HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Love it when AOC pushes W...

Sun Mar 10, 2019, 01:28 PM

Love it when AOC pushes Wingnuts' buttons; not so much mine about FDR

Note to AOC, two things:

* Baby/bathwater; and

* ​“Fluctuations of historic judgment are the lot of great men, and Roosevelt will not escape it … But if history has its claim, so has the present. For it has been wisely said that if the judgment of the time must be corrected by that of posterity, it is no less true that the judgment of posterity must be corrected by that of the time.”
- Felix Frankfurter

**********QUOTE*********

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6791039/Ocasio-Cortez-dominates-SXSW-conference-talk-protests-minorities-treated-like-garbage.html
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez uses her SXSW talk to label FDR's New Deal 'racist' compared to her 'Green New Deal' and protests minorities being treated like 'garbage' - as she draws a bigger audience than any Democrat 2020 hopeful

.... She slammed the treatment of minorities throughout recent American history from Franklin Delano Roosevelt's New Deal, which she claimed was racist, to Ronald Reagan's treatment of minorities. ....

Ocasio-Cortez, 29, berated the New Deal, Franklin Roosevelt's massive public works program worshiped by Democrats, as 'an exercise in racism,' arguing it made life and home loans easier for whites but left African Americans and Latinos behind. ....

*****UNQUOTE******






181 replies, 5890 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 181 replies Author Time Post
Reply Love it when AOC pushes Wingnuts' buttons; not so much mine about FDR (Original post)
UTUSN Mar 2019 OP
Dr Hobbitstein Mar 2019 #1
UTUSN Mar 2019 #2
whathehell Mar 2019 #13
PETRUS Mar 2019 #22
whathehell Mar 2019 #26
PETRUS Mar 2019 #27
whathehell Mar 2019 #30
PETRUS Mar 2019 #36
George II Mar 2019 #43
Blue_true Mar 2019 #67
whathehell Mar 2019 #70
caraher Mar 2019 #47
Blue_true Mar 2019 #71
Celerity Mar 2019 #162
femmedem Mar 2019 #54
Blue_true Mar 2019 #64
Merlot Mar 2019 #95
demmiblue Mar 2019 #99
Blue_true Mar 2019 #60
2naSalit Mar 2019 #94
Blue_true Mar 2019 #58
whathehell Mar 2019 #73
Mariana Mar 2019 #81
namahage Mar 2019 #93
whathehell Mar 2019 #98
Tiggeroshii Mar 2019 #131
whathehell Mar 2019 #159
Tiggeroshii Mar 2019 #164
whathehell Mar 2019 #165
Blue_true Mar 2019 #96
NastyRiffraff Mar 2019 #144
whathehell Mar 2019 #156
Spider Jerusalem Mar 2019 #78
whathehell Mar 2019 #80
Spider Jerusalem Mar 2019 #83
PatSeg Mar 2019 #120
whathehell Mar 2019 #167
PatSeg Mar 2019 #168
whathehell Mar 2019 #171
Caliman73 Mar 2019 #175
whathehell Mar 2019 #176
radius777 Mar 2019 #126
whathehell Mar 2019 #160
DeminPennswoods Mar 2019 #65
Horizens Mar 2019 #109
Dr Hobbitstein Mar 2019 #110
Horizens Mar 2019 #111
Dr Hobbitstein Mar 2019 #133
whathehell Mar 2019 #173
Dr Hobbitstein Mar 2019 #178
Post removed Mar 2019 #179
Dr Hobbitstein Mar 2019 #180
whathehell Mar 2019 #181
yuiyoshida Mar 2019 #127
Celerity Mar 2019 #163
whathehell Mar 2019 #3
UTUSN Mar 2019 #4
whathehell Mar 2019 #9
George II Mar 2019 #48
whathehell Mar 2019 #103
Bettie Mar 2019 #6
whathehell Mar 2019 #8
Bettie Mar 2019 #62
WhiskeyGrinder Mar 2019 #17
whathehell Mar 2019 #23
WhiskeyGrinder Mar 2019 #29
whathehell Mar 2019 #39
caraher Mar 2019 #49
whathehell Mar 2019 #53
caraher Mar 2019 #86
whathehell Mar 2019 #102
BlueWI Mar 2019 #121
whathehell Mar 2019 #155
BlueWI Mar 2019 #169
whathehell Mar 2019 #170
BlueWI Mar 2019 #172
whathehell Mar 2019 #174
caraher Mar 2019 #149
whathehell Mar 2019 #154
appalachiablue Mar 2019 #158
WhiskeyGrinder Mar 2019 #115
loyalsister Mar 2019 #45
whathehell Mar 2019 #46
loyalsister Mar 2019 #51
whathehell Mar 2019 #63
loyalsister Mar 2019 #84
whathehell Mar 2019 #97
loyalsister Mar 2019 #113
Blue_true Mar 2019 #74
loyalsister Mar 2019 #114
Blue_true Mar 2019 #118
loyalsister Mar 2019 #125
Blue_true Mar 2019 #72
whathehell Mar 2019 #76
Dem2 Mar 2019 #123
whathehell Mar 2019 #166
MicaelS Mar 2019 #5
empedocles Mar 2019 #10
UTUSN Mar 2019 #11
MicaelS Mar 2019 #138
Caliman73 Mar 2019 #177
4139 Mar 2019 #33
Blue_true Mar 2019 #75
Trumpocalypse Mar 2019 #136
Trumpocalypse Mar 2019 #135
George II Mar 2019 #50
Blue_true Mar 2019 #77
MicaelS Mar 2019 #139
leftynyc Mar 2019 #134
empedocles Mar 2019 #7
UTUSN Mar 2019 #15
dalton99a Mar 2019 #12
UTUSN Mar 2019 #16
dalton99a Mar 2019 #18
WhiskeyGrinder Mar 2019 #14
UTUSN Mar 2019 #21
WhiskeyGrinder Mar 2019 #24
demmiblue Mar 2019 #66
whathehell Mar 2019 #161
whathehell Mar 2019 #28
KG Mar 2019 #19
nini Mar 2019 #20
dalton99a Mar 2019 #25
nini Mar 2019 #42
DeminPennswoods Mar 2019 #69
Blue_true Mar 2019 #79
nini Mar 2019 #104
Blue_true Mar 2019 #106
George II Mar 2019 #31
Mariana Mar 2019 #90
Hoyt Mar 2019 #32
Blue_true Mar 2019 #82
Mariana Mar 2019 #89
hlthe2b Mar 2019 #34
Cha Mar 2019 #35
mcar Mar 2019 #38
RelativelyJones Mar 2019 #100
tritsofme Mar 2019 #37
Blue_true Mar 2019 #85
tritsofme Mar 2019 #107
Blue_true Mar 2019 #108
tritsofme Mar 2019 #112
Blue_true Mar 2019 #117
tritsofme Mar 2019 #122
mcar Mar 2019 #40
nini Mar 2019 #41
appalachiablue Mar 2019 #157
George II Mar 2019 #44
Blue_true Mar 2019 #87
Mariana Mar 2019 #116
Blue_true Mar 2019 #119
DBoon Mar 2019 #52
Blue_true Mar 2019 #91
lunatica Mar 2019 #55
gtar100 Mar 2019 #56
caraher Mar 2019 #129
uponit7771 Mar 2019 #132
Blue_true Mar 2019 #57
deurbano Mar 2019 #59
JonLP24 Mar 2019 #142
demmiblue Mar 2019 #61
liberalnarb Mar 2019 #68
OilemFirchen Mar 2019 #88
Eko Mar 2019 #92
Kurt V. Mar 2019 #101
pangaia Mar 2019 #105
jcmaine72 Mar 2019 #124
caraher Mar 2019 #128
demmiblue Mar 2019 #146
caraher Mar 2019 #148
demosincebirth Mar 2019 #130
Trumpocalypse Mar 2019 #137
UTUSN Mar 2019 #140
Trumpocalypse Mar 2019 #143
UTUSN Mar 2019 #145
Trumpocalypse Mar 2019 #147
UTUSN Mar 2019 #150
Trumpocalypse Mar 2019 #151
UTUSN Mar 2019 #152
Trumpocalypse Mar 2019 #153
JonLP24 Mar 2019 #141

Response to UTUSN (Original post)

Sun Mar 10, 2019, 01:35 PM

1. I mean, she's not wrong.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dr Hobbitstein (Reply #1)

Sun Mar 10, 2019, 01:37 PM

2. Justice FRANKFURTER, above. Baby/bathwater, above.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dr Hobbitstein (Reply #1)

Sun Mar 10, 2019, 01:58 PM

13. Really?

Do tell how the New Deal was "an exercise in racism". The times were racist, but I'd have to challenge the contention that the New Deal was specifically and intentionally so.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to whathehell (Reply #13)

Sun Mar 10, 2019, 02:17 PM

22. Some recommended reading:

The Color of Law, by Richard Rothstein. It's about housing policy (i.e., not about the New Deal specifically), so it doesn't cover everything that was explicitly racist about the New Deal, but it will get you started.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PETRUS (Reply #22)

Sun Mar 10, 2019, 02:25 PM

26. We're talking about the New Deal specifically..

I "recommend" that you stay on point.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to whathehell (Reply #26)

Sun Mar 10, 2019, 02:30 PM

27. The Federal Housing Administration was part of the New Deal.

I'm on point, friend.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PETRUS (Reply #27)

Sun Mar 10, 2019, 02:36 PM

30. So spell out how the Federal Housing Authority, as instituted

by Roosevelt, was specifically racist -- I'm not talking about how local officials enforced it, I want to know how Roosevelt devised as racist.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to whathehell (Reply #30)

Sun Mar 10, 2019, 03:10 PM

36. No.

I don't have time. Read the damn book.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PETRUS (Reply #36)

Sun Mar 10, 2019, 03:30 PM

43. You don't have time to explain what you're talking about, yet you want us to read a book...

...hoping to see what it is you're talking about?

Sorry, I don't have time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to George II (Reply #43)

Sun Mar 10, 2019, 04:59 PM

67. FDR's administration made no attempt to prevent denial of loans to Blacks,

even Blacks that could repay the loans for homes or businesses. That was a readily available statistic if FDR has even cared to look at it. Sorry, I CANNOT defend the man when it comes to how he treated Blacks, at the minimum he was a craven coward, at the worst a racist.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PETRUS (Reply #36)

Sun Mar 10, 2019, 05:02 PM

70. Then bag it, dear

I don't take orders.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to whathehell (Reply #30)

Sun Mar 10, 2019, 04:00 PM

47. Here's something short of reading a book

One of the most heinous of these policies was introduced by the creation of the Federal Housing Administration in 1934, and lasted until 1968. Otherwise celebrated for making homeownership accessible to white people by guaranteeing their loans, the FHA explicitly refused to back loans to black people or even other people who lived near black people. As TNC puts it, "Redlining destroyed the possibility of investment wherever black people lived."


From The Atlantic's "The Racist Housing Policy That Made Your Neighborhood"

Or this from the Washington Post:

The segregation that President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s administration inherited reflected preexisting institutions, of which restrictive racial covenants may have been the most important. They were still relatively new, however. FDR might well have used his unprecedented leverage over housing finance to undo them.

Instead, the New Deal did the opposite. The FHA promoted racial covenants and other instruments of segregation through underwriting standards discouraging home loans in areas “infiltrat[ed]” by “inharmonious racial or nationality groups.” The rationale was the government’s need to protect its investment, and those of white homeowners, against the threat African American neighbors would pose to property values.


No data supported this ostensible concern, as Rothstein notes. The FHA’s pro-segregation policy reflected racist assumptions that pervaded even progressive circles in the 1930s — plus FDR’s need to appease his Southern Democratic supporters.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to caraher (Reply #47)

Sun Mar 10, 2019, 05:04 PM

71. Truman, Kennedy and Johnson tried to do something about redlining,

but it had entrenched itself by then. Redlining was not measurably attacked until Carter took office, then slow progress happened, same with small business loans.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to caraher (Reply #47)

Tue Mar 12, 2019, 06:46 AM

162. Thank you fot posting this. Love to see people shown facts

that stop a knee-jerk anti-AOC meme.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to whathehell (Reply #30)

Sun Mar 10, 2019, 04:36 PM

54. Redlining.

The FHA's underwriting manual was explicitly racist and segregationist. : "Incompatible racial groups should not be permitted to live in the same communities."

You can read more here: https://www.npr.org/2017/05/03/526655831/a-forgotten-history-of-how-the-u-s-government-segregated-america

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to whathehell (Reply #30)

Sun Mar 10, 2019, 04:55 PM

64. He allowed local officials and banks to redline, the Feds could have prevented that.

Also, NO loans were made to Blacks, FDR could have had his administration monitor that, it was an easily gained piece of data.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to whathehell (Reply #30)

Sun Mar 10, 2019, 05:56 PM

95. Read The Atlantic article "The Case for Reparations" and you'll see

Shorter than a book, clearly lays out how the FHA was involved.

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2014/06/the-case-for-reparations/361631/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Merlot (Reply #95)

Sun Mar 10, 2019, 06:12 PM

99. Here is the working link (thank you, btw):

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2014/06/the-case-for-reparations/361631/

I don't think that this particular poster has any interest in learning about this. Head meet sand, so to speak.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to whathehell (Reply #26)

Sun Mar 10, 2019, 04:53 PM

60. The FHA (Federal Housing Authority) was created as part of the new deal

Also, assistance for small businesses. Both explicitly prevented loans to Blacks to buy houses, start or grow a business.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Blue_true (Reply #60)

Sun Mar 10, 2019, 05:54 PM

94. And women too...nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to whathehell (Reply #13)

Sun Mar 10, 2019, 04:49 PM

58. True leaders push for what is right, even when there is stiff resistance.

FDR took the easier route. If you want an example of true courage look at the great Florida Governor Reuben Askew, White Floridians were heavily against integrating schools and colleges and Askew was a barely newly elected Governor, but he stood before a Lilly-White stadium assembly at the University of Florida and told those people that integration of schools and the state colleges was the morally right thing to do and that he was going to get that done. He lived up to his word, still served two terms and now stands as one of Florida's greatest governors, some argue that he is the greatest, but some debate that Earl Faircloth was.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Blue_true (Reply #58)

Sun Mar 10, 2019, 05:16 PM

73. Sure, handling the Great Depression AND World War II was a piece

of cake. :

You're free to view FDR as you please, but, like the nations historians, and the majority of our party, I admire him and with that I must tell you that I've no interest in discussing the matter further. Have a good one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to whathehell (Reply #73)

Sun Mar 10, 2019, 05:36 PM

81. LOL, isn't that convenient?

You ask for information, and when you're given it, you "have no interest in discussing the matter further." Why ask in the first place, if you didn't want to know?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to whathehell (Reply #73)

Sun Mar 10, 2019, 05:49 PM

93. When defending FDR's record on racial policies,

It’s always a good idea to bring up his handling of WWII. That should go over well.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to namahage (Reply #93)

Sun Mar 10, 2019, 06:11 PM

98. Um, no, that would be the Great Depression PLUS World War Ii

Piece of cake, I yell ya.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to whathehell (Reply #98)

Mon Mar 11, 2019, 03:29 AM

131. I have relatives that would have disagreed he couldn't have handled the war any better.

And that FDR wasn't racist. But that's just because he interned 110,000-120,000 people based on their race. How is that racist?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tiggeroshii (Reply #131)

Tue Mar 12, 2019, 05:31 AM

159. Sure, and I have relatives who would argue with them..

There ARE reasons he won the Presidency four times.

Tell you what -- How 'bout you and AOC turn in your Social Security cards, denounce the nation's historians, then maybe start a protest against Unions as a first step in denouncing the Democratic Party's signature achievement as "racist"?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to whathehell (Reply #159)

Tue Mar 12, 2019, 09:11 AM

164. Tel ya what.

Give my relatives back their worldly possessions that were taken away and burned in front of them after people barged into their homes and forcibly took them for being Japanese and it might be a little easier to argue. Some.folks were given reparations for their internment, sure. Others , still had to live with the violations of being targeted because of their race by a government they trusted.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tiggeroshii (Reply #164)

Tue Mar 12, 2019, 11:14 AM

165. Tell ya what.

The Internment was a bad mistake.

Most presidents -- not to mention one serving 12 years in especially desperate times -- make at least one.
Have a nice day.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to whathehell (Reply #73)

Sun Mar 10, 2019, 05:57 PM

96. AOC didn't argue that FDR didn't do some exceptional things.

What she argued and so do I is that he could have done much better by standing up to the negative forces of his day. He didn't and we are still paying decades later.

I argue (without data, just like you are seeming to do in many cases) that if FDR had stood up to racists and 100% franchised Blacks WWII would have ended much sooner AND we would be enormously better off as a society today - disprove that claim. I think that AOC was making a similar point. Now, do I call for FDR to be taken off Mount Rushmore, NO!, but if we are going to properly and fully confront today's problems, we must look at all past policy with a critical eye.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to whathehell (Reply #73)

Mon Mar 11, 2019, 05:25 PM

144. But he wasn't PERFECT!

We shouldn't settle for the imperfect! We should support only people who have birds shitting on their shoulders! Because that means they're saints who can do no wrong! And sound bites are important...where were FDR's sound bites??!!! Huh????!!!!! WHERE???

I too admire FDR.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NastyRiffraff (Reply #144)

Tue Mar 12, 2019, 04:59 AM

156. Who the hell said he WAS?

Last edited Tue Mar 12, 2019, 05:33 AM - Edit history (2)

but AOC lies by omission in characterizing a huge, multifaceted program -- one from which she and all of us continue to benefit -- as "racist" when that term realistically only applied to one or two facets of the program.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to whathehell (Reply #13)

Sun Mar 10, 2019, 05:24 PM

78. Wagner Act of 1935 allowed unions to discriminate on the basis of race, for one

also mortgage redlining through the Federal Housing Administration, also exclusion of agricultural labourers and domestic employees under the Social Security Act, those were ALL instances of racist policy, sometimes explicit, sometimes implicit ("agricultuural and domestic laborers" in the South were overwhelmingly African-American, for instance).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Spider Jerusalem (Reply #78)

Sun Mar 10, 2019, 05:35 PM

80. Do you have any idea how racist Abe Lincoln would seem today?

Does that mean we should not admire him for what he did?

Again, FDR was by no means perfect, but he did many good things, which benefited all Americans and CONTINUE to benefit us- If you don't care to acknowledge that, fine, but you will be out of step with both the nations historians and the majority of the Democratic Party.

Have a nice day.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to whathehell (Reply #80)

Sun Mar 10, 2019, 05:38 PM

83. The New Deal did not benefit all Americans, though, is the point (n/t)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to whathehell (Reply #80)

Sun Mar 10, 2019, 10:58 PM

120. Oh yes

By today's standards, Lincoln would be considered quite racist. He did not think blacks were equal to whites and thought it would be best to send them to Liberia after they were freed. It appears he did evolve on the issue, though he didn't live long enough to know how much. Of course, he was very progressive for his time and we admire him for what he did accomplish.

As for FDR, I believe he was probably our most extraordinary president. We should not judge him by today's standards, but by how much he did pull the country, as well as the world forward. I cannot even begin to imagine what the world would look like today if FDR hadn't been president. He just happened to be the perfect man at the right time. At another time, he might have been forgettable. Those who came after him, picked up the mantle and took it farther.

None of our leaders were perfect, but some were light years ahead of others. When I was younger I didn't appreciate what FDR did during the Great Depression or World War II, but now, the more I learn, the more amazed I am.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PatSeg (Reply #120)

Tue Mar 12, 2019, 02:51 PM

167. Yes, Lincoln would definitely fail

the Retroactive Political Purity Test, and to a greater degree than FDR, yet when I pointed this out, and asked if we should still honor him, you may have noted that the poster declined to answer.

I agree with everything you've said about FDR...Social Security alone cut the elderly suicide rate of the time in half. So much of what we have today we owe to him and to those who, as you said, "picked up the mantel and took it further" with Medicare, Unemployment Benefits and the rest. Prior to his administration, I don't believe this country had any social safety net at all.

Thanks for weighing in.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to whathehell (Reply #167)

Tue Mar 12, 2019, 04:42 PM

168. Oh you're welcome

I can't believe how many people are trying to hold FDR to some 21st century purity test. Even if FDR didn't have a racist bone in his body, there was only so much that a president could accomplish at that time, in that political environment and FDR accomplished more than most, if not all.

Just because we accept all the progressive changes a president brought about, it doesn't mean we are condoning racism. Meanwhile, I don't criticize Barack Obama because just a few years ago he opposed same-sex marriage.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PatSeg (Reply #168)

Wed Mar 13, 2019, 01:42 AM

171. Thanks, PatSeg..

I agree with you,, and share your disbelief at the enthusiastic reception given Retroactive Political Purity tests. It's absurd.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to whathehell (Reply #80)

Wed Mar 13, 2019, 08:30 PM

175. Yes I certainly have an idea how Lincoln would seem today.

Yes, it doesn't mean that he should be reviled and that he should not be admired for the things that he did that were admirable, but it also doesn't mean that him, or FDR, or others should not have their policies criticized for what they were and what they did.

FDR can still be one of the greatest presidents as can Lincoln and Washington. What people need to acknowledge is that they were the greatest presidents of a nation that was built on racism and sexism and that those institutionally entrenched attitudes and policies HAVE to be addressed beginning with an honest look at the past.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Caliman73 (Reply #175)

Wed Mar 13, 2019, 09:21 PM

176. ."a nation built on racism and sexism"? How about a World built on them?

Please -- How many nations before this one were built WITHOUT them?

Patriarchal Imperialsm was RAMPANT throughout the world for thousands of years prior to America's founding -- It has been a problem of human society, not a particularly "American" one.

In addition, I take exception to the idea of a country being built ONLY on these negative "isms". Nations are also founded on ideals of justice, self-determination and human ethics. These concepts were initially extended to only a privileged few, but have, over time, helped us confront and overcome baser human instincts to create a more inclusively just society.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to whathehell (Reply #13)

Mon Mar 11, 2019, 12:10 AM

126. New Deal coalition was held in place by Jim Crow

The old-left Dem party tolerated racism (and sexism etc) in order to hold onto the Solid South (as well as many working class whites even in the North) who had hostile views towards blacks and others (eg. Catholics) they viewed as beneath the WASP white man.

FDR is one of the greatest presidents in American history, but he was still a politician, and as such not free from playing to the voters he knew he had to get to win elections.

It was really only until Hubert Humphrey called this out at the 1948 Democratic National Convention that the Dem party slowly but steadily started moving in a civil rights direction:
https://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/huberthumphey1948dnc.html
"My friends, to those who say that we are rushing this issue of civil rights, I say to them we are 172 years late. To those who say that this civil-rights program is an infringement on states’ rights, I say this: The time has arrived in America for the Democratic Party to get out of the shadow of states' rights and to walk forthrightly into the bright sunshine of human rights. People -- human beings -- this is the issue of the 20th century. People of all kinds -- all sorts of people -- and these people are looking to America for leadership, and they’re looking to America for precept and example."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to Dr Hobbitstein (Reply #1)

Sun Mar 10, 2019, 04:56 PM

65. Didn't redlining start under FDR?

nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dr Hobbitstein (Reply #1)

Sun Mar 10, 2019, 07:15 PM

109. On Ignorance

It’s so bleep'n irritating to listen to people who don’t know what they’re talking about spew an opinion.

In hindsight the advances FDR’s New Deal accomplished on behalf of minorities seem small. Put in the prospective of their time, those numerous advances were near earth shattering.

The Roosevelts,FDR/Eleanor, were tireless, absolutely relentless in pushing for equal rights. They didn’t just step on toes, they stomped on toes and bulldozed leaders in labor, banking, industry, the military and southern politicians in their efforts for minorities. That they did so at a time when they needed to maintain a coalition able to pass as many new deal policies as possible is one of the great achievements of Roosevelt’s presidency. Anyone “slamming” Roosevelt and the New Deal for leaving minorities behind is, in fact, demonstrating their ignorance.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Horizens (Reply #109)

Sun Mar 10, 2019, 08:00 PM

110. "FDR/Eleanor, were tireless, absolutely relentless in pushing for equal rights"

Ask a bunch of Japanese-Americans if they agree with that sentiment.

I'd say listen to the POC when they say something is racist. They're probably right.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dr Hobbitstein (Reply #110)

Sun Mar 10, 2019, 09:02 PM

111. If

you knew any history, you'd know of Elleanors adamant opposition to the internment and how FDR tried to end it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Horizens (Reply #111)

Mon Mar 11, 2019, 08:00 AM

133. If you knew any history, you'd know that FDR started it with an EO.

You can’t say “he tried to end it” when he’s the guy that started it.

Face it, FDR was a racist asshole. He may have had some progressive policies, but on race relations he fell WAY short.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dr Hobbitstein (Reply #133)

Wed Mar 13, 2019, 07:42 PM

173. "but on race relations he fell way short"

Last edited Thu Mar 14, 2019, 08:36 AM - Edit history (1)

Do you know anyone then in power at the state or federal level that eid better?


No, I didn't think so.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to whathehell (Reply #173)

Thu Mar 14, 2019, 08:49 AM

178. You like to make excuses for locking up US citizens based on race.

It was wrong, even for the times.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dr Hobbitstein (Reply #178)


Response to Post removed (Reply #179)

Thu Mar 14, 2019, 09:47 AM

180. What I like is calling out things as racist which are racist and not having

someone whitesplain about how it was “a different era”. Fuck that noise. It. Was. Racist.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dr Hobbitstein (Reply #180)

Thu Mar 14, 2019, 09:57 AM

181. Sure..Uh huh..Right..

Have a nice "whitesplainin" day, dear.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dr Hobbitstein (Reply #110)

Mon Mar 11, 2019, 12:36 AM

127. This...



My family escaped the Internment camps because they were half Hawaiian, and guess where the US Military had their biggest Navel Base? Pearl Harbor, Hawaii... land that once belonged to my Ancestors.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dr Hobbitstein (Reply #110)

Tue Mar 12, 2019, 06:47 AM

163. +10000

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to UTUSN (Original post)

Sun Mar 10, 2019, 01:39 PM

3. I'm with you there..

Seems a little absurd to judge to a near 90 year old "Deal" by 2019 standards.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to whathehell (Reply #3)

Sun Mar 10, 2019, 01:41 PM

4. Yay for you and me! Maybe she should try judging by 1931 standards!1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to UTUSN (Reply #4)

Sun Mar 10, 2019, 01:53 PM

9. Correct..

She might also want to discover why he ranks as the 3rd (some say 2nd) greatest American presidents by historians.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to whathehell (Reply #9)

Sun Mar 10, 2019, 04:04 PM

48. Yeahbut.....was he "pure"?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to George II (Reply #48)

Sun Mar 10, 2019, 06:29 PM

103. Lol!.. Exactly!. They push against purity tests in the present

want to bring them back Retroactively?...


I don't know whether to laugh, cry, or go crazy!.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to whathehell (Reply #3)

Sun Mar 10, 2019, 01:44 PM

6. I agree

anything that long ago, judged by today's standards will come up short.

It shows that our society has changed in a positive way, but it doesn't negate the progress that, for example, FDR's New Deal made in its time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bettie (Reply #6)

Sun Mar 10, 2019, 01:50 PM

8. Exactly.. She's disappointingly short sighted there

and she's going to piss off a lot of Democrats who know how mich the Party and the counyry owe to FDR, the President historians rate as 3rd (some say 2nd) greatest Americwn president in history.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to whathehell (Reply #8)

Sun Mar 10, 2019, 04:54 PM

62. The very same viewpoint is expressed here

quite regularly.

A lot of people seem to have a hard time not insisting on today's mores in yesterday's reality.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to whathehell (Reply #3)

Sun Mar 10, 2019, 02:01 PM

17. The racist policies of the New Deal were racist then, and are racist now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WhiskeyGrinder (Reply #17)

Sun Mar 10, 2019, 02:20 PM

23. Being so sure of that claim, I'm sure you're able to.tell us just what

those "racist" New Deal policies were, right?...Can you name and describe them?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to whathehell (Reply #23)

Sun Mar 10, 2019, 02:32 PM

29. Sure.

* The Federal Housing Administration and Home Owners Loan Corp. upheld and followed racial covenants and other redlining efforts.

* The Agricultural Adjustment Act was originally designed to send subsidy payments to tenant farmers directly, but was rewritten to send the payments to landholders only.

* The Social Security Act and the NLRA were written to exclude jobs that were disproportionately held by black people, such as agriculture and domestic help, especially in the south.

There's no doubt that New Deal programs helped black people as well. But being aware of where it fell short will ideally help us undo some of the damage that was done, and prevent it from being reinforced.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WhiskeyGrinder (Reply #29)

Sun Mar 10, 2019, 03:14 PM

39. The Racial Inequities in the New Deal were not totally the Fault of the President

Last edited Sun Mar 10, 2019, 04:01 PM - Edit history (1)

The president may propose a law, but the final language is the result of the political maneuvering in congress. The implementation of the law through regulations is the responsibility of the cabinet secretaries. The president cannot review thousands of pages of proposed regulations and still do his job.

Not all racial inequalities were necessarily the result of racism. Some sectors of the economy may have been excluded from New Deal legislation because of administrative practicalities. It would be extremely difficult to enforce the collection of Social Security taxes or workplace regulations on people who were self employed or employed by other individuals, such as agriculture and domestics. This was an era of small family farms and a government that operated without computers, or even automation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to whathehell (Reply #39)

Sun Mar 10, 2019, 04:04 PM

49. Seems like maybe you're moving the goalposts

Of course racism wasn't totally the fault of FDR.

The argument here is not whether all racial inequalities stem from consciously racist policies; it is whether the FHA policies instituted in the 1930s were racist. The policies in question were intended specifically to protect and expand the wealth of white people, the consequences to anyone else be damned. That's textbook racism right there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to caraher (Reply #49)

Sun Mar 10, 2019, 04:34 PM

53. Seems like maybe you are..

My last post explained why a President trying to address a world wide depression, growing fascism in Europe and a host of other issues was not well disposed to sit down, pen in hand, and edit regulations. The same constraints would likely have discouraged him from sitting in countless meetings browbeating bankers into financing home loans.

You might want to check this out:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_8802


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to whathehell (Reply #53)

Sun Mar 10, 2019, 05:42 PM

86. I'm not slamming FDR

I'm looking at how the FHA's policies worked to institutionalize white supremacy. I would agree that FDR did not have unlimited time, resources and political capital to weed out the bad in every element of the New Deal. That does not, however, mean that none of those policies were racist.

Pointing out that it may have been hard for FDR to do a lot better does not refute the original claim that some New Deal policies supported white supremacy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to caraher (Reply #86)

Sun Mar 10, 2019, 06:17 PM

102. She was slamming him

and I wouldn't care if she mentioned the Housing Authority, but she slammed the ENTIRE New Deal as "racist" and that, my friend, is garbage -- She and hers (like all of us) are STILL benefiting from that New Deal she so blithely slurs.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to whathehell (Reply #102)

Sun Mar 10, 2019, 11:10 PM

121. So you know what benefits AOC better than she does?

OK then.

And you're arguing against a well-established factual record about the New Deal. Its racially inequitable conception and execution are widely noted, across the many sources that patient posters are linking you to, if you cared to self-educate on this issue.

I personally have an appreciation of FDR and also for Eleanor Roosevelt, for whom the issue of racial equality appeared closer to her heart. And FDR still had a Democratic party that still included Southern segregationists that would react strongly to legislation that pushed too far in the direction of racial equity. Separate but equal doctrine was still the law of the land, and for many of us who are persons of color with WWII gen parents, our parents were subject to segregation even while serving.

Facts are facts. You can accept them or make up your own reality. Discriminatory policies are easy to identify in New Deal legislation. However, the New Deal still accomplished a lot of good. Both can be true.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueWI (Reply #121)

Tue Mar 12, 2019, 04:50 AM

155. Lol..We're not here to "benefit" AOC -- Her job is to benefit the citizens

in her district, and lying by omission about a signature democratic program she and ALL Americans continue to benefit from doesn't do that.

Even those here inclined to defend her, admit she fucked up in negatively labeling a huge, multifaceted program by only one or two facets. Have a nice one.




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to whathehell (Reply #155)

Tue Mar 12, 2019, 07:57 PM

169. AOC mentioned a very common historical conclusion

about the racial inequities of the New Deal. Several posters offered resources to learn more about this common historical conclusion.

Your earlier post implied that AOC didn't know that the New Deal benefited her and her family. I suggested that she would know better than you or I would to what extent that program has benefited her family in past or present times. For instance, if you're white and got a surburban home loan to build decades of equity in a house your family is still in today, it's all good. If you were a family of color and were denied credit that was made possible by the government you pay taxes to, not so good. If you were a domestic worker or farm worker, like many black and brown people, social security didn't apply to you either in the early years. We live today with an extremely large wealth gap that continues to be detrimental to our civic life and causes a lot of conflict and suffering. The good and the bad are a part of the record.

You can deny this history if you want. Others will call you out for it, as I did, as we all should if we are Democrats with an open eye towards history's lessons.





Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueWI (Reply #169)

Wed Mar 13, 2019, 01:31 AM

170. As others here have noted, her "conclusion" regarding

Last edited Wed Mar 13, 2019, 01:13 PM - Edit history (2)

the supposedly "racist" New Deal, is based on only one or two of it's aspects, such as the Housing Authority, a program whose discriminatory features were addressed in subsequent years.

Like her, you ignore all the other New Deal programs such as Social Security, the laws establishing Minimum Wage and the Right to Collective Bargaining -- All things that fail to fit her "racist" narrative.
As to AOC and her family, I need to know nothing more than the fact of their citizenship to know they benefit from them..

https://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/03/07/f-d-r-makes-the-case-for-the-minimum-wage/

https://www.countable.us/articles/724-date-fdr-s-national-labor-relations-act-took-effect

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to whathehell (Reply #170)

Wed Mar 13, 2019, 04:32 PM

172. I mentioned Social Security in my last post.

Domestic workers and farm workers did not benefit from social security in its first iteration. I mentioned this before.

Others on this thread have mentioned the Right to Collective Bargaining - and they also mentioned the tolerance for racial discrimination within the unions. There's a whole history of efforts by black workers, for instance, to access the right to organize on an equal basis. Look it up, if you care to.

Meanwhile, you're making the editorial judgement that these documented problems with the New Deal do not mean that it was racist. I generally don't frame complex issues on a racist/not racist binary, but I strongly disagree with the broad brush dismissal of racial inequalities that are a demonstrable part of the legislation's legacy.

There are some parts of the legislation that lifted all boats, such as minimum wage laws, and there are other parts that reinforced racial distinctions in lending and home ownership, such as FHA practices. The effects are felt widely and deeply and personally among many of us.

I would encourage you to investigate and appreciate the enduring and negative impact of these practices on communities of color then and now, because the future economic viability of the nation relies on the health of these communities. So we should at least recognize where previous solutions fell short.

But it's your choice. Do what you do.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueWI (Reply #172)

Wed Mar 13, 2019, 08:12 PM

174. I've already addressed that issue.

Read the second paragraph of post #39.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to whathehell (Reply #102)

Mon Mar 11, 2019, 08:22 PM

149. OK, now we have what she actually said

and not what some right-wing rag says she said (thanks to demmiblue). What part of what she says is false? (The main quibble I would have is treating the New Deal as a monolithic program, when she is really talking about certain facets of it only). And where does she even mention FDR?


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to caraher (Reply #149)

Tue Mar 12, 2019, 04:23 AM

154. Lol.. What she "actually" said is what I quoted her as saying..

Last edited Tue Mar 12, 2019, 06:28 AM - Edit history (1)

and you seem to agree with me:

"The main quibble I would have is treating the entire New Deal as monolithic when she is really talking about certain facets of it only"

..As I said, she mischaracterized the entire New Deal as "racist".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to caraher (Reply #149)

Tue Mar 12, 2019, 05:13 AM

158. Then WHY did she name it the Green NEW DEAL?

-------------

Did the New Deal specifically help women, immigrants, disabled people, LGBTQ, seniors?

NO? 'Then string them up, and feed them to the dawgs.'/S

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to whathehell (Reply #39)

Sun Mar 10, 2019, 09:50 PM

115. You asked me about the New Deal, not the president.

I answered.

Not all racial inequalities were necessarily the result of racism.


This is really weak. The reason ag and domestic workers were excluded were because of racism. It's okay to admit that, realize it, and recognize that it has led directly to race-based economic inequalities we see today.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to whathehell (Reply #3)

Sun Mar 10, 2019, 03:44 PM

45. Like....

We shouldn't judge reverance to racist Confederate leadership by today's standards? I argued with a Trump supporter who took that position. The 1920s and 1930s saw the rise of the KKK but let's not judge people involved in lynchings by today's standards.
White fragility- when white people interpret calling attention to racism as a personal insult.
AOC pointed out a truth just as people who object to FDR's Japanese internment camps have. White supremacy has been the norm in the US. There's nothing wrong with some national reflection as we work to disrupt that legacy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to loyalsister (Reply #45)

Sun Mar 10, 2019, 03:59 PM

46. No, not like that..

and "reverence" for a traitorous army fighting for States Rights to maintain slavery is really not like the New Deal at all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to whathehell (Reply #46)

Sun Mar 10, 2019, 04:29 PM

51. But, those were different times is your argument

I think a time when KKK members wore their robes and sat together in church after Saturday night's lynching is every bit as abhorrent as a culture where slavery was accepted practice.

Both cultural influences are problematic and the people who operated as if it was not a problem most certainly can be acknowledged as having been wrong then and wrong by today's standards. Should we also be unconditionally generous in remembering Woodrow Wilson and Thomas Jefferson because of their good contributions with no recognition of their flaws and the horrors they enabled?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to loyalsister (Reply #51)

Sun Mar 10, 2019, 04:55 PM

63. First of all, no one ne's expressing "unconditional admiration"

for anyone. Roosevelt was not a perfect man by any means," so " unconditional admiration" is not even a talking point.

That said, he did a lot of good for all Americans. You can appreciate that or not.

I think we do have to judgr people, at least partly, by the times they found themselves in. You must know for instance, that by today's standards, Abraham Lincoln would be considered quite racist -- Should we all stop admiring him too?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to whathehell (Reply #63)

Sun Mar 10, 2019, 05:39 PM

84. Why not both?

If one is capable of acknowledging the flaws and remembering positive contributions of Lincoln, Jefferson, Wilson, why not FDR? The vitriol directed towards AOC over this is hypocritical.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to loyalsister (Reply #84)

Sun Mar 10, 2019, 06:05 PM

97. She called the ENTIRE New Deal "racist", that's why

and, sorry, but that's bullshit.
In truth, she and her family, like the rest of us, are STILL. benefitting from New Deal programs. Like me, AOC advocates for organized labor...Now who do you suppose ushered in the Right to Organize?..Um, yeah, that would be Roosevelt.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to whathehell (Reply #97)

Sun Mar 10, 2019, 09:26 PM

113. It's an objective truth

That the New Deal was an initiative that supported institutionalized racism by excluding people of color.
White fragility on full display here. Interpreting observations of racism as a personal insult against poor pitiful white people.
The WPA also discriminated against people with disabilities and provoked a protest by a group called the League of the Physically Handicapped. Part of the labor regulations that were enacted at the time is the one that allows goodwill to pay people with disabilities less than minimum wage.

I benefit from the new deal as amended in 1956. The original law passed in 1935 was limited to benefit white non-disabled men. The same can be said for labor laws which also permitted discrimination based on sex. That was standard then, and it doesn't excuse the failure to disrupt. The only thing more frustrating is the insistence that all of the flaws and facts should be disregarded in a rigid loyalty to my country, party, FDR right or wrong.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to loyalsister (Reply #51)

Sun Mar 10, 2019, 05:17 PM

74. The thing that burns me.

Is that the people saying times were different then will instantly vilify a White person calling a Black the N-word today, but what really was different between the past and today? Not much other than laws protect the Black person against being lynched.

True leaders fight prevailing attitudes of their time to bring about outcomes that are the just outcomes. FDR, Wilson, others did not do that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Blue_true (Reply #74)

Sun Mar 10, 2019, 09:37 PM

114. I don't get it

One does not negate the other. The bad doesn't negate the good and the good should not conceal the bad.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to loyalsister (Reply #114)

Sun Mar 10, 2019, 10:31 PM

118. The problem is some people only want the good talked about.

That was the impetus behind the OP ripping AOC. When she talks about a Just Green New Deal, she means that EVERYONE must have a chance at a better life and a group does not get left to make change pass the purview of racists. FDR left out Blacks and American Indians, Mexican Americans and other Hispanics were not a large group in the USA at that time, save two or three states.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Blue_true (Reply #118)

Sun Mar 10, 2019, 11:48 PM

125. There is no need to whitewash history

Learning from mistakes and getting it right next time is a worthwhile goal. I'm glad she's thinking that way.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to whathehell (Reply #46)

Sun Mar 10, 2019, 05:12 PM

72. Wrong! Like that.

If we are ever going to attack and rid ourselves of white supremacy, we must hold all past instances of it accountable, even when people that we revere were involved in propagating it.

Wilson didn't explicitly fire qualified Black professionals from federal jobs, nor did his policies explicitly call for that, but it happened and he did nothing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Blue_true (Reply #72)

Sun Mar 10, 2019, 05:21 PM

76. Lol!

Wrong -- Not like that.

Listen, as I mentioned in my last post, I'm not at all interested in continuing this "discussion" so I AM saying adieu.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to whathehell (Reply #3)

Sun Mar 10, 2019, 11:11 PM

123. I agree

It's like Republicans saying that present day Democrats are "racist" because Democrats were Southern slave owners 150 years ago.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dem2 (Reply #123)

Tue Mar 12, 2019, 11:18 AM

166. Retrospective "purity tests" maybe?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to UTUSN (Original post)

Sun Mar 10, 2019, 01:42 PM

5. FDR was a great man, but deeply flawed.

His lack of action toward bombing the Death Camps is just one of his great flaws. Jewish leaders begged him to do something, but he refused.

His attitude toward non-Protestants was appalling.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MicaelS (Reply #5)

Sun Mar 10, 2019, 01:54 PM

10. Some people criticize LBJ for not doing this or that. LBJ may have done all that was possible,

under the circumstances [of often deeply racist, rotten, entrenched, powerful Southern Committee Chairmen].

No President, politician, anyone - before or after could do what LBJ accomplished.

[Some allowance might be acknowledged for that].

The tremendous good for generations, and generations to follow, - is what is important.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MicaelS (Reply #5)

Sun Mar 10, 2019, 01:57 PM

11. I'm now convinced to vote for Hoover, Landon, Wilkie, and DEWEY!1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to UTUSN (Reply #11)

Mon Mar 11, 2019, 02:50 PM

138. Oh please.

I never said that. I think no one could have done what FDR did. That was why I said he was a Great Man. But, he, like others of the type had a real blind spot where Jews were concerned.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MicaelS (Reply #138)

Thu Mar 14, 2019, 12:15 AM

177. Common tactic. Go to extremes when your argument is weak.

Criticize FDR legitimately for the policies that were underscored by the racism of the time and that automatically means that you should have voted for Hitler or someone of that ilk. Because, you know, there are no other choices. Black people, even though they were effectively disenfranchised at the time supported and cared about FDR because while the policies that were enacted under the New Deal were basically exclusionary to them, FDR was still 1000 times better than any Republican. This is the calculus that People of Color had to and have to make in national politics. FDR did great things for the US as a whole, but race relations was not part of the New Deal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MicaelS (Reply #5)

Sun Mar 10, 2019, 02:55 PM

33. Appalling is an Understatement! Fdr did not like Jews!!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 4139 (Reply #33)

Sun Mar 10, 2019, 05:20 PM

75. Many Jewish people were denied refuge here and sent back to Europe to die.

Allowing that to happen is horrid, yet FDR did.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Blue_true (Reply #75)

Mon Mar 11, 2019, 10:26 AM

136. To be fair

FDR was not a dictator. He had to comply with existing immigration laws most of which were enacted before he was President.

FDR could have done more, but he can't be directly blamed either.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 4139 (Reply #33)

Mon Mar 11, 2019, 10:24 AM

135. With the exception of Henry Morgenthau

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MicaelS (Reply #5)

Sun Mar 10, 2019, 04:15 PM

50. He was flawed, as is everyone, but he wasn't "deeply flawed".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to George II (Reply #50)

Sun Mar 10, 2019, 05:22 PM

77. He had some major, major shortcomings.

It would be interesting to see how FDR would survive with today's "gotcha" press.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Blue_true (Reply #77)

Mon Mar 11, 2019, 02:53 PM

139. I do not think he would survive. Nor would Eleanor.

Just imagine what today's press would have done about JFK. I shudder to think.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MicaelS (Reply #5)

Mon Mar 11, 2019, 09:01 AM

134. He also didn't allow the SS St. Louis

 

937 (mostly) Jews sent back to Germany. Nobody would let them dock and this was after what was happening in the camps was known.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to UTUSN (Original post)

Sun Mar 10, 2019, 01:48 PM

7. In sports, commentators who are not necessarily the best or brightest, often at least note,

the inherent, [and often the unfairness,] difficulties in comparing eras.

Others, here there and everywhere, are often totally oblivious to such possible understandings.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to empedocles (Reply #7)

Sun Mar 10, 2019, 01:59 PM

15. Yip, sports types have fairly often surprised me into admiring them. Sometimes!1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to UTUSN (Original post)

Sun Mar 10, 2019, 01:57 PM

12. Which is why we need a New, Improved, Green, 100% Certified Pure FDR

and AOC will soon be on the lips of every Democrat

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dalton99a (Reply #12)

Sun Mar 10, 2019, 01:59 PM

16. Not to mention a god/being!1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to UTUSN (Reply #16)

Sun Mar 10, 2019, 02:02 PM

18. A just god

who weighs both sides

Maybe many sides

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to UTUSN (Original post)

Sun Mar 10, 2019, 01:58 PM

14. Oh my lord why are people so mad about these new congresspeople speaking the truth?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WhiskeyGrinder (Reply #14)

Sun Mar 10, 2019, 02:16 PM

21. I usually try to answer questions that appear to be sincerely asked, so here goes:

* I wasn't raised with street smarts, was drilled with a certain amount of paying dues, wait-your-turn; deference to respected figures, etc. Frequently enough in work life, particularly starting in the '90s with the coming of voting-off-the-island & trickster-alliances & networking - I was shunted aside by my opposites. So there's some of that in "people mad new congresspeople (shooting off their mouths)".

* Also, as a Boomer, my generation of Hippies thought we could toss "anybody over thirty" (and 5,000 years of civilization's history) on the trash heap, could re-make the world like a college bull session of "If I Were King of the World." It has taken the entire last half of our generation to attempt to correct ourselves.

* "these new congresspeople" are not a never-before-seen phenomenon in human experience. They ain't MOZART. They will contribute - inescapably so - but at my age of 72 I won't be around to see their improved selves brought about their own hard knocks to come. So I'm allowed to be "so mad" before I'm gone!1













Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to UTUSN (Reply #21)

Sun Mar 10, 2019, 02:21 PM

24. Fair enough. She's still right.

Our country was founded on white supremacy. FDR oversaw racist policies. They were racist then, judged by 1931 standards, because these policies existed because people believed institutionalizing white supremacy was the best thing for the country. New policies were built on top of older white supremacist policies upholding those policies.

None of that undoes the good that the New Deal did do -- but it's vital that we recognize and talk about the failures of otherwise successful programs in the past. If we're going to aim high -- and we certainly must -- then we need to be honest about what policies were racist and we must talk about how to undo those policies most effectively. That work is not an attack, and reacting like it is only hampers the work.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WhiskeyGrinder (Reply #24)

Sun Mar 10, 2019, 04:59 PM

66. +1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WhiskeyGrinder (Reply #24)

Tue Mar 12, 2019, 06:14 AM

161. She's still wrong, and lies by omission in

characterizing a huge, multi-faceted program -- one from which she and ALL Americans continue to benefit --as "racist" based on only one or two of of its facets.

More information on the impact of the Nee Deal on African Americans.

https://rediscovering-black-history.blogs.archives.gov/2014/09/09/we-work-again-african-americans-and-the-federal-work-programs-during-the-great-depression/

http://rooseveltinstitute.org/african-americans-and-new-deal-look-back-history/


.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WhiskeyGrinder (Reply #14)

Sun Mar 10, 2019, 02:32 PM

28. When you can back up the blanket assertions you've made

we may be able to take that "truth telling" a bit more seriously.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to UTUSN (Original post)

Sun Mar 10, 2019, 02:11 PM

19. I lulz'd

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to UTUSN (Original post)

Sun Mar 10, 2019, 02:13 PM

20. FDR saved the economy and bolstered the middle class

What a prick he was.

FDR was absolutely wrong about Japanese internment. However, not having fixed institutional racism - that exists to this day - is a bit much. There's lots of blame to go around on that issue.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to dalton99a (Reply #25)

Sun Mar 10, 2019, 03:30 PM

42. Great article

Thanks for sharing.

This sums it up:
'The aid provided by the New Deal to America's poor—black and white—was insufficient. Racism reared its head in the New Deal, often because federal programs were administered through local authorities or community leaders who brought their own racial biases to the table.'

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dalton99a (Reply #25)

Sun Mar 10, 2019, 05:01 PM

69. The Democratic coalition then is basically

the GOP coalition today or since Nixon's "Southern Strategy" in the 1960s.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nini (Reply #20)

Sun Mar 10, 2019, 05:28 PM

79. If he had made an effort to totally franchise Blacks,

my argument is that he would saved it faster and today we would be an impossible to match world power in EVERY area. But he didn't and the country has most likely lost tens of trillions, even hundreds of trillions because societal discrimination was allowed to exist.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Blue_true (Reply #79)

Sun Mar 10, 2019, 06:31 PM

104. Unfortunately local govt and companies that ran many of the programs

were assholes.

But yea Fuck FDR

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nini (Reply #104)

Sun Mar 10, 2019, 07:04 PM

106. We got an end to segregation because the federal government stepped in.

Do you think George Wallace and other southern governors would have allowed integration if Eisenhower and later Kennedy didn't intervene? Do you think northern schools would have integrated if the federal Courts and democratic administrations post FDR had not forced them?

I am not saying fuck FDR, but I am saying that he had the power to do much better toward the then POC and he chose not to.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to UTUSN (Original post)

Sun Mar 10, 2019, 02:40 PM

31. It just never ends.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to George II (Reply #31)

Sun Mar 10, 2019, 05:47 PM

90. Take heart, George.

Your fervent wish for her to be primaried may come true.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to UTUSN (Original post)

Sun Mar 10, 2019, 02:46 PM

32. Growing up in South, I was always confused by the racists' love/reverence for FDR. George Wallace,

Lester Maddox, and all the deplorable Southern racists were Democrats (properly classified as Dixiecrats).

They were racist as hell and openly supported legislation and law enforcement that oppressed POC. But they were quite supportive of the New Deal, farm programs, etc., at the national level.

Of course, with enactment of the Civil Rights Act, most of the Dixiecrats -- who weren't well into their 70/80s in age -- ran to the Republican Party that opened their arms and proudly became America's official racist political party. A few, like Robert Byrd, recognized their racist past and tried to repent.

To this day, ignorant white wing Southerners like to blame Democrats for racism in the past, totally ignoring the migration to -- and ideology of -- the Republican Party today.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #32)

Sun Mar 10, 2019, 05:37 PM

82. You got it right that racists became republicans.

And they still are with that party.

Someone pointed out that democrats have not carried the solid South since 1944. 1944 was FDR's last election, he died in office and Truman took over. Truman began making noises about treating Black GIs who were helping defeat the Nazis better, that lost the solid South, LBJ obliterated it for democrats with passage of the Civil Rights Act. Should Truman and LBJ not did what they did to insure democrats more votes from racists? HELL NO!!!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #32)

Sun Mar 10, 2019, 05:45 PM

89. It's not the least bit surprising, really.

Racists today would love all of our public assistance programs, so long as minorities were excluded from receiving any benefit from them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to UTUSN (Original post)

Sun Mar 10, 2019, 02:58 PM

34. I revere FDR, just as I do Lincoln. Neither did EVERYTHING right. ON balance, they were exceptional

I hope the same can be said of AOC when her life is done.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to UTUSN (Original post)

Sun Mar 10, 2019, 03:01 PM

35. So what's up with all the

members I've seen who claim to be "proud FDR Democrats"?

I guess we'll be seeing less of that now?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cha (Reply #35)

Sun Mar 10, 2019, 03:13 PM

38. Boom!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cha (Reply #35)

Sun Mar 10, 2019, 06:15 PM

100. That's my fear.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to UTUSN (Original post)

Sun Mar 10, 2019, 03:12 PM

37. If New Deal programs were more inclusive for minorities, Southern Democrats would never have allowed

them to pass, those were simply the political realities FDR operated in.

Would it have been better that there was no New Deal for later Democrats to strengthen? That is the pertinent question. Cortez is way off base.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tritsofme (Reply #37)

Sun Mar 10, 2019, 05:41 PM

85. Hmmm, I have a decision between doing what is morally right,

or making a choice that will give me what I want. Top it off with that if I do what is morally right, my detractors have no other option for making things better. FDR chose the easier path, and we as a nation are still paying for that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Blue_true (Reply #85)

Sun Mar 10, 2019, 07:06 PM

107. Meaningless blather. FDR lived in the world as it was, not as we'd like it to have been.

FDR’s coalition was heavily dependent on racist Southern Democrats, they were never going to pass the things you think they should have...in the 1930s...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tritsofme (Reply #107)

Sun Mar 10, 2019, 07:14 PM

108. The world as it is now.

People still refuse to hire POC, they just don't come out and say it. Supervisors trim points off performance reviews for POC and women, but those supervisors are not screaming racist and sexist stuff. That is the world as it exists today, using your logic, we need to ignore that because of the benefits the capitalism of the world today produce. Wow!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Blue_true (Reply #108)

Sun Mar 10, 2019, 09:19 PM

112. FDR massively shifted the Overton Window to the left and made subsequent progress possible.

As President Obama warned, we cannot make perfect the enemy of good.

Your expectations for that era are unrealistic.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tritsofme (Reply #112)

Sun Mar 10, 2019, 10:23 PM

117. Lyndon Johnson shifted the window to the left.

The majority of progress for all people came after Johnson's term. I think that to truly move forward, we must own the shortcomings of our most revered leaders and not try to force feed the shortcomings to people that are concerned about the damage those shortcomings did to the whole of society.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Blue_true (Reply #117)

Sun Mar 10, 2019, 11:11 PM

122. Without the New Deal, LBJ would have been unable to usher in his Great Society programs

That seems to be a truism.

Johnson would probably be the first to say so, he was an ardent New Dealer.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to UTUSN (Original post)

Sun Mar 10, 2019, 03:15 PM

40. Is she aware of who is in the WH?

and the criminal Republicans in Congress? Maybe criticize them.

Just a thought.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mcar (Reply #40)

Sun Mar 10, 2019, 03:22 PM

41. Obviously Dems are the real enemy here

Everything I worked for and believed in since I volunteered for Bobby Kennedy in '68 seems to be wrong now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mcar (Reply #40)

Tue Mar 12, 2019, 05:10 AM

157. TY, yes

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to UTUSN (Original post)

Sun Mar 10, 2019, 03:31 PM

44. I guess the New Deal of the early 1930s just isn't "pure" enough.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to George II (Reply #44)

Sun Mar 10, 2019, 05:43 PM

87. It grossly excluded entire groups of Americans.

Is that right by you George? It certainly is not by me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Blue_true (Reply #87)

Sun Mar 10, 2019, 10:03 PM

116. That's just a minor impurity, I guess.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mariana (Reply #116)

Sun Mar 10, 2019, 10:35 PM

119. I have read a lot of George's posts. He is a good man.

I doubt that he thinks leaving groups out of a critical social reform is good, but he may view criticism of FDR for allowing that to happen as unfair because of the things that FDR did accomplish. Just the best I can make of it all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to UTUSN (Original post)

Sun Mar 10, 2019, 04:33 PM

52. I used to hear this argument from libertarians

whose point was that government interventions are always evil, and that African Americans would have been better off supporting free market solutions.

I find it strange hearing this argument from nominal Democrats

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DBoon (Reply #52)

Sun Mar 10, 2019, 05:47 PM

91. Actually, Blacks had no other choice but support free market solutions.

They had to fund their businesses from any profits because banks and the federal government would not loan them money irregardless of the strength of their idea or business. So yeah, anyone that allowed that to happen must be held to account. It has nothing to do with bashing democrats.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to UTUSN (Original post)

Sun Mar 10, 2019, 04:36 PM

55. I give her a chance to learn from experience

and I have great faith that she will learn, and maybe even along time he way she might teach us olders a thing or two.

I hope so. This stuff keeps me feeling young inside.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to UTUSN (Original post)

Sun Mar 10, 2019, 04:39 PM

56. I have a feeling this is way out of context.

Do y'all "worship" the New Deal? I don't. I'm glad it happened and support it as a good model for positive use of government programs to improve societies. But worship? I think the right winger who wrote this article tipped his hat on that one. AOC has never shown herself to be that much of a demagogue so I call BS on this interpretation of what she said.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gtar100 (Reply #56)

Mon Mar 11, 2019, 01:36 AM

129. I think you're absolutely right

We aren't analyzing her actual words, but a paraphrase from a RW source. Let's see a transcript or hear the talk.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gtar100 (Reply #56)

Mon Mar 11, 2019, 07:48 AM

132. +1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to UTUSN (Original post)

Sun Mar 10, 2019, 04:41 PM

57. She is 100% right.

FDR's New Deal completely ignored Blacks. One can argue that the New Deal would not have passed if Blacks were given anything, but I counter that a truly courageous leader would have included Blacks and told any detractors to find a better deal for themselves if they could.

FDR also made no attempt to integrate the armed forces nor get equal treatment of Black GIs, even as many of those Black GIs were dying fighting the Nazis. German prisoners of war were treated better than Black GIs. Truman integrated the armed forces and started the push for benefits to Black GIs.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to UTUSN (Original post)

Sun Mar 10, 2019, 04:51 PM

59. I think she is actually making a compelling point (even if the execution might leave something to be

desired). Some of those who like to call themselves “FDR Democrats” are conveniently overlooking that FDR was also constrained by political realities and had to compromise with assholes to move the ball forward… that he was practical and the opposite of a “purist”… and that like everyone else EVER, he was a product of his time and not without flaws.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to deurbano (Reply #59)

Mon Mar 11, 2019, 04:52 PM

142. The product of our time argument infuriates me

Because there were abolitionists and radical Republicans before FDR's time and Truman who came right after him called for civil rights legislation, federal anti lynching laws that were even opposed by LBJ and that is just the white people. Product of our times forgets all those people that suffered under those times who by the way were humans as well during that time or whatever time is appropriate when it comes to racism which has never gone away so today's racists and the "white pride" people are just a product of today's times.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to UTUSN (Original post)

Sun Mar 10, 2019, 04:54 PM

61. There is some good info in this thread (I'm not talking about the OP). n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to UTUSN (Original post)

Sun Mar 10, 2019, 05:00 PM

68. The administration of the New Deal was racially discriminatory.

 

I'm sure that's what she meant.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to UTUSN (Original post)

Sun Mar 10, 2019, 05:44 PM

88. And the first iteration of Social Security was sexist, in favor of women.

I didn't read the entire article, so just wondering if she had the time to mention that...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to UTUSN (Original post)

Sun Mar 10, 2019, 05:47 PM

92. Its entirely fair to talk about the pros and cons of the New Deal.

Not being able to amounts to white washing history, pun intended.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to UTUSN (Original post)

Sun Mar 10, 2019, 06:17 PM

101. It's deride a democrat day on DU. yay!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to UTUSN (Original post)

Sun Mar 10, 2019, 06:31 PM

105. She is on the money.

Racism in out beloved America is much, much deeper and much, much older and insidious than many of us, including me, imagine.

Think the so-called. "Founding Fathers."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to UTUSN (Original post)

Sun Mar 10, 2019, 11:12 PM

124. So what next?

Are there any statues of FDR we can tear down?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to UTUSN (Original post)

Mon Mar 11, 2019, 01:35 AM

128. At this point, I'd like to know what she *actually* said

I've been unable to see a transcript of her remarks or a video, and when I Google her talk for coverage of this part of her appearance I get nothing but right-wing trash web sites. I think the Daily Mail's coverage spin what's really getting us all riled up here.

From what I can tell, she basically was plugging the Green New Deal as being conscious of racial injustice. Some right-wing news sources have reported this as "AOC trashes FDR, calls him racist" and people here buy into it and start infighting.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to caraher (Reply #128)

Mon Mar 11, 2019, 08:00 PM

146. Here you go:

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to demmiblue (Reply #146)

Mon Mar 11, 2019, 08:14 PM

148. Marvelous!

Thank you very much!

Well-reasoned, factual, and not a swipe at FDR, who is not even mentioned. Confirms my suspicions that we're arguing over a straw AOC created by RW media.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to UTUSN (Original post)

Mon Mar 11, 2019, 02:23 AM

130. That's B.S.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to UTUSN (Original post)

Mon Mar 11, 2019, 10:29 AM

137. Sorry

But she is right. FDR was a great President but he was not perfect and did many things that can & should be criticized.

We need to be honest about our past and not declare there can be no criticism of the dear leader.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trumpocalypse (Reply #137)

Mon Mar 11, 2019, 04:41 PM

140. Again with the "perfect" thing. Who/exactly is a perfect/anything (don't bring Beard in the Sky)

I'm not claiming that we Dems are not to criticize our members - if anything, it's a crucial difference between the Left and the Right that Libs look inwards for root causes of problems while wingnuts look outward for blaming others.

What is wanted (from me, anyway) is for our loudmouths to exercise some nuance, like for AOC to acknowledge "FDR was a great president - BUT/AND..." or say something about the context of the times and his (or anybody's) social upbringing or something about all of the massive things on his plate or the massive things he accomplished for a legacy of a century - SOMETHING context/nuance.


Nobody is forbidding ALL/ANY criticism. Just how about including it in the Big Picture ------------AND AND AND -----------not just handing wingnuts ammunition to use against him and us? Is that too much to ask??????????????!1






Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to UTUSN (Reply #140)

Mon Mar 11, 2019, 05:15 PM

143. Context/ nuance??

Sounds like setting up conditions for free speech.

And I doubt the right is looking for ammunition against FDR.

Actually, not being honest about history gives them more ammunition.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trumpocalypse (Reply #143)

Mon Mar 11, 2019, 06:36 PM

145. Since when do context/nuance equate with not-honest?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to UTUSN (Reply #145)

Mon Mar 11, 2019, 08:01 PM

147. When certain things are demanded

to be stated before someone can voice honest criticism.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trumpocalypse (Reply #147)

Mon Mar 11, 2019, 08:24 PM

150. Discussion ain't even possible without definitions in common, s'long!1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to UTUSN (Reply #150)

Mon Mar 11, 2019, 08:44 PM

151. True

It is also not possible when someone demands you adhere to their definition.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trumpocalypse (Reply #151)

Mon Mar 11, 2019, 09:28 PM

152. Haha - even "s'long" 's definition doesn't work!1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to UTUSN (Reply #152)

Mon Mar 11, 2019, 10:17 PM

153. I never said so long.

Another example of someone setting up their own rules and expecting others to adhere to them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to UTUSN (Original post)

Mon Mar 11, 2019, 04:45 PM

141. That is why Truman came up with the fair deal

FDR was more willing to work with Southern Dixiecrats

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread