Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
KJP

Socialism / Social Democracy

Recommended Posts

^I'm addressing a very specific (and sexist in its articulation) insinuation that this particular candidate is uniquely in over her head. 

 

There is nothing sexist about my statement about her focusing on tending bar as that is what she has proven she is best at.

 

Ah, there's that patented Conservative ambition!  (I'm also surprised you know her so well that you can say the thing she's "best" at is tending bar.  Very pompous of you.  But hey, we can't all know Congressional candidates as well as you!)

 

If I had just had Brutus to give me advice in college I would've stuck with delivering pizzas (I was really good at it) instead of getting a master's degree. Imagine where I'd be now!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^I'm addressing a very specific (and sexist in its articulation) insinuation that this particular candidate is uniquely in over her head. 

 

There is nothing sexist about my statement about her focusing on tending bar as that is what she has proven she is best at.

 

Ah, there's that patented Conservative ambition!  (I'm also surprised you know her so well that you can say the thing she's "best" at is tending bar.  Very pompous of you.  But hey, we can't all know Congressional candidates as well as you!)

 

If I had just had Brutus to give me advice in college I would've stuck with delivering pizzas (I was really good at it) instead of getting a master's degree. Imagine where I'd be now!

 

Rand Paul should have stayed a doctor instead of running for Congress.  That's what he's proven best at!

 

Linda McMahon should have stayed CEO of WWE instead of running for U.S. Senate.  That's what she's proven best at!

 

Trump should have bankrupted more casinos and laundered in more money through his organization instead of running for President.  That's what he's proven best at!


Very Stable Genius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^I'm addressing a very specific (and sexist in its articulation) insinuation that this particular candidate is uniquely in over her head. 

 

There is nothing sexist about my statement about her focusing on tending bar as that is what she has proven she is best at. I said nothing about her being a woman or questioning her race. You are looking for things that are not there.

 

Listen, she is vastly unqualified for the position and besides her positions being flatly wrong, she is very poor at articulating them. She is taking a position as an authority on many matters where she really has little knowledge on and is no different than many of the stiffs she serves at the bar where she works.  Now some of that is age and inexperience, but if she wants to play on the prime time stage, she has to subject herself to prime time criticism.  It is very fair and accurate to criticize her like this. The more she opens her mouth, the worse she looks.

 

And for the record, you never see me defending things your buddy Donny says either.

 

You're leaving out context. Women are often attacked in this way, while men are not. And you referred to her as a "dumb girl." She is a woman who graduated cum laude with a degree in economics and international relations from Boston University. She made some inarticulate comments and you immediately jumped on them. You may not go out of your way to defend Donny but you don't jump on his stupid comments and you certainly don't call him "dumb boy."

 

Context matters. I don't know if you're sexist but your comments suggest it.

 

You can choose to take offense at every minor point in life and you will go through life extremely unhappy. 

 

1) I know she graduated Cum Laude from BU but that has less to do with her common sense than the fact she could get through college and write a half way decent paper. There are a lot of moron's I know who graduated cum laude from their college.

2) Her comments and policy positions are harmful and show that even with a college degree, that she lives in dreamland.

3) I called her a dumb girl because her ideas and complete ideology are naïve and whenever she speaks she further demonstrates her naivete. She has a lot to learn yet she thinks she is ready for prime time which she is not. I also have no problem referring to an ill informed guy with similar positions as a dumb boy or I would probably pick a harsher word for them.

 

So again, no sexist intentions there, but you can go ahead and try and get angry and focus on that instead of the clown show that Cortez really is.

 

And for the record, I call your good friend Donny a moron all the time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^I'm addressing a very specific (and sexist in its articulation) insinuation that this particular candidate is uniquely in over her head. 

 

There is nothing sexist about my statement about her focusing on tending bar as that is what she has proven she is best at.

 

Ah, there's that patented Conservative ambition!  (I'm also surprised you know her so well that you can say the thing she's "best" at is tending bar.  Very pompous of you.  But hey, we can't all know Congressional candidates as well as you!)

 

If I had just had Brutus to give me advice in college I would've stuck with delivering pizzas (I was really good at it) instead of getting a master's degree. Imagine where I'd be now!

 

I don't know, where are you now. You have a masters degree but apparently don't understand my point.

 

There is nothing wrong with her running for Congress, good for her, but if you are going to run, be prepared to not look like a moron when you are on the trail. The more she talks the bigger fool she makes of herself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1) I know she graduated Cum Laude from BU but that has less to do with her common sense than the fact she could get through college and write a half way decent paper. There are a lot of moron's I know who graduated cum laude from their college.

 

Uh...


"You don't just walk into a bar and mix it up by calling a girl fat" - buildingcincinnati speaking about new forumers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^I'm addressing a very specific (and sexist in its articulation) insinuation that this particular candidate is uniquely in over her head. 

 

There is nothing sexist about my statement about her focusing on tending bar as that is what she has proven she is best at. I said nothing about her being a woman or questioning her race. You are looking for things that are not there.

 

Listen, she is vastly unqualified for the position and besides her positions being flatly wrong, she is very poor at articulating them. She is taking a position as an authority on many matters where she really has little knowledge on and is no different than many of the stiffs she serves at the bar where she works.  Now some of that is age and inexperience, but if she wants to play on the prime time stage, she has to subject herself to prime time criticism.  It is very fair and accurate to criticize her like this. The more she opens her mouth, the worse she looks.

 

And for the record, you never see me defending things your buddy Donny says either.

 

You're leaving out context. Women are often attacked in this way, while men are not. And you referred to her as a "dumb girl." She is a woman who graduated cum laude with a degree in economics and international relations from Boston University. She made some inarticulate comments and you immediately jumped on them. You may not go out of your way to defend Donny but you don't jump on his stupid comments and you certainly don't call him "dumb boy."

 

Context matters. I don't know if you're sexist but your comments suggest it.

 

You can choose to take offense at every minor point in life and you will go through life extremely unhappy. 

 

1) I know she graduated Cum Laude from BU but that has less to do with her common sense than the fact she could get through college and write a half way decent paper. There are a lot of moron's I know who graduated cum laude from their college.

2) Her comments and policy positions are harmful and show that even with a college degree, that she lives in dreamland.

3) I called her a dumb girl because her ideas and complete ideology are naïve and whenever she speaks she further demonstrates her naivete. She has a lot to learn yet she thinks she is ready for prime time which she is not. I also have no problem referring to an ill informed guy with similar positions as a dumb boy or I would probably pick a harsher word for them.

 

So again, no sexist intentions there, but you can go ahead and try and get angry and focus on that instead of the clown show that Cortez really is.

 

And for the record, I call your good friend Donny a moron all the time.

 

I'm not offended or mad, so not sure where you got that idea? I'm just pointing out how your posts came off as kind of sexist.

 

If you go through life ranting about how everyone who disagrees with you on policy is a "dumb girl", a "moron", and a "clown show" maybe you're the one who will go through life extremely unhappy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

GUYS - WE GET IT. The GOP is full of it.

 

But if you're sitting here and all you can do is roast the GOP for hypocrisy instead of defending these policies on their merit, then you're no different.

 

Tell me why this stuff will work, how it can be sustainable, and through what mechanism we can pay for this while reducing the debt. I already know Newt Gingrich is an ass.

 

See the articles I posted on the previous page. But the best reasons are that Canada, Demark, Sweden, Norway are awesome places to live, work and raise families! They are polycentric politically and of course they also have capitalism -- in partnership with government rather than an unproductive adversarial relationship. Just as their penal system seeks to rehabilitate convicts, its commerce ministries seek to advance best practices more than punish bad practices less. There's some inherent basic psychologies at work here. It provides better behavioral guidance. You also see more companies established as public benefit corporations, not just exist to benefit the financial bottom line of shareholders.


"Nearly every problem that we have in the USA -- unaffordable health care, prison overpopulation, hyper militarization, climate change, racism, gun violence, poverty, poor education, urban sprawl and others -- cannot be positively addressed because bribery and conflicts of interest are legal under campaign finance laws which protect the uber-wealthy and the narrow self-interests who grossly benefit from our afflictions."

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^I'm addressing a very specific (and sexist in its articulation) insinuation that this particular candidate is uniquely in over her head. 

 

There is nothing sexist about my statement about her focusing on tending bar as that is what she has proven she is best at.

 

Ah, there's that patented Conservative ambition!  (I'm also surprised you know her so well that you can say the thing she's "best" at is tending bar.  Very pompous of you.  But hey, we can't all know Congressional candidates as well as you!)

 

If I had just had Brutus to give me advice in college I would've stuck with delivering pizzas (I was really good at it) instead of getting a master's degree. Imagine where I'd be now!

 

I don't know, where are you now. You have a masters degree but apparently don't understand my point.

 

There is nothing wrong with her running for Congress, good for her, but if you are going to run, be prepared to not look like a moron when you are on the trail. The more she talks the bigger fool she makes of herself.

 

I get your point. And I pointed out that one of the three things you called her out for wasn't even true, one of them was out of context at best, and the other one was an actual flub. But one flub doesn't prove any point you're trying to make. I get it. You think she's an idiot. A lot of people disagree, and in November she'll be a member of Congress--so she must be doing something right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just don't understand the argument that universal healthcare would be too expensive or be too difficult to structure ways to pay for it.  Universal Healthcare just costs less full stop.  Having businesses/individuals pay a percentage of what they pay now in the overly complicated insurance schemes into a tax funded government program instead seems if anything simpler.  Not sure about Constitutional arguments though.

 

The other thing to consider is that we don't live in a world where this is just a hypothetical. Other countries have it and they pay for it. They're not going bankrupt.

 

Nobody is wringing their hands about our $681 billion military budget and how we would pay for it. The answer is that right now we don't! We just keep running up the deficit. So I'm all for finding ways to pay for the stuff we have and the stuff we want but the emphasis is very selective and usually placed on stuff that conservatives don't want. Universal healthcare IS cheaper, though we'll probably have to pay more taxes instead of the current premiums and out of pocket costs we pay. That's fine. We can also start by rolling back the Trump tax cuts and not implementing his new tax proposals that will primarily benefit the extremely wealthy.

 

With all due respect, Scandinavian countries face significantly less threats from attack as we do - so the defense spending is kind of apples to oranges.

 

But your point is well taken - we seemingly have the resources in front of us to make it work. I do believe that we cannot scale the Scandinavian model to 345,000,000 people, though.

 

Why not?  Spreadsheets can handle large numbers, you just widen the cell when it looks like #######.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Waiting for Brutus to say Anthony Gonzalez should just stick to football instead of running for Congress.  I mean, he has no experience!  Only 33??!! He's just a boy!


Very Stable Genius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^I'm addressing a very specific (and sexist in its articulation) insinuation that this particular candidate is uniquely in over her head. 

 

There is nothing sexist about my statement about her focusing on tending bar as that is what she has proven she is best at.

 

Ah, there's that patented Conservative ambition!  (I'm also surprised you know her so well that you can say the thing she's "best" at is tending bar.  Very pompous of you.  But hey, we can't all know Congressional candidates as well as you!)

 

If I had just had Brutus to give me advice in college I would've stuck with delivering pizzas (I was really good at it) instead of getting a master's degree. Imagine where I'd be now!

 

I don't know, where are you now. You have a masters degree but apparently don't understand my point.

 

There is nothing wrong with her running for Congress, good for her, but if you are going to run, be prepared to not look like a moron when you are on the trail. The more she talks the bigger fool she makes of herself.

 

I get your point. And I pointed out that one of the three things you called her out for wasn't even true, one of them was out of context at best, and the other one was an actual flub. But one flub doesn't prove any point you're trying to make. I get it. You think she's an idiot. A lot of people disagree, and in November she'll be a member of Congress--so she must be doing something right.

 

What she was doing right was that she was fortunate to be born in her district and grow up in one of the most liberal districts in the US. More dumb luck than doing something right. WHen she goes on TV, she actually hurts the chances for those she supports across the country, just like Crazy Bernie does, and outside of her district where a rock running on the democratic ticket would win that seat, she generally embarrasses herself in front of the rest of the country.

 

Just. Not. Ready. For. Prime. Time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Waiting for Brutus to say Anthony Gonzalez should just stick to football instead of running for Congress.  I mean, he has no experience!  Only 33??!! He's just a boy!

 

He has actually accomplished something besides slinging drinks.

 

But I wont read into your anti-Hispanic statement you just made about Gonzalez being nothing but a dumb jock, because that comment just may be loaded with racial animus against Hispanics. For the sake of civilized debate, I will let such blatant microagression slide

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know, I watch these clips where Ocasio-Cortez is supposedly making huge gaffes and it seems like her policy knowledge is...probably about on par with or maybe a bit ahead of the average member of Congress.

 

The level of policy expertise isn't great in Congress. And everyone says some dumb sh** in long, extemporaneous interviews. Pick one of the random 435 members of the House out of a hat, have them do TV several times a week, and you'll see much worse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Waiting for Brutus to say Anthony Gonzalez should just stick to football instead of running for Congress.  I mean, he has no experience!  Only 33??!! He's just a boy!

 

Every Democrat is either too old or too young. Only 55-year-old guys that got grossed out by hippies as a kid and got super bummed out that the 1972 muscle cars were slower than the 1970 models because of gubmint should be in office. That means Rs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Waiting for Brutus to say Anthony Gonzalez should just stick to football instead of running for Congress.  I mean, he has no experience!  Only 33??!! He's just a boy!

 

Well - this was actually an excellent analogy. Good retort.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know this is getting a bit far from the original topic, but isn't weaponizing space essentially banned through treaties that we have?  Am I just mistaken?


"Someone is sitting in the shade today because someone planted a tree a long time ago." - Warren Buffett 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ To be honest, I think most people agree that some type of space military presence is not a bad thing, however, the way that Trump chooses to present it is rather embarrassing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know this is getting a bit far from the original topic, but isn't weaponizing space essentially banned through treaties that we have?  Am I just mistaken?

 

In most cases no. There may be some issues with Russia because the only treaties we would have dealing with space are between us and the Russians going back to the cold war days since no other country ever developed a space program until China recently, and I don't think we negotiated anything with China on that issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But I like how Donny says ridiculous, inarticulate, factually incorrect things on a daily basis and he's a strong leader. She has a couple inarticulate comments and she is a "disgrace" and "should go back to tending bar." Do you actually believe the things you type? It's like a caricature.

 

If you start using Trump as a barometer then that Green Party candidate who descended from aliens starts seeming not so bad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know, I watch these clips where Ocasio-Cortez is supposedly making huge gaffes and it seems like her policy knowledge is...probably about on par with or maybe a bit ahead of the average member of Congress.

 

The level of policy expertise isn't great in Congress. And everyone says some dumb sh** in long, extemporaneous interviews. Pick one of the random 435 members of the House out of a hat, have them do TV several times a week, and you'll see much worse.

 

This. I listened to the interview where she made the upper middle class comment that was cherry-picked, out of context. She was incredibly articulate and her policy proposals are not that radical. The types of things she is proposing would go over just as well in Cincinnati, Columbus, Cleveland, Toledo, Dayton, and Akron as they would in NYC, LA, or San Francisco.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think perhaps a mistake that a lot of people make (not sure if that's what Brutus is doing in attacking AOC's intellect) is that they assume Congress and the bills they propose/pass accurately reflect the views of the majority of Americans.  That's simply not true.  The electorate is much farther left than Congress as a whole.  Some examples:

 

-Creating generic versions of life-saving drugs has +30% support among eligible voters (51-21).

-A public option for internet has net 39% support (56-17).

-A federal jobs guarantee has +32% support (55-23).

-Ending cash bail is +21% (45-24).

 

These ideas all have at least +17 support among rural voters (+44 for public internet), +20 for suburban voters, and +27 among urban voters.  Even Trump voters support public internet (+15) and generic pharma (+16).  59% of Americans support a national Medicare for All plan.

 

Among voters under the age of 45, there is +6 support for a 90% millionaire tax, +15 support for universal basic income, and +27 support for universal basic wealth.  96% of current Congressional districts support statehood for D.C. and Puerto Rico.

 

According to the NYT, the idea of abolishing ICE has -6% support among all adults (38 strongly or somehwat oppose, 32 strongly or somewhat support).  That makes it more popular than the TCJA and the proposal to kill the ACA....by far.

 

EDIT - other polls via https://www.dataforprogress.org/


Very Stable Genius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

YABO713[/member] - here you go, from the noted liberal publication, Vox (of course, it's written by someone who has worked for Portman, Rubio, and Romney).  https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2018/8/7/17658574/democratic-socialism-cost-medicare-college-sanders-deficits-taxes

 

So I think the "How do we pay for it?" question can't all be "well, cut defense spending."  I do think expanding the taxable base for the Social Security tax will help cut into the projected shortfall, though that's peanuts compared to MFA and a jobs guarantee.

 

If I were advising the DSA, I'd suggest they come up with some numbers behind one or two of the most popular policy ideas.  MFA is really popular (~60%) but also projected to be very costly.  Same with the federal jobs guarantee.  Now, if those are passed, perhaps you see less of a need for programs like SNAP and CHIP, etc. But still, you're going to have to raise taxes, close loopholes, etc.  I'd have at least a few outlines of numbers ready, if your goal is to make a major push in the Democratic Party.  You also have to be realistic that not every agenda item is feasible in the next 5-10 years.  Set your goal on one or two items (MFA, jobs guarantee, or smaller items like public internet and postal banking), have some hard numbers to back you up, and continue making the case on the other policies as you gain (you would hope) more support.  Or just be honest that you're going to continue the GOP way of going into trillions of dollars of debt.

 

 


Very Stable Genius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ That is a political cartoon, not a meme. The message is pretty clear - there's no such thing as successful real socialism (for instance, you get Venezuela, which would just be an unlit, non-functioning sign). There are purported democratic socialist countries that, in reality, are simply places that have social programs supported by the hard working, contributing members of a capitalist society.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ That is a political cartoon, not a meme. The message is pretty clear - there's no such thing as successful real socialism (for instance, you get Venezuela, which would just be an unlit, non-functioning sign). There are purported democratic socialist countries that, in reality, are simply places that have social programs supported by the hard working, contributing members of a capitalist society.

 

And I agree 100% that you can have social programs within a capitalist system.  Bravo on the cartoon for showing us that this works in Europe very well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ Who's arguing that capitalist societies can't have social programs? That sounds like a straw man to me. Has there ever been such a society? In fact, I'd consider some of the most basic government programs to be fundamental to a capitalist society (whether they are "social" or not is negligible). You can't have such a society without a military to defend it, without infrastructure, etc. The question is always - how many handouts should be provided to people who are incapable (or, more often nowadays, unwilling) to be active, participating members of such a society. Generally, countries like the United States, who have fewer social welfare programs, have the most robust and successful economies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ Who's arguing that capitalist societies can't have social programs? That sounds like a straw man to me. Has there ever been such a society? In fact, I'd consider some of the most basic government programs to be fundamental to a capitalist society (whether they are "social" or not is negligible). You can't have such a society without a military to defend it, without infrastructure, etc. The question is always - how many handouts should be provided to people who are incapable (or, more often nowadays, unwilling) to be active, participating members of such a society. Generally, countries like the United States, who have fewer social welfare programs, have the most robust and successful economies.

 

The entire idea of a social democracy allows for a strong social safety net within the framework of capitalism and democracy.  The Venezuela talk is a strawman. 

 

Source and based on what metric for the bold part.?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ Who's arguing that capitalist societies can't have social programs? That sounds like a straw man to me. Has there ever been such a society? In fact, I'd consider some of the most basic government programs to be fundamental to a capitalist society (whether they are "social" or not is negligible). You can't have such a society without a military to defend it, without infrastructure, etc. The question is always - how many handouts should be provided to people who are incapable (or, more often nowadays, unwilling) to be active, participating members of such a society. Generally, countries like the United States, who have fewer social welfare programs, have the most robust and successful economies.

 

Source and based on what metric?

 

I'd assume by the number of tanks and missiles produced.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The question is always - how many handouts should be provided to people who are incapable (or, more often nowadays, unwilling) to be active, participating members of such a society.

 

Ah, there's that patented Conservative demagoguery!


Very Stable Genius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wasn't expecting this. Not sure I like it either. Would prefer to see a healthy mix of both....

 

NEW POLL: Dems view socialism more positively than capitalism http://hill.cm/NH0uOJT


"Nearly every problem that we have in the USA -- unaffordable health care, prison overpopulation, hyper militarization, climate change, racism, gun violence, poverty, poor education, urban sprawl and others -- cannot be positively addressed because bribery and conflicts of interest are legal under campaign finance laws which protect the uber-wealthy and the narrow self-interests who grossly benefit from our afflictions."

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wasn't expecting this. Not sure I like it either. Would prefer to see a healthy mix of both....

 

NEW POLL: Dems view socialism more positively than capitalism http://hill.cm/NH0uOJT

 

"YABO713[/member] , Why don't you just become a democrat?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wasn't expecting this. Not sure I like it either. Would prefer to see a healthy mix of both....

 

NEW POLL: Dems view socialism more positively than capitalism http://hill.cm/NH0uOJT

 

"YABO713[/member] , Why don't you just become a democrat?"

 

You have to look at this in context. On the one hand, you have Republicans who have been crying "socialism" to provoke Cold War knee-jerking against centrist social programs, minimum wage increases (or even the concept of a minimum wage at times), etc.

 

On the other hand, you have Bernie Sanders and others misusing the term "democratic socialist" to refer to Scandinavian-style social democracy.

 

This creates a scenario where even reasonably intelligent center-left folks are proclaiming their support for socialism, when they intend to proclaim their support for things like medicare and social security.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That poll question is so vague as to be meaningless.

 

The conclusion is also misleading.  It seems that views on socialism aren't changing, as the % of people that view it positively has remained static across all age groups over time.  The difference is that positive views on capitalism have been dropping off, but almost exclusively with the youngest group, which is what led to the "socialism is more popular" claim.  Is it any wonder that the younger generations would have less faith in capitalism after growing up during the recession years and having it all culminate in the election of Trump?  I'm surprised it's not even lower.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wasn't expecting this. Not sure I like it either. Would prefer to see a healthy mix of both....

 

NEW POLL: Dems view socialism more positively than capitalism http://hill.cm/NH0uOJT

 

"YABO713[/member] , Why don't you just become a democrat?"

 

counterpoint:

 

Dkk8Y3vX0AAO6qy.jpg:large

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ I get it. Right now they're certainly the lesser of two evils and not a threat to our very republic. But, "come to Dunkin Donuts, we don't arrest black people like Starbucks" isn't a winning ad campaign

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wasn't expecting this. Not sure I like it either. Would prefer to see a healthy mix of both....

 

NEW POLL: Dems view socialism more positively than capitalism http://hill.cm/NH0uOJT

 

scary thought.

 

Good thing is we are highly unlikely to ever have true capitalism or true socialism.  We'll probably have a mix of both.


Very Stable Genius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3 1/2 terms of FDR didn't seem to hurt anyone. 

 

Yes it did. Historians have said that FDR's policies prolonged the depression and also there were some pretty egregious things that occurred during his presidency that was an affront to liberty in this country not to mention the human rights atrocities that occurred on his watch.

 

FDR is highly regarded because of the war which helped the country recover from the worst depression of all time. Wars have a tendency to bring people together like that. If it were not for that, FDR would not have been seen as a great president. After all, they passed an amendment to keep another FDR from happening.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yup, everything between Hoover and Reagan was one big national nightmare.  Thank heavens we've fixed the place up since then.  Now to eliminate that pesky Social Security, and we'll be forever free!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good to see you are a student of history. Take a look back at his record and tell me he was one of the great president's in our country.

 

Remember this was a president who was responsible for separating an entire race of people and placing them in internment camps.

This was the president who looked to pack the Supreme Court instead of following the rule of law and order when he did not get the outcomes he wanted.

This was the president who promoted massive federal spending programs that prolonged the depression and promoted rationing.

This was the president who sought to punish farmers who were growing food for themselves, on their own land, to feed their own family, from doing so.

He promoted separate but equal armed forces.

 

I could go on and on, but this is hardly the portrait of a great leader.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...