2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumWho whould FDR support?
During President Roosevelt's January 11, 1944 message to the Congress of the United States on the State of the Union, he said the following:[2]
It is our duty now to begin to lay the plans and determine the strategy for the winning of a lasting peace and the establishment of an American standard of living higher than ever before known. We cannot be content, no matter how high that general standard of living may be, if some fraction of our peoplewhether it be one-third or one-fifth or one-tenthis ill-fed, ill-clothed, ill-housed, and insecure.
This Republic had its beginning, and grew to its present strength, under the protection of certain inalienable political rightsamong them the right of free speech, free press, free worship, trial by jury, freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures. They were our rights to life and liberty.
As our nation has grown in size and stature, howeveras our industrial economy expandedthese political rights proved inadequate to assure us equality in the pursuit of happiness.
We have come to a clear realization of the fact that true individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence. Necessitous men are not free men.[3] People who are hungry and out of a job are the stuff of which dictatorships are made.
In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for allregardless of station, race, or creed.
Among these are:
The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;
The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;
The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;
The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;
The right of every family to a decent home;
The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;
The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;
The right to a good education.
All of these rights spell security. And after this war is won we must be prepared to move forward, in the implementation of these rights, to new goals of human happiness and well-being.
America's own rightful place in the world depends in large part upon how fully these and similar rights have been carried into practice for all our citizens. For unless there is security here at home there cannot be lasting peace in the world.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Bill_of_Rights
orpupilofnature57
(15,472 posts)bigwillq
(72,790 posts)libtodeath
(2,888 posts)bigwillq
(72,790 posts)tk2kewl
(18,133 posts)ScreamingMeemie
(68,918 posts)just throw those names around. Boy, it's silly in here.
bigwillq
(72,790 posts)At least you and I are sane!
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)bigwillq
(72,790 posts)Lol
AZ Progressive
(3,411 posts)Historic NY
(37,451 posts)one that really wasn't influenced by the bullshit. FDR went through staff on a regular basis. He was no fan of VP Wallace who if he died would start disassembling his work and policies. So He wouldn't have picked a BS and no his last wishes weren't Democratic Socialism.
libtodeath
(2,888 posts)Historic NY
(37,451 posts)He couldn't stand Wallace and replaced him on the ticket...sorta speaks to preserving his legacy doesn't it.
This tiny portion was in Franklin Delano Roosevelt's State of the Union to Congress. It was not to amend the Constitution, but to challenge Congress to draft legislation to achieve these goals.
libtodeath
(2,888 posts)I rest my case.
Historic NY
(37,451 posts)you want to roll the clock back to start 71 yrs after a state of the union was delivered to a Congress . If you think this Congress will, then you need serious help. You have no case to rest with a Republican Congress. Have a nice daydream.
AZ Progressive
(3,411 posts)Unless you are really that cynical...
AZ Progressive
(3,411 posts)Historic NY
(37,451 posts)apparently your trying to figure out if dead people would support Bernie.
EOM. I can't argue with a table leg.
stonecutter357
(12,697 posts)Me............. And he would respect my opinion.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)leftofcool
(19,460 posts)Broward
(1,976 posts)hifiguy
(33,688 posts)because it is true. HRH bragging about being friends with a wanted war criminal is NOT a plus in the eyes of anyone old enough to remember the old butcher in his "heyday."
Carolina
(6,960 posts)FDR is smiling from the heavens as he watches Bernie's ideals and ideas gain traction with the American people.
K&R!
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)hifiguy
(33,688 posts)libtodeath
(2,888 posts)George II
(67,782 posts)upaloopa
(11,417 posts)themselves.
But it is nice to see people acknowledge that at least one member of the 1% wasn't out to get the 99%.
George II
(67,782 posts).......have been mentioned in speculative "endorsement" OPs!
Funny thing, some who chime in on those endorsements have the gall to use a picture of Che Guevara as their signatures here.
hobbit709
(41,694 posts)KingFlorez
(12,689 posts)libtodeath
(2,888 posts)she might not like talking to her today.
wildeyed
(11,243 posts)You don't either.
libtodeath
(2,888 posts)wildeyed
(11,243 posts)And he was a great leader and great American. But his actions speak louder than his words. They show he was a very deft politician with a complex legacy. These are things I know because I read books about him, as opposed to hearing another deft politician make speeches that appropriate and overly simplify history.
And he is still dead and you still don't know who he would vote for. Neither do I.
You should stop arguing now. Because there is no way you can prove you know who a dead man would vote for. It's silly.
libtodeath
(2,888 posts)and for you to try to dismiss that is shameful.
wildeyed
(11,243 posts)is lacking the critical thinking skills to ascertain the difference between political rhetoric and actual policy.
I would like you to particularly note the part, quoted below, where FDR did not support anti-lynching legislation because it offended southern white politicians, and he needed their votes on other bills. How is this supporting a "second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for allregardless of station, race, or creed."? Because looks like blacks got thrown under the bus on this one. And that IS shameful. LYNCHING. He was ok with LYNCHING as long as he got the votes on the other bills. This is disgusting. But also not surprising if you understand how politics ACTUALLY works.
My statement stands. FDR was an establishment politician, and trying to guess who he would vote for on the basis of one quote is silly. Go read a book about the guy, 'k? Here, I will get you started with a few articles. I chose works by Howard Zinn since he was a socialist or some sort of approximation of that.
http://georgewashington2.blogspot.com/2010/11/fdr-wasnt-fdr-until-his-hand-was-forced.html
For black people, the New Deal was psychologically encouraging (Mrs. Roosevelt was sympathetic; some blacks got posts in the administration), but most blacks were ignored by the New Deal programs. As tenant farmers, as farm laborers, as migrants, as domestic workers, they didn't qualify for unemployment insurance, minimum wages, social security, or farm subsidies. Roosevelt, careful not to offend southern white politicians whose political support he needed, did not push a bill against lynching. Blacks and whites were segregated in the armed forces. And black workers were discriminated against in getting jobs. They were the last hired, the first fired. Only when A. Philip Randolph, head of the Sleeping-Car Porters Union, threatened a massive march on Washington in 1941 would Roosevelt agree to sign an executive order establishing a Fair Employment Practices Committee. But the FEPC had no enforcement powers and changed little.
http://www.historyisaweapon.com/defcon1/zinnselhel15.html
libtodeath
(2,888 posts)It is just sickening the last couple of days how low Clinton supporters have to sink.
wildeyed
(11,243 posts)figures is not shameful. That is one of the things we do here. You are just mad because you don't have skills to keep up.
Go read a book about the man. There are dozens of really good ones. He a fascinating and complex historical figure
libtodeath
(2,888 posts)sorry that is an inconvenience for you.
GO READ A BOOK. You have no idea what his legacy is until you do that.
libtodeath
(2,888 posts)sorry that is painful for you.
wildeyed
(11,243 posts)Agschmid
(28,749 posts)We couldn't fit the whole thing in a OP on DU, the man was president for a long time.
Also I don't think posting one of his actions constitutes an "attack".
He was a good president, but as has been pointed out, is dead. It's very unlikely he will be making any endorsements in 2016.
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)That's what is shameful here.
libtodeath
(2,888 posts)is timeless.
Once again it is sickening the depths the Clinton supporters have to go to excuse their candidate.
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)He was a good president he made mistakes, he is now dead. Dead people don't make endorsements, and you don't get to cherry pick their policy positions to pretend they did.
I'm going to overlook your personal insult against me, and stick to the issues here. You should probably do the same.
wildeyed
(11,243 posts)they go straight to ad hominem and ergo decedo attacks. Tedious. Since this entire thread started with a historical fallacy, I guess I am not surprised.
SHAMEFUL!!!!!!11!!! lol
libtodeath
(2,888 posts)wildeyed
(11,243 posts)Do I?
RiverLover
(7,830 posts)Corporate candidates are the antithesis of FDR.
libtodeath
(2,888 posts)To see Clinton apologists sink to the level of attacking this great man makes me want to puke.
Well maybe if you are silly enough to be a "fan" of a dead politician.....
I am a Hillary Clinton supporter, and also clearly enthusiastic about FDR. You do not own him, or even understand what he actually did. Bernie Sanders does not own him either. He is mine too.
libtodeath
(2,888 posts)attacking him and his policies because Hillary does not support them.
wildeyed
(11,243 posts)And it has nothing to do with Hillary Clinton.
libtodeath
(2,888 posts)wildeyed
(11,243 posts)RiverLover
(7,830 posts)Hillary is the antithesis of FDR. Only in her rhetoric is she similar.
We Won't Be Fooled Again.
wildeyed
(11,243 posts)Remember, I read books so I know more about the man than you do. Memes? Really?
Dunno what the link you posted has to do with anything.
Won't be fooled again is a song by The Who.
RiverLover
(7,830 posts)You just showed the shallow depths from which you speak.
I'm not going to look at your profile. Boring. Make you argument here.
You posted memes as a response to an argument about FDR, so I don't think you are in a position to accuse others of shallowness.
RiverLover
(7,830 posts)wildeyed
(11,243 posts)Now you got me! Run away, run away! The truthiness is so terrifying!!!!!
You are mixing up your dead guys now, you know that, right?
RiverLover
(7,830 posts)nt
wildeyed
(11,243 posts)longship
(40,416 posts)January 6, 1941 before congress.
Short version:
A more complete one:
BTW, the only reason why I support this thread is because of FDR, not in anyway to support the utterly idiotic question at its core, as if anybody could answer it. It is just an invitation to a heated argument.
No DURec here.
mythology
(9,527 posts)There's no way to prove either way. It's just silly suppositions designed to cloak your preferred candidate with a highly regarded figure who can longer speak for themselves and magically you find that they would support your candidate.
It's amazing how that works. You never find that the highly regarded dead person would even possibly support the other candidate. It's almost like you had your conclusion before you started or something.
One of the 99
(2,280 posts)not some idealized version of him. And don't get me wrong, I think FDR was one of our greatest Presidents. But the man had flaws. He signed the order interning Japanese-Americans. He turned a blind-eye to segregation in the South. He created the military industrial complex, embracing and enriching corporate leaders.
libtodeath
(2,888 posts)just point out that his stated economic principles are exactly what Bernie is standing for today.
I see people trying to tear him down because that is an inconvenient truth.
One of the 99
(2,280 posts)just being honest about the man and his policies. Why do you have a problem with the truth?
libtodeath
(2,888 posts)One of the 99
(2,280 posts)tokenlib
(4,186 posts)Most of us "New Deal" types support Bernie. That is clear.. That is what matters. And we don't see the "Four Freedoms" as a fantasy.