a total moron and absolutely loathe most of his policies. Conversely, I happen to have liked many of Carter's opinions on many issues. Since I am not a partisan hack, however, I do criticize him in those areas in which he deserves criticism. He HAS taken enormous amounts of Arab money, he DOES repeat all the stale talking points of Arabs and he ISN'T the angel he portrays himself as being. He is a highly prejudiced man who has gone to great lengths to show solidarity with those who kill their daughters and call it honor, who make Mein Kampf a best seller and who have dedicated themselves to killing the ethnicity they hate. He simply does not care about any of that, however, so how he can portray himself as some sort of saint is beyond me.

CaptinSarcastic said:

Benghazi = 9/11???

Yeah, ok.

And where was Bush during the numerous attacks and murders of our diplomats?

Considering he was on vacation 32% of his Presidency and we had 10 Embassy and Consulate Attacks under his watch with 60 deaths, a little math would indicate that he was likely on vacation for 3 Embassy attacks and 20 deaths.

View attachment 67147272

I was never outraged by the Embassy attacks under Bush, I was saddened and proud of these people who risked their lives, and ultimately gave their lives to represent the United States in very dangerous places, and to politicize their deaths would have been to demean their service. If Chris Stevens had survived and become a potential Democratic candidate, Republicans would be blaming him for the deaths in Benghazi.

Have you no sense of decency, sir? At long last, have you left no sense of decency?

Click to expand...

Who'd a thunk it? Embassy attacks during the GWShiiteForBrains (because in his conscience rest the souls of hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis, mostly Shiites, somewhere in the active brain matter). You must be a partisan hack to even print that and this could repeat it. Has your sarcasm no limit. GW was a sitting and or sleeping or vacationing Presidunce and he rests upon his laurels, or lack thereof.

I think he is a very honest man, just not a good leader by any stretch of the imagination. I do respect his humanitarian work.

Gardener said:

It is working the other way around, here. You defend Carter because you share his hatred for Israel and because he is on the left. Nobody here in this thread had defended a right wing antisemite, however, much less offer them accolades.

Click to expand...

I said many on the right jump to Nixon's defence at the drop of a hat. This is a factual statement.

Just because you arean extreme partisan, that does not mean others are.

Click to expand...

Well, an extreme defender of Israeli policy is easy to spot. Not sure why that extremism goes uncontested.

Gardener said:

It is working the other way around, here. You defend Carter because you share his hatred for Israel and because he is on the left. Nobody here in this thread had defended a right wing antisemite, however, much less offer them accolades.

Just because you arean extreme partisan, that does not mean others are. I happen to think Bush2 is a total moron and absolutely loathe most of his policies. Conversely, I happen to have liked many of Carter's opinions on many issues. Since I am not a partisan hack, however, I do criticize him in those areas in which he deserves criticism. He HAS taken enormous amounts of Arab money, he DOES repeat all the stale talking points of Arabs and he ISN'T the angel he portrays himself as being. He is a highly prejudiced man who has gone to great lengths to show solidarity with those who kill their daughters and call it honor, who make Mein Kampf a best seller and who have dedicated themselves to killing the ethnicity they hate. He simply does not care about any of that, however, so how he can portray himself as some sort of saint is beyond me.

Click to expand...

I think it takes courage to publically admit in America that the Israel/Palestinian issue is not black and white. A person in search of public approval would just toe the PC line that Israel is 100% right and Palestine is 100% wrong.

I think, perhaps more importantly, publically acknowledging that both sides have valid points allows for someone to be a broker. You can't broker a peace when you publically claim one side is always wrong.

And let's be honest, in America, anything less than virtually pledging allegiance to Israel is considered hating Israel.

Now I'll be called an anti-Semite and all those Saturdays in Temple will be for naught.

Amadeus said:

Regardless of what you think of him as a president, he embodies some of the best qualities of humanity. Of course, you need to take off your rancid partisan hat to see it.

Click to expand...

You have be wearing a 10-gallon partisan hat to stick up for Jimmy Carter, to begin with.

apdst said:

You have be wearing a 10-gallon partisan hat to stick up for Jimmy Carter, to begin with.

Click to expand...

Not if you seperate "effectiveness as President" from "quality of character." Bill Clinton was an effective President, but a POS human being.

apdst said:

You have be wearing a 10-gallon partisan hat to stick up for Jimmy Carter, to begin with.

Click to expand...

Oh? Do you think I'm a Democrat?

I didn't even imagine that there was a trusted politician anywhere.

rocket88 said:

Not if you seperate "effectiveness as President" from "quality of character." Bill Clinton was an effective President, but a POS human being.

Click to expand...

Might wanna start by reading the title of the article:

Most Trusted U.S. Politician

fmw said:

I didn't even imagine that there was a trusted politician anywhere.

Click to expand...

anyone who would trust a politician is a complete retard

apdst said:

Might wanna start by reading the title of the article:

Most Trusted U.S. Politician

Click to expand...

The title of the actual poll was "The 100 Most Trusted People in America." Jimmy Carter's just the most trusted out of those who are politicians. I'd still trust him over a lot of other politicians. He was an ineffective President, but a good person.

rocket88 said:

The title of the actual poll was "The 100 Most Trusted People in America." Jimmy Carter's just the most trusted out of those who are politicians. I'd still trust him over a lot of other politicians. He was an ineffective President, but a good person.

Click to expand...

I'm sure he's a great guy, but he was a crappy president.