For what it's worth, hope he meant Theodore.

FDR was stealthy one of the worst presidents the country has ever had.

We're talking about a guy who jailed completely innocent people without trial, because they overheard that he was speicifically planning to do the exact opposite of what he was saying publically, by forcing the country into an unpopular foreign war.

It all worked out in the end, WW2 wise, but anyone with any real reasearch into his presidency would have to be one of those "The ends justify the means" type.

FDR more or less was a more extreme version of Bush.  It's just his war panned out.

It seems like most histroy books within the last handful of decades all paint a rosie picture of him without giving all the facts.

I just can't understand how the Republicans have so worthless candidates (outside of Ron Paul) ever since that McCain guy who also was laughably bad.

They totally lack charisma and the ability to be convincing. No aura of power. Mediocre intelligence and so conventional in their appearance.

On charisma alone Obama had his re-election secured as soon as he became President.

How could the Republican party not see this? Or maybe they aren't even trying, realising it was all over before it even began and perhaps they're already breeding a talented guy behind the scenes and preparing him for 2016 when they don't have Superman against them.

For any part of USA history you have to paint a rosy picture over it.  For almost any decade, I can bring up numerous fucked up things that happened.  Let us just go back to when the country was founded on hypocrisy.  All men created equal.  Right?  Wrong..  Not if you were black, land less, woman, etc...

For any part of USA history you have to paint a rosy picture over it.  For almost any decade, I can bring up numerous fucked up things that happened.  Let us just go back to when the country was founded on hypocrisy.  All men created equal.  Right?  Wrong..  Not if you were black, land less, woman, etc...

I would agree with you on FDR. I always hear people talk about how great he was, but most people don't really actually study everything he did as president. Thats why when any politician says, one of their favorite presidents was FDR, a huge red flag goes up for me, because if they are supposedly a studied individual they should know full well who FDR really was and what he did.

It seems like most histroy books within the last handful of decades all paint a rosie picture of him without giving all the facts.

It is true that there were some serious black marks on America's history. They had the wording right that all are created equal, but unfortunately some did not follow through with that.

Understand though that at the time of the signing of the declaration of Independence and when forming the government there were deeply spirited fights over slavery at the time. There were many that abhorred it and one of the rough drafts decried the King for creating the slave trade. But others particularly most of the founders from North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia favored slavery. So since all did not agree it was omitted from the original document.

Were there some hypocrites to this? yes there were. But there were also a good number of founders that were against it. For example Benjamin Franklin and Benjamin Rush created Americas first Anti-slavery society. John Jay was also president of something similar in New York. There were plenty other founders who were in support of anti-slavery societies that I won't bore you with. So whatever you have learned its not true that all the founders were hypocrites.

The slave trade was something brought on the colonies decades before the declaration of independence and that evil had become intertwined into the lives  of some of the colonists. Many of the founders did recognize it as unjust and evil. That fighting is in part what led up to the civil war years later.

The fight between the founders on slavery was very much alive and eventually the truths of the constitution were realized when slavery was ended and also when women were able to vote. The constitution is based upon absolute rights, liberty, life, and pursuing happiness. Those are the basis and foundation of the nation.

There's a growing culture of anti-intellectualism in the Republican party. The Republican base prefer someone who comes across as friendly to someone who is genuinely intelligent and geared for the job. They seem to find intelligence threatening.

Mitt Romney is about the closest thing to a semi-competent candidate the Republicans have, but he's a sleaze and changes his mind about pretty much everything every couple of weeks, because he realises that he has to appeal to three different groups of people:

• Libertarians and classical liberals (who like Ron Paul)
• Neoconservatives (who like Newt Gingrich)
• Evangelical Christians (who like Rick Santorum)

He does well amongst the first (and IMO most sensible) group because Ron Paul is a little bit crazy, but he has to go into the uncomfortable territory of the other two groups if he wants to stand a chance of winning.

On pure intelligence, Ron Paul should get the nomination, but the last two groups despise him.

In what way is Obama a whole lot better then Bush?

I mean, he's been MORE agressive on the war on terror... violating more countries soverinity more often then bush.

Kept in place all of the "abuses of freedom" people see, while stealthly adding a bit to them....

and kept on with the same ruinous economic policies... while deciding to implement an extremly costly healthcare plan that causes uncertantity and companies to keep cash on hand because nobody knows the compliance costs.

The only positive things I can think of that have happened during his administration were things that already followed the Bush Timetable (Iraq withdrawl) or things that he had nothing to do with.  (GoProud's removal of don't ask don't tell.... which he fought against.)

Who would you rather them select?

Also just curious who you think would be the ideal candidate?