Thread 17954830

He won because Carter was a shitty president.
>inb4 zoomer/commie seethe
You know it's true. Reagan won in a landslide two times for a reason.

Jimmy Carter's approval rating in the Gallup poll was 56% in January, 1980
Reagan won because he got lucky and the economy was in the shitter for most of the election year
That's it, if you dont understand how elections are decided in the US then you think speeches/gaffs/media hysteria etc decide Presidential elections
If you, on the other land, understand what causes Presidents to win/lose elections you understand that Jimmy Carter just drew a bad hand
tl;dr Presidents dont control the economy and voters dont vote on policy

>>17954837
wasn't the media just covering for carter

>>17954844
>wasn't the media just covering for carter
President Carter's admin was eviscerated by the press, by and large during and after his Presidency
The Jimmy Carter admin rehabilitation project is a phenomenon of the George W Bush era to the present day

>muh poll!
>not how elections work!
>i-it was just bad luck!
Carter was a shit president and Reagan ate his lunch. This wasnt a fluke either because Reagan won in an absolute landslide in the 84 election (probably the last one in American history) AND his VP won the Presidency after him. Reagans victory was so rock solid that it finally killed off the old FDR era Dems and forced them to basically become Republicans Lite in order to remain politically relevant.

>>17954864
You can seethe at me all you want, voters dont vote on policy and elections are determined by the state of the economy, not some ill defined metric of 'presidential performance' made by the voters which, again, they dont do
They have jobs and kids and dont really care about politics and just want the economy to be good
The reason Carter lost in 1980 was because of a recession
I'm trying to help, if you want to continue being one of the regular dumbshits that believe nonsense about how our elections are decided then sure, go for it
Take the note little brother, its not the end of the world

>>17954864
>because Reagan won in an absolute landslide in the 84 election (probably the last one in American history)
t. fell asleep in a coma November 1, 2024 and just woke up

>>17954882
Anon, you're coping. Carter got his ass kicked in the election, then Reagan went onto win the 84 election by an even wider margin and then his VP won in 88 and this era of Republican domination was so big that it forced the Democrats to revamp their entire platform.

Carter didnt lose out to just unlocking timing or some minor economic thing.

The last time the party controlling the White House held onto it when there was an economic downturn was in 1820, when James Monroe was reelected unopposed because the Federalist Party had collapsed.

>>17954888
Reagan won literally every state except Minnesota in 84. Trump didnt get nearly that close.

>>17954860
Are you sure it wasn't just CBS? They got taken over in 1970 by Jews and started running sensationalist crap for viewers and they ran over a year of coverage of the iran hostage crisis

Can Carterfags name 5 actual big accomplishments of his administration?

HARD MODE: It actually has to be a real accomplishment and not just saying "he was a le heckin wholesome chungus good guy!"

>>17954891
>or some minor economic thing.
>U-3 unemployment goes from 5.3% to 7.1% in 11 months
XD
Here's your L big guy

>>17954893
Once you disregard voter fraud in states like California then his margin of victory was likely easily at 1980 levels. Also Democrats still controlled the House, that didn't flip under Reagan or any time until 1994.

>>17954915
legalized home beer brewing i guess

>>17954915
Can Reaganfags name 5 actual big accomplishments of his administration?

>>17954942
idk but defeating gommunism and bringing freedom to my country and all of our neighboring ones surely must account for something

>>17954949
Saying Reagan defeated communism isn't true, and he didn't bring freedom to any country.

>>17954891
if you know what kind of a sorry condition the country was in at the start of the 80s you would know why Reagan win 44 state landslide

>>17954942
>cant name any Carter accomplishments
Cartertards BTFO once again.

>>17954830 (OP)
Carter lost because of a mix of the economy, the Israel lobby hating his fucking guts, and Iran's revolution being a crazy black swan event nobody saw coming and could not have managed any better or worse.
>>17954915
>Can Carterfags name 5 actual big accomplishments of his administration?
Longest lasting post-WWII peace treaty (Camp David), started the CIA program to fight the USSR in Afghanistan (that one Reaganfags love to take credit for even though they were the ones that fucked it up), established relations with China (for better or for worse it was a massive deal), created the Departments of Energy and Education, and pardoned draft dodgers.
>>17954907
>They got taken over in 1970 by Jews and started running sensationalist crap for viewers
This also fucked him over. He was the last president to stand up to Israel in any meaningful capacity and genuinely pursue peace in the Middle East, and got the closest of any Democratic president to losing the Jewish vote as in 1980 as a result (which Reagan dircetly gained from). His book on the subject is also widely credited with opening up the doors to criticizing or discussing Israel more seriously, which I think is incredibly respectable and very ballsy given the time he published it (2006).

>>17954973
>he didn't bring freedom to any country.
Wrong. He liberated Grenada from a Communist military junta

>>17955074
I'll give you the Camp David Accords, but crediting Carter for opening relations with China is stupid and creating the department of education was a mistake. Even recent events show that the Camp David accords didnt mean much, but those savages killing each other is hardly his fault

>>17955077
What happened in Grenada anyway? Literally a nothingburger

>>17955081
>the Camp David accords didnt mean much
If Egypt broke Camp David tomorrow for whatever reason the state of Israel would no longer exist and the Middle East would be even more of a fucked up disaster than it already is.
>crediting Carter for opening relations with China is stupid
He was the one who officially did it and also crafted the Taiwan relations act, which is the de jure relationship the U.S has had with Taiwan ever since and has played a great role in maintaining the stability of East Asia since the 1970s.
>creating the department of education was a mistake
In hindsight we can say that for sure, but regardless it was a major and highly influential legacy of his admin.

>>17955088
>What happened in Grenada anyway?
Distraction for the U.S economy getting fucked by the Volcker shock, as well as the stinging failure and outrage surrounding U.S intervention in Lebanon and Israel's war there.

>>17955088
>Commie New Jewel party comes to power
>military leaders think its not hardcore enough
>overthrow their president, execute him, and rule as military dictators
>group of American students are in the country
>fear is that this will turn into an Iran Hostage crises + a Cuban missile crises combined
>Reagan sends in the marines
>rousing military success, all Americans secured
>turns out that the Marines fought with Cuban troops in the country and the Soviets were indeed moving military equipment to the island, but both deny this after the fact
Thats it basically. Also, Grenada was still part of the British Commonwealth at the time and Maggie Thatcher got pissed about it because technically, America invaded British soil.

>>17955074
>the Israel lobby hating his fucking guts
not really. Carter was never super beloved by American Jews in fact he got the smallest vote percentages of a Democrat presidential candidate with Jews since reliable records were kept in both elections.

>>17955081
>but crediting Carter for opening relations with China is stupid
that was an inevitability since 1972

>>17954893
the country was doing a lot better when he left office than when he got into it

>>17955096
why do Amerifats get so upset at a nation deciding to embrace socialism and expelling US and British imperialists?

>>17955170
>Carter was never super beloved by American Jews in fact he got the smallest vote percentages of a Democrat presidential candidate with Jews
That's what I was saying

The bit where his team was in contact with the Iranians and made a deal to have them not release the hostages until after the election was pretty wild

>>17955170
I grant you 1980 as there could have been a lot of Jews pissed about his Middle East policy and that was back at a time when Israel was a bigger deal to American Jews than it is nowadays, but idk about 76 the figures I had showed he got about 70% of the Jewish vote which was def. on the low side.

>>17955238
in 76? Carter was at that time playing up his fundie Christian moralizing and a lot of Jews didn't like that.

>>17955238
Jews didn't care for Carter because he was by all metrics the most anti-establishment candidate the U.S has had in a very long time and arguably the last actual president to be from outside the political/cultural/economic establishment of the U.S.
Jews tend to be very establishment liberal politically in the U.S overall.

>>17954949
>idk but defeating gommunism and bringing freedom to my country
You are Polish.

>>17955074
>started the CIA program to fight the USSR in Afghanistan
anon, you know what happened to that, right?
handing Afghanistan to jihadis was not a good thing and cost America the World Trade Center

>>17954830 (OP)
It was the incident with the rabbit, it made Carter look weak.

>>17955737
>anon, you know what happened to that, right?
It was a completely different program in terms of scale and strategy during the Carter admin. Reagan's presidency was where shit spirallied out of control because we gave the Saudis and Pakis free reign over the whole thing.

>>17954837
>tl;dr Presidents dont control the economy
They do to an extent, it just takes much longer than their terms of office for the effects to be felt.

>>17954830 (OP)
Why are Reaganfags always the worst people online

>>17954891
>>17954892

>>17956828
They're all Boomers or literal CIA, of course they're awful

>>17956828
>>17958569
>DA SEE EYE AYY
lelddit take

>>17954830 (OP)
Carter was just shitty at campaigning. Look at how close the 1976 election was, a few thousand vote flips in a couple of states and the EC goes to Ford. Given how the Republican party had to deal with the baggage of both Watergate and stagflation, one can conclude that Carter was ass at elections since he should have absolutely assraped any Republican candidate by exploiting those 2 massive weaknesses.

you may as well ask why Herbert Hoover lose his reelection bid

>>17956828
Confirmation bias.

>>17959042
>shitty at campaigning
>watergate
>staglfation
>ass at elections
>exploting weaknesses
You watch too much tv and play video games and thinks thats how politics works
>"But these people on TV who talk about politics for a living said...."
This has been studied extensively going back before WWII
Social scientists know what determines the result of Presidential elections and it is two things, war and the economy
If were not in a big war it is literally one fucking thing, the economy, specifically during the middle of the election year
Economy good = incumbent party wins
Economy middling = this scenario is dangerous for the incumbent but its not a death sentence
Economy bad = incumbent party is gone
>>17954892
This anon came in here and nuked this thread from orbit
All of this shit you said that I quoted is fucking Meet the Press brain bullshit
Reporters arent political scientists, they overstate this nonsense because this bullshit drama is all they have to go on
It was a running joke in 1990 on SNL that no one wanted to run against GHWB because of, among other things, the success of the US military in the PG, then the economy went into the toilet and he lost to Bill Clinton and a third party candidate ran, fucking dropped out of the race and still got like 19 million votes on election day
Its insane how not complicated this is after reviewing the academic literature on the subject
Economy was in freefall in 1932, incumbent Republican gets wiped out
Economy was in freefall in 08, incumbent Republican gets wiped out
Economy was surging in 1984, incumbent Republican wins handily
Economy was doing well and the American people perceived President to be handling the war well in 1944, incumbent Democrat wins
And so on and so forth

>>17959103
The early 90s recession was a pretty mild one, more like a market re-correction than anything comparable to the situation in 1980. In truth Bush's defeat had more to do with the GOP simply being exhausted at the executive branch after 12 years.

>>17959103
one exception was 1876 when economy was still in the shitter from the panic a few years earlier, but that was because Hayes was elected by cheating

>>17954931
I grant you, although the Democrat Party of the 80s was way way more centrist and not as radicalized as it is now. A lot of legislation Reagan passed especially his tax cut bills were bipartisan whereas it would be difficult to imagine that happening today.

>>17959112
>The early 90s recession was a pretty mild one
Unemployment was rising, as opposed to falling during the election year, voters dont go, "well things arent that bad!" and shrug, the economic conditions are either improving or they arent
>more like a market re-correction than anything comparable to the situation in 1980
This is complete nonsense, you have no idea what you are talking about, the economy is either recessionary or not, in 92 the recession was technically over by election day but unemployment peaked at 7.8% in June
>In truth Bush's defeat had more to do with the GOP simply being exhausted at the executive branch after 12 years.
This is nonsense that has been disproven by almost 100 years of research on this subject, voters make decisions based upon economic/war conditions in the election year, "are you better off now than you were four years ago"
Youre just parroting nonsense you see people on MSNBC/FOX/CNN say, who themselves have no idea what they are talking about
The Democrat President won every election from 1932 to 1948, why? The fundamental factors were on their side in each election year
This idea that the american people will vote out the incumbent party in a year in which we are at peace and the economy is strong because, "they have been in power too long" is too stupid for words
You can reply to me all you want, in the social sciences the debate on this subject is over, we know what determines the result of presidential elections and it has nothing to with debates, campaign controversies, culture war nonsense etc

>>17959138
nta but it was true that Wilson win in 1912 when the economy was not in a recession? that was one instance where that was not the case.

>>17959103
>Economy bad = incumbent party is gone
But as I said, the economy WAS bad due to stagflation, yet Carter barely eked out a win through a minuscule edge in the electoral college. Very small factors could have tipped a couple thousand votes and changed the outcome.

>>17959154
>nta but it was true that Wilson win in 1912 when the economy was not in a recession? that was one instance where that was not the case.
that was an exception because the GOP self-destructed

yeah i agree 1912 was a rare instance when war/recession did not contribute to the outcome. that was more a case of GOP burnout after 17 years in power.

>>17959166
And 1852 where Pierce won simply because he was so goddamn sexy (even though women couldn't vote back then). There was also not a recession going on at that time.

>>17959103
>It was a running joke in 1990 on SNL that no one wanted to run against GHWB because of, among other things, the success of the US military in the PG, then the economy went into the toilet and he lost to Bill Clinton and a third party candidate ran, fucking dropped out of the race and still got like 19 million votes on election day
Recession began June '90, Gulf War was February '91.

now the late 50s-early 60s recession was a rather mild one but to contemporary voters it was enough to give Kennedy the W in 1960

>>17959173
Yeah I had my SNL timeline off, the "I have Mob ties" sketch was from November 1991
>>17959166
>1912 was a rare instance when war/recession did not contribute to the outcome
Taft and Roosevelt, together got more votes than Wilson but The Bull Moose thing split the opposition

The early 80s economy was absolute busted, things were really dismal in especially the Rust Belt states. The recession officially ended in late summer '82 but it took until '84 for things to really turn around. In the meantime Republicans lost some seats in the '82 midterm elections and unemployment peaked at 9% in the winter of '83.

>>17959236
Yes. Recession ended August 82 and there wasn't another one until June 90.

>>17959154
Pretty sure there wasn't a recession in 1884 either, that one was also extremely close.

>>17958955
>lelddit take
Leddit loves the CIA/military industrial complex and have for a while, get with the times Grandpa

>>17959138
>the economic conditions are either improving or they arent
You also had the "no new taxes" fuckup Bush did where he made that a cornerstone of his policy and raised them anyway.

so what this thread proves is that while the White House can change parties when there's not a war or recession as was the case in 1852, 1884, 1912, and 2000 it nearly always will change parties if one of those factors exists.

>>17959197
The organized minority defeats the disorganized majority. Always has been this way.

>>17955074
>Iran's revolution being a crazy black swan event nobody saw coming

>>17958955
how's the weather at Eglin AFB?

carter was part of it, its just the decade of the 70s in general was a hell decade for americans.

It starts out with the failure of the hippie movement, the loss of the vietnam war, things get darker, instead of psychedelics people are doing heroin and speed and coke now. the economy is shit with inflation and there are gas shortages. nixon gets shafted, then we get ford, then carter, and carter is a pessimistic Christian type, there is the iran hostage crisis, people are bombarded with disco music however you feel about that i imagine it would get annoying after a while.

the whole decade ends with johnny rotten yelling "nooooooo future" and a nuclear melt down at 3 mile island.

of course this pessimism is wiped away by regan who is an actor who pretends to be more positive, and the 80s is more positive, but the 80s is also more narcissistic and greedy, "greed is good"

but we discovered in order to be the leader of america you must lie and tell everyone things are great

>>17960374
>Iran's revolution being a crazy black swan event nobody saw coming
Nobody saw a theocratic Shia regime rising out of the growing discontent with the Shah, pretty much every big agency in both blocs thought it would be a secular republican regime akin to the Turks or a socialist/communist one like Nasser and Syria (without the Arab element of course).

>>17960395
>babby learns basic psychology
the power of suggestion does actually work if you tell people things are gonna be a-ok chances are they probably will

>>17960408
>the power of suggestion does actually work if you tell people things are gonna be a-ok
This has never worked ever in history, especially in democracies.
Hell, the most recent election we had here where Biden and the DNC outright ignored discontent with the economy was a glaring example.

>>17960408
And indeed it did. Carter and Obama both did exactly that, they said you should endure forever poverty and mediocrity.

Nobody liked Carter after the first few months of his administration when the bloom of being not Nixon wore off.

>>17954915
-Pardoned all the Draft Dodgers (Billy Clinton could come back yeah!)
-Pardoned most of the Watergate guys (dudes could guest star on Miami Vice now)
-Gave away the Panama Canal
-Crashed a military chopper in the Iranian desert
-Deregulated the Airlines

>>17961387
>Pardoned most of the Watergate guys
That was Ford.
>Gave away the Panama Canal
The only thing he did was shift the cost of maintainence and security to the Panamanians instead of the U.S, furthermore H.W Bush and Trump pretty muchde facto took those away.
>Crashed a military chopper in the Iranian desert
Literal freak accident and jumbled reaction to a fast moving black swan event. Do you blame Ford for the Mayaguez incident too?
>Deregulated the Airlines
Agreed that shit sucks.

>>17954888
bruh if u think the trump win was a landslide u are retarded

the first Federal level restrictions on cheese pizza were created when Carter was president

ok

>>17954830 (OP)
Did you know all of those CIA people Carter fired signed onto the Reagan campaign

>>17963370
The CIA hated Carter because he was a genuine pro-peace president. The October surprise incident laid that bare.

Carterfags BTFO
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kPf8ugj9RBw

what happens is that Carter used his engineering skills and knowledge of the Democrat primary system, which he'd helped engineer, and out-maneuvered his rivals to win the 76 primaries but ultimately he lacked the experience or system knowledge to be an effective president

>>17964104
>really good at playing the political maneuvering game but incompetent as a statesmen
So was Carter basically proto-Obama?

>>17954837
>Reagan won because he got lucky and the economy was in the shitter for most of the election year
the economy was in the shitter due to carter's shitty economics policies

>>17954882
carter caused the recession, retardo

>>17964133
The OPEC embargo basically caused a decade-long recession and it was a pretty bleak era in especially the Rust Belt states.

>>17964138
Carters fault for not nuking tel aviv and london

>>17964141
jokes aside in fact it was caused by Texas having artificial caps on oil production that choked the domestic supply

>>17964136
>carter caused the recession
It was the second oil crisis that caused the recession, which was a result of the Iranian Revolution and the Iran-Iraq War. Oil prices didn't go down until about 1983, which coincided with the positive effects of the Volcker shock (done under the Carter administration btw) finally kicking in and leading to the global economy recovering and the 1980s prosperity starting.

a lot of things all came together in 1980 including the bad economy, bad cars, soaring inflation, huge nationwide crime rates, decaying inner cities, the Soviets on the offense around the globe, the US military being broken and dysfunctional since the Vietnam War to explain why Carter lost and lost hard.

Reagan did nothing wrong.

wait, people believe otherwise? what other possible reasons do people think explain his victory?
t. zoomer commie

>>17964863
>the US military being broken and dysfunctional since the Vietnam War
well really just the Army, the Navy and Air Force were fine since they had much higher standards for recruits. but yeah the Army was a complete shitfest in the 70s and the only recruits they got were criminals who enlisted after getting offered jail or the Army.

>>17964850
>central banking help the economy
lol no. carter's shit policies fucked the economy (along with nixon taking us off the gold standard) and reagan fixed it by lowering taxes
>>17965713
retards think carter's economy wasn't complete ass and that he wasn't out of touch with normal Americans

>>17965944
>reagan fixed it
Reagan did not "fix it" (if anything he fucked the economy up more long term than even Carter by pushing free trade at all costs and encouraging mass illegal immigration), he was simply in office long enough for Volcker's shock to work.
BTW Volcker was around for nearly all of Reagan's presidency too, far longer than under Carter, so if your beef is with him if anything you'd hate Reagan even more.
>retards think carter's economy wasn't complete ass
We're not saying the economy wasn't bad under Carter, we're just saying it'sdisingenuous at best and an outright lie at worst to say he was directly responsible given he inherited the shitpile that Nixon and Ford left behind and then got fucked super hard by another oil crisis on the way out; while the policies he promoted that worked did not kick in until Reagan became president, so he took credit for those gains.

>>17954864
Just out of curiosity why did a sizeable portion of the country hate him though?

>>17954893
What's up with Minnesota?

>>17966024
>why did a sizeable portion of the country hate him though?
Because under Reagan the entire working class of the U.S was sacrificed at the altar of free trade and austerity. In return the U.S became a proserous middle-class service economy for about 30 years until the 2008 crash, and it finally all came tumbling down in 2020.

>>17966027
>What's up with Minnesota?
Home state advantage from an extremely insular state, Mondale was from MN and squeaked out one of the smallest victories in the history of any major free and fair election there. Even an absolute shit-tier candidate like him will win the state every time because he's from there.
It's also one of the most consistently left-wing parts of the country due to all the Nordic influence. It's to the point that whenever any MN Republican says they have a shot at winning a presidential or gubernatorial elction there, my retort is simply "Mondale", and they always grumble.

>>17966005
>he was simply in office long enough for Volcker's shock to work.
lol no, central banking has never benefited a single human, only (((bankers))). the fed needs to be ended
>We're not saying the economy wasn't bad under Carter, we're just saying it'sdisingenuous at best and an outright lie at worst to say he was directly responsible given he inherited the shitpile that Nixon and Ford left behind and then got fucked super hard by another oil crisis on the way out;
carter had shit economic policies and combined with nixon leaving the gold standard carter's policies caused the recession

>>17966027
his vp was from minnesota and minnesota is a weird commie state like vermont
>>17966024
>>17966029
hate who, reagan? because commies are trannies who are upset they can't get gibs anymore but they won't point out the obvious issue which was wilson creating the fed and nixon taking us off the gold standard. literally every one of those graphs about inflation or productivity they blame reagan for have their inflection points when nixon ends the gold standard.

>>17966092
>commies are trannies
If you've been following the past few years, you'd know this isn't the case. Commies have gotten very chuddy lately given tankieism has made a serious comeback, people like Jackson Hinkle are the new commie lolcows.
>can't get gibs anymore
It has more to do with the emergence of the Rust Belt destroying what was once the industrial heartland of America and the planet making America a paper tiger with a massive underclass. Reagan was the one that put the final nails in the coffin for them by offshoring, free trading, and selling off everything to foreign governments.
>the obvious issue which was wilson creating the fed and nixon taking us off the gold standard
Then why do you like Reagan, who is worshipped by central bankers and globalists as a god-emperor.

>>17966089
>Carter's policies caused the recession
Please elaborate to me in detail how Carter was most responsible for the 70s economic crisis as opposed to Nixon or Ford, or the oil crises and wars that broke out near the end of his term he had zero control over.

>>17966108
didn't lower taxes, didn't increase oil production, didn't end medicaid
>>17966106
>If you've been following the past few years, you'd know this isn't the case.
it is the case, commies are anti gun pro tranny and love the dems
>Reagan was the one that put the final nails in the coffin for them by offshoring, free trading, and selling off everything to foreign governments.
that was nixon ending the gold standard, and clinton with nafta, retard
>Then why do you like Reagan
I don't. I just think it's dumb he gets blamed for shit that's wilson, nixon and clinton's faults

>>17954915
Killed the New Deal Movement
Threw Organized Labor to the wolves
Realigned the Dems with Wall Street
Created Neoliberalism
Tricked the Soviets into Afghanistan

>>17966117
>didn't lower taxes
Taxes needed to be high at the time because the U.S debt spiralled out of control under LBJ/Nixon/Ford as you mentioned. All Reagan did was cut taxes while splurging on spending, which escalated and entrenched the modern monetary meme theory first put in place by Nixon.
Also, Carter collected revenue by putting the tax burden on oldfags leeching off of social security, which is based and how it should be done.
>commies are anti gun pro tranny and love the dems
I don't think you actually know what a commie is. Most commies in my gen are of the Jackson Hinkle turd worldist tankie variety, not the tranny variety (most trannies are actually hardcore neolibs/neocons, given they are the most ardent militants of the shitty status quo). Trannies are leftist compared to us and love the Dems, but not for the reasons you think.
>that was nixon ending the gold standard
Which as I mentioned earlier the monetarist Reagan made far, far worse than the Keynesian Carter.
>clinton with nafta
Reagan was the first major figure to ever bring up and popularize the concept, and he spent his entire admin setting up the groundwork for it. He campaigned on it in 1980 and the politics surroudning what would become NAFTA were extremely hot button topics in Canada and Mexico in the 1980s, before it then became obvious the U.S would also get fucked over by it by the time the early 90s rolled around.

>>17966127
>Killed the New Deal Movement
That was Nixon and Ford
>Threw Organized Labor to the wolves
Oh yeah because Reagan and the Republicans were such proletarians lol
>Realigned the Dems with Wall Street
Both parties have always been in line with Wall Street, just different factions of Wall Street which compete with the other, less powerful interest groups in each party's coalition
>Created Neoliberalism
Also Reagan, Carter was a Keynesian economically
Personally, I think the weakest element of Carter's presidency was immigration by a mile. Be it the new laws/agencies regarding refugees popularizing the idea of amnesty, or taking in Marielitos; it's by a mile his worst issue.
Reagan was still worse on that though overall because unlike Carter he actually acted on the amnesty lol.

>>17966150
>Taxes needed to be high
federal income tax cuts have never once, in the history of the US, lead to a long term drop in federal revenue. Reagan doubled the federal revenue by cutting taxes. debt issues are entirely spending based and raising taxes doesn't fix debt
>I don't think you actually know what a commie is.
commies are trannies who want to ban guns and cut off kids dicks and have open borders and their views align 1 to 1 with pelosi, harris, newsom, biden and jp morgan chase bank
>Which as I mentioned earlier the monetarist Reagan made far, far worse than the Keynesian Carter.
carter should have put us back on the gold standard and ended the fed. he didn't. going off the gold standard, making the fed, and nafta were the 3 biggest anti American things anyone has ever done
>Reagan was the first major figure to ever bring up and popularize the concept,
and clinton signed it, retardo

>>17966108
you're either samefagging or arguing with a troll who claims carter caused a recession that began before carter was president

>>17966225
>Reagan doubled the federal revenue by cutting taxes
He also nearly tripled the deficit retard
>debt issues are entirely spending based and raising taxes doesn't fix debt
Yeah and if you were an actual libertarian or fiscal conservative you'd know that Reagan spent significantly more than any president before him, that's why those types don't actually like Reagan
>their views align 1 to 1 with pelosi, harris, newsom, biden and jp morgan chase bank
Neolibs/establishment types aren't commies. They're a flavor of Marxist, given they're all postmodernists descended from Trotskyism (Reagan included btw, look into the history of neoconservatism if you want a redpill on that). Commies diverged from those types after 1956, and especially after 1968. Commies like those in China or North Korea in most cases are more socially conservative than either of us, with some exceptions like Cuba or Nepal.
>going off the gold standard, making the fed, and nafta were the 3 biggest anti American things anyone has ever done
Yet unlike Reagan Carter did not have a hand in any of these, while Reagan had a hand in two of these three given he was both a self-described monetarist and a free trader.

>>17966242
>communist carter defender
>>17966248
>He also nearly tripled the deficit
that's a spending issue, not a revenue issue, you fucking tranny. you cannot tax into balancing the budget. increased taxes do not increase revenue. no federal income tax has ever in the history of the US resulted in a long term drop in federal revenue. the issue always is and always was dems over spending on welfare
>Yeah and if you were an actual libertarian
when did I claim to be, retard?
>Neolibs/establishment types aren't commies.
they are, they believe the same shit. like banning guns and castrating children
>Yet unlike Reagan Carter did not have a hand in any of these,
carter still caused a recession

>>17966265
>increased taxes do not increase revenue
Most intelligent monetarist
>dems over spending on welfare
No, it's both parties over spending on subsidies and the defense budget. The deficit tripled under Reagan because he shoved all that money he saved from cutting that worthless welfare spending into the defense budget while also cutting taxes.
>they believe the same shit
If they did neolibs/neocons wouldn't be so obsessed with China and Russia. Actual commies love those countries, and whether or not somebody has sympathies to those regimes is a great barometer for whether they're a neolib/neocon or a commie. Like I said, most commies these days are socially conservative Jackson Hinkle turd worldist tankie types like picrel, not the antifa meme fags from 10 years ago.
>when did I claim to be, retard?
Because you're the one shilling libertarian talking points?
>carter still caused a recession
Carter did not cause nor exacerbate the 70s economic crisis, as even you said Nixon and the Ayatollahs are the most to blame for that. The crisis continued into Reagan's first term and didn't end until 1983.

>>17966290
>Most intelligent
please show me a single time where a federal income tax cut lead to a long term drop in federal revenue, tranny.
>No,
yes, we need to eliminate welfare and all other dem programs to fix the budget
> Actual commies love those countries
tampon tim and beijing biden both love china, because they are commies, retardo
>Because you're the one shilling libertarian talking points?
being against taxation and central banking is libertarian?
>Carter did not cause nor exacerbate the 70s economic crisis,
carter caused and exacerbated the recession with his poor fiscal policies

>>17966340
>please show me a single time where a federal income tax cut lead to a long term drop in federal revenue
The cuts from 2017 are a great recent example.
>we need to eliminate welfare and all other dem programs to fix the budget
The easiest way to fix the budget (apart from kicking out free-riding immigrant sludge) would be to slash defense and healthcare spending. As much as you Boomercon types whine about "muh medicaid" the U.S having literally any other healthcare system would siginificantly cut down on costs, and time constraints faced by places like Europe would not be an issue with free riders out of the picture.
>tampon tim and beijing biden both love china
Trump's second term so far has done more than any president since Bush to empower China and Russia (even more than Biden) with his schizophrenic trade policy and completely incoherent, abrasive foreign policy that lacks any sense of logic and/or seriousness; which actually shocks me given Trump's first term was a substantial improvement overall from the other post-Cold War presidents (Biden especially).
>being against taxation and central banking is libertarian
Against each thing individually? No. Against both at the same time? Yes.
>carter caused and exacerbated the recession with his poor fiscal policies
By all objective metrics he did not.
You're either a troll, a boomer, or some weird fed. Either way, you're not worth my time, and I say this as somebody who has nothing else to do or anywhere else to go.

>>17966359
>The cuts from 2017 are a great recent example.
federal revenue went up in 2017, 2018, 2019, 2021, 2022 and 2024
https://www.statista.com/statistics/200405/receipts-of-the-us-government-since-fiscal-year-2000/
so no, you are gay and retarded and arguing from a place of ignorance
>The easiest way to fix the budget (apart from kicking out free-riding immigrant sludge) would be to slash defense and healthcare spending. As much as you Boomercon types whine about "muh medicaid" the U.S having literally any other healthcare system would siginificantly cut down on costs, and time constraints faced by places like Europe would not be an issue with free riders out of the picture.
yurp style heathcare would cost more than the entire current budget, though I agree, we should pull out of nato and let yurop defend itself
>Trump's second term so far has done more than any president since Bush to empower China and Russia (even more than Biden) with his schizophrenic trade policy and completely incoherent, abrasive foreign policy that lacks any sense of logic and/or seriousness;
trump is raping and gaping china and yurop, cry about it
>Against each thing individually? No. Against both at the same time? Yes.
retard argument
>By all objective metrics he did not.
by all metrics he did, he was president during the recession, retard

>>17966038
>It's also one of the most consistently left-wing parts of the country due to all the Nordic influence
that's just the Twin Cities the rural regions of MN are super red

>>17966577
The worst part is I'm not.
>>17966448
>federal revenue went up in 2017, 2018, 2019, 2021, 2022 and 2024
Not true
https://www.cbpp.org/blog/the-2017-tax-law-did-not-boost-the-economy
>yurp style heathcare would cost more than the entire current budget
The U.S spends more on healthcare PER CAPITA than any other country on Earth, it's not an exaggeration to say that literally any other healthcare system would be better and more fiscally responsible.
>we should pull out of nato
You realize this is a "commie" position, right? We don't have to leave NATO in order to get Europe to pay up.
>trump is raping and gaping china and yurop
He is not. All he's done is make the U.S a country that is impossible to do business with, which is an economic death sentence for a country that is entirely business and service oriented. China and Russia have gained more under Trump II and Biden than it did under any presidency before with the exception of maybe Bush.
>he was president during the recession
A recession he inherited from Nixon and Ford.

>>17966674
>the rural regions of MN are super red
The Iron range is the most literal commie place I've ever been to in the U.S, and Rochester has all the richfag medical industry types. Those are the two places that really keep the state locked for blue and from being as competitive as Wisconsin or Michigan.

>>17967179
nah Vermont and Maine are up there for commieshit

>>17967273
>Vermont and Maine are up there for commieshit
Never been, though I know they're very preogressive Northeastern states (though Maine is really weird politically for a number of reasons). Vermont is mostly richfags from NY while Maine is the same way for richfags from Mass.
I'm talking about actual old-school Marxists and Socialists, not libshits or new left types. The Iron Range is pretty much the only place left in the U.S where organized labor movements still have significant power and cultural influence, while the area also had some of the most and last elected communist officials in the U.S:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Communist_Party_USA_members_who_have_held_office_in_the_United_States

>>17955074
You can't really explain the motives of the media in the 60's and 70's. They were trying to burn everything down apparently. And the Democrats were helping them and the Republicans enabled the whole thing. Bunch of sick fucks

the Mesabi area was settled by Finnish immigrants many of whom were literal commies exiled from the 1918 civil war

>>17967555
You also had a lot of Yugoslavs and Jews too, both of which were very left-leaning groups.

>>17967161
>Not true
that link does not show any figures for federal revenue, you lying tranny.
furthermore
>CBPP was founded in 1981 by Robert Greenstein, a former political appointee in the Jimmy Carter administration. Greenstein founded the organization, which is based in Washington, D.C., to provide an alternative perspective on the social policy initiatives of the Ronald Reagan administration.[4]
you cited an isreali propaganda company
>The U.S spends more on healthcare PER CAPITA than any other country on Earth,
yeah, because we give healthcare to illegals. we need to end that.
>You realize this is a "commie" position, right? We don't have to leave NATO in order to get Europe to pay up.
all yuro posters are gay retards. yurop should be left to the wolves
>He is not.
he is. he is raping and gaping them and yurop and china are paying the tariffs
>A recession he inherited from Nixon and Ford.
nope, a recession he caused

>>17967161
>The U.S spends more on healthcare PER CAPITA than any other country on Earth, it's not an exaggeration to say that literally any other healthcare system would be better and more fiscally responsible.
>>17968480
>yeah, because we give healthcare to illegals. we need to end that.
You're both wrong
The truth is that despite what people think, American healthcare is not entirely privatized, for example, it's illegal for a hospital to charge you before you've actually been discharged, and doctors are a completely different department from the cocksuckers working the front desk and they're still getting paid whether you actually pay those bills or not, and those bills are actually tax deductible anyways

>>17968485
illegals should be denied any and all aid at hospitals

>>17968564
>there's any difference between Carter and Reagan beyond the messaging
There were a lot of differences, Volcker, LatAm, and Afghanistan were exceptions.

>>17968658
>Look just because their economic and foreign policy were the same doesn't mean they didn't have any differences! Like, erm...one wore a sweater in the white house and the other cracked shitty jokes written by General Electric speechwriters!

>>17969151
>their economic and foreign policy were the same
They were not, there were specific aspects they agreed on but overall they were very different presidents for a number of reasons as the arguments I had with the Reagan boomer itt show.

>>17964136
The US and BP caused the recession due to their myopia and greed.

>this dude is still arguing with himself almost a week later
seek help

>>17970384
I'm not fucking arguing with myself, I proved that earlier itt.
I'm just talking with any random retard that replies to me because I have no life.

>>17970167
carter caused the recession, because as a democrat, he hated America

>>17962513
Carter commuted the sentences of Mitchell, Haldeman, Erlichman and G. Gordon Liddy. Not Ford.

Besides Carter did crash the chopper in the Iranian desert after he got sloshed on his brother's Billy Beer :smile: lol

>>17963379
Charlie Wilsons War gets a little bit into that with Gus Stavkavos (sp) having that scene where Carter's CIA chief is gutting the place.

>>17966248
The U.S. House does the budget and controls the spending, all 8 years Tip O'Neil and Jim Wright liberals kept spending.

Reagan was president not dictator, the House controls the budget.

>>17954830 (OP)
If Reagan won two landslide victories, doesn't that lend credence to the idea that it wasn't just because Carter was a shitty president, given he beat someone that wasn't Carter? Like I don't even disagree with your point, but the evidence you gave contradicts instead of supports.

>>17954882
Can't you always find a macroeconomic indicator that makes a President look bad? Like if you have low unemployment, it is probable that you'll at least have higher than average inflation. Or if you have low inflation, you'll probably have high interest rates. I think you are mostly correct, in that people vote on the economy, and often times a president will just draw a bad hand for the economy; but I think it's even worse than "President gets punished because of an objective factor out of their control"; voters don't vote on the economy, they vote on vibes about the economy. Strong economic growth can mean nothing if they vibe about inflation, and inflation can mean nothing if they vibe about growth. And the vibes voters get about the economy is heavily dependent on whatever the social contagions of the day are

>>17971095
>Carter commuted the sentences
Ford pardoned Nixon thoughever.
Carter did that so it would be easier for him to pardon the draft dodgers as a compromise so the country could get back to a business as usual approach. I don't agree with it, but that was his logic given he was a guy that loved big picture, lasting deals over sweeping shit under the rug or being retributive. He genuinely hated conflict and wanted peace wherever conflict arose, even if it was a bit too much in some cases.
>>17971108
>The U.S. House does the budget and controls the spending, all 8 years Tip O'Neil and Jim Wright liberals kept spending.
And yet Reagan kept voting on those bills and shilling them, especially when it came to defense.

>>17971154
>but I think it's even worse than "President gets punished because of an objective factor out of their control"; voters don't vote on the economy, they vote on vibes about the economy. Strong economic growth can mean nothing if they vibe about inflation, and inflation can mean nothing if they vibe about growth. And the vibes voters get about the economy is heavily dependent on whatever the social contagions of the day are
t. a retard who has never had a job in his life

>>17971154
>voters don't vote on the economy, they vote on vibes about the economy.
You're either very young or very old. There's a reason we brought fucking Trump back of all people, and that's because Biden's economy was so deeply, searingly shit for the average normalfag they voted for literally anything else other than more of that given all the Biden/Harris campaign said about that salient issue was "muh GDP's going up, everything's fine retard".
Now you're seeing the same stuff emerge with Trump; unless he magically improves/stabilizes serious, entrenched economic issues coming to roost after decades of neololberal economics or some crazy black swan happens I expect he'll get the same treatment and be as deeply hated as Biden was if not more.

>>17966225
>federal income tax cuts have never once, in the history of the US, lead to a long term drop in federal revenue
They did (notably under reagan topkek). In the early 80s, federal income represented 18.5% of GDP. In the later 80s, it represented 17%. Which was part of the reason he tripled the deficit.

>Reagan doubled the federal revenue by cutting taxes
Yes because of inflation, population growth and immigration. Again, as a share of GDP, federal revenue shrank.

>debt issues are entirely spending based and raising taxes doesn't fix debt
Are you retarded perhaps ?

>>17966340
>show me a single time where a federal income tax cut lead to a long term drop in federal revenue
Trump tax cuts in 2017, Bush tax cuts in 2004, Reagan in 1981 etc. All these times the federal income dropped in terms of % of gdp.

How much longer can this namefag argue with himself? If we still had the IP counter it would show about 6 total IPs in here.

>>17971923
>How much longer can this namefag argue with himself?
Why do you think I'm samefagging? I'm sorry if you're a Europoor who thinks all presidents before Obunga run together, but there are serious differences between U.S presidents and every one of them has a raging autist on here.

>>17971877
>They did (notably under reagan topkek).
go look up the dollar amounts, retardo. federal revenue in 1989 is double the dollar amount it was in 1980. federal income tax cuts have never resulted in a long term drop in federal revenue. deficits and the debt are caused by spending
>Yes because of inflation, population growth and immigration.
cool, so you agree. Federal income tax cuts have never, in the history of the US, resulted in a long term drop in federal revenue. glad we agree on this point
>Are you retarded perhaps ?
you literally admitted cutting taxes doesn't result in a long term drop in federal revenue, retardo
>Trump tax cuts in 2017, Bush tax cuts in 2004, Reagan in 1981 etc. All these times the federal income dropped in terms of % of gdp.
the government made more dollars in federal revenue within like 6 years of all of those cuts. try again you retarded tranny

>>17971954
>If we just inflate the currency, number goes up!

David Stockman was Reagan's economic guru, heard that he is out now saying that he was all wrong or something, just adding that to the mix.

All in all I'd rather Reaganomics than Obamanomics

>>17972014
yeah, that's why they took us off the gold standard, so they could inflate away the debt like the free silvers wanted

>>17972033
>that's why they took us off the gold standard, so they could inflate away the debt
And now you're getting why cutting taxes while not reducing spending is a bad idea. It looks like the government makes more revenue when in reality it's just inflation

leftist talking point for 40 years has been barking about Reagan something giving tax cuts to the rich blah blah blah while ignoring that his tax cuts were bipartisan bills that Congressional Democrats signed onto

>>17972062
the government does make more in revenue and cutting taxes is based and we should cut all welfare spending, fuck the poors

>>17972067
Proving nothing btw, nobody said the two parties were anything but neoliberal cuckoldery. You didn't actually believe Democrats were "leftist", did you?

>>17972082
biden is a fucking communist

>>17972087
go to bed Sean Hannity

>>17971954
>>17972072
>the gov makes more if inflation and can spend more
Even if the federal revenue increases because of population and inflation, it doesn't mean it can spend more per person.
The fact that you can't understand this is... intriguing to say the least.

>>17972072
>the government does make more in revenue and cutting taxes
Marginally and at the cost of public infrastructure and inequality

>>17972108
he is, you retard. he is anti gun and pro open border
>>17972259
>Even if the federal revenue increases
So you agree federal income tax cuts don't result in a long term drop in federal revenue. Glad we agree, tranny boy.
>it doesn't mean it can spend more per person.
it kind of does, tranny, because with the hyper inflation we have you basically half the size of the debt in less than a decade. plus none of the politicians give a shit about the debt, troon.
>Marginally
again, reagan doubled federal revenue
>and at the cost of public infrastructure
they weren't going to spend a dime on infrastructure anyway. that money was going to go to illegals, donors, welfare queens and bernie sanders's bank account
>and inequality
the rich don't pay income tax anyway

>>17954844
no