Just before he was elected, his campaign conspired to prevent the release of US hostages, a move they made to make Carter look bad. This is one of the reasons he won. The man worked directly against the benefit of US citizens for personal gain.
It’s a shame that Carter gets the blame for failing to reach an agreement to release the hostages, instead of Regan getting pinned for the much worse behavior of deliberately delaying their release.
That sounds shockingly similar to some current happenings…
Thanks for your comment but in this community we always like to see sources.
Could you provide some citations to back up your claim?
Someone else here already linked a wiki article that summarizes it. As far as I know, the most recent source is a retelling of events from Ben Barnes: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/18/us/politics/jimmy-carter-october-surprise-iran-hostages.html.
Where did you learn that?
This is one report about it. It’s fair to ask for sources of course but also literally all I had to do was do one web search.
This is widely known now.
The burden of proof is on the claimant. That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. Please provide it
Sir, this is an internet.
Sources should be easy to find, then.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1980_October_Surprise_theory
Check the references.
All of these things objectively happened. A conservative might argue that they weren’t all Reagan’s fault/responsibility, but that’s bullshit.
A modern conservative would take credit for every bit of this.
Even the deficits prevent future spending
Modern conservatives are stating to call this worthless, horrible man a fucking RINO. Regan is too far left for the modern republican party. We are heading down a terrifying road.
It took congress and a nation full of assholes to allow it. Every adult that was alive and able to vote at the time is responsible to some degree. Same as now.
People that voted against the assholes that did those things are not responsible.
I disagree.
We all have a responsibility. It isn’t as weighty an onus as someone that actively chose that leadership, but that’s the price of democracy, we all share in the burden as well as the benefits.
If nothing else, passively accepting it without revolution is a form of responsibility. We should be acting in that fashion now and aren’t, despite the invasion of body autonomy, the blatant racism and bigotry present in the system, and the massive numbers of people that will die because we didn’t rise up.
Notice the we in that. My old, crippled ass is just as responsible for not taking direct action. I was too young during Reagan, but I saw this shit coming during shrub/bush2 after 9/11. Didn’t do anything but vote and complain then, and don’t now because nobody believes how bad it’s going to get.
So, yeah everyone in responsible.
Well, grab your gun and lead, hero. Put up, or shut up.
You joining up?
Even the most radical leftist people I’ve known aren’t willing to join in. The last time I tried to get people moving with direct action, it was useless. Nobody willing to stand the fuck up and go take the kids that were/are in those fucking “immigration” concentration camps.
I fucking tried.
One crazy old fuck like me can’t do shit except shoot and die. It takes numbers, coordinated, to pull off a rescue attempt like that. People would be all mad, and I’d suggest actually doing something, and then it was all “but I can’t leave my job”, and “we have to work within the system”.
So, I’m putting up and shutting up. You want me to lead? Fine. Let’s do this shit. We start with those concentration camps. We get people on board, arm ourselves and each other. Whoever is closest gets assigned to surveillance while we build numbers, then we pick the most viable targets and get people out.
You in?
Edit: en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_immigrant_detention_sites_in_the_United_States
Pick one.
Yea, no. Half the reason democracy is great is getting to say, “I didn’t vote for the fuckhole.”
Thanks for your comment but in this community we always like to see sources.
Could you provide some citations to specific claims made in the OP?
I did not see repealing the fairness doctrine mentioned.
This is what is basically allowing media like fox “news” to spout straight up lies and made up news, while selectively not mentioning, twisting or brushing over actual news.
It’s also what allowed Sinclair to start their buying spree and create a hidden broadcast network of similar right-wing propaganda and lies. John Oliver had a very good episode on them: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=GvtNyOzGogc
For me this is the biggest sin of Ronald Reagan. Without this change to content quality control, there wouldn’t be so many Americans who live in an alternate reality, which is also what is allowing the republican party to not even try to govern & is allowing them to be as despicable as they are. Those rightwing “news” channels will after all just brush over their gaffes & instead conjure some made up scandal again over something democrats or one of the designated out groups has allegedly done.
Fox News is cable. And was never subject to the fairness doctrine. It may have had a small impact on AM radio. But nothing near the impact of all the consolidation that happened under Reagan and Clinton.
Fox news was launched when the fairness doctrine was already dead for many years and Rush Limbaugh was huge. Without the repeal of the fairness doctrine, right wing talk radio shows wouldn’t have been so ubiquitous. Without similar alternate fact content from many sources, fox news alternate facts would have to be closer to reality out of necessity or they would have no credibility with their target audience.
It’s one of those things where one thing lead to another. Without the repeal of the fairness doctrine, fox news as we know it today, would simply not exist. Here’s a good article on it: https://www.poynter.org/reporting-editing/2021/how-rush-limbaughs-rise-after-the-gutting-of-the-fairness-doctrine-led-to-todays-highly-partisan-media/
I don’t get your comment about how the impact on am radio was “small”. Consensus seems to be that the repeal in 1987 was the start of the shift to the alternate facts radio shows on am radio: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservative_talk_radio
Most consolidation came later and it’s definitely a contributing factor, but this shift was already well under way before most of the consolidation happened.
Technically Reagan started closing mental institutions while he was governor of California. He promised to open up alternatives and never did. It was a popular action that started when “One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest” showed abuse in the mental health system and the new system was suppose to have fixed those issues.
This is the problem, is that mental health abuses still happen today in whats left of mental health system in america.
We don’t need to tear it down, we need a federal oversight authority with balls and power to revoke licenses, issue massive fines, etc etc, with the funding and manpower to randomly inspect these facilities and interview patients at the drop of a hat, at any time of year, possibly multiple times a year.
and we need massive incentives to get hordes of new people, doctors, nurses, therapists, etc, into education to become qualified in their respective fields to do these jobs, and the fair pay for them.
The only comment that even attempts to debunk anything while offering sources is buried by downvotes. This community is badly in need of moderation.
You’re not wrong, but as it’s literally been six months since anyone posted anything here I’ve decided to let the discussion continue as long as the topic stays on Regan’s presidency.
Being out on the street is undoubtedly bad but you should not be clamoring to return to the days of stuffing homeless people into mental institutions. Indefinite involuntary commitment without trial or appeal is barbaric and that’s setting aside the kind of “treatments” they used and what they considered “disorders”.
Please, just give them homes.
I’m with you that the state should provide housing for them.
But schizophrenia is a serious disease and is prevalent (20%) in this group. Those people need psychiatric help. Only a home won’t fix it.
B-But why would we waste taxpayer money into improving the welfare of the people?
Almost all mental health institutions were either run by the state or country and relied on very little federal funding. Their popularity collapsed after the 1975 movie One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest that depicted such institutions in negative light. Reagan may be to blame for the other items but not this.
They were called State Houses for a reason. However, they did rely on no small amount of federal funding, even indirectly. Carter started a bill (MHSA1980) that was supposed to help mental health institutions like these, Regan killed it, and the promise was that the states would rework how these mentally ill were handled. Nobody ever got around to it. Taxes = evil, and there was also a study that was pushed hard by anti-tax types to “mainstream” mental patients. More cost cutting by closing State institutions and booting the patients into the public and like I said, the help never materialized. That’s the quick and dirty version.
The movie had nothing to do with it.
You are only partially correct about Reagan. He isn’t entirely responsible, but he absolutely had a hand in it. Cutting a bunch of the MHSA and the failure was also the State’s unwillingness to maintain public Institutions, but that ties in with the deregulation during the early ‘80s (Reagan’s doing) as well as fixing Medicare prices to hospitals so that hospitals had to look elsewhere to make money, and that means you and I paid more.
So yeah, loss of mental health care facilities and health care costs in general are directly tied to the Reagan administration’s actions in the early 1980s.
Perhaps you are unfamiliar with JFK’s movement for deinstutionalization? If there was a serious cut in federal funding, it happened then. Reagan didn’t bring it back, but it was already mostly gone by his time. A good book to read is “American Psychosis: How the Federal Government Destroyed the Mental Illness Treatment System” by E. Fuller Torrey. Many historians who discuss the decline in public mental health in the US specifically site the book (and later the movie) One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest as a principle cause for the shift in dollars. And really, the institutions were bad. Very bad. The attempt to replace them with something else ended-up being replaced with … nothing else except crime, homelessness, and police.
Thanks for your comment but in this community we always like to see sources.
Could you provide some citations to back up your claims?
Perhaps you are unfamiliar with JFK’s movement for deinstutionalization? If there was a serious cut in federal funding, it happened then. Reagan didn’t bring it back, but it was already mostly gone by his time. A good book to read is “American Psychosis: How the Federal Government Destroyed the Mental Illness Treatment System” by E. Fuller Torrey. Many historians who discuss the decline in public mental health in the US specifically site the book (and later the movie) One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest as a principle cause for the shift in dollars. And really, the institutions were bad. Very bad. The attempt to replace them with something else ended-up being replaced with … nothing else except crime, homelessness, and police.
A number of people replied about Reagan’s work ending state mental institutions, and made a lot of good points. One interesting aspect of that was https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deinstitutionalisation. In the 60s and 70s, mental health professionals were advocating for moving from a institution-based model of care (a la “One Flew Over the Cookoo’s Nest”) to a community-based model (groups like https://www.reachinc.org/ basically follow this model). The basic thrust: ensuring that individuals are a part of a community, and care is tailored to the individual. It’s very well-meaning at its core. By the lat 70s, deinstitutionalization had (to some extent) become doctrine with experts working with disabled individuals. And for good reason! A number of early studies showed promising results! So come the 80s and Reagan. Reagan has an easy excuse for closing down institutions: experts in th field even recommend it! There’s one really important caveat, though: experts recommended diverting the funding the institutions had received into community-based support (again, see the link above for Reach as an example of how they imagined this funding being dispersed). Reagan…just cut the funding. So really, he did a “No Child Left Behind” 20 years earlier! Which, as I type it out…is even shittier. He gave false hope that he was actually going to do something great for mentally disabled people, and instead threw them on the street. Man. Reagan really sucked.
Side note: there are groups like Reach all over the US and the world, and they all could use help. Volunteers, funding, etc. A quick bit of research and you may meet some incredible people in your local community.
“Reagan”, not “Regan”
Thanks. Updated.
This is not to mention how the war on drugs lead to massive effects on vital industries such as hemp
That reminds me I wanted to look up if the non drug use parts of marijuana plants can be processed into fabric too or if it’s any different. Like 20 years ago when google still worked. I forgot though. Also if marijuana seeds are the same food wise as hemp seeds. probably not worth the price though
Although the two plants are of the same species, hemp plants grown for fiber used to make rope are different from marijuana plants grown for flowers that produce THC (the “drug part”) in many physiological and practical ways. As different as a wolf from a shih tzu, or a crabapple from a honeycrisp.
For the most part, THC is produced in the flower of the cannabis plant. Most cannabis plants are either male or female (not both), and only female plants produce flowers.
Since hemp plants are cultivated for fiber, they usually have thick, strong, stalks. It’s better to grow them taller as opposed to wider, to fit more plants in a field. Both male and female plants can be used for fiber. Female hemp plants do grow small flowers, and those flowers do produce small amounts of THC, but not enough to be worth harvesting. Legally, modern hemp plants grown for fiber have less than one third of one percent THC content.
Since marijuana plants are cultivated for flowers, they usually have multiple, branching stalks, and they often spread and grow bushy at the top. It’s better to grow them wider as opposed to taller, so each plant can spread out and produce multiple flower stalks. The thin, branching stalks of these relatively short female marijuana plants could be used for fiber, but there’s probably not enough material there to be worth the effort. Meanwhile, many producers claim their marijuana flower to have 25% THC content or more.
It’s thought that cannabis flowers produce THC for at least two reasons. One is that the compound is sticky and helps hold on to pollen that might drift past from nearby male plants. Another reason is that it acts as a sunscreen for the flowers. The flowers produce THC to capture pollen, and also to protect themselves from the sun when they are wide open and waiting for the pollen to come.
Cannabis seeds don’t contain any THC (except whatever small amount may be left over from the flowers that produced them). All else being equal, the seeds of a hemp plant and the seeds of a marijuana plant should have the same value as a food source or industrial resource. Seeds from marijuana plants are rarer, though not necessarily more valuable.
One reason marijuana seeds are rare is that cannabis flowers produce way more THC when they are left unfertilized. The plant is producing THC in order to attract pollen, so as long as there is no pollen around, the plant just keeps producing more THC. It is by far most efficient to keep THC-producing female plants isolated from male plants. But this means those flowers are never fertilized and never produce any new seeds.
Long ago, it was common for marijuana bud to have seeds. Cannabis flowers grown outdoors are much more difficult to keep from being fertilized. Seedless marijuana bud, “sinsemilla,” was an uncommon treat for many illicit cannabis consumers in the '70s, '80s, or even into the '90s. More recently, relaxed legal regulation and technological advances have made controlled indoor marijuana growing much easier and more effective, and much more common. These days the paradigm has flipped, and it’s highly unusual (and maybe a little insulting) to find seeds in any flower purchased for THC consumption.
Thanks. I only knew about THC difference between them and wasn’t sure if the other details were as different as your examples or similar along the lines of the nutritional value of many cabbage plants being similar.
