Is there any measurable way the country does better with Republican presidents?

[Into the Night]

At the time of the Constitution, none of the Bill of Rights applied to the states.

All but one applies to the States as well as the federal government.

That only changed with the 14th amendment,

The 14th amendment didn't address or change the 2nd amendment.

after which point courts started applying some of those rights to the states,

Lie.

by reasoning that the 14th amendment had implicitly done so.

Lie.

However, they applied those gradually, rather than a single case ruling the whole bill of rights applied to the states.

Lie. The courts do not have authority to change the Constitution.

It wasn't until 2010 that the conservative-dominated court ruled the second amendment applied to the states.

Lie.

Before that, no state gun control law had ever been struck down on 2nd amendment grounds, for the simple reason that the 2nd amendment didn't apply to the states before 2010.

Lie.

So, does that mean that there's nothing you can do, legally, to stop me from carrying a gun into your home?

No. The Constitution does not apply to individuals.

After all, that would be infringing on my right to bear arms, and the Constitution says that shall not be infringed.

The Constitution does not apply to individuals.

No, of course not.
At the time of the Constitution, in that poorly drafted amendment the passive voice was understood to apply against the Federal government only

You can't discard the Constitution calling it 'poorly drafted'. It is plain.

and since 2010 it's been understood to apply against the federal government and state and local governments.

You don't have authority to change the Constitution, and neither does the Supreme Court.

It's not understood to apply to private individuals,

I already said this. It is obvious you have no idea what a constitution is or what it does. It is also obvious that you have never read it. You just want to discard it, along with the constitutions of the various States.

just as it previously was not understood to apply to states.

False equivalence fallacy. Discard of the Constitution of the United States.

 

[Flash]

There is no right to murder.

No state includes abortion under its murder statutes. It applies to a person which is defined as a "born" person in about every state. A fetus cannot make contracts, inherit anything.....

 

[Dutch Uncle]

At the time of the Constitution, none of the Bill of Rights applied to the states. That only changed with the 14th amendment, after which point courts started applying some of those rights to the states, by reasoning that the 14th amendment had implicitly done so. However, they applied those gradually, rather than a single case ruling the whole bill of rights applied to the states. It wasn't until 2010 that the conservative-dominated court ruled the second amendment applied to the states. Before that, no state gun control law had ever been struck down on 2nd amendment grounds, for the simple reason that the 2nd amendment didn't apply to the states before 2010.



So, does that mean that there's nothing you can do, legally, to stop me from carrying a gun into your home? After all, that would be infringing on my right to bear arms, and the Constitution says that shall not be infringed. No, of course not. At the time of the Constitution, in that poorly drafted amendment the passive voice was understood to apply against the Federal government only and since 2010 it's been understood to apply against the federal government and state and local governments. It's not understood to apply to private individuals, just as it previously was not understood to apply to states.

All but one applies to the States as well as the federal government.

The 14th amendment didn't address or change the 2nd amendment.

Lie.

Lie.

Lie. The courts do not have authority to change the Constitution.

Lie.

Lie.

No. The Constitution does not apply to individuals.

The Constitution does not apply to individuals.

You can't discard the Constitution calling it 'poorly drafted'. It is plain.

You don't have authority to change the Constitution, and neither does the Supreme Court.

I already said this. It is obvious you have no idea what a constitution is or what it does. It is also obvious that you have never read it. You just want to discard it, along with the constitutions of the various States.

False equivalence fallacy. Discard of the Constitution of the United States.

 

[Mina]

All but one applies to the States as well as the federal government.

The 14th amendment didn't address or change the 2nd amendment.

Lie.

Lie.

Lie. The courts do not have authority to change the Constitution.

Lie.

Lie.

No. The Constitution does not apply to individuals.

The Constitution does not apply to individuals.

You can't discard the Constitution calling it 'poorly drafted'. It is plain.

You don't have authority to change the Constitution, and neither does the Supreme Court.

I already said this. It is obvious you have no idea what a constitution is or what it does. It is also obvious that you have never read it. You just want to discard it, along with the constitutions of the various States.

False equivalence fallacy. Discard of the Constitution of the United States.

Trolling.

 

[Into the Night]

No state includes abortion under its murder statutes.

WRONG.

It applies to a person which is defined as a "born" person in about every state.

WRONG. I have already shown you several State laws about this.

A fetus cannot make contracts, inherit anything.....

Irrelevant. Strawman fallacy.

 

[gfm7175]

No state includes abortion under its murder statutes.

MANY states consider abortion to be a felony offense. Wisconsin is one of them.

It applies to a person which is defined as a "born" person in about every state. A fetus cannot make contracts, inherit anything.....

Wisconsin law is very clear that the term "unborn child" means "from conception".

 

[Granule]

No. Wikipedia is fabulously useful, since it's so easily searchable and amply hyperlinked, allowing it to serve as a guidepost to more definitive sources.

For example, say you want to know what unemployment rates are in each state. You may know that it's the Bureau of Labor Statistics that keeps that data, and you may know your way around their website well enough to navigate to their data retrieval app so you can pull those records. But if not, you can go to Wikipedia, find the information quickly, along with a link to the relevant BLS page. Same with the Census website and median income data, or the OECD website and international GDP data, and so on.



That's why this is so emotionally difficult for you -- you start with the ASSUMPTION that my side is wrong nearly all the time, and seeing data consistently contradicting that assumption can be tough on you.



Let's see. Between January 1977 (Carter's first month) and January 1981 (his last), we added jobs at a rate of 3.06% annualized. Between January 1981 and January 1989, the Reagan era, that figure was 2.06%. So, yes I think I'd call that a "stark contrast." Job creation was a whole hell of a lot stronger on Carter's watch.

Or were you referring to deficits? In FY 1977 (which started in 1976, under Ford), the Federal deficit was 2.57% of GDP. BY FY 1981 (Carter's last budget), it was 2.46%. Then, by 1989 (Reagan's last budget) it was 2.71%. So, deficits shrank relative to GDP on Carter's watch and grew on Reagan's. So, again, I agree with you that it's a stark contrast.

No, Wikipedia is the dictionary that any ol' piece of shit can edit. I do, however, like to use it against lefties when the opportunity presents itself.

Your side IS wrong all the time. Even if on occasion you are right accidentally it's still unintentional.

Peanuts. Carter was a fuckup. Runaway Inflation and Iran are part of what got his ass kicked to the curb. Reagan was clearly Carter's superior and it's not even a debate.

 

[Mina]

No, Wikipedia is the dictionary that any ol' piece of shit can edit.

Yep. But those "pieces of shit" cannot edit the pages to which it links, which is the point I'm making. If you're skeptical of the numbers, you can simply link through to the source pages and confirm they've been reported correctly. When it came to those murder rates, the source was the official FBI Uniform Crime Report numbers, and they were reported correctly on the Wikipedia page.

Runaway Inflation

High inflation had taken hold in the Nixon/Ford era. The difference is they neglected the problem, kicking the can down the road for a future president to figure out. Carter, on the other hand, took actual measures to fix the problem, by picking an inflation hawk for the Fed, knowing that Volcker would engineer a recession by severely restricting money supply, in order to break inflation expectations. That cost Carter his presidency, but Reagan basically confirmed he thought it was the correct approach, by sticking with Volcker and his Fed policy, and it did end up working.

Iran are part of what got his ass kicked to the curb

Yes. I think what happened with Iran does a lot to explain the course of Republican political strategy in the decades after that. The Reagan team very much used the hostage situation against Carter, rather than taking the view that politics stop at the water's edge. In fact, there are even signs the Reagan team worked to delay the release of the hostages in order to hurt Carter in the election. Republican David Rockefeller worked to discourage a pre-election release of the American hostages, for fear that would get Carter elected. His team worked with the Reagan campaign to spread rumors there could be possible payoffs to Iran in exchange for the release, which encouraged Iran to hold out and try to negotiate those. For decades, that was just a rumor and conspiracy theory, but then in 2020 documents were released that included Rockefeller's chief of staff admitting in a letter to his family that he'd worked to thwart efforts by the Carter officials to get the hostages released (Reagan later rewarded Rockefeller with an ambassadorship).

Anyway, I think the Republicans looked at that success and realized there was no value to patriotism -- no value for them in coming together as a nation in the face of such a crisis. Instead, they'd take every such situation as an opportunity for a "gotcha" moment -- turning national tragedies into partisan wins by working in the party's interests instead of the nation's. I think you see how that played out in the years after that with things like the handling of the Cole bombing or Benghazi. Where Democrats would treat such things fairly apolitically, when they happened under Republican presidents (see the Stark attack or Karachi, or most of all 9/11), Republicans would follow the Iran playbook and think only of what partisan advantage could be had from it. That belly-crawling behavior had handed them the presidency in 1980, so they never really got off their bellies after that.

Reagan was clearly Carter's superior and it's not even a debate.

I'm debating it. Carter was better for job creation and the budget balance.

 

[Granule]

Yep. But those "pieces of shit" cannot edit the pages to which it links, which is the point I'm making. If you're skeptical of the numbers, you can simply link through to the source pages and confirm they've been reported correctly. When it came to those murder rates, the source was the official FBI Uniform Crime Report numbers, and they were reported correctly on the Wikipedia page.

They can skew the original message, which is the point I am making. It's best to leave wikipedia out of it and go straight to the source. You, also, could've gone straight to the source but you chose the dictionary that any ol' piece of shit can edit, instead. That by itself makes your entire message suspect.

High inflation had taken hold in the Nixon/Ford era. The difference is they neglected the problem, kicking the can down the road for a future president to figure out. Carter, on the other hand, took actual measures to fix the problem, by picking an inflation hawk for the Fed, knowing that Volcker would engineer a recession by severely restricting money supply, in order to break inflation expectations. That cost Carter his presidency, but Reagan basically confirmed he thought it was the correct approach, by sticking with Volcker and his Fed policy, and it did end up working.

Peanuts. It doesn't matter what Carter could have done. Carter could have been a Republican and had a much better shot at a second term. Of course, that's not how he was built, and he lost in a landslide.

Yes. I think what happened with Iran does a lot to explain the course of Republican political strategy in the decades after that. The Reagan team very much used the hostage situation against Carter, rather than taking the view that politics stop at the water's edge. In fact, there are even signs the Reagan team worked to delay the release of the hostages in order to hurt Carter in the election. Republican David Rockefeller worked to discourage a pre-election release of the American hostages, for fear that would get Carter elected. His team worked with the Reagan campaign to spread rumors there could be possible payoffs to Iran in exchange for the release, which encouraged Iran to hold out and try to negotiate those. For decades, that was just a rumor and conspiracy theory, but then in 2020 documents were released that included Rockefeller's chief of staff admitting in a letter to his family that he'd worked to thwart efforts by the Carter officials to get the hostages released (Reagan later rewarded Rockefeller with an ambassadorship).

Anyway, I think the Republicans looked at that success and realized there was no value to patriotism -- no value for them in coming together as a nation in the face of such a crisis. Instead, they'd take every such situation as an opportunity for a "gotcha" moment -- turning national tragedies into partisan wins by working in the party's interests instead of the nation's. I think you see how that played out in the years after that with things like the handling of the Cole bombing or Benghazi. Where Democrats would treat such things fairly apolitically, when they happened under Republican presidents (see the Stark attack or Karachi, or most of all 9/11), Republicans would follow the Iran playbook and think only of what partisan advantage could be had from it. That belly-crawling behavior had handed them the presidency in 1980, so they never really got off their bellies after that.

No. What you think happened and what actually happened are two different things. Carter limped to the finish line of his first term and got his ass kicked in a landslide.

I'm debating it. Carter was better for job creation and the budget balance.

You're defending a loser, and a fuckup. Reagan wins.

 

[Flash]

MANY states consider abortion to be a felony offense. Wisconsin is one of them.

Wisconsin law is very clear that the term "unborn child" means "from conception".

Abortion in Wisconsin is legal up to the 22nd week of pregnancy.

Wisconsin Law on Abortion:

940.04  Abortion. (1)  Any person, other than the mother, who intentionally destroys the life of an unborn child is guilty of a Class H felony.
(2) Any person, other than the mother, who does either of the following is guilty of a Class E felony:
(a) Intentionally destroys the life of an unborn quick child; or
(b) Causes the death of the mother by an act done with intent to destroy the life of an unborn child. It is unnecessary to prove that the fetus was alive when the act so causing the mother's death was committed.
(5) This section does not apply to a therapeutic abortion which:
(a) Is performed by a physician; and
(b) Is necessary, or is advised by 2 other physicians as necessary, to save the life of the mother; and
(c) Unless an emergency prevents, is performed in a licensed maternity hospital.

"From conception" does not apply to the mother as can be seen by the actual statute.

 

[Mina]

They can skew the original message, which is the point I am making

I'm sure you're right. I've even spotted some of that, where right-winger go in and edit something to make an incorrect statement that supports their talking points, which then needs to be cleaned up by others when the error is spotted. In fact, I've made a couple of those corrections myself. And what's nice is that the editors look at the revisions and the links to decide which is right.

But, in the case we're talking about here, nothing was skewed. It was simply a linked table of data that matched up exactly with the data from the definitive source. I get why a right-winger would desperately want to talk about the theoretical ability to skew things on Wikipedia, rather than what that underlying data indicates, but the urge to go off on that tangent is telling. If you doubt Wikipedia, bypass it entirely and go straight to that FBI link I provided. You'll see the same data, supporting the same claims I made.

You, also, could've gone straight to the source but you chose the dictionary that any ol' piece of shit can edit, instead. That by itself makes your entire message suspect.

It was better to link to Wikipedia, since they present the data in one clear and easily accessible format, whereas the FBI link I provided requires you to go in and use the applet to pull each number individually. The numbers are all the same, either way, but it's a bit much to ask people on a site like this to take that time. For those who aren't sure about Wikipedia's data, though, they can follow the link on the page to the original source and confirm.

Peanuts. It doesn't matter what Carter could have done. Carter could have been a Republican and had a much better shot at a second term.

Probably true. If he'd been a scumbag, he'd have just kicked the inflation problem down the road and won a second term. Fortunately for the nation, he was a good president, instead. He chose improving the prospects of his fellow Americans over securing his own job. It's too bad we don't have more patriots like him in office.

What you think happened and what actually happened are two different things

What makes you think that?

 

[Granule]

I'm sure you're right. I've even spotted some of that, where right-winger go in and edit something to make an incorrect statement that supports their talking points, which then needs to be cleaned up by others when the error is spotted. In fact, I've made a couple of those corrections myself. And what's nice is that the editors look at the revisions and the links to decide which is right.

But, in the case we're talking about here, nothing was skewed. It was simply a linked table of data that matched up exactly with the data from the definitive source. I get why a right-winger would desperately want to talk about the theoretical ability to skew things on Wikipedia, rather than what that underlying data indicates, but the urge to go off on that tangent is telling. If you doubt Wikipedia, bypass it entirely and go straight to that FBI link I provided. You'll see the same data, supporting the same claims I made.



It was better to link to Wikipedia, since they present the data in one clear and easily accessible format, whereas the FBI link I provided requires you to go in and use the applet to pull each number individually. The numbers are all the same, either way, but it's a bit much to ask people on a site like this to take that time. For those who aren't sure about Wikipedia's data, though, they can follow the link on the page to the original source and confirm.



Probably true. If he'd been a scumbag, he'd have just kicked the inflation problem down the road and won a second term. Fortunately for the nation, he was a good president, instead. He chose improving the prospects of his fellow Americans over securing his own job. It's too bad we don't have more patriots like him in office.



What makes you think that?

That's why it's best to avoid editable dictionaries altogether. But that still doesn't explain why you insist on using an editable source when you have the actual source at your fingertips. I get that a left-winger like yourself probably feels this kind of "dictionary" is on the up and up. Plus it must make you feel pretty proud of yourself to know that you as a leftist went into to -- "clean up" lol -- a Right Winger's edit. You must be drunk on this kind of ego fuel. But now the problem falls back on you -- you're not trustworthy; no left-winger is; you're actually a psychopath masquerading as a good citizen.

No, wikipedi a rag, and your opinions are one of the smudges; both belong in the shit can.

No, it's never better to link Wikipedia in any situation because it's not reliable; nothing editable is ever reliable except for the psychopaths who make the edits themselves.

Carter was a fuckup; it's why we had runaway inflation. Reagan was not a fuckup. It's why inflation dropped during his presidency.

Because the rescue debacle in Iran was Jimmy Carter's call, not Ronald Reagan's.

 

[Mina]

But that still doesn't explain why you insist on using an editable source when you have the actual source at your fingertips

I explained that directly. It's odd that you'd have trouble understanding it, since I stated it in very simple terms. Here it is again:

It was better to link to Wikipedia, since they present the data in one clear and easily accessible format, whereas the FBI link I provided requires you to go in and use the applet to pull each number individually. The numbers are all the same, either way, but it's a bit much to ask people on a site like this to take that time. For those who aren't sure about Wikipedia's data, though, they can follow the link on the page to the original source and confirm.

I get that a left-winger like yourself probably feels this kind of "dictionary" is on the up and up

It's like you're replying without having actually read what you're replying to. I haven't said anything about them being "on the up and up." I admit that it's possible for people to inject false information on those pages, and I mentioned that I've had to fix that in the past. But it's a red herring, here, since the information I was linking to isn't false -- it's EXACTLY the same information the FBI is reporting, merely in a more easily accessible and reviewable format.

Reagan was not a fuckup.

Yes, it's probably unfair to mere fuckups to hand that label to a malicious incompetent like Reagan. A mere fuckup wouldn't have caused such lasting damage.

It's why inflation dropped during his presidency.

Inflation dropped because interest rates were raised high enough to break the expectation of constant money over-supply, which had been around since the early 1970's (as had high inflation). It also helped that the Camp David Accords set us up for an era of unusual quiet in the Middle East, so that there weren't terrible oil spikes.

Because the rescue debacle in Iran was Jimmy Carter's call, not Ronald Reagan's.

This is in line with what I was saying earlier. When a well-meaning act abroad went badly on Republican watches, for the most part Democrats treated it as a shared national tragedy, whereas when that happened on Democratic watches, Republicans treated it as a "gotcha" moment they could use for partisan gain. A good comparison would be between Carter's rescue attempt, which failed at a cost of eight servicemen's lives, versus Reagan's failed attempt to secure the Beirut barracks, which resulted in 307 deaths, including 241 US service members. Although Reagan's failure had a vastly bigger death toll, and far more enduring negative consequences, it wasn't as politically harmful, because the Democrats didn't treat it as a "gotcha" moment, but instead reacted patriotically.

It comes down to a keen observation about Republicans: shamelessness is their superpower.

 

[Earl]

That's why it's best to avoid editable dictionaries altogether. But that still doesn't explain why you insist on using an editable source when you have the actual source at your fingertips. I get that a left-winger like yourself probably feels this kind of "dictionary" is on the up and up. Plus it must make you feel pretty proud of yourself to know that you as a leftist went into to -- "clean up" lol -- a Right Winger's edit. You must be drunk on this kind of ego fuel. But now the problem falls back on you -- you're not trustworthy; no left-winger is; you're actually a psychopath masquerading as a good citizen.

No, wikipedi a rag, and your opinions are one of the smudges; both belong in the shit can.

No, it's never better to link Wikipedia in any situation because it's not reliable; nothing editable is ever reliable except for the psychopaths who make the edits themselves.

Carter was a fuckup; it's why we had runaway inflation. Reagan was not a fuckup. It's why inflation dropped during his presidency.

Because the rescue debacle in Iran was Jimmy Carter's call, not Ronald Reagan's.

Indeed and the people will speak in November.

Of course the far left loons won't listen.

 

[gfm7175]

Abortion in Wisconsin is legal up to the 22nd week of pregnancy.

No, it is not, per the very own statute that you have posted here.

Wisconsin considers abortion to be a felony offense, dude.

"From conception" does not apply to the mother as can be seen by the actual statute.

It applies to (and is defining) the term 'unborn child'.

Why do you keep posting relevant information (such as a law or a bit of constitutional language) and then completely ignoring what it says in your replies??

 

[LurchAddams]

Indeed and the people will speak in November.

Of course the far left loons won't listen.

The major problem the right's going to have to resolve in order to be successful in November is to prove they're loyal to the US and not Russia. If you listen to Tucker and Rand Paul, they sound just like Putin.

I don't know what Republican's attraction to that evil thug is - but it's so obvious- I dont' think even some Republicans will vote Republican the next two cycles unless the Republican Taliban shows its willing to reform

 

[Flash]

No, it is not, per the very own statute that you have posted here.

Wisconsin considers abortion to be a felony offense, dude.
It applies to (and is defining) the term 'unborn child'.

Why do you keep posting relevant information (such as a law or a bit of constitutional language) and then completely ignoring what it says in your replies??

Because you don't seem to understand the statute. Try again:

940.04  Abortion.(1)  Any person, other than the mother, who intentionally destroys the life of an unborn child is guilty of a Class H felony.
(2) Any person, other than the mother, who does either of the following is guilty of a Class E felony:
(a) Intentionally destroys the life of an unborn quick child; or
(b) Causes the death of the mother by an act done with intent to destroy the life of an unborn child. It is unnecessary to prove that the fetus was alive when the act so causing the mother's death was committed.
(5) This section does not apply to a therapeutic abortion which:
(a) Is performed by a physician; and
(b) Is necessary, or is advised by 2 other physicians as necessary, to save the life of the mother; and
(c) Unless an emergency prevents, is performed in a licensed maternity hospital.

It clearly says it is only a crime if not committed by the mother and it does not apply to an abortion performed by a doctor.

So, that means abortion is not illegal which we already knew since Roe v. Wade made it unconstitutional.

 

[Granule]

I explained that directly. It's odd that you'd have trouble understanding it, since I stated it in very simple terms. Here it is again:

It was better to link to Wikipedia, since they present the data in one clear and easily accessible format, whereas the FBI link I provided requires you to go in and use the applet to pull each number individually. The numbers are all the same, either way, but it's a bit much to ask people on a site like this to take that time. For those who aren't sure about Wikipedia's data, though, they can follow the link on the page to the original source and confirm.




It's like you're replying without having actually read what you're replying to. I haven't said anything about them being "on the up and up." I admit that it's possible for people to inject false information on those pages, and I mentioned that I've had to fix that in the past. But it's a red herring, here, since the information I was linking to isn't false -- it's EXACTLY the same information the FBI is reporting, merely in a more easily accessible and reviewable format.



Yes, it's probably unfair to mere fuckups to hand that label to a malicious incompetent like Reagan. A mere fuckup wouldn't have caused such lasting damage.



Inflation dropped because interest rates were raised high enough to break the expectation of constant money over-supply, which had been around since the early 1970's (as had high inflation). It also helped that the Camp David Accords set us up for an era of unusual quiet in the Middle East, so that there weren't terrible oil spikes.



This is in line with what I was saying earlier. When a well-meaning act abroad went badly on Republican watches, for the most part Democrats treated it as a shared national tragedy, whereas when that happened on Democratic watches, Republicans treated it as a "gotcha" moment they could use for partisan gain. A good comparison would be between Carter's rescue attempt, which failed at a cost of eight servicemen's lives, versus Reagan's failed attempt to secure the Beirut barracks, which resulted in 307 deaths, including 241 US service members. Although Reagan's failure had a vastly bigger death toll, and far more enduring negative consequences, it wasn't as politically harmful, because the Democrats didn't treat it as a "gotcha" moment, but instead reacted patriotically.

It comes down to a keen observation about Republicans: shamelessness is their superpower.

Yes, i guess you did explain it. Maniacal egoism is the reason you chose an editable source.

Well, at least you were honest (in a roundabout way).

I'm replying based on sound reasoning. Don't trust editable sources.

Well, you communists do hate folks like Ronald Reagan, that's for damn sure; but it still doesn't change the fact that he was a much better President than Jimmy "the fuckup" Carter.

Runaway inflation happened because a fuckup like Jimmy Carter was at the helm. It's one reason why he was destroyed in a landslide.

The rescue was a cluster fuck, thanks to an incompetent President. All Carter wanted was to smack some of our allies for not getting in touch with their human rights feelings.

 

[Mina]

Yes, i guess you did explain it. Maniacal egoism is the reason you chose an editable source

You misunderstood. Try rereading. Good luck.

Runaway inflation happened because a fuckup like Jimmy Carter was at the helm

As a reminder, it predated him. The highest the monthly inflation rate ever went (at least after the 1940s and 1950s) was in the Nixon years, in August 1973 (21.5% annualized). The second-highest was during the Carter era, in January 1980 (17.0%), but Ford wasn't far behind, with a peak of 16.7%.

The rescue was a cluster fuck, thanks to an incompetent President

In Beirut? Yes, indeed. Literally hundreds of American service members dead!

 

[Granule]

You misunderstood. Try rereading. Good luck.



As a reminder, it predated him. The highest the monthly inflation rate ever went (at least after the 1940s and 1950s) was in the Nixon years, in August 1973 (21.5% annualized). The second-highest was during the Carter era, in January 1980 (17.0%), but Ford wasn't far behind, with a peak of 16.7%.



In Beirut? Yes, indeed. Literally hundreds of American service members dead!

There is no misunderstanding. You're an egomaniac. It's why you have the nerve to try and use Wikipedia as an actual source.

We're not talking about other Presidencies. We're talking about Reagan's predecessor. The man was a complete fuckup and Regan was by far his superior. It's why he trounced the fuckup in his first election.

Because of Jimmy Carter. Kind of reminds me of another fuckup who sits in the Oval Office even as I'm typing this message.