ADVERTISEMENT

Boycott the Olympics in China?

TUMe

I.T.S. Legend
Dec 3, 2003
23,249
2,203
113
77
Nancy says we should. I guess it punishes China, but it also punishes athletes from our country who only get a chance every four years to compete in an Olympics. It also punishes sports fans who only rarely are able to watch sports which get less public exposure.
 
I"m curious about the Olympics in Japan. Japanese vaccination levels are only 3% because Japan wouldn't accept the validity of trials and certifications done outside of Japan. So only athletes/coaches are coming to Japan. Talk about the chance of a super spreader event. I don't have plans to spend a lot of time watching it.
The Olympics are much less interesting for me than they were in the past, as more sports have become international and have their own world championships. The Russian Winter Olympics were so tainted by the Russians cheating on drug testing that I lost interest there too.
 
Last edited:
Repeating anything Jimmy Carter tried is a bad idea.
 
Repeating anything Jimmy Carter tried is a bad idea.
Focusing on budget deficits, cutting corporate taxes, avoiding spending... decrease the national debt as a % of GDP... increasing coal reserves and decreasing energy imports. Refuse liberal welfare report because it would increase spending... proposing tax deductions that Republicans passed in 2017 like limiting itemized deductions and raising the standard deduction. Reduced social security benefits. Deregulated the airline industry and the trucking industries. And signed policies which allowed savings and commercial banks to be allowed to provide mortgages and extend business loans. Increased the defense budget to return to a policy of communist containment after the Soviets invaded Russia.

If he hadn't been interested in protecting the rights of minorities (which ostracized the religious right) you could have almost called his administration a modern Republican one...

Him and Reagan differed most greatly on only a few ultimately small issues other than how aggressive their foreign policy posturing would be.
 
I’m always very skeptical of people who claim our schools are view point biased. Then I read things like this written by people who did not live through that era and wonder how it is they could come to believe it.

Carter was cold, boring and weak.

Are you actually reading and thinking about what you wrote?

He strips down the military to record lows as an intentional signal to the Soviets that he is “the first post-Cold War President” according to his own press team. It worked about as well as Hillary’s reset button. This unilateral action resulted in the Soviets determining that we lack the policy will and logistic ability to stop any Soviet direct action to counter the insurgency in Afghanistan against their puppet government.

Carter, a political amateur by federal standards with no ties to Congress had absolutely no ability to relate to or work with his Democrat party dominated Congress. He should have been able to steamroll an agenda post watergate but struggled greatly. Congress insisted on the military increase after seeing the state of our military, particularly after the disaster of the Iranian rescue mission where our most elite forces lacked working vehicles and the operators bought their equipment in some cases. He can claim the victory in his library but the reality is that he had to raise the budget to cover his own failures. First by cutting the budget in the first place then how he handled both the domestic and foreign consequences of that decision.

He was a sitting President who lost in a landslide. For good reason.
 
I was a teenager during the Carter years. My memories were of a very weak President held hostage by the powers in the Middle East and their allies. High inflation, gas shortages, and a stagnant economy as well as a feeling of hopelessness among most Americans. Probably why a sitting President lost an election by 10 points.
 
I was a preteenager, became a teenager early in Reagan's tenure. Though I was young, my impression was the same as Lawpoke's.
 
  • Like
Reactions: HuffyCane
I was a teenager during the Carter years. My memories were of a very weak President held hostage by the powers in the Middle East and their allies. High inflation, gas shortages, and a stagnant economy as well as a feeling of hopelessness among most Americans. Probably why a sitting President lost an election by 10 points.
He won six states and DC. His term was so disastrous he lost the next two elections for the Democrats too. Despite Reagan and Bush being vulnerable and unpopular, the promise of a return to the Carter era in 1984 netted the Democrats only one state, the candidate’s home state and DC. New York, Massachusetts, Wisconsin, states that had not voted Republican since Reconstruction were blow outs until 1988 and it was still close then.

As for “deregulating the transportation industry” what you really mean is that the Democratic Party and the unions had tacit agreements with organized crime to permit their control of those organizations in exchange for political turnout. Carter, who had no allegiance to that constituency did not want to belly up to it either. There were plenty of right thinking people in Congress that could see that associated industries like steel were suffering at the hands of emerging international competitors from the 75% price difference between unionized and non unionized trucking. So Carter, in a rare win, actually got that through Congress. But I don’t think anybody is going to give the Democratic Party kudos for breaking up a cabal they built that held America hostage for 80 years.
 
Focusing on budget deficits, cutting corporate taxes, avoiding spending... decrease the national debt as a % of GDP... increasing coal reserves and decreasing energy imports. Refuse liberal welfare report because it would increase spending... proposing tax deductions that Republicans passed in 2017 like limiting itemized deductions and raising the standard deduction. Reduced social security benefits. Deregulated the airline industry and the trucking industries. And signed policies which allowed savings and commercial banks to be allowed to provide mortgages and extend business loans. Increased the defense budget to return to a policy of communist containment after the Soviets invaded Russia.

If he hadn't been interested in protecting the rights of minorities (which ostracized the religious right) you could have almost called his administration a modern Republican one...

Him and Reagan differed most greatly on only a few ultimately small issues other than how aggressive their foreign policy posturing would be.
Nobody, I repeat nobody(Democratic &/or Republican analysts) was in any way thinking Carter and Reagan were anything alike in their policy's.

You may be confused by the drastic differences in the parties position's today, as to the similarities. Today, the parties are so much further apart in their views than then. Both parties have moved further left and further right.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TUMe and HuffyCane
I’m always very skeptical of people who claim our schools are view point biased. Then I read things like this written by people who did not live through that era and wonder how it is they could come to believe it.

Carter was cold, boring and weak.

Are you actually reading and thinking about what you wrote?

He strips down the military to record lows as an intentional signal to the Soviets that he is “the first post-Cold War President” according to his own press team. It worked about as well as Hillary’s reset button. This unilateral action resulted in the Soviets determining that we lack the policy will and logistic ability to stop any Soviet direct action to counter the insurgency in Afghanistan against their puppet government.

Carter, a political amateur by federal standards with no ties to Congress had absolutely no ability to relate to or work with his Democrat party dominated Congress. He should have been able to steamroll an agenda post watergate but struggled greatly. Congress insisted on the military increase after seeing the state of our military, particularly after the disaster of the Iranian rescue mission where our most elite forces lacked working vehicles and the operators bought their equipment in some cases. He can claim the victory in his library but the reality is that he had to raise the budget to cover his own failures. First by cutting the budget in the first place then how he handled both the domestic and foreign consequences of that decision.

He was a sitting President who lost in a landslide. For good reason.
I never said he was a good president. I just said he adopted policies and stances and he signed bills and orders which had effects that are widely harped about by many modern day republicans.

Like I said, if it hadn’t been for his social policy he would have barely been a Democrat at all.
 
Career in the Navy and governor of Georgia is not the typical background of a wild eyed liberal.
 
I was a youngish adult when Carter was president. I remember Truman, Ike, JFK, Johnson, Nixon, Bush 41. All were better Presidents with the exception of Nixon and his weeknesses while serious and disqualifying were not anywhere the disruption Carter causes. (What fool cheats in an election where he is going to carry 49 states.)

Jimmie Carter was and is a good man, but he was in the top level of bad presidents.
 
  • Like
Reactions: HuffyCane
I was a youngish adult when Carter was president. I remember Truman, Ike, JFK, Johnson, Nixon, Bush 41. All were better Presidents with the exception of Nixon and his weeknesses while serious and disqualifying were not anywhere the disruption Carter causes. (What fool cheats in an election where he is going to carry 49 states.)

Jimmie Carter was and is a good man, but he was in the top level of bad presidents.
Carter’s disruptions were largely events not of his own causing. He got hit with the oil crisis and the Iranian Revolution which were largely outside his control other than a few tangential policy decisions (not closing the embassy, retaining price controls on gas)
 
Carter was viewed at home and abroad as a weak leader. A perception which led to a number of those problem along with others not mentioned. Problems which for the most part came to an end when Reagan took office. Hard to explain the decline of American pride and confidence which occurred during the Carter presidency. Capped off by our failed hostage rescue attempt. Something one had to experience to fully understand.
 
  • Like
Reactions: HuffyCane
Carter’s disruptions were largely events not of his own causing. He got hit with the oil crisis and the Iranian Revolution which were largely outside his control other than a few tangential policy decisions (not closing the embassy, retaining price controls on gas)
Every President claims things are not of his causing. Most have good things that offset their weaknesses. Carter didn't have much on the plus side other than being a good person.
 
  • Like
Reactions: HuffyCane
Every President claims things are not of his causing. Most have good things that offset their weaknesses. Carter didn't have much on the plus side other than being a good person.

....don’t forget Billy beer.
 
I was a youngish adult when Carter was president. I remember Truman, Ike, JFK, Johnson, Nixon, Bush 41. All were better Presidents with the exception of Nixon and his weeknesses while serious and disqualifying were not anywhere the disruption Carter causes. (What fool cheats in an election where he is going to carry 49 states.)

Jimmie Carter was and is a good man, but he was in the top level of bad presidents.
He won 49 states because he cheated. He wanted to run against McGovern and they were arguably able to manipulate the primaries into that happening. They broke into the Watergate to tap the DNC phones because they were paranoid that the DNC had figured it out. If you go back and read where the money came from to finance that, a lot of it came out of Tulsa and Bartlesville. He got the hush money from Bebe Rebozo and CREEP probably from organized crime sources.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: watu05
He won 49 states because he cheated. He wanted to run against McGovern and they were arguably able to manipulate the primaries into that happening. They broke into the Watergate to tap the DNC phones because they were paranoid that the DNC had figured it out. If you go back and read where the money came from to finance that, a lot of it came out of Tulsa and Bartlesville. The hush money he got from Bebe Rebozo and CREEP probably from organized crime sources.
How in the hell does a Republican manipulate the Democrat primaries? I agree that they were paranoid. I voted for him the first time and against his re-election and that was before Watergate broke.

I am not saying he was a good person but he did some good things as president including starting the EPA, getting us out of Vietnam, and opening dialog with China. Carter was the worst president since Warren Harding.
 
  • Like
Reactions: HuffyCane
I am not saying he was a good person but he did some good things as president including starting the EPA, getting us out of Vietnam, and opening dialog with China. Carter was the worst president since Warren Harding.
Amen
 
Every President claims things are not of his causing. Most have good things that offset their weaknesses. Carter didn't have much on the plus side other than being a good person.
I can agree with that.
 
How in the hell does a Republican manipulate the Democrat primaries? I agree that they were paranoid. I voted for him the first time and against his re-election and that was before Watergate broke.

I am not saying he was a good person but he did some good things as president including starting the EPA, getting us out of Vietnam, and opening dialog with China. Carter was the worst president since Warren Harding.
Hoover and Ford were both worse.
 
How in the hell does a Republican manipulate the Democrat primaries?
I spent a fair portion of my time at TU and most of my adult life reading about the Nixon Presidency. I’ve had the opportunity to interview Nixon appointees and count a few as mentors and friends. Sadly, many die each week.

The Cliff Notes is that a Presidential run is really not that different from running for student council in high school. Not as true today as 1972, but still true.

The Nixon campaign and the Nixon White House had multiple independent dirty tricks operations. Many operating without knowledge of the other. There were finance people raising money to support them who had no idea their efforts were being used to take money from people for this purpose. One of those fundraisers put over $1 million in cash on a private jet flying out of Bartlesville Municipal Airport for a destination unknown.

That money, presumably, and other money was used to fund efforts at falsifying campaign events, forging policy papers, putting out fake press releases and generating other dirty tricks designed to make Democratic primary candidates look bad to voters and think other Dems were behind it. They broke into peoples homes and offices, planted bugs, they even ordered hundreds of dollars worth of delivery pizza to strap campaigns of cash days before the end. If you’ve ever worked a presidential campaign run by professionals in Iowa or NH, you know that to this day, you can’t order pizza delivered. You send an intern. The first page of the playbook is calling Dominos and every other pizza joint and telling them in no uncertain terms you will refuse delivery.

Pat Buchanan was part of one effort inside the White House and wrote a lengthy memo on what needed to be done to pit one Democratic candidate against the other and to leave McGovern alone so he would emerge the nominee and the one most easily beaten using the Nixon strategy of working class northern whites, Catholics, moderate Democrats who opposed the war, Southern whites silent on integration, veterans, law enforcement and women opposed to the ERA and abortion. A lot of people think the Clinton campaign did something similar in the 2016 primary with disinformation attributed to various Republican candidates against each other so that Trump would emerge. The conventional thinking at the time would be that he would self destruct and when he didn’t the Grab Their Pu/;:( video was floated. He certainly did get an inordinate amount of free air time from left leaning media in the primary, particularly MSNBC.

G Gordon Liddy was also inside the White House and asked the Attorney General of the United States in his office for $1 million dollars for a bizarre series of proposals to compromise Democratic candidates and surrogates including kidnappings, extortion, wire tapping, honey pot schemes and a long list of other felonies. Mitchell went to prison because even though he declined to approve Liddy’s initial ideas in front of witnesses, he did control a bank account that disbursed $500,000 that Liddy said was for the Watergate wire taps. Scholars believe that Mitchell knew or had been told by the President about other dirty tricks operations on the campaign side and was told to monitor the phone to see if the DNC knew that and was planning on dropping it right before Election Day. That’s why they went in a second time into the Watergate. Most people think it was one burglary. It was actually a second burglary to improve the location of bugs because Nixon wasn’t getting the reassurances he wanted from the transcripts of the bugs planted in the first job. And that team wasn’t the only set of political covert ops guys operating for Nixon.

I could go on for days. People were out of control in the Nixon White House and felonies were committed. The President encouraged them then covered some of them up. They felt they were justified at the time based on the level of social unrest in the country. Given that armed mobs were marching in the streets in the thousands to end the war almost daily outside the White House and the 101st Airborne was camped on the White House ellipse with live ammunition and tanks to keep order, they may have been somewhat justified in being concerned what American would have looked like if McGovern won.
 
Last edited:
Yes, I see your points. In the first election, I voted for "The New Nixon", which really was new and worse. By the second election I had seen enough and held my nose and voted for McGovern.

One thing that griped me was, yes he got us out of VN, but you could divide the number of forces in there by the number of months till election and see that he intended to have the forces there greatly reduced when the election came.

Still, Carter was a disaster for the entire populaton. Unemployment sky-roceketing, interest rates as high as 16 percent. People took balloon loans on houses and when the baloon busted they couldn't afford their house (largely their own fault). The companies sometimes giving mortgage assistance, for a period for transfers, so it was essential a balloon loan defacto. Unemployment sometimes reaching 10%. As said above Carter did not exactly have a great background for the office.

Oddly, when Reagan came into the office Iran released hostages. Nobody knew what the "Crazy Cowboy" (in their minds) would do.
 
  • Like
Reactions: HuffyCane
Yes, I see your points. In the first election, I voted for "The New Nixon", which really was new and worse. By the second election I had seen enough and held my nose and voted for McGovern.

One thing that griped me was, yes he got us out of VN, but you could divide the number of forces in there by the number of months till election and see that he intended to have the forces there greatly reduced when the election came.

Still, Carter was a disaster for the entire populaton. Unemployment sky-roceketing, interest rates as high as 16 percent. People took balloon loans on houses and when the baloon busted they couldn't afford their house (largely their own fault). The companies sometimes giving mortgage assistance, for a period for transfers, so it was essential a balloon loan defacto. Unemployment sometimes reaching 10%. As said above Carter did not exactly have a great background for the office.

Oddly, when Reagan came into the office Iran released hostages. Nobody knew what the "Crazy Cowboy" (in their minds) would do.
Iran didn’t release the hostages because they were scared of him. They released the hostages because they were at war with Iraq and they needed the availability of American materials for their war effort. They wanted to make Carter look bad because of his support for the Shah, so they released the hostages on Carter’s last day in office. Also ironically, despite all of Reagan’s talk about not paying ransoms barbarians for hostages. He paid ransoms to Iran for hostages just a few short years later in the Iran Contra affair. Carter made that hostage deal happen, not Reagan. Carter was not a great President, but that was his obsession during the end of his presidency and he was the one negotiating the terms of the release.
 
Iran didn’t release the hostages because they were scared of him. They released the hostages because they were at war with Iraq and they needed the availability of American materials for their war effort. They wanted to make Carter look bad because of his support for the Shah, so they released the hostages on Carter’s last day in office. Also ironically, despite all of Reagan’s talk about not paying ransoms barbarians for hostages. He paid ransoms to Iran for hostages just a few short years later in the Iran Contra affair. Carter made that hostage deal happen, not Reagan. Carter was not a great President, but that was his obsession during the end of his presidency and he was the one negotiating the terms of the release.
Negative. Carter created the Iran problem we have today when he refused to back the Shah. Carter actually had extensive conversations with the Iranian revolutionaries in France before they returned, including promises to keep the oil flowing to Europe if the US would prevent the military from removing the Shah or staging a counter coup when Khomeini returned. Carter lived in this dream world where he thought he could shuffle the Shah out the door after 25 years of propping him up and that Jeffersonian democracy would somehow blossom in a country that had experienced no such thing for 3000 years. How people convince themselves that people like Khomeini would just let the American government elect people who will depose them off hundreds of billions of dollars oil money just blows me away. The country's one experiment with democracy in a flawed election resulted in anti-British and American candidates being elected. Sure, Carter trotted out the prepared remarks of support for the Shah as long as he was in power, but don't think for a second he supported him. Indeed, his foolhardy decision to let the Shah into the United States for medical treatment because he had painted himself into a corner on humanitarian grounds might have been the most inept and tone deaf decision in recent American history. Carter put himself in a bad position because he was naive and he had to maintain a public view of support for the Shah, otherwise ten penny dictators we were propping up across the globe would get nervous in the middle of the Cold War and start looking for more stable friends behind the Iron Curtain. It didn't help that Congress and men like Henry Kissinger were vowing to blow up Carter's planned arms control agreement with the Soviets unless he backed the Shah. SALT II was more important to Carter than ACA was to Obama. He felt it legitimized him as a leader in a town that rejected him as a naive outsider who refused to take direction. Which he was.

What was really going on was that he didn't want to keep giving Iran money to control their own people, just because a few American companies wanted to keep pumping oil. Those companies backed Ford, didn't support him, and he didn't like them. He had a chance to make up for this blunder by paying off the rural clergy in the country that controls the population so the urban clergy can call the shots in the capitol, as the Shah and previous US administrations had done. We installed the Shah and forced the British government to make BP give the majority of drilling rights in Iran to US oil companies. We got energy security in the height of the Cold War. In exchange for extracting the oil and selling it at one-tenth the market value thus securing the availability of cheap oil for our military so we could extra money on hand to build and buy weapons, we paid Iran through foreign aid, favorable bank loans and lots of other informal arrangements that freed up money that could be given to regional and local clergy who controlled public opinion and therefore the country. We made those payments for years. Those payments would have kept relations stable. But Carter in his high and mighty policies and desire to see those drilling arrangements revised in favor of his friends refused to make them. Naturally, if you were allowing someone to take oil off your land at one-tenth of the value and they were no longer paying you personally to keep quiet about it, you'd start causing trouble to blow up the deal. Thats how Iran blew up and we've been on the short stick ever since. They took hostages in an attempt to force payments they felt entitled to under the previous agreements but also on the simple fairness that foreigners were essentially stealing their minerals. Carter refused. Reagan's people said we will pay, but we want concessions elsewhere. That relationship grew until the "arms for hostages" idea was spun up inside the White House by people who had no idea what they were doing and certainly knew nothing about the Middle East.
 
Last edited:
Negative. Carter created the Iran problem we have today when he refused to back the Shah. Carter actually had extensive conversations with the Iranian revolutionaries in France before they returned, including promises to keep the oil flowing to Europe if the US would prevent the military from removing the Shah or staging a counter coup when Khomeini returned. Carter lived in this dream world where he thought he could shuffle the Shah out the door after 25 years of propping him up and that Jeffersonian democracy would somehow blossom in a country that had experienced no such thing for 3000 years. How people convince themselves that people like Khomeini would just let the American government elect people who will depose them off hundreds of billions of dollars oil money just blows me away. The country's one experiment with democracy in a flawed election resulted in anti-British and American candidates being elected. Sure, Carter trotted out the prepared remarks of support for the Shah as long as he was in power, but don't think for a second he supported him. Indeed, his foolhardy decision to let the Shah into the United States for medical treatment because he had painted himself into a corner on humanitarian grounds might have been the most inept and tone deaf decision in recent American history. Carter put himself in a bad position because he was naive and he had to maintain a public view of support for the Shah, otherwise ten penny dictators we were propping up across the globe would get nervous in the middle of the Cold War and start looking for more stable friends behind the Iron Curtain. It didn't help that Congress and men like Henry Kissinger were vowing to blow up Carter's planned arms control agreement with the Soviets unless he backed the Shah. SALT II was more important to Carter than ACA was to Obama. He felt it legitimized him as a leader in a town that rejected him as a naive outsider who refused to take direction. Which he was.

What was really going on was that he didn't want to keep giving Iran money to control their own people, just because a few American companies wanted to keep pumping oil. Those companies backed Ford, didn't support him, and he didn't like them. He had a chance to make up for this blunder by paying off the rural clergy in the country that controls the population so the urban clergy can call the shots in the capitol, as the Shah and previous US administrations had done. We installed the Shah and forced the British government to make BP give the majority of drilling rights in Iran to US oil companies. We got energy security in the height of the Cold War. In exchange for extracting the oil and selling it at one-tenth the market value thus securing the availability of cheap oil for our military so we could extra money on hand to build and buy weapons, we paid Iran through foreign aid, favorable bank loans and lots of other informal arrangements that freed up money that could be given to regional and local clergy who controlled public opinion and therefore the country. We made those payments for years. Those payments would have kept relations stable. But Carter in his high and mighty policies and desire to see those drilling arrangements revised in favor of his friends refused to make them. Naturally, if you were allowing someone to take oil off your land at one-tenth of the value and they were no longer paying you personally to keep quiet about it, you'd start causing trouble to blow up the deal. Thats how Iran blew up and we've been on the short stick ever since. They took hostages in an attempt to force payments they felt entitled to under the previous agreements but also on the simple fairness that foreigners were essentially stealing their minerals. Carter refused. Reagan's people said we will pay, but we want concessions elsewhere. That relationship grew until the "arms for hostages" idea was spun up inside the White House by people who had no idea what they were doing and certainly knew nothing about the Middle East.
You see, you’re looking at this from a omnitient perspective. You say that Carter didn’t support the Shah’s regime in private deals but you leave out that there were, at the time, critical pieces of information that both sides didn’t know. We have the whole puzzle put together now, but back then they were still trying to see where the pieces fit and they were dealing with events and negotiations as they transpired. The Iranians were bitter at Carter for maintining (at least publicly) the US’s support for the Shah’s regime. They did not all know that he hadn’t supported that regime to the same level that previous presidents had. Every side had blind spots. In the end however, it was the last days of the Carter administration, not the incoming Reagan administration that negotiated the terms for the hostages’ release. They secured the financing for the money that Iran wanted. They got the tribunal formed and the Iranian escrow account created that paid American companies for damages incurred as a result of the Revolution. The Algiers Accords were finalized before Reagan took office.

When you look at history, you have to look at it from the perspective of all parties involved. That means what they knew, what they didn’t know and what they THOUGHT THEY KNEW.

I’ve heard an interesting anecdote before that a fellow was sitting in a history class when the professor asks, “what role do we think Magic might have played in Caesar or the Gaul’s decision in their battles?” And someone said “well obviously magic played no role because it’s not real”. The professor replies, “Well, I know that. And you know that. But they honestly believed that there were supernatural forces that effected the events in the world around them. You have to account for those beliefs when you try and understand the effect that their beliefs could have had on some of the decisions they made.”

Much like accounting for the fact that Romans or the Gauls might have believed a conflict on a certain day might have been auspicious due to magical interventions, you have to account for the fact that Carter was having to deal through Algerian French speaking intermediaries and that there were lots of blind spots for him considering the nature of the amateurism of the new regime he was dealing with in terms of their ability to even agree amongst themselves on what terms they wanted. You also have to account for the fact that there were logistical hinderences for Carter when he was trying to route the frozen Iranian funds back to them because it had to be done through intermediary banking systems.
 
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT