• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is there hope? Where are the Roosevelts and Eisenhowers of the day?

markjs

markjs

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 25, 2016
Messages
3,833
Reaction score
1,610
Location
Port Hadlock, WA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
I know there is all kinds of hatred for Roosevelt, and the man was flawed, made mistakes, but he also was very much at the center of getting us out of the great depression and helping to usher in the most prosperous era of American History. Eisenhower, on the Republican side, showed leadership in making America great, such as what Trump refers to in his empty suit capaining.

The thing is , back in those days there was civility between the parties. Sure there was partisanship, but they ate togehter, worked together and compromised, each side letting the other's concerns help shape legislation.

I wish I had some answer, and obviously I'm more left than right, but I think it's important to remember we need the other side to help keep the **** in check and vice versa, but not in the way it is today. I really wish I had an answer to how to get back to that, because I think it's the only Hope America has and I feel like Trump is a huge step in the wrong direction. The question is, do we keep going down that road or do we use it as a reason to be better?
 
As I see it, Citizens United and deceitful gerrymandering have ruined the American political landscape.
 
Bernie Sanders WAS very much the FDR New Deal liberal Democrat of our time.
His mistake was his oversentimentalizing his past attachment to socialism.

In the past, prior to his career in Congress, Bernie Sanders was a democratic socialist, or a social democrat, or something in between.
The day he set foot on Capitol Hill, he began working on Democratic measures, Democratic bills and applying FDR style New Deal thinking to his work. He caucused with the Democrats and he voted with the Democrats on almost everything.
He was, and still is, for all practical purposes, an FDR New Deal liberal Democrat.

There's a guy who works for the Republicans named Frank Luntz. He's very good at his job, and his job is creating targeted propaganda campaigns and empowering focused buzz words and phrases for use by candidates, think tanks and campaign groups.
Luntz is the one who came up with ideas like "unplugging grandma", "death panels" and "the government takeover of health care".
He is also what might be the twentieth one of his ilk in the last eighty years to pound a shoe on the rostrum over the term "socialism".

Simply put, thanks to people like Frank Luntz and many others, the term "socialism" is a permanent red flag, despite this nation's long association with beneficial socialist programs that have existed from the very beginning.
You can be somewhat socialist, but you cannot USE the TERM "socialist".

Bernie became a New Deal liberal Democrat in the tradition of FDR and hasn't been a democratic socialist since the day he started working in Congress, but for some reason he never gave up his sentimental attachment to the label, and unfortunately that label won't fly in the USA.
He also refused to join the Democratic Party.
And regardless of whether the Democratic Party broke the law or not in the last election, they did what they would have done even if they had followed the letter of the law...they selected a Democrat candidate and they protected their Democrat candidate. Hillary is a Democrat and Bernie is NOT, therefore to the party establishment, Hillary was the obvious choice.
Bernie was not a Democrat, and so the party treated him as a foreign adversary.

But warts and all, if you're looking for a modern day FDR, it's Bernie.
And I love Bernie Sanders, I just wish he had been more realistic about POTUS elections.
I personally believe that he should have joined the Democratic Party immediately after the Tea Party takeover of the GOP in 2010, and started his powerful crowdfunding mojo. By 2014 that mojo would have transformed the Democratic Party by overturning the establishment, and by 2016 the party would have had no choice but to name Bernie as the candidate and to tell Hillary that she'd already HAD her chance in 2008.

I truly believe that if Bernie had joined the Democratic Party in 2010 and overturned the establishment, he would be President today.
 
Checkerboard Strangler said:
Bernie Sanders WAS very much the FDR New Deal liberal Democrat of our time.
His mistake was his oversentimentalizing his past attachment to socialism.

In the past, prior to his career in Congress, Bernie Sanders was a democratic socialist, or a social democrat, or something in between.
The day he set foot on Capitol Hill, he began working on Democratic measures, Democratic bills and applying FDR style New Deal thinking to his work. He caucused with the Democrats and he voted with the Democrats on almost everything.
He was, and still is, for all practical purposes, an FDR New Deal liberal Democrat.

There's a guy who works for the Republicans named Frank Luntz. He's very good at his job, and his job is creating targeted propaganda campaigns and empowering focused buzz words and phrases for use by candidates, think tanks and campaign groups.
Luntz is the one who came up with ideas like "unplugging grandma", "death panels" and "the government takeover of health care".
He is also what might be the twentieth one of his ilk in the last eighty years to pound a shoe on the rostrum over the term "socialism".

Simply put, thanks to people like Frank Luntz and many others, the term "socialism" is a permanent red flag, despite this nation's long association with beneficial socialist programs that have existed from the very beginning.
You can be somewhat socialist, but you cannot USE the TERM "socialist".

Bernie became a New Deal liberal Democrat in the tradition of FDR and hasn't been a democratic socialist since the day he started working in Congress, but for some reason he never gave up his sentimental attachment to the label, and unfortunately that label won't fly in the USA.
He also refused to join the Democratic Party.
And regardless of whether the Democratic Party broke the law or not in the last election, they did what they would have done even if they had followed the letter of the law...they selected a Democrat candidate and they protected their Democrat candidate. Hillary is a Democrat and Bernie is NOT, therefore to the party establishment, Hillary was the obvious choice.
Bernie was not a Democrat, and so the party treated him as a foreign adversary.

But warts and all, if you're looking for a modern day FDR, it's Bernie.
And I love Bernie Sanders, I just wish he had been more realistic about POTUS elections.
I personally believe that he should have joined the Democratic Party immediately after the Tea Party takeover of the GOP in 2010, and started his powerful crowdfunding mojo. By 2014 that mojo would have transformed the Democratic Party by overturning the establishment, and by 2016 the party would have had no choice but to name Bernie as the candidate and to tell Hillary that she'd already HAD her chance in 2008.

I truly believe that if Bernie had joined the Democratic Party in 2010 and overturned the establishment, he would be President today.
Click to expand...

I mostly agree and in the way the right demonizes him now, shows he still is, but he's too old, we need younger men made of such stuff. The right needs their Eisenhower guys too. I think Jeff Flake shows signs of it, there's a few glimmers in their party, but no clear choice and it's sad.
 
Checkerboard Strangler said:
Bernie Sanders WAS very much the FDR New Deal liberal Democrat of our time.
His mistake was his oversentimentalizing his past attachment to socialism.

In the past, prior to his career in Congress, Bernie Sanders was a democratic socialist, or a social democrat, or something in between.
The day he set foot on Capitol Hill, he began working on Democratic measures, Democratic bills and applying FDR style New Deal thinking to his work. He caucused with the Democrats and he voted with the Democrats on almost everything.
He was, and still is, for all practical purposes, an FDR New Deal liberal Democrat.

There's a guy who works for the Republicans named Frank Luntz. He's very good at his job, and his job is creating targeted propaganda campaigns and empowering focused buzz words and phrases for use by candidates, think tanks and campaign groups.
Luntz is the one who came up with ideas like "unplugging grandma", "death panels" and "the government takeover of health care".
He is also what might be the twentieth one of his ilk in the last eighty years to pound a shoe on the rostrum over the term "socialism".

Simply put, thanks to people like Frank Luntz and many others, the term "socialism" is a permanent red flag, despite this nation's long association with beneficial socialist programs that have existed from the very beginning.
You can be somewhat socialist, but you cannot USE the TERM "socialist".

Bernie became a New Deal liberal Democrat in the tradition of FDR and hasn't been a democratic socialist since the day he started working in Congress, but for some reason he never gave up his sentimental attachment to the label, and unfortunately that label won't fly in the USA.
He also refused to join the Democratic Party.
And regardless of whether the Democratic Party broke the law or not in the last election, they did what they would have done even if they had followed the letter of the law...they selected a Democrat candidate and they protected their Democrat candidate. Hillary is a Democrat and Bernie is NOT, therefore to the party establishment, Hillary was the obvious choice.
Bernie was not a Democrat, and so the party treated him as a foreign adversary.

But warts and all, if you're looking for a modern day FDR, it's Bernie.
And I love Bernie Sanders, I just wish he had been more realistic about POTUS elections.
I personally believe that he should have joined the Democratic Party immediately after the Tea Party takeover of the GOP in 2010, and started his powerful crowdfunding mojo. By 2014 that mojo would have transformed the Democratic Party by overturning the establishment, and by 2016 the party would have had no choice but to name Bernie as the candidate and to tell Hillary that she'd already HAD her chance in 2008.

I truly believe that if Bernie had joined the Democratic Party in 2010 and overturned the establishment, he would be President today.
Click to expand...

I think this is a great post, but I would like to say that FDR himself was essentially a social democrat. His second bill of rights is still controversial in the modern democratic party. I agree that the socialist label is problematic. It works ok with younger people, but I'm sure it feels really alienating to boomers.
 
markjs said:
I mostly agree and in the way the right demonizes him now, shows he still is, but he's too old, we need younger men made of such stuff. The right needs their Eisenhower guys too. I think Jeff Flake shows signs of it, there's a few glimmers in their party, but no clear choice and it's sad.
Click to expand...

That's why I'm more than a little bit miffed at Sanders. He had every chance in the world of becoming President, and his mistakes were nothing more than stubborn refusal to accept MARKETING REALITIES.

Everyone who already knew who he was, knew he was the real deal and still would have voted for him on the D ticket, and those who did not already know who he was, would have fallen in love with him and voted for him.

All he had to do is do what he was doing as an independent, except do it earlier and do it with the intent of building a large party platform, which would have rebooted the Dem Party.
 
MrPeanut said:
I think this is a great post, but I would like to say that FDR himself was essentially a social democrat. His second bill of rights is still controversial in the modern democratic party. I agree that the socialist label is problematic. It works ok with younger people, but I'm sure it feels really alienating to boomers.
Click to expand...

Of course FDR was a social democrat but he knew not to use the radioactive label.
But the bigger problem was running as an outsider. That's just driving with the parking brake on and wondering why your gas mileage sucks so badly.
 
Rogue Valley said:
As I see it, Citizens United and deceitful gerrymandering have ruined the American political landscape.
Click to expand...

Well, when combined WITH the EC, especially.
I keep saying, "Okay Rethugs, you get to PICK ONE but you don't get to have ALL THREE."
And seeing as how the EC is constitutionally mandated, we can just leave it there but cut CU and gerrymandering down at the root.
 
markjs said:
I know there is all kinds of hatred for Roosevelt,
Click to expand...

The hatred for Roosevelt is from the extreme Right.
The hatred for Kennedy is from the extreme Right.

Behold all the ****s I do not give.

med_1406322265_image.jpg


Seriously, these John Birch Society whiners can suck a tailpipe.
They desperately need to.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom