General Discussion

MrScorpio

(73,761 posts)

49. The Roosevelts were not saints, they were pragmatists...

Wed Feb 18, 2015, 08:23 AM

Feb 2015

And they practiced their pragmatism within the limits of their own time.

Again, these are not criticisms, it's just an admission that they were anything but perfect in all the good they did perform… As well as stating that they didn't go as far to change the fundamental nature of America. They put America on a correction to save it from destroying itself.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

97 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Simply put, we need another Roosevelt [View all] AZ Progressive Feb 2015 OP

Roosevelt wouldn't have succeeded like that without a Democratic Congress. He also packed SCOTUS. pnwmom Feb 2015 #1

Roosevelt did not "pack" the Supreme Court Art_from_Ark Feb 2015 #7

That's not quite right... Blanks Feb 2015 #94

No, he tried to pack the supreme.court, but he didn't succeed. whathehell Feb 2015 #8

You don't know that he tried it. You know he threatened it. You don't know merrily Feb 2015 #77

No President could make that threat today because the Constitution doesn't allow it. n/t pnwmom Feb 2015 #91

So? FDR made it. Not sure the Constitution doesn't allow it, either. Which provision forbids it? merrily Feb 2015 #97

His Democratic Congress was bitterly divided and he did not pack the SCOTUS. merrily Feb 2015 #78

For example, Senator Carter Glass (D) of Virginia opposed many of FDR's reforms, Art_from_Ark Feb 2015 #95

A wealthy scion of an elite political dynasty, who's well versed in party crony politics... MrScorpio Feb 2015 #2

Nicely done. cheapdate Feb 2015 #6

You have a problem with someone born into wealth "betraying" their own economic class? whathehell Feb 2015 #14

Is that what you took from that post? n/t 1StrongBlackMan Feb 2015 #18

What did you take? whathehell Feb 2015 #19

The entire description of the circumstances that led to FDR's success ... 1StrongBlackMan Feb 2015 #22

Yeah, sure.. whathehell Feb 2015 #28

Yes ... And? n/t 1StrongBlackMan Feb 2015 #71

No "and" needed by most. whathehell Feb 2015 #72

What? n/t 1StrongBlackMan Feb 2015 #73

I'm sure you'll figure it out.. whathehell Feb 2015 #75

No. I probably won't ... 1StrongBlackMan Feb 2015 #81

Yeah, I'm sure it would, so it whathehell Feb 2015 #89

I got an attempt at a massive false equivalency between FDR and Hills. merrily Feb 2015 #82

I still don't understand ... 1StrongBlackMan Feb 2015 #84

No worries. I just gave an interpretation of the same post that was different from the merrily Feb 2015 #85

My, my, aren't you touchy. MrScorpio Feb 2015 #24

Nah, I just asked a question whathehell Feb 2015 #27

Actually, you asked me two questions, with just this last third… Yeah, I'll try again. MrScorpio Feb 2015 #30

Your skepticism is duly noted. whathehell Feb 2015 #38

The Roosevelts were not saints, they were pragmatists... MrScorpio Feb 2015 #49

Who said they were? whathehell Feb 2015 #53

It appears to me that you're offended by my lack of worshipping them MrScorpio Feb 2015 #56

It appears to me that you're trying to start a fight, and whathehell Feb 2015 #57

You go out of your to confront me... MrScorpio Feb 2015 #59

HAHAHAHAHA! whathehell Feb 2015 #61

Dude, you're the ONLY person in this entire thread that's having a beef with anything I've posted. MrScorpio Feb 2015 #64

They may have a beef, whathehell Feb 2015 #66

My apologies about calling you "Dude" MrScorpio Feb 2015 #68

No need for apologies, it was just a "heads up" whathehell Feb 2015 #70

I'm not disregarding his ailment and how it affected him... MrScorpio Feb 2015 #83

LOL.. whathehell Feb 2015 #88

His prick period was an albeit short one during his college years... MrScorpio Feb 2015 #90

Um, yeah, very short.. whathehell Feb 2015 #93

Do you think it can't happen again? joshcryer Feb 2015 #33

You may be addressing the wrong poster. I'm not the one expressing skepticism. whathehell Feb 2015 #35

I am asking about a wealthy Roosevelt type. joshcryer Feb 2015 #36

Okay.. whathehell Feb 2015 #39

NLRB = legitimized Norris–La Guardia joshcryer Feb 2015 #43

Aw gee.. whathehell Feb 2015 #46

I appreciate his flaws. joshcryer Feb 2015 #48

+1, it's like nobody ever saw The Roosevelts. joshcryer Feb 2015 #29

I know... MrScorpio Feb 2015 #31

"The Roosevelts" is a great documentary. joshcryer Feb 2015 #34

I have that series on DVD now. RiverLover Feb 2015 #40

Yes, agreed, his view on southern lynching is important. joshcryer Feb 2015 #47

The Roosevelts were American Economic Brahmin MrScorpio Feb 2015 #41

Yeah, they'd be seen as Koch Bro's this day and age. joshcryer Feb 2015 #50

My ass, they would be...Kochs are not noted for their liberal views or actions whathehell Feb 2015 #55

I'm saying the Buffet's try to benefit the world. joshcryer Feb 2015 #62

Is that what you were saying? whathehell Feb 2015 #65

Aw gee.. whathehell Feb 2015 #52

You'll be endorsing Hillary then? joshcryer Feb 2015 #58

Yeah..uh huh..sure..whatever. whathehell Feb 2015 #67

Yeah, these days people like that are are called.. whathehell Feb 2015 #42

Or George Soros. joshcryer Feb 2015 #45

I hear that response from conservatives all the time.. whathehell Feb 2015 #54

They're top 0.001%ers. joshcryer Feb 2015 #60

Uh huh whathehell Feb 2015 #63

FDR's political dynasty was not Third Way. FDR got Glass Steagall enacted rather than repealing merrily Feb 2015 #80

Maybe without the detention of Japanese-Americans in camps this time? nt msanthrope Feb 2015 #3

And, maybe, a re-thinking of that opposition to the Anti-Lynching Bill.n/t 1StrongBlackMan Feb 2015 #23

Yes.....have you noted the rose-colored glasses modern msanthrope Feb 2015 #26

"Pre-Civil Rights era"??? 1StrongBlackMan Feb 2015 #69

+1000 nt F4lconF16 Feb 2015 #92

Roosevelt was unintentionally 'liberal' ColesCountyDem Feb 2015 #4

Initially, perhaps. He certainly wasn't when he proposed a National Healthcare system. whathehell Feb 2015 #10

I agree. ColesCountyDem Feb 2015 #11

He certainly did evolve, and what he meant by whathehell Feb 2015 #12

In a very real sense, he did whatever it took to preserve/conserve, much like Lincoln. ColesCountyDem Feb 2015 #20

Sounds good to me. n/t whathehell Feb 2015 #21

You forgot they are also anarchists. cstanleytech Feb 2015 #16

From what I read most of it was Eleanor not him marlakay Feb 2015 #96

We need to get rid of some tea party governors! Sancho Feb 2015 #5

Or Another Revolution charles d Feb 2015 #9

"Something very serious" to me means. . .well. . . DinahMoeHum Feb 2015 #25

Not Something I Would Choose charles d Feb 2015 #32

No, what we need is to kick the asshole Republicans across the nation out of office both cstanleytech Feb 2015 #13

If we'd had anything close to a Roosevelt in the last 30 years whathehell Feb 2015 #17

I don't see how anyone could call themselves a Democrat & not support the amazing work of FDR RiverLover Feb 2015 #15

I wish theyd bring back the CCC Telcontar Feb 2015 #37

Teddy and the Bull Moose 2016!!! NightWatcher Feb 2015 #44

That's why I support Bernie Sanders! B Calm Feb 2015 #51

Yep because all we need is the right President treestar Feb 2015 #74

FDR pisses off all the right people. L0oniX Feb 2015 #76

At this point in history, I agree. mmonk Feb 2015 #79

FDR had massive faults. However, he was genius in the way he saved the nation and the speed with merrily Feb 2015 #86

And made things better at it madokie Feb 2015 #87