The hero they needed, but not the one they deserved

>Morally

Key word. It's actually why I made the reference to him eating dinner with his family. It sounds minor, but it shows a connective bond.

Cruz is also incredibly religious so there's that.

What tribe?

its refers to jews, cause they were a "tribe of israel"

...

Fair point. I might've said Pence instead tho.

Pence, Cruz- on a moral stand, they're very alike.

Though you are correct, Pence would've been a good comparison as well. :)

Pence doesn't have a stick up his ass. Pence is the stick. won't even have a dinner with a woman not in his family.

Carter's own party despised him. The lefty mob that was elected in 1974 had no use for him, and undercut him at every turn. Ted Kennedy ran a primary against him in 1980, which weakened Carter greatly. He really was the Trump of his day, in that respect, having to battle on all sides. They finally defeated him, and we'll see about Trump.

Don't forget that he reorganized the military and approved many modernization projects like stealth aircraft and the Abrams tank.
The reason we curbstomped Iraq in the Gulf War was thanks to Carter's middle eastern pivot

Do you blame him? Especially with all the sexual harassment crap going on lately.

What a faggot cuck liberal. No wonder why libtards and soy boys like Jimmy the Peanut farmer faggot cuck snowflake Carter. Dumb naïve liberal fuck, this Iranian stooge is a Muslim apologist and probably a Muslim himself for cucking for Islam so much. I don't know why you look up to such a pussy like Farter. That little cuck weasel is why we are mocked around the world. We had weak men leading this country. Move over Carter because the big boys are in town.

>Boomers
>Saving everyone

Reagan was a mistake, the results of which we're dealing with even today.

>Move over Carter because the big boys are in town.
>Proceeds to help mujahideen including Bin Laden.

9/11 was a divine retribution for Reagan sucking muslim cock.

Grandpa, what are you doing on the internet?

I agree with this sentiment. Good man, ahead of his time, not a great spokesman

The super funny part is conservatives hated Reagan back in the day, it's only latter day revisionism that paints him as the patron saint of the republican party

>Iranian stooge
>Republicans have either let themselves get played by fiddles by the Iranians or been so incompetent at meeting them that they've been able to subvert us at every step

I mean I know you're either a troll or a retard, but still.

It really wiggles my walnuts that so many conservatives look up to him so much, considering his administration was the genesis of everything wrong with the Republican party today.

Plus he was a total Fudd.

>Plus he was a total Fudd

ahahaha I love calling out boomers who think that Reagan was some sort of god- especially when I bring up the fact that Obama has done more in support of gun rights than him

>the genesis of everything wrong with the Republican party today

I feel as if the tea party and the young republicans have superceded that.

the three things wrong with the republican party, as I see them:

>The influx of white supremacists from the Southern Democrat split that cemented the republican party as the part of good ol country boys
>Reagan era economics
>Post Tea-Party era grass roots extreme reactionaries

So Reagan is just a part of whats wrong with a party that should be centered around moral basis and proven governmental and economic theory. That and the fact that our politicians are frankly just increasingly ignorant used car salesmen with little practical knowledge or experience besides a fancy degree

>That and the fact that our politicians are frankly just increasingly ignorant used car salesmen with little practical knowledge or experience besides a fancy degree
I'd argue that a law degree which is pretty common among American politicians is probably very relevant to being a lawmaker in a country governed by the rule of law; compared to for example China's leaders who mostly have engineering and natural sciences degrees.

yknow thats true, they are very good at law and that's relevant

Too bad we need experts in economics, industry, and infrastructure. And most of the business degrees are predatory types - the ones that buy up broke or insolvent companies, fire everyone, and flip them for a profit. No "real" business running there, and certainly no understanding of higher economic theory. If they did they would know that the GDP and Unemployment rate are absolutely awful metrics.

>the republican party has complete control of the senate, house and presidency but is being torn into pieces by internal rebellions, complete absence of any kind of party leadership and exogenous extremists
>democrats are nearly powerless but still mantain a semblance of hierarchy and control in the party and more or less safely absorb their own insurgents into their infrastructure
seriously what the fuck is going on with American politics, holy hell. Do any oldoldfags know if it has ever been this messy or chaotic in their lifetime?

Reagan's mistakes go beyond economic issues. Amnestying millions of Mexican shitskins while not securing the border was a catastrophe.

No, economically it is went downhill. For cold war, yes he did something

>Do any oldoldfags know if it has ever been this messy or chaotic in their lifetime?

American politics have always been messy and chaotic. People have tremendously selective and limited memories about it. At least we don't have brawls or riots anymore. Abraham Lincoln had to climb out of a second story window and jump off a building to escape a mob.

Also, as a Dem, don't believe that meme. The senior democrats are running on sheer denial, they have major base fractures too, as the younger democrats are far more jacobin while they're more centrist and many are in fact republicans in blue clothing - see example, Obama, and even more egregious Hillary.

>see example, Obama, and even more egregious Hillary.
I get how Shillary qualifies for that designation, but how does Obama?

Well, lots of us thought Obama was going to be a bit more left leaning than he turned out to be. Despite how the right likes to make him out to be some kind of african muslim devil, he was actually fairly centrist and did not pursue policy aggressively until his second term (probably in the vain hope of reaching compromises)

That makes some sense I guess. The only thing Obama was really hard left on were social issues. Then again, his social policies and beliefs got a hell of a lot more exposure than other areas of his administration, so it's easy to think he was a staunch liberal.

But how does him being more centrally leaning make him a Republican in blue clothing?

I don't support Ronald Reagan helping the mujahideen and cucking up Afghanistan but Carter is still a cuck and a whiny liberal loser. He didn't support the funding of the mujahideen and yet he cucked for Islamic Iran? And now this faggot wants to be the Chamberlain of this time and meet with that fat Kim of Pork Korea.
At least I'm not some millennial subhuman that has his diaper full of poop and sinful muck.
It's called playing 3D chess libtard. We hated the commies in Nicaragua so even though I think those sandmonkey should be turned to glass fighting the commies and playing 3D chess so we can defeat the commies and also take on a rant at the same time is what Oliver North did.

nice guy but an economic bastard, same as James Callaghan in Britain and Lange in New Zealand.

>Volcker kicked inflation in the balls with a significant rate hike
this is a worse method of inflation control than incomes policy.
i'm willing to bet - and i say bet, i'm not going to check because i want it to be a bet - that the result of Volcker was the same as that of high interest rates in the UK: Unemployment permanently higher than it was before the oil crisis.

In the UK, even in the good times of the 2000s, unemployment was higher than it had generally been in the period 1950-1970. Look to Thatcher's rate hike in the UK - even before the miner's strike, when major nationalised industries were destroyed, you had unemployment over 10% because private sector enterprises were being strangled by high interest rates that (a) prevented them from borrowing to invest to remain competitive abroad and (b) made their repayments on prior investments excessive.

Cheap money is good if you lend it for productive purposes. of course, to keep it cheap and productive you then need statutory controls on lending for consumption to control inflation. it's stupid to have (essentially) a single rate for both consumption and production.

To be honest I've always liked Ted Kennedy, less for his specific policies and more for appearing to stand against the tide of history.
Same with Robert Muldoon in New Zealand. Were his policies an ideal response? Overall, no. (Though he did show you could keep unemployment down.) Did he do the right thing by refusing to accept the new consensus for as long as possible? Hell yeah.

Economists would seem particularly useful. Too many politicians know nothing whatsoever about economics.
The worst has to be the ones who know about business or accounting, because they usually know nothing about Macroeconomics but think they must do because their careers run close to mathematics or microeconomics.

precisely because of that attempt to separate economic and social issues. You can't. Because economics are underpinning all the social issues we currently face - already having freedom of religion and racial equality. All current inequities are based on economics or buried in current economic law

thinking aloud here: instead of a distinction between social left/right and economically left/right, there should be a three tier thing where you have
macroeconomics, with interventionist/Post Keynesians on the left (kind of people who want full employment back), New Keynesians and New Classicals in the middle, and Austrian schoolers on the right.
social policy, which deals with spending on welfare, healthcare, etc. (possibly also taxation? that's an awkward border zone)
social issues, which deals with legislative concerns like gay rights, abortion, and so on.
obviously still imperfect, but perhaps a better way of breaking things up since the economic issues that tend to link closest to social issues are more matters of social policy than macroeconomics, even if macroecon goals are often reached by changing social policies.
i.e. if you dislike blacks, you might want to cut welfare in the social policy sphere - but you could still be a Keynesian and want to get unemployment down by spending more to boost demand, but you might try tax cuts instead since whites will benefit disproportionately.

since Obama was in the New Keynesian sort of area (after campaigning in a way that seemed more sceptical of the NK/NC consensus), in terms of overall economic worldview he fell quite close to Bush. Conversely Nixon was straight Keynesian despite everything else. Although even here, you can sort of see how economic issues track upwards from level to level. (i.e. abortion is a social issue, but liberalisation might increase healthcare costs, which then raises macro questions about tax rises or deficits.)

I'm decidedly New Keynesian but with a strong belief in competitive markets and letting nature take it's course. Bailing out those companies for instance after the bubble burst (a bubble that would never have formed it Wallstreet was properly regulated). While I understand in the short term it was important to prevent the economic collapse that those businesses failing would bring, would those businesses dying not just free space for competition to take over their old resources? And aren't we now being held hostage by our goddamn industries? The economy exists to serve the nation and the people, not the other way around.

Ted Kennedy wanted to nationalize oil.

Which would have been a disaster for a net importer nation.

When you say businesses are you talking specifically about the banks, or about the more general idea of deficit spending to prevent a spiral of businesses failing, unemployment, more failures, more unemployment, and so on?
The banks are a confusing special case where it's quite easy to argue for them to be broken up, regulated and so on. When it comes to other industries it's a bit more contextual. I mean, after a housing bubble for example letting Estate agents go bankrupt is desirable enough - but you'd want to make sure the people who worked for them are getting new jobs somewhere else rather than being stuck unemployed for a while since their spending is someone else's income.

The thing is, a market economy fundamentally functions on a kill or be killed system. Businesses compete with each other. Either one of them is weak and is defeated and consumed by the other, or they continue competing until this occurs. Growth comes from this destruction. When businesses don't go bust, when you prop them up beyond their time, the market stagnates and becomes choked. The larger businesses will manipulate and exploit circumstances to stay on top, and the smaller businesses won't be able to compete for the same space. One, or few alpha entities comes to dominate the space. And thats the problem we have now - large corporations dominate markets and shut out competition with sheer bulk.

The market needs to be disrupted with the deaths of larger companies so smaller and more aggressive businesses can take their place, driving innovation and stimulating growth. This comes at the expense of the suffering of the employee and consumer for a period of time until something grows back in it's place, yes. But it's a necessary function, and it has already occured multiple times in American history - then Theodore Roosevelt went around busting anti-competitive trusts and companies, and then Andrew Jackson killed (albeit temporarily) the US Bank

Tangential, but you might enjoy this: looooker.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/The-Entrepreneurial-State-Debunking-Public-vs.-Private-Sector-Myths.pdf
Not saying I endorse it, but it may be related or of interest.
Although in viewing monopoly/oligopoly as an aberration, I might be misreading your position as slightly Schumpeterian. Still, it is perhaps interesting to consider that even if the state does prop up an entity - say IBM as a whole, you can still find that it gets pushed out of certain markets by young upstarts once technology changes despite a dominant position. (i.e. IBM no longer manufacture personal computers, focusing instead on other areas.)
Personally I see little reason to let otherwise "innocent" businesses fail because of the decisions of others. It's unreasonable to expect a moderately sized manufacturing company to have had access to the information that CDOs were some high-octane crazy and would cause a banking crisis and then conclude it should go out of business in the resulting recession.

This isn't to say I'm glad we have massive sprawling companies like Lockheed Martin operating across a ton of sectors, but there is a secondary consideration that relates to them in particular: It may for example be desirable to have them fail, wait a period, and then have a variety of smaller contractors crop up. The problem is that on a national level they occupy a very strategic position, and there's no guarantee if you kill them that someone will come back. The UK shipbuilding sector was allowed to wither to no great gain through the 1970s and 80s, for example. (A particular problem when you consider it's an island nation with a tradition of always building it's own warships... I believe now only one company and one shipyard has the capacity.)

I mean the United States definitely could be a net exporter nation, we have the tenth largest oil reserves in the world.

If he doesn't sexually harass a woman he should be fine

LMAO

Would a man like him have stood a chance in the 2016 election?

...

Anyone would've done better than Hillary Clinton.
Anyone.

I don't know if I would say monopoly/oligopoly is an abberation, it is a natural inclination of any business, but it is a natural inclination companies that needs to be prevented.

This. I voted for Hillary and... I didn't feel good about it. I felt dirty and used. I was actually relieved when the results came back the next day and she had already conceded. I hate Trump as a president, but at least his failings are obvious and honest.

>honest
That's the only reason I got behind trump, he isn't a total dirty lying bureaucratic snake like Hillary.
We had to pick the shiniest out of the two turds in the toilet bowl however.

that was ultimately why I voted for hillary, I figured if I had to choose between villains, I wanted Lex Luthor instead of Kobra Commander

Then again, the Kobra Commando's apparently have a union, a medical plan, and dental in the old GI Joe cartoon, so maybe I fucked that call

Is there any empirical evidence that Bin Laden or any of the other Arab fighters receiving aid from the US? I’m making the distinction between the native Afghans and the foreign Arabs here.

instead of getting the bankers prosecuted for fraud, he bailed them out. that was a republican move.

this is not evidence, but at the bottom of the 3rd column, a US reporter writing a largely favorable article on Bin Laden took it as a given, which Bin Laden counters by saying he "saw no evidence" of American help, which sounds like doublespeak for "we covered our tracks until no evidence remained. In the eyes of Allah it is not a lie!" But of course you can assume Bin Laden was being truthful if you'd like.

>popculture references
Goon manchildren out

There actually isn't. Bin Laden was from an extremely rich family and himself being active in the construction business he had plenty of money to bankroll his own shit. He and his people also mostly built bunkers and other light fortifications in Afghanistan, he wasn't actually involved in direct combat.
The only American connection is that the CIA gave a blank check to Pakistani ISI (intelligence service) and they funded various parties with it. The CIA however had no oversight over that and they were even criticized for it.

Good post.

...

Carter was my grand-mother's favorite, and she was never wrong about politics.
Also, peanuts are cool.

your pic is ugly