3 ms·

Well, there's also the possibility that he tried one thing for a while, which didn't work very well so he switched to something different. As to whether he did

by pfedor 18y ago

Well, there's also the possibility that he tried one thing for a while, which didn't work very well so he switched to something different. As to whether he did a good job or not, the fact that he was reelected three times seems to indicate that he didn't do too badly.

byrneseyeview 18y ago
Horseshit. People only say that kind of thing to rationalize supporting everything someone does, even when that someone is a liar. Maybe FDR was lying, maybe he wasn't. Maybe he secretly changed his mind without telling anybody. Then, of course, you have to admit that the wrong guy won in 1932, since what FDR ended up doing was more of what Hoover did: public works, bank bailouts, and more government intervention in the economy. As to whether he did a good job or not, the fact that he was reelected three times seems to indicate that he didn't do too badly. 1972. 2004. Do you have actual political beliefs, or do you just assume that the average voter defines the morally correct view? Since the FDR who ran for office in 1932 has basically nothing to do with the FDR who rant the country thereafter, you have a lot of 'splainin to do. Somehow, the voters were right to 1) vote for the guy who promised to reverse Hoover's policies, and 2) vote for the guy who then changed his mind and continued them. Meanwhile, FDR was right to 1) do exactly what Hoover didn't, and then 2) do exactly what Hoover did. I don't think there's even a name for beliefs this ludicrous.
- pfedor 18y ago
  People only say that kind of thing to rationalize supporting everything someone does, even when that someone is a liar. Why on Earth do you think I would need to rationalize supporting everything president Roosevelt did? I wasn't even born then. Do you have actual political beliefs, or do you just assume that the average voter defines the morally correct view? I don't particularly care about the "morally correct" view, I do assume however that voters have some sense of their own well being, and if they feel things are getting worse they will more likely vote for change. That's why democracy works.
  - byrneseyeview 18y ago
    I think most people are taught to idolize FDR, and that requires boiling actual history down to a less complicated story. Since FDR either lied about his principles, or had no principles to start with, it's hard to view him as a hero. But if FDR is not a hero, and the Great Depression is an example of what happens when the government meddles too aggressively with the economy, that's a big problem for many belief systems. I do assume however that voters have some sense of their own well being, and if they feel things are getting worse they will more likely vote for change. Why would you trust voters to elect the right person? Do you really think that the people in office are the best for the job, rather than the best at manipulating others into giving them the job? That's why democracy works. Democracy sucks. Name one company that would would be better managed as a democracy than as a shareholder-oligarchy. Can you seriously imagine a company that had a monopoly on taxing all of the wealth produced in the United States, and still managed to operate at a $500 billion annual loss? Be serious.

by pfedor 18y ago

byrneseyeview 18y ago

Horseshit. People only say that kind of thing to rationalize supporting everything someone does, even when that someone is a liar. Maybe FDR was lying, maybe he wasn't. Maybe he secretly changed his mind without telling anybody. Then, of course, you have to admit that the wrong guy won in 1932, since what FDR ended up doing was more of what Hoover did: public works, bank bailouts, and more government intervention in the economy. As to whether he did a good job or not, the fact that he was reelected three times seems to indicate that he didn't do too badly. 1972. 2004. Do you have actual political beliefs, or do you just assume that the average voter defines the morally correct view? Since the FDR who ran for office in 1932 has basically nothing to do with the FDR who rant the country thereafter, you have a lot of 'splainin to do. Somehow, the voters were right to 1) vote for the guy who promised to reverse Hoover's policies, and 2) vote for the guy who then changed his mind and continued them. Meanwhile, FDR was right to 1) do exactly what Hoover didn't, and then 2) do exactly what Hoover did. I don't think there's even a name for beliefs this ludicrous.

pfedor 18y ago
People only say that kind of thing to rationalize supporting everything someone does, even when that someone is a liar. Why on Earth do you think I would need to rationalize supporting everything president Roosevelt did? I wasn't even born then. Do you have actual political beliefs, or do you just assume that the average voter defines the morally correct view? I don't particularly care about the "morally correct" view, I do assume however that voters have some sense of their own well being, and if they feel things are getting worse they will more likely vote for change. That's why democracy works.
- byrneseyeview 18y ago
  I think most people are taught to idolize FDR, and that requires boiling actual history down to a less complicated story. Since FDR either lied about his principles, or had no principles to start with, it's hard to view him as a hero. But if FDR is not a hero, and the Great Depression is an example of what happens when the government meddles too aggressively with the economy, that's a big problem for many belief systems. I do assume however that voters have some sense of their own well being, and if they feel things are getting worse they will more likely vote for change. Why would you trust voters to elect the right person? Do you really think that the people in office are the best for the job, rather than the best at manipulating others into giving them the job? That's why democracy works. Democracy sucks. Name one company that would would be better managed as a democracy than as a shareholder-oligarchy. Can you seriously imagine a company that had a monopoly on taxing all of the wealth produced in the United States, and still managed to operate at a $500 billion annual loss? Be serious.