Jimmy Carter isn't a wimp

Turns out, he actually played a direct role in stopping the world's first nuclear meltdown.

A nuclear reactor near Ottawa, Canada had a serious malfunction in 1952. Carter, who was serving as a Navy lieutenant, was called up to Canada along with other U.S. military personnel familiar with nuclear reactors, due to their work on nuclear submarines.

Carter was lowered into the reactor room to assist in shutting down the reactor. He had to work in 90-second shifts because the radiation levels were so high. He did this knowing full well that he'd very likely never be able to have children (he peed radioactive urine for weeks) and would probably have a shortened lifespan.

The guy had four kids, ended up being President of the United States, and is currently 97 years old.

Jimmy Carter is a fucking badass, and helped save Canada (and, by extension, the United States) from a serious nuclear disaster.

Don't believe the shite that Reagan and the Republicans dished out.

No one said "wimp," They said "terrible President."


Although letting the Iranians keep our embassy staff as hostages for 444 days was pretty wimpy.

I was 16 in 1980 and not at all even remotely interested in politics. But, I do remember my grandmother telling me all this when the media started putting out that Reagan was the sole reason the American hostages were released. Unfortunately, that's also the same time conservative 1%ers started controlling the media.

It hasn't been until the last 10 or 15 years, with the help of the internet, that true history is now available for those who seek it.

Sigh.

Reagan was a racist.
And a rapist (according to Kitty Kelly).
And a vile homophobe who...while he personally wouldn't publicly say he thought the AIDS pandemic was funny, he sure let his appointed flunkies say so without consequence.

Yea, his handling of the AIDS situation was abominable.

so, Trump wasn't the first PotUS chosen by a foreign power is what we can take away?

I haven't dug much into Reagan's presidency. Only enough to know he is the primary executor of today's income inequality mess. Definitely beholden to the 1%. Don't know about any foreign powers.

I figure Bush the Elder colluded with Iran to undermine Carter and secure a Republican election.

If someone does what they were elected to do, your beef is with free will.

How very Catholic apologetics.

That's not true. If someone says they're going to do "this" and you approve of "this", but also, behind everyone's back, he does "that", then it's not free will. It's lying.

So that would be something OTHER than what they were elected to do, and my point stands.

I don't think an elected official should be acting on free will when it comes to disenfranchising 90% of one's constituents - regardless of whether or not they voted for him/her. So, sure, my beef is with free will and presidents acting on it when it opposes the majority of constituents.

You are back early from the Turning point USA rally. How was the Kyle Rittenhouse forum? Did you get any good Nazi Schwag? How many little blonde girls did you bang in the back of your broke dick Jeep?

Do you have anything useful to say? I am sure you don't.

There's a pretty long history of Republican presidents being elected with the help of dodgy foreign powers. In addition to this case and the obvious more recent one, it's worth reading about how Anna Chennault worked directly with the president of South Vietnam to sabotage the Paris peace talks to help Nixon get elected.

If this was a modern day story I have no doubt 1) the Republicans would try to swift-boat his ass and 2) there would be an endless stream of media outlets willing to publish those stories.

President Carter

I meant the free will of people who elect someone knowing that person will do things you dislike.

I'm fairly certain if the people who voted for Reagan knew in advance the extent of which his legacy would adversely affect the middle class (most people still don't), they would not have voted for him. I don't think that has as much to do with free will (voting for whom one wants) so much as it has to do with putting precautions in place to prevent politicians from profiting off fucking over 90% of the population.

how does the opposite thing happening (the politician acting against their mandate) support your already spurious claim about a beef with free will?
I'm also curious as to what the fuck it has to do with free will in the first place, but... baby steps.

Carter was an expert on nuclear reactors? Am I misremembering him constantly mispronouncing "nuclear"?

I've also heard he and Nancy sold out their Hollywood friends during the Red Scare to boost their own careers.

Not sure why Nancy would need to do that when she had.....other....talents, allegedly.

Maybe you got him confused with Bush?

Doing the opposite would not support it.

Simple. If someone is elected on the promise of doing a thing, and then they do it, that is the outcome of voters acting on their own free will. If you object to that thing, you are actually at odds with voters who dare to act on their free will in a way that is contrary to your own opinions.

And they ghosted Rock Hudson as hard as humanly possible when he got AIDs.
Just pretended he was dead already.
Cricket chirp silence when he actually did die.

Obviously there is more to a successful presidency than personal character.

I've had the opportunity to meet President Carter a few times. I got to spend about ten minutes with him once and he signed a copy of his autobiography. I've never disputed that he's anything other than a genuinely kind and good guy. But, it takes more than being kind and good to be a good President. Let me give you a real world example.

When I was 13 years old, I needed an orthopedic surgery. It wasn't terribly common at the time. My regular orthopedic doctor advised my parents and I to go see a certain surgeon at Children's of Alabama. He said, and I'll paraphrase, "He's a good doctor. He's literally the best in the world at this procedure having been trained by the surgeon that created it. But, his bedside manner is lacking. Go see him, and if you don't like him, come back and I'll try to do the procedure."

Guess what? We went with the world-class doc that was a major jerk rather than let the kind old country surgeon try to do the procedure.

Cool, so you're going to shut up complaining about politicians who support things like UHC now, since they're doing what they were elected to?

except the concept of democracy is rooted in the general will, not individual free will.

Great story, but it has nothing to do with my point.