Because the media has been telling me how Trump is evil and going to try to serve more than 2 terms, which will demolish democracy. So someone who served 4 must be twice as bad as orange man!
Short answer
It honestly makes no sense to me how anyone in the republican party or in the middle, doesn't consider FDR one of the worst presidents in our history. With his blatant racism, the left should consider him one of the worst as well.
All good points. Not saying I agree with all of them but good points none the same.
You're stating that his decisions during WW2 were correct is an opinion. You can easily make the argument that he screwed up most of those decisions. We are still dealing with the domestic mistakes he made today and will most likely be dealing with them for the rest of history. I would say that outweighs any of his WW2 decisions.
It doesn't matter what he had to contend with, it's his actions to "fix" those conditions that matter.
Was he forced to run for reelection? If not, then he refused to leave. He knew he would get reelected, just like most dictators who hold "elections" do. He could have easily upheld tradition and left after two terms.
Ah, traditions. Well, traditions are fine... until they're impediments. Just because something is a tradition doesn't mean it's still working. Thank goodness our medical community isn't hung-up on traditions.
Why would you listen to Rush after the kitties being mutilated???
True, but I would love to know how only serving two terms was an impediment and what exactly it was an impediment to? Was the country going to end if he didn't serve forever?
When trying to judge a president's term, how he handles the situation is the most important. I don't know enough about Hoover's theoretical presidency to know if it would have been better. I can only judge what FDR did.
His treatment of Jews and his inaction at the beginning of the war. Internment camps probably wasn't the best idea either. I guess that's still kinda broad, but that should give you a general idea of my beefs.
I could see the Chinese trying to engage in biological warfare. It wouldn't be the first time a country has done that. I wouldn't say it was specifically related to Trump or even meant for use outside of China. I'm sure this type of thing has been going on for a long time.
Good points.
But if we had gotten in earlier we could have saved London from the Blitz or maybe not needed the Soviets as allies. What if, what if, what if. If the treaty of Versailles were less punitive to Germany then Hitler would not have come to power.
Yes- the "what if" game is convenient. Another example: people can argue what if we had not dropped the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki? ... but how many more thousands of US lives, and [hundreds of thousands?] of Japanese lives would have been lost by a long protracted land war in Japan and Pacific Islands?
When is war popular? So we can only try to stop world wars if they poll well? And the things that he "correctly" did were partly responsible for Pearl Harbor.
Of course the country wasn't going to end. In fact, I didn't say, or mean to imply, that his decision to continue to run for reelection was a tradition that needed to end... but, it did end. And, apparently, it bothered enough people that they made it impossible to do it again. So, perhaps it was a tradition that needed to be honored.
