Jimmy Carter: America is an Oligarchy

[Anung Un Rama]

Typically smart, substance-filled response, Anung.

Carter (in the very short piece):

"Somebody

 

[Madmick]

Or Clinton.

LOL, good ole' Jack. Hillary is the anti-establishment candidate.

Dude, do you fucking work for the DNC?

 

[andnowweknow]

Or Clinton.



In what way did he "almost ruin the U.S."?

In the way that (Insert Conservative Talk Radio Host) made completely clear at some point...of course.

 

[Jack V Savage]

It had just as much substance as your weak Clinton endorsement.

Bernie has actually filed for a Constitutional Amendment to repeal CU at least twice that I know if, AND is walking the walk by not accepting any SuperPac money. Meanwhile Hillary is looking to take in close to $1B thanks to CU.

My Clinton endorsement is funny. You never stop making shit up, I guess.

LOL, good ole' Jack. Hillary is the anti-establishment candidate.

Dude, do you fucking work for the DNC?

Hmm. Are you not aware that Sanders is a candidate for the Democratic nomination? That's like you thinking that someone who thinks that Cruz is smarter than Trump must be a left-winger. And did you see Clinton's capital-gains proposal? Jesus.

In the way that (Insert Conservative Talk Radio Host) made completely clear at some point...of course.

Yeah, I just want to see something concrete. I'm aware of the mythology--the incompetent buffoon Carter was running the country into the ground until St. Ronald came around and fixed everything. But I've always wondered how, exactly, the whole thing was supposed to work.

 

[Kneepocalypse]

 

[Madmick]

Hmm. Are you not aware that Sanders is a candidate for the Democratic nomination?

So I suppose that because Trump is a Republican candidate he's super cozy with the RNC and is their "guy". Beautiful logic, Jack.

Clinton is the insider. She's the establishment candidate. FFS, her husband is an ex-President, and she's raised more money (outside Super PAC's) than like the next three candidates of either party combined, and not from the super-volume of tiny grassroots donations that propelled Obama. Hell, even including the PAC's only Jeb edges her out, IIRC.

Did you see Clinton's capital-gains proposal? Jesus.

The one that incentivizes long-term investments? That makes her the "anti-oligarchy" candidate? I can't even make sense of this comment. The CGT applies to millions of small businessmen across the nation, not just mega-corporations or donors.

You work for the DNC or not?

 

[Anung Un Rama]

My Clinton endorsement is funny. You never stop making shit up, I guess.
.

You would at least have to admit that Bernie Sanders' filing for an amendment to the Constitution to repeal Citizens United on at least 2 separate occasions AND not accepting SuperPac money makes him the obvious choice for Carter to endorse when compared to Hillary Clinton, who is ready and willing to accept $1B+ in SuperPac money, right?

I mean, the Carter quote you used doesn't even apply to Bernie, does it?
1. He's not accepting SuperPac money.
2. He's not running to stay in office, he's running for an entirely different office.

And Jimmy endorsing Hillary, who is ready and willing to accept $1B in Citizens United SuperPac money, would be pretty hypocritical, yeah?

So you would agree that its safer to say that thinking "Jimmy is endorsing Bernie Sanders" is much closer to the truth than "or Clinton", right?

 

[lildog]

Difference is Clinton, Bush, and Obama would never say that or even in the next election cycle. Good for Carter to say something. He was a decent President that actually probably the last halfway honest President. Certainly better than Nixon before him or anyone after.

 

[Madmick]

Difference is Clinton, Bush, and Obama would never say that or even in the next election cycle. Good for Carter to say something. He was a decent President that actually probably the last halfway honest President. Certainly better than Nixon before him or anyone after.

By my estimation he is by far the most dignified, honest, noble-hearted President we have had in the last century. He has more integrity and goodness of character than any of them. He's also one of the smartest men to ever hold office.

 

[Jack V Savage]

So I suppose that because Trump is a Republican candidate he's super cozy with the RNC and is their "guy". Beautiful logic, Jack.

The silly accusation "oh you must work for the DNC if you suggest that Clinton and Sanders are similar in terms of being anti-establishment." It's a discussion killer rather than a discussion starter.

Clinton is the insider. She's the establishment candidate. FFS, her husband is an ex-President, and she's raised more money (outside Super PAC's) than like the next three candidates of either party combined, and not from the super-volume of tiny grassroots donations that propelled Obama. Hell, even including the PAC's only Jeb edges her out, IIRC.

She's the "insider" in the sense that she's the likely nomination winner, sure. But her policy proposals so far have been very anti-establishment.

The one that incentivizes long-term investments? That makes her the "anti-oligarchy" candidate? I can't even make sense of this comment.

Really? Think about it harder. It's an increase in capital gains taxes, which effectively means it transfers wealth from large holders of capital to the population at large. And it raises the tax in a way that, as you say, incentivizes long-term over short-term investment, which again shifts the tax burden toward the financial industry.

The CGT applies to millions of small businessmen across the nation, not just mega-corporations or donors.

So?

You work for the DNC or not?

That kind of idiocy just brings discussions down. You're trying to say not that I'm wrong to have a liberal view of most issues but that by the very fact that I see things that way, I must have some kind of sinister motive.

You would at least have to admit that Bernie Sanders' filing for an amendment to the Constitution to repeal Citizens United on at least 2 separate occasions AND not accepting SuperPac money makes him the obvious choice for Carter to endorse when compared to Hillary Clinton, who is ready and willing to accept $1B+ in SuperPac money, right?

Let's see who he ends up endorsing. You seem to be under the impression that making a big ask with no chance of success is more threatening than realistic but less extreme proposals.

I mean, the Carter quote you used doesn't even apply to Bernie, does it?
1. He's not accepting SuperPac money.
2. He's not running to stay in office, he's running for an entirely different office.

And Jimmy endorsing Hillary, who is ready and willing to accept $1B in Citizens United SuperPac money, would be pretty hypocritical, yeah?

A candidate doesn't accept Super PAC money. And, no, if Carter is against oligarchy, it's not at all clear which is the superior candidate at this point.

So you would agree that its safer to say that thinking "Jimmy is endorsing Bernie Sanders" is much closer to the truth than "or Clinton", right?

I would say that it's a big jump to say that he's endorsing Sanders based on his comments.

 

[Anung Un Rama]

Let's see who he ends up endorsing. You seem to be under the impression that making a big ask with no chance of success is more threatening than realistic but less extreme proposals.

So you do support Clinton. You should just announce it in plain language Jack.
I really don't know why you act like it's a bad thing.

A candidate doesn't accept Super PAC money

.
figure of speech....

And, no, if Carter is against oligarchy, it's not at all clear which is the superior candidate at this point.

No? Not even based on his position on CU relative to Bernie's and Hillary's?

I would say that it's a big jump to say that he's endorsing Sanders based on his comments.

Okay, lets assume Carter is going to endorse Bernie or Clinton. Based on his distaste for Citizens United, wouldn't Carter be more likely to endorse Bernie Sanders based on his track record with filing Amendments in an effort to overturn CU AND his swearing of Super Pac support? Especially when Hillary looks to be supported by $1B in Super Pac money?

 

[andnowweknow]

So you do support Clinton. You should just announce it in plain language Jack.
I really don't know why you act like it's a bad thing.

.
figure of speech....



No? Not even based on his position on CU relative to Bernie's and Hillary's?




Okay, lets assume Carter is going to endorse Bernie or Clinton. Based on his distaste for Citizens United, wouldn't Carter be more likely to endorse Bernie Sanders based on his track record with filing Amendments in an effort to overturn CU AND his swearing of Super Pac support? Especially when Hillary looks to be supported by $1B in Super Pac money?

Hilary being president is neither good or bad, it is status quot...for a lot of people I guess that means bad. Certainly better for this country as a whole both domestically and in foreign affairs if she is elected over any of the R's, sans maybe Paul.

Sanders becoming president would be a huge coup for the American people, unfortunately that's not gonna happen.

 

[Anung Un Rama]

Hilary being president is neither good or bad, it is status quot...for a lot of people I guess that means bad. Certainly better for this country as a whole both domestically and in foreign affairs if she is elected over any of the R's, sans maybe Paul.

Sanders becoming president would be a huge coup for the American people, unfortunately that's not gonna happen.

I honestly don't think her FP would differ greatly from the GOP candidates.
As for DP, she might tax a little more, but only while making concessions for Big Business and Wall Street (in spite of her recent rhetoric to the contrary).

Better than Cruz, Rubio, or Bush? Ok.

 

[Shokushu Goukan]

Isnt Carter anti semit and the man who almost ruined the US single handed?

I think you mean Obama. Carter is the man that re-legalized home brewing in America. Truly a hero.

 

[Jack V Savage]

So you do support Clinton. You should just announce it in plain language Jack.
I really don't know why you act like it's a bad thing.

When I make up my mind, I'll, of course, not be shy about expressing it (the last thing one can say about me is that I'm not opinionated). Not everyone sees everything in black and white the way you do, gov'nor.

Okay, lets assume Carter is going to endorse Bernie or Clinton. Based on his distaste for Citizens United, wouldn't Carter be more likely to endorse Bernie Sanders based on his track record with filing Amendments in an effort to overturn CU AND his swearing of Super Pac support? Especially when Hillary looks to be supported by $1B in Super Pac money?

Not really. I mean, maybe I'm wrong here, but I don't see how "filing amendments in an effort to overturn CU" will do anything at all. Clinton's strategy of picking SCOTUS justices that oppose the ruling seems more likely to be effective (to be fair to Bernie, while he hasn't mentioned that, I'm sure he'd do something similar with regard to SCOTUS nominations).

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

Clinton's strategy of picking SCOTUS justices that oppose the ruling seems more likely to be effective

Didn't that ship sail? Can she pick some people who oppose the ridiculous commerce clause ruling too?

 

[Anung Un Rama]

Not really. I mean, maybe I'm wrong here, but I don't see how "filing amendments in an effort to overturn CU" will do anything at all. Clinton's strategy of picking SCOTUS justices that oppose the ruling seems more likely to be effective (to be fair to Bernie, while he hasn't mentioned that, I'm sure he'd do something similar with regard to SCOTUS nominations).

So with SCOTUS being a wash, it would obviously make sense to endorse Bernie over Hillary based on Citizens United, yeah?

 

[Jack V Savage]

So with SCOTUS being a wash, it would obviously make sense to endorse Bernie over Hillary based on Citizens United, yeah?

Why? One is advocating an approach with zero chance of success, while another is advocating an approach that can be successful but that the other is likely to also take. So the whole issue is kind of a wash, which is why I say that we'll see (though it wouldn't be hypocritical for him to endorse either of them). Hopefully, there will be more candidates, too, though I guess we're running out of time.

Didn't that ship sail? Can she pick some people who oppose the ridiculous commerce clause ruling too?

We'll see. I don't think there's any guaranteed effective way.

 

[Anung Un Rama]

Why? One is advocating an approach with zero chance of success, while another is advocating an approach that can be successful but that the other is likely to also take. So the whole issue is kind of a wash, which is why I say that we'll see (though it wouldn't be hypocritical for him to endorse either of them). Hopefully, there will be more candidates, too, though I guess we're running out of time.



We'll see. I don't think there's any guaranteed effective way.

Interesting. So you think it's unclear who would best serve to have CU overturned between the Senator who is actively trying to overturn (and of course it his Amendments have a much greater chance of passing than 0%) it and the former Senator who is currently revelling in its power...

 

[Plissken]

Like him or not, he's correct here.