6 ms·

Ironically he did more deregulation than Reagan yet somehow we don’t remember it that way. For his electoral loss it’s just that Carter was never interested in

Ironically he did more deregulation than Reagan yet somehow we don’t remember it that way. For his electoral loss it’s just that Carter was never interested in the political manoeuvring. He was never going to have a good chance.

llm_trw 2y ago
[flagged]
- bdangubic 2y ago
  that is because in america a large majority of people’s entire identity is tied to one of the two political parties. there are no liberals who believe is small government and state’s rights, no conservatives who believe in woman’s rights or that america would collapse without immigrants… for majority of people every single opinion and thought they have just magically lines up with one political party - maaaagic… hence, saying both parties are the same will effectively offend everyone :)
  - Spooky23 2y ago
    The democrats made a fundamental miscalculation in the late 90s that you can simply pander to brown people and they will turn out for you. The messaging is complex because you tell different audiences different things, and the Internet makes it complicated because conservative Hispanic Catholics don’t align with the platform. In doing that, they ceded rural America, which was devastated by NAFTA and other Clinton era policies. Giant agribusiness makes money, but the prosperous dairy operators really need regulation at the federal level to thrive. I grew up in a town that was solid rural democrat… that was gutted like a fish. 30 operating dairy farms to 1, which is a vertically integrated farm/dairy that delivers to consumers directly. The feed stores, gone. Tractor dealer, gone. The best job in town is truck driving and it’s solid trumper land. The modern conservative narrative is really simple, and is mostly hot air. Those chicken processing plants and farms in nowhereville that need a steady supply of cheap, dumb labor with no workers comp aren’t run by democrats. Bread & circus, until the crowd demands more.
    - bdangubic 2y ago
      Giant agribusiness makes money, but the prosperous dairy operators really need regulation at the federal level to thrive. good thing we elected a party that loves nothing more than federal regulation… /s I am neither democrat nor republican so I have no skin in the game here but I think this thinking here is very naive.
      - Spooky23 2y ago
        The grain market is a function of government regulation and price controls. The difference there is we scaled it up. Ever wonder why thousands of Mexicans woke up one day and decided to walk across the desert, never to return? Well, we flooded the market with massive quantities of subsidized corn and put their farms out of business. We did the same thing domestically with other commodities in places like New Jersey and Pennsylvania. With dairy, you had in-state production requirements and quotas that maintained a balance in price. A smallish dairy farm could support a household reasonably prosperously — there were thousands of farms in places like New York. Now you need thousands of cows to survive - that why milk is often cheaper than water in the supermarket. But just like WalMart, it gutted a key price of the rural economy. Hell, I watched it happen on a farm I worked on, that operated since the 1600s under the Dutch. Since the early 2000s they board horses for rich people to pay their property taxes.
    - dralley 2y ago
      NAFTA was far, far less impactful than China's entry into the WTO.
  - devin 2y ago
    The current infighting between republicans over H1Bs seems a counterexample.
    - JasserInicide 2y ago
      Republicans have always been pro-immigrant because it's inherently pro-business. They just have to do a song and dance routine for the low IQ racist cohort of their constituency to make it seem like they're tough on it. Though I will say it's been rather amusing watching people act betrayed by Elon's thoughts on H1-B visa holders. Like, how did you idiots not see this coming? He's the richest person in the world for a reason. Plus he's an immigrant.
      - bdangubic 2y ago
        wait until they find out he is an immigrant… they are still processing vance is married to an indian and that vivek is not white…
        macintux 2y ago
        There are doubts about Melania’s immigration status. She may have worked under the wrong visa and lied about it when filing for naturalization, which would make her an illegal immigrant as well.
      - krapp 2y ago
        They thought Elon was one of them because he's "anti-woke," just like they thought Trump was one of them because he "didn't talk like a politician."
      - Levitz 2y ago
        >Republicans have always been pro-immigrant because it's inherently pro-business. They just have to do a song and dance routine for the low IQ racist cohort of their constituency to make it seem like they're tough on it. It has consistently been about illegal immigration. You are calling people "low IQ" and "Idiots" and you, literally in this very post, show you are falling for the same thing they fell for.
  - AdieuToLogic 2y ago
    Categorizing in terms of absolutes, such as "there are no liberals who ..." and "no conservatives who ...", is to engage in reductionism for the purpose of supporting a preconceived notion: ... for majority of people every single opinion and thought they have just magically lines up with one political party ... This is simply not true.
    - bdangubic 2y ago
      it simply is :) EDIT: I’ll elaborate quickly why… the country is so divided these days that you can hardly engage in any conversation regarding politics across the aisle. so your only option to discuss things is with like-minded people. now when you get into like-minded group there is a herd mentality happening and serious echo chamber. here’s a personal example - one of my dearest friends on this planet used to be as liberal as they come - 100% all the way… over the years, due to various reasons like the direction of the democratic party as well as deep-end social media she turned right. it did not happen overnight, it happened over several election cycles. I have watched her be swayed to the right on issue by issue … I am educated and wise and I understood this (she is not the only one either in my “circle”) and I looked at all the issues and was like “ok, sure but she will NEVER be against abortion…” well… you know how this story ends… I do believe that majority (I was talking in absolutes before but of course there are no absolutes) of americans are simply not smart enough to realize that two-party system made them mental slaves to those parties… finding pro-abortion republican might be as interesting as trying to find waldo :)
      - AdieuToLogic 2y ago
        >> Categorizing in terms of absolutes, such as "there are no liberals who ..." and "no conservatives who ...", is to engage in reductionism ... >> This is simply not true. > it simply is :) People make choices for a multitude of reasons. Sometimes those choices are knowingly to their detriment and can be confounding to others whom are not a part of their decision process. Many times the reasoning is "sacrifice for the greater good", where "the greater good" is defined by the very people who are the harbinger of their pain. Other times, it can be as simple as; "my life sucks so everyone else's should too!" I am sure there are many more categories which could be provided as well. But to say: .. for majority of people every single opinion and thought they have just magically lines up with one political party ... Is to be so dismissive of people as to be the height of arrogance.
- lisper 2y ago
  With good reason.
  - llm_trw 2y ago
    Carter deregulated more than Raygun. Raygun introduced more gun regulations than Carter. Both parties are worse than the other on the issues they promise to be better on. It's almost like it's a big club that you're not a member of.
    - lisper 2y ago
      That may be, but that doesn't make them the same.
    - HaZeust 2y ago
      >"Raygun introduced more gun regulations than Carter" People forget this, Reagan literally started the charter and expectations for the modern gun control movement just because of Black Panther advancements and protests in the street with firearms.
      - trhway 2y ago
        He got scared of their right to carry arms back then as a CA governor and started the gun control there.
        acdha 2y ago
        Prior to the NRA’s big push in the late seventies, gun control as a concept was uncontroversial as the first gun control laws dated back to the earliest days of the country. Reagan expanding coverage due to the Black Panthers was in line with earlier precedent (after Kennedy was assassinated, during WWII, during the Mob / prohibition era, etc.).
        HaZeust 2y ago
        A bit more nuanced than that; the NRA didn’t become the hardline defender of minimal gun regs until its 1977 leadership shift. Reagan’s 1967 Mulford Act as Governor targeted the Black Panthers, and then he signed 1986 FOPA as president, which relaxed some rules but banned new machine guns. It was a broad compromise package from the start.
- ein0p 2y ago
  They are the same where it counts, at least in 2024. Starting multi trillion dollar wars with no exit plan, passing spending bills full of insane pork, borrowing $2T per year - those are widely "bipartisan" issues. On these issues nothing changes irrespective of who gets elected. What little (in monetary terms) quibbling does occur, occurs over the issues that do not immediately affect most people. That is by design - it's performative, to delineate the in-group from the outsiders for each party, and pit people against each other. It's a very effective strategy, which people eagerly embrace, not realizing that people who devised this strategy are robbing them (and their children/grandchildren, if any) blind.
- dralley 2y ago
  A lot of the deregulation under Carter legitimately did need to happen.
  - HaZeust 2y ago
    The Motor Carrier Act and Staggers Rail are the only ones that come to mind? Shipping costs were high and routes were guarded and inefficient, and the railroad industry was in shutters. What else had you reckoned?
    - tacticalturtle 2y ago
      The deregulation of passenger airlines happened during the Carter years: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airline_Deregulation_Act https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airline_Deregulation_Act
    - dugmartin 2y ago
      Some say the craft beer revolution was sparked by him signing the repeal of the outlawing of home brewing. https://beerinfo.com/homebrewing-law-signed-by-jimmy-carter-october-14th-1978/ https://beerinfo.com/homebrewing-law-signed-by-jimmy-carter-...
- sixothree 2y ago
  And you would deserve to be mocked for such a narrow and shallow observation.
- epistasis 2y ago
  Even if Reagan and Carter were the same on deregulation, it would be a huge logical error to conclude that the parties were "the same." But it's even more comically wrong because it's being pointed out that the presidents were different!
  - worik 2y ago
    Politics, mēh! The divergence of the Democrats and Republicans is twenty first century. They were not identical back in the day, but they were broadly the same pro business pro money machines. Not unusual, happens in most parts of the world.
    - johnnyanmac 2y ago
      > They were not identical back in the day, but they were broadly the same pro business pro money machines. I don't know how you think that stopped in the 21st century. They just hid it behind the blatant attack on the growing identity movements.
- AdieuToLogic 2y ago
  > And yet people will mock you for saying that both parties are the same. "Just say no" to nihilism[0]. 0 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nihilism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nihilism
  - wahnfrieden 2y ago
    Rejecting electoralism and demanding or organizing toward an alternative is not nihilism. Insisting that anything but electoralism is nihilism, might be.
    - AdieuToLogic 2y ago
      > Rejecting electoralism and demanding or organizing toward an alternative is not nihilism. I replied to this comment: And yet people will mock you for saying that both parties are the same. The Democratic and Republican parties are demonstrably "not the same." This is evident in policy positions and party platforms. The assertion quoted reasonably satisfies the referenced definition: In philosophy, nihilism (/ˈnaɪ(h)ɪlɪzəm, ˈniː-/; from Latin nihil 'nothing') is any viewpoint, or a family of views, that rejects generally accepted or fundamental aspects of human existence, namely knowledge, morality, or meaning. To date, the United States federal government has been defined as a representative democracy. A critical component of same is participatory elections. Therefore, I do not understand your premise of "rejecting electoralism[sic]" for "organizing toward an alternative", unless the intent is to no longer have a representative government. What alternative to an electoral process do you have in mind? And please be specific so that I may understand.
      - bdangubic 2y ago
        What alternative to an electoral process do you have in mind? And please be specific so that I may understand. more than one major political party would be a good start so that your “democracy” is more little more than “it is 2am at a bar and there are two of the ugliest people to ever roam the Earth but you are drunk and you are taking one of them home with ya…” :)

llm_trw 2y ago

[flagged]

bdangubic 2y ago
that is because in america a large majority of people’s entire identity is tied to one of the two political parties. there are no liberals who believe is small government and state’s rights, no conservatives who believe in woman’s rights or that america would collapse without immigrants… for majority of people every single opinion and thought they have just magically lines up with one political party - maaaagic… hence, saying both parties are the same will effectively offend everyone :)
- Spooky23 2y ago
  The democrats made a fundamental miscalculation in the late 90s that you can simply pander to brown people and they will turn out for you. The messaging is complex because you tell different audiences different things, and the Internet makes it complicated because conservative Hispanic Catholics don’t align with the platform. In doing that, they ceded rural America, which was devastated by NAFTA and other Clinton era policies. Giant agribusiness makes money, but the prosperous dairy operators really need regulation at the federal level to thrive. I grew up in a town that was solid rural democrat… that was gutted like a fish. 30 operating dairy farms to 1, which is a vertically integrated farm/dairy that delivers to consumers directly. The feed stores, gone. Tractor dealer, gone. The best job in town is truck driving and it’s solid trumper land. The modern conservative narrative is really simple, and is mostly hot air. Those chicken processing plants and farms in nowhereville that need a steady supply of cheap, dumb labor with no workers comp aren’t run by democrats. Bread & circus, until the crowd demands more.
  - bdangubic 2y ago
    Giant agribusiness makes money, but the prosperous dairy operators really need regulation at the federal level to thrive. good thing we elected a party that loves nothing more than federal regulation… /s I am neither democrat nor republican so I have no skin in the game here but I think this thinking here is very naive.
    - Spooky23 2y ago
      The grain market is a function of government regulation and price controls. The difference there is we scaled it up. Ever wonder why thousands of Mexicans woke up one day and decided to walk across the desert, never to return? Well, we flooded the market with massive quantities of subsidized corn and put their farms out of business. We did the same thing domestically with other commodities in places like New Jersey and Pennsylvania. With dairy, you had in-state production requirements and quotas that maintained a balance in price. A smallish dairy farm could support a household reasonably prosperously — there were thousands of farms in places like New York. Now you need thousands of cows to survive - that why milk is often cheaper than water in the supermarket. But just like WalMart, it gutted a key price of the rural economy. Hell, I watched it happen on a farm I worked on, that operated since the 1600s under the Dutch. Since the early 2000s they board horses for rich people to pay their property taxes.
  - dralley 2y ago
    NAFTA was far, far less impactful than China's entry into the WTO.
- devin 2y ago
  The current infighting between republicans over H1Bs seems a counterexample.
  - JasserInicide 2y ago
    Republicans have always been pro-immigrant because it's inherently pro-business. They just have to do a song and dance routine for the low IQ racist cohort of their constituency to make it seem like they're tough on it. Though I will say it's been rather amusing watching people act betrayed by Elon's thoughts on H1-B visa holders. Like, how did you idiots not see this coming? He's the richest person in the world for a reason. Plus he's an immigrant.
    - bdangubic 2y ago
      wait until they find out he is an immigrant… they are still processing vance is married to an indian and that vivek is not white…
      - macintux 2y ago
        There are doubts about Melania’s immigration status. She may have worked under the wrong visa and lied about it when filing for naturalization, which would make her an illegal immigrant as well.
    - krapp 2y ago
      They thought Elon was one of them because he's "anti-woke," just like they thought Trump was one of them because he "didn't talk like a politician."
    - Levitz 2y ago
      >Republicans have always been pro-immigrant because it's inherently pro-business. They just have to do a song and dance routine for the low IQ racist cohort of their constituency to make it seem like they're tough on it. It has consistently been about illegal immigration. You are calling people "low IQ" and "Idiots" and you, literally in this very post, show you are falling for the same thing they fell for.
- AdieuToLogic 2y ago
  Categorizing in terms of absolutes, such as "there are no liberals who ..." and "no conservatives who ...", is to engage in reductionism for the purpose of supporting a preconceived notion: ... for majority of people every single opinion and thought they have just magically lines up with one political party ... This is simply not true.
  - bdangubic 2y ago
    it simply is :) EDIT: I’ll elaborate quickly why… the country is so divided these days that you can hardly engage in any conversation regarding politics across the aisle. so your only option to discuss things is with like-minded people. now when you get into like-minded group there is a herd mentality happening and serious echo chamber. here’s a personal example - one of my dearest friends on this planet used to be as liberal as they come - 100% all the way… over the years, due to various reasons like the direction of the democratic party as well as deep-end social media she turned right. it did not happen overnight, it happened over several election cycles. I have watched her be swayed to the right on issue by issue … I am educated and wise and I understood this (she is not the only one either in my “circle”) and I looked at all the issues and was like “ok, sure but she will NEVER be against abortion…” well… you know how this story ends… I do believe that majority (I was talking in absolutes before but of course there are no absolutes) of americans are simply not smart enough to realize that two-party system made them mental slaves to those parties… finding pro-abortion republican might be as interesting as trying to find waldo :)
    - AdieuToLogic 2y ago
      >> Categorizing in terms of absolutes, such as "there are no liberals who ..." and "no conservatives who ...", is to engage in reductionism ... >> This is simply not true. > it simply is :) People make choices for a multitude of reasons. Sometimes those choices are knowingly to their detriment and can be confounding to others whom are not a part of their decision process. Many times the reasoning is "sacrifice for the greater good", where "the greater good" is defined by the very people who are the harbinger of their pain. Other times, it can be as simple as; "my life sucks so everyone else's should too!" I am sure there are many more categories which could be provided as well. But to say: .. for majority of people every single opinion and thought they have just magically lines up with one political party ... Is to be so dismissive of people as to be the height of arrogance.
lisper 2y ago
With good reason.
- llm_trw 2y ago
  Carter deregulated more than Raygun. Raygun introduced more gun regulations than Carter. Both parties are worse than the other on the issues they promise to be better on. It's almost like it's a big club that you're not a member of.
  - lisper 2y ago
    That may be, but that doesn't make them the same.
  - HaZeust 2y ago
    >"Raygun introduced more gun regulations than Carter" People forget this, Reagan literally started the charter and expectations for the modern gun control movement just because of Black Panther advancements and protests in the street with firearms.
    - trhway 2y ago
      He got scared of their right to carry arms back then as a CA governor and started the gun control there.
      - acdha 2y ago
        Prior to the NRA’s big push in the late seventies, gun control as a concept was uncontroversial as the first gun control laws dated back to the earliest days of the country. Reagan expanding coverage due to the Black Panthers was in line with earlier precedent (after Kennedy was assassinated, during WWII, during the Mob / prohibition era, etc.).
        HaZeust 2y ago
        A bit more nuanced than that; the NRA didn’t become the hardline defender of minimal gun regs until its 1977 leadership shift. Reagan’s 1967 Mulford Act as Governor targeted the Black Panthers, and then he signed 1986 FOPA as president, which relaxed some rules but banned new machine guns. It was a broad compromise package from the start.
ein0p 2y ago
They are the same where it counts, at least in 2024. Starting multi trillion dollar wars with no exit plan, passing spending bills full of insane pork, borrowing $2T per year - those are widely "bipartisan" issues. On these issues nothing changes irrespective of who gets elected. What little (in monetary terms) quibbling does occur, occurs over the issues that do not immediately affect most people. That is by design - it's performative, to delineate the in-group from the outsiders for each party, and pit people against each other. It's a very effective strategy, which people eagerly embrace, not realizing that people who devised this strategy are robbing them (and their children/grandchildren, if any) blind.
dralley 2y ago
A lot of the deregulation under Carter legitimately did need to happen.
- HaZeust 2y ago
  The Motor Carrier Act and Staggers Rail are the only ones that come to mind? Shipping costs were high and routes were guarded and inefficient, and the railroad industry was in shutters. What else had you reckoned?
  - tacticalturtle 2y ago
    The deregulation of passenger airlines happened during the Carter years: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airline_Deregulation_Act https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airline_Deregulation_Act
  - dugmartin 2y ago
    Some say the craft beer revolution was sparked by him signing the repeal of the outlawing of home brewing. https://beerinfo.com/homebrewing-law-signed-by-jimmy-carter-october-14th-1978/ https://beerinfo.com/homebrewing-law-signed-by-jimmy-carter-...
sixothree 2y ago
And you would deserve to be mocked for such a narrow and shallow observation.
epistasis 2y ago
Even if Reagan and Carter were the same on deregulation, it would be a huge logical error to conclude that the parties were "the same." But it's even more comically wrong because it's being pointed out that the presidents were different!
- worik 2y ago
  Politics, mēh! The divergence of the Democrats and Republicans is twenty first century. They were not identical back in the day, but they were broadly the same pro business pro money machines. Not unusual, happens in most parts of the world.
  - johnnyanmac 2y ago
    > They were not identical back in the day, but they were broadly the same pro business pro money machines. I don't know how you think that stopped in the 21st century. They just hid it behind the blatant attack on the growing identity movements.
AdieuToLogic 2y ago
> And yet people will mock you for saying that both parties are the same. "Just say no" to nihilism[0]. 0 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nihilism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nihilism
- wahnfrieden 2y ago
  Rejecting electoralism and demanding or organizing toward an alternative is not nihilism. Insisting that anything but electoralism is nihilism, might be.
  - AdieuToLogic 2y ago
    > Rejecting electoralism and demanding or organizing toward an alternative is not nihilism. I replied to this comment: And yet people will mock you for saying that both parties are the same. The Democratic and Republican parties are demonstrably "not the same." This is evident in policy positions and party platforms. The assertion quoted reasonably satisfies the referenced definition: In philosophy, nihilism (/ˈnaɪ(h)ɪlɪzəm, ˈniː-/; from Latin nihil 'nothing') is any viewpoint, or a family of views, that rejects generally accepted or fundamental aspects of human existence, namely knowledge, morality, or meaning. To date, the United States federal government has been defined as a representative democracy. A critical component of same is participatory elections. Therefore, I do not understand your premise of "rejecting electoralism[sic]" for "organizing toward an alternative", unless the intent is to no longer have a representative government. What alternative to an electoral process do you have in mind? And please be specific so that I may understand.
    - bdangubic 2y ago
      What alternative to an electoral process do you have in mind? And please be specific so that I may understand. more than one major political party would be a good start so that your “democracy” is more little more than “it is 2am at a bar and there are two of the ugliest people to ever roam the Earth but you are drunk and you are taking one of them home with ya…” :)