Yes. The man is most corrupt, unfit person ever to hold office. By far.
By supporting him, you lose the moral high ground when talking about any other US politician.
no mention of japanese in exec order
no proof of why owens wasnt invited to white house
lots of “probably” but no actual proof
plus he worked with many black policy advisers and even appointed them to positions (no “probably - actually happened). which of course is dismissed
he may have been racist, but there’s no proof
here’s an example of proof:
“white people marking up the internet with their opinions like dogs pissing on fire hydrants"
- Sarah Jeong, NYT
now you maintain Cortez is right about fdr. she says new deal was a racist policy.
can you show me where the policy was intended to be racist?
otherwise she is NOT right and talking out of her lefty arse.
thanks for your opinion and reason for not engaging sensibly in debate
How is it possible debate a person supporting the worst person ever to hold the office while they complain about others?
There won’t be a debate because you have already chosen blind partisanship over any kind of rational thinking.
Already covered this…continue to watch your credibility dissolve into the ether if you wish…
Sure, no proof why none of the black gold Olympic medalists, including Jesse Owens who won the 2x more gold medals than any other US olympian that year, but the white olympians were invited. Makes sense. 
My lots of “probably” far outweighs your one “maybe not”.
I already showed you that he didn’t actually work with them. They were not his direct policy advisers, they were sent off to other departments and agencies. Only one of them had access to the White House at all, and that was because she was a personal friend of Eleanor. So of course this argument is dismissed. Its simply erroneous.
There is more than enough preponderance of evidence to amount to proof.
I said that she was right that FDR was a racist. I said nothing about her reasons why.
As I said earlier, other people have explained this to you in the thread. I am not going to rehash their replies to justify your moving the goalposts on the discussion you and I have been having. If you’re really interested in the answer to this question, hash it out with them.
The one, does not preclude the other. One can be right about something without being correct about the reasons.
Example: 2 + 2 = 4 because puppies have tails.
Does the fact that I supplied erroneous, nay downright moronic reasons for why 2 + 2 = 4 suddenly change the answer to the equation? Is 4 now the wrong answer?
Unless you can come at me with some new arguments that haven’t already been refuted, consider our discussion over on this topic. Rehashing the same points, over and over has gotten boring. You can even pretend that you came off the victor if you feel the need. I’m secure enough in what I have said in this thread to let it stand on its own.
1 Like
I’m kind of loving that a conservative Trump supporter is defending the most famous 20th century democrat president tooth and nail. You know…have at it.
Barbarism should be relegated to ones enemies, not law abiding citizens of your own nation.
Otherwise, what are you fighting for if not the preservation and integrity of your union?
1 Like
Never thought I would see the day that Cons are defending FDR’s honor.
AOC is living rent free in their heads at the moment.
1 Like
To be honest, this thread has made me wonder which knee-jerk reaction would take over in the odd event that Trump and AOC were to publicly agree on something. Would it be the reaction to agree with whatever Trump has to say, or would it be the reaction to refute anything AOC says. Currently, my money is on the former, but given time for the CEC to cement AOC as the same level of boogeyman they made out of HRC, that might just change.
Above and beyond the glossy stuff about Reagan already mentioned, I think at least his policies were racially biased and hurt the Black community. That is, if you follow the Iran Contra hearings.
He supported boosting strongmen and terrorists, the Contras, in order to overthrow a Democratically elected leader (Daniel Ortega). He subverted the constitution by selling missiles to Iran covertly (who were our sworn enemy) and giving the profits to the Contras, violating the Boland amendment. The Contras had guns flown in and drugs flown out into the US to make additional profits for more guns. The drug of choice? Crack.
Which exploded during this time.
To make matters worse he instituted stiff penalties for crack addicts over and above powdered cocaine in the identical weight which heavily hit the Black population and created the incarceration cycles we see today in their community.
Mandatory minimums also hit the Black community very hard. He was the leading force in the fight against affirmative action. He vetoed the Civil Rights Restoration bill of 1988, which Congress overrode. He politicized the Civil Rights Commission.
He didn’t have a spotless record here, one could make a reasonable argument he was a bit of a racist in his own way.
1 Like
Its like actually caring what happens to your fellow citizens during wartime makes one a baby. Its truly bizarre sort of military state thinking where the barbarism of war is turned inward by your own country.
Nope it isnt.
Or he knew that other things were more important.
You can tell because the term attacks an entire race of people… That’s why they use the word “white”.
Application matters. Come on. This is easy non “woke” ■■■■■
Its not an attack even. It describes a social phenomena. Context is extremely important as the term is well used in even academic circles. Sure some tumblrina may use it as a pejorative as an easy way to be an edgy dolt, but the term is more value neutral.
So now racism can be objectively verified? Cool!
Unlawful detainment without due process. Properties seized without payment, nor any guilty charges placed. This is why i do not buy the “oh we were just protecting them” excuse for a second. Basically they were stripped of all their properties without payment and put into concentration camps much like what Germany did to the jews except we didnt have death camps. Violating their 1st, 4th, 5th, and 8th amendment rights and equal protection under the law. That you want this to happen even today is pretty low. It may have been upheld in some cases but it was overturned recently. SCOTUS Overturns Japanese Internment Ruling | Time
well, you have nothing here
paragraphs of fluff and crap with no evidence that fdr was racist
not saying he wasn’t, but i see nothing proving he was.
you avoided your ass off explaining how the “new deal” was racist i see because now you have to maintain that the dingaling bartender from “da bronx” was so so right
you have replies. but still no proof
we’ll be playing this out till the end
makes no sense if he was really “racist” he would have done no such things with his african american policy advisers thanks
