Carter would pick Trump if he had no other choice

Please consider donating to Behind the Black, by giving either a one-time contribution or a regular subscription, as outlined in the tip jar to the right or below. Your support will allow me to continue covering science and culture as I have for the past twenty years, independent and free from any outside influence.

Heh: When asked by a reporter about the Presidential campaign, former President Jimmy Carter said he’d pick Donald Trump over Ted Cruz if they were his only choices. And why would he do that?

If he had to choose between Cruz and Trump for the Republican nomination, Carter chuckled, “I think I would choose Trump, which may surprise some of you.” (It did, judging by the loud laughter from the audience.)

“The reason is, Trump has proven already he’s completely malleable,” Carter explained. [emphasis mine]

I think this might one of those very rare moments when Jimmy Carter has correctly analyzed the situation.



  • Cotour

    Q: What liberal / socialist would want a conservative Obama like ideologue in the White House?

    A: None.

    I still say that if Trump successfully goes through the trials and tribulations of getting to the White House that he will tend to surprise rather than disappoint, and not surprise in a bad way.

    Maybe Carters “endorsement” will attract undecided Liberal Democrats / Independents to vote for Trump, his endorsement may well push him over the top!

  • Phill O

    An endorsement by the second worst president in modern history is not a good thing!

  • Cotour

    Another reason to be enthusiastic for a Trump presidency, the commitment of 25% of federal workers to quit?

    Trump is already paying bonus’s, and he has not yet won anything.

    PS: I just listened to an interview with the author of “The Devils Chess Board” by David Talbot.

    If you want to understand how power is exercised and abused and how a shadow government can be / is created I suggest this book be read.

  • Your support of Trump is interesting, because it seems based merely on what you think is his electability, and on what appears to be a very naive belief in everything he has been saying for the past six months during the campaign. I think this description of what Trump’s administration would be like is far more accurate. Here is just one quote:

    The Senate and House remained strongly Republican, but they seemed to learn nothing. The promised repeal and replacement of Obamacare slipped from a Day One priority to a Day 90 priority to a “Somewhere down the road” priority. Trump also half-heartedly tried to build a wall, but then gave up, explaining, “Well, Mexico refuses to pay for it and we shouldn’t have to.” It was not long before Trump began to “grow in office,” and soon he was explaining how, “We really need these people here, these illegal people to do the dirty jobs Americans just won’t do. We need them and it would kill our economy if we stopped it.” He soon signed a comprehensive immigration law legalizing the millions of illegals already here and expanding legal immigration; there were no firm border security provisions in the bill. When confronted by a Fox News reporter at a news conference about this flip-flop, Trump responded, “That’s a very, very rude and stupid question coming from you. The voters, they understand you have to compromise and make deals and we’ve made a very strong deal. You are probably saying this because it is that time of the month and you women say crazy things then.”

    As for the poll saying that 25% of federal workers would quit if he became president, be serious. None of those workers are going to give up their precious and very secure jobs if Trump wins. Right now they can even commit crimes and not be fired. What they are signaling is their absolute opposition to Trump, and a willingness to sabotage him or any true conservative who attempts to attack their sweet deal.

  • Keith

    Here is a interesting opinion piece in the Newark Star Ledger, which analyzes the root of Atlantic City’s financial problems and why Trump was right while the politicians in my state were wrong. While harsh, Trump’s description of political leaders as “stupid” appears to be correct in this case. Atlantic City’s story is similar to so many others, Detroit, etc.

  • Cotour

    You are correct, I do see Trump as having in the end the best chance of actually being elected by the very angry masses. I think that if you take a moment and think about it when you recall the themes of my posts, there is not much that I would take at face value from anyone involved in politics or the administration of power. Will Trump have a hard time? Bet on it, but he will be such a curve ball that he may (? Unknowable) actually have some real effect. He will surround himself with “the best people” what ever that might mean.

    While I am on the subject of “the best people” in government, look into that book “The Devils Chess Board” by David Talbot, that is how I understand things / power to operate in politics, so naive? Really?

    And what the federal workers said is much like what Barry Diller said about what he would do if Trump is elected, he is leaving the country. Do I believe that he is really going to do that? Do you?

  • Edward

    The article is not well titled (but this post is). Carter predicts that Trump will fade away, and he only chose Trump when he had to hypothetically make a choice between only two potential candidates, the other candidate being the complete antithesis to Carter’s views.

    This is hardly an endorsement.

  • pzatchok

    Does anyone remember when Carter stopped the immigration of middle easterners/Muslims because of the hostage crisis?

    Or when Roosevelt imprisoned all those Japanese and stopped the immigration of Germans.

    Sorry I forgot we can’t mention the stuff Dems do but if Trump or any other conservative mentions doing the very same thing thing they are obviously racist and wrong.

  • Cotour

    Yes Pzat, and keep in mind that Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice also received classified emails in their personal email and they were Republicans.

    Always look to create an equivalency and call it even, no harm no foul, everything is OK. BUT, it only applies when you are a leftist Democrat, a Republican or a Conservative can only be racist in any and all things that they do.

    The progressives using this “equivalency doctrine” apparently want to just open the borders because “that’s who we are” as per Obama. That’s who who is? Open the borders and invite anyone from any where to invade the country to ensure a Democrat voting majority in perpetuity. No matter the cost.

    Then we will all be equal, because that’s who we are.

  • Cotour

    Jeb just does not get it, his ambition makes him unable to “see”.

    He does not get why he is at 2%, the Bush’s and the Clinton’s have delivered us to where we are today and the fact that he does not see the problem when he points out that “people who have a problem with his last name need therapy”, and the fact that the people who wrote the Constitution were not really big fans of the dynastic aspects of royal families.

    Yes Jeb, if we all truly want more of what your family and the Clinton family has given us, maybe we really do need therapy.

  • Edward

    Cotour wrote: “Always look to create an equivalency and call it even, no harm no foul, everything is OK.”

    It is not an equivalency, it is a false equivalency. In the cases of Powell and Rice, they had proper email addresses for classified notes to go to, so they had the option of informing those who sent inappropriately classified emails to stop and use the proper destinations. Not mentioned was whether the senders had been directed by these two to send inappropriate messages to their personal addresses or the level of classification of the inappropriate notes. Were they at the confidential level, the SAP level, or somewhere in between?

    Another unmentioned phenomenon is that when certain unclassified material is brought together in one place, then the conglomeration can become classified itself. The tale told to me was that during an unclassified meeting, one too many unclassified facts were presented and the Air Force captain, present at the meeting, reclassified the meeting from unclassified to secret while it was in progress. At Clinton’s level in the government, there must have been many, many individual emails that, taken together, reveal classified information. It is a major reason we were encouraged not to include much of the previous thread in ongoing replies.

    The scariest and most disappointing aspect to this entire scandal, in my mind, is that Clinton was in a position in which she was supposed to be able to determine when a note was classified and when a conglomeration or collection became classified, yet she was willing to maintain an insecure server with critical information on it, even to the point of demanding that people remove the classification markings in order to bypass security precautions. It is no wonder that we lost every international negotiation, under her watch.

    It is disappointing that there are so many people (at least in Iowa) who are willing to ignore that she put the security of us all at risk and vote for her as president.

    But then again, that is the party that for decades continued to elect and celebrate Democrat Ted Kennedy after he killed a woman. (He didn’t choose life.)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *