Why did America elect this cripple?

ok, so you put up a random graph because I assume you saw it on some other board, didn't know what that idiot was talking about and assumed I'd also be intimated by a meaningless graph into silence. This is what's known in Italian as "un catzo." Balls. Nothing, meaningless.

>He won 4 elections
translation0 the only one with an ego big enough to think he knew better than Washington and should serve not only 3, but 4 terms. Luckily he went to his reward in hell before he got to serve the 4th. Speaking of Washington and WW 2, what were the words he decided to end his public life with? A warning to the nation to "beware foreign entanglements."

>random graph
It's a graph depicting which party had control of each house of congress from 1855-2017. It says as much at the top.

The part I wanted you to take note of is the Democrat's party control of congress from FDR's election in 1932 to the 1990s. The political coalition that FDR forged dominated American politics for half a century. The point being that calling FDR a 'horrible politician" seems to me to be an entirely indefensible claim born entirely out of ignorance.

I hope that you'll attempt to seriously elucidate your original point in the face of this new information.

>explanation and justification is admittance of fault

Is this the fabled anerican education I've heard so much about?

How can one live a life under the yoke of want? What kind of liberty is there within the chains of poverty? Where does happiness reside when the stomach is empty? the new deal is perfectly consistent with the founding fathers. It's you're neoliberal bullshit that isn't.

>seriously elucidate your original point in the face of this new information.
you found a random graph nd are trying to look impressive. The thread was never about who managed to pull more partin votes by increasing gibs. If anything, your graph illustrates the exact reason he is among the most infamous figures in history.

for fuck's sake, his whore wife was a communist spy who vowed SHE would go to jail before she'd give up Hiss. This is not McCarthyite pip dream stuff just because they refuse to teach it anymore since most of the communist infiltrators were Jews. to quote Nixon directly: "the only one of the entire communist conspiracy who was NOT a Jew was Hiss, the ONLY ONE."
Did you ever wonder why the Jews hated Nixon so much and why there was such an effort to get him out of office? Whereas others were afraid of their power and backed off, Nixon went after every last communist subversive Jew, consequences be damned. You'll find as far back as the 50s in Jewish papers, he was despised.

>abled anerican education
May I ask which Euro nation you come from? I'd saw Sweden or Norway since you are espousing the benefits of the welfare states. I'd like to com back and talk to you after 10 years of enrichment by the colored brother and see how much your tone has changed.

america was not founded on a socialist/welfare site ethos. It was a nation of pioneers, discovers, conquers. Thus the reason to this day 93% of new oil finds are made by Americans. Why most new technologies come out of the US. It's a sink or swim mentality.

The only reason Europeans are able to live on permanent vacations with no militaries, no NATO budget, no innovation, altering to your cuck fetishes, is because US industry takes the chances you cannot due to "muh welfare state." You make jokes about "American Education," yet Brit apps to US unis were up 13% over one year in 2016.

Soon your "education" will consist of Koran memorization.

>you found a random graph nd are trying to look impressive
I've had it on my computer for a while because it comes in handy in threads like these.

>your graph illustrates the exact reason he is among the most infamous figures in history.
If by 'infamous' you mean 'routinely placed in the top 3 greatest presidents by Historians' then yeah. He's pretty 'infamous'.

This will be my last post directly towards you because it's terribly obvious you're a sperg with an axe to grind.

>t's terribly obvious you're a sperg with an axe to grind
translation-- "You made a complete ass of me, I'm not going to rush getting myself in even deeper. You're breaking the unwritten rule. A bunch of people sit around and pretend to know about history, but no one is meant to REALL KNOW!"

Straya. Nice ad hominem.

It was actually founded on bootleggers who got mad at having to pay tax on molasses hence otis and the writs of assistance case which was the first stirrings of the revolution.

It was also founded on the principles of fairness and equality. "No taxation without representation" came about because colonial subjects thought it unfair that they should be taxed at different rates than english born subjects. The unequal treatment of the colonials by the crown e.g. the stamp act and other perceived deprivations of liberty caused resistance. Nothing FDR did goes against any of this.

Fick off back to /pol/ you brainwashed cunt

>Fick off back to /pol/ you brainwashed cunt
so wait, you just said I had the right to pursue my legit ambitions as enshrined in constitution. Was I not included in the Declaration of Independence? Is this because I'm black?

>It was actually founded on bootleggers who got mad at having to pay tax on molasses

lol--full disclosure here: I was hired to help research for the Wb film used on the Philbrick novel "Bunker Hill." Going through his notes, going back and checking his original sources on Boston, talking to the exrecognized experts in this to try to help craft coherent narrative...we CAN go onto this discussion of you want, but I don't think you will win given that 12 weeks of my life, 7 days a week, 18 hours a day were devoted to this

>Nothing FDR did goes against any of this.

If you only knew how fucking stupid you sound...

not that guy but you're embarrassing yourself.

Hello Melbourne. Gas yourself

More Teddy than Teddy ever was desu

>he thinks there is only negative liberty

>t you're embarrassing yourself
Funny, I don't feel embarrassed. Generally, in order to feel the sense of "embarrassment" one had to something incorrect in front of PEERS. I, on the other hand, have been making idiots of people here who are not fit to shine mr shoes are relates to subjects being discussed. You are literally trying to claim you know better than I do on what I get paid to do. Sorry, there is no AA in that part of film, it's not vey glamorous and there are no optics for certain groups to shriek about "lack of diversity."

If anything you SHOULD be embarrassed but you're so used to not having your bullshit, hackneyed positions questions by someone who actually knows the subject.

And when you are questioned by a professional ho genuinely knows his business all you have is ad hominems. And Christ, this is with access to "wikipedia" and the rest of the net. If I could get you people on some sort of a "private chat" with no net access, you type know no names, facts, dates, etc... What the hell would you do??

>I'd like to com back and talk to you after 10 years of enrichment by the colored brother and see how much your tone has changed.
>welfare states are inherently more open to immigration
>america was not founded on a socialist/welfare site ethos.
Neither was any European state.
Its pretty ironic that America plays the immigration card with Europe, when if it wasn't for Britain shutting down the slave trade you would have at least twice as many niggers in your country because of how eager you were to bring them over by the literal boatload.

Are you that same guy who was arguing in that "poor people" thread about Africans a few days ago? He also made a bunch of stupid claims, accused his opponents of being SJWs and fell back on "ITS MY JOB TO KNOW THIS" when multiple people called him out on being empirically wrong.

>>he thinks there is only negative liberty
No, you are just brainless and faced to realize that Roosevelt's wife managed to slip a central tenet of socialism.communism past the American people, after THEY had caused the boom and bust with their bullshit on Jekyll Island. Rather than "Muh 4 freedoms" speech, the Rockefellers, Morgans, Warburg (re. Kohen+Loeb) should ask have been hunted down and hanged. Along with the Salzburgers, the Newhouses, I could go on.

Back to topic at hand-- "freedom from want." I REALLY want a 90" OLED HDR Television. By enyingsme that object of my my desire, you are infringing on my basic rights.

you will say that's a "strawnman," but it's really not. As we've seen over the last ~80 years, the key to a successful "socialist" society is living in a homogeneous Northern European people in a high-trust society. What does putnam;s research show about where high-trust society's arise? From people who look the same, have the same values, sake religious convictions, an internet honestly, etc..

You see the UK's NHS failing now. Why? The UL now is mossed the "homogeneity"threshold to where people no longer trust. Why should a White guy work hi ass off when the muslim down the greet (who perhaps participate in "death to UK protests) has 11 kids by 4 different women, the state pays for their house, groceries, health, school. NOW you no longer have a "HIGH TRUT" society and even Whites will be looking for ways to game the system because why should they play fair and pay for shared services when newly arrived aliens are not?

Tip- you are going to see one-by-one Sweden's health system, France's, Germany's, and so it will go. Muzzies have no tradition of "separation of Church and State" which they find pagan (see Dr. Scheuer's books on this). If in uni, mention this to your professor. He would prefer you bring a live hand grenades to class as his tenure dreams go up in smoke if he cannot shut you up.

>He also
yes, I spend every day on this board. Also, I love you attempt a few rhetorical tricks here 1 grouping me in with some random person 2. suggesting I ignore "empirical data" when I've been first in thread to bring up the Putnam study on social cohesion. No one else had brought up any studies.

also:
>stupid claims
You obviously realize you re implying there was a consensus tha this person made "stupid claims," thus (despite the fact that you've not given a single claim I'v made) I', somehow guilty by association and somehow related to this anonymous, possible o=non-existent persons "Stupid claims."

You use underhanded rhetorical tricks, and you do so fully aware of it.
And, EXACTLY as Hitler describes Jews use of "The Big Lie
technique, you have the nerve to cause me of "not using empirical claims: as you try to smear me with an entire bucket of shit without one specific claim.....

>being empirically wrong
you know EMPIRICISM genuinely involves COLLECTION OF DATA, correct? All I was shown was a graph purporting to show that Roosevelt was useful for raising the democratic vote. I'm take that as true, but what does it prove other than the fact that he thought he was worthy of TWICE the terms Washington served and that he increased the voter based for one political party in the US. How is this empirically relevant?
Curious: would you tell e your SAT Score, college GPA and ant grad school exam scores if I give mine?
Not sure if you are crooked or just stupid, trying to figure it out.

im pretty sure you're that same guy. His arguments also had a racial bent like yours do and he bragged about his vague high paying job flying him to Europe that he claimed also made him an expert in the subject at hand and intermixed his tangents & non-arguments with attempts to shame his opposition.

t. Herbert Hoover

>not knowing what actual socialism is
>still not knowing what positive and negative liberty means
>not knowing Tories cut off funding from NHS months ago
Thread is officially ruined

>tangents & non-arguments
amazing, the game fucking lie. Pray tell, what cohesive argument have YOU made? For anything? You don't know the subject well enough to even discuss it without a book in your face, you fling accusations of "muh empirical data" when you haven't cited anything. I suspect because you cannot because you simply have neither the memory nor the argumentative skills.

Empirical data: the Putnam study. In high-trust societies (which are, without failure, homogenous) you can have socialistic programs like those of Roosevelt. In the US, where you have 61% White? You simply cannot have that.

Would you like to debate this premise? Either accept the premise, debate it, or shut your lying Jewish mouth and admit you are simply outclassed in every way.

wild guess-- you haven't heard of the Putnam study to which I refer and what it shows about "multi-culturalism" and how it leads to societal collapse. And you won't realize until it;s way too late and the flood waters already too night, and then you and your ilk will say you are "sorry" (as you catch he next El Al for Tel-Aviv).

>yes, I don't know what any of these mean. Oh, and the tories and Hunt have clearly cut all funding to NHS, they are working for free.

>what actual socialism means
no user, you are the only one who knows this
>negative vs. postive liberty
nope, don't know that either.

Sir, you seem very learned. Farage's show begins at 8 (I guess 7 in stoke-on-trent). Is he aware of your deep political and social knowledge and the talent that surely goes with? I hope you'll let him know

OR, even better, are you a Corbynite? Sheeiit, they are fucking desperate for candidates, was it another 2 or 3 that resigned? Surely, the'll get Mayor Kahn to get you a nice discount on Saville Row (assuming you are paki or nigger) and your campaign can begin this week...

did you ever get with that stewardess who was flirting with you? kek

>t. Buttblastes /pol/ack

All that the first guy was trying to say was that he was a good politician despite the fact that you disagree with him

It's also pretty obvious you're mad as fuck about someone having evidence which contradicts your opinion and yes, as one guy said, you're embarrassing yourself

Your flailing tantrum like arguments make a speaker like trump or even Corbin appear to be an orotorical saint by comparison.

To be hungry, lack healthcare, lack opportunities, and have no means of redress is to be lacking the capability to fully enjoy liberty or to pursue happiness

>accusations of being Jewish/ad hom attacks
>using multiculturalism and a single study as catchall responses in a much broader political thread
>shifting the goalposts away from your original claims about Fdr to a generalized /pol/ rant

This is advanced shitposting

Hoover

Not an argument