Just like FDR was Hitler's bitch, right? Yeah... Nice logic.

As an aside, the last time this was brought up it was in the late 30's.

"Aside from President Franklin Roosevelt’s ill-fated threat in 1937 to add new Justices who sympathized with his policies to the Supreme Court, the number of Justices on the Court has remained stable.

Roosevelt was particularly upset by the Court’s 1935 decision in Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States. The unanimous decision invalidated a key part of the National Industrial Recovery Act, one of the projects passed during FDR's 100-day program in 1933. President Roosevelt did not mince words a week later when he talked to the press. “You see the implications of the decision. That is why I say it is one of the most important decisions ever rendered in this country,” Roosevelt told reporters on May 31, 1935. “We have been relegated to the horse-and-buggy definition of interstate commerce.”

As Roosevelt started his second term, he used one of his fireside chats in March 1937 to make his case to the American people for adding more Justices to the Supreme Court who agreed with him. “This plan of mine is not attacking of the court; it seeks to restore the court to its rightful and historic place in our system of constitutional government and to have it resume its high task of building anew on the Constitution ‘a system of living law.’ The court itself can best undo what the court has done,” Roosevelt said.

The legislation struggled to gain traction and it was opposed not only by Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes but also by Justice Louis Brandeis and members of Roosevelt’s Democratic Party."

Just a anecdotal based response: Left my 3 year old, who was asleep buckled in his seat (which he cannot undo), in the car on an overcast day, 68 degrees out, doors locked. I left a second cell phone on monitor, so I could hear him if he woke up. Went in to a strip mall store 50 yards away from the car.
I hear him wake up, so I come out to check on him, and there's some man, apparently having banged on the window to wake him up, looking at me like I was trying to kill him. Apparently took my license plat and called child services, who eventually called me, my wife, my parents, and did a full investigation. I had almost the same experience, but I'm white and privileged so did not get arrested or have my children removed. I'm confident it could have been a lot worse if I was near the poverty line. I also received a similar lecture:
"We recognize that temperature and weather were ok, but do you recognize how unsafe it was to leave him unsupervised?"
"No, I don't. What could have happened? He was secure and unable to come out of the chair, the doors were locked, and he was monitored"
"Well some one could have smashed the window and taken him"
"Really? A stranger abduction, from a locked car, in broad daylight?"
"Well, what about if the police were called, and you were arrested in front of him. Wouldn't that be traumatic?"

And there they are right. And there you have it - the real danger is not any ACTUAL danger, it's our own fear. FDR had it right.

Blinded by truth and you own ignorance.

Every generation is to try to make their next generation better. Every generation takes a step forward.

So Every color in America strides for this. But only 1 seem not to get ahead. Go figure. Last 50 years there have been great strides for the Blacks that are being depressed by Democrats. Once they figure that out then freedom will be obtained.


post-depression America FDR American Housing ACT.. Democrat policy that lent money to whites but not blacks. Yea Democrat party is the friend to the black. NOT.

Civil Rights ACT of 58 and 64. Zero Democrat support but push through to the Democrat POTUS and forces to pass it.

Awesome. To me, only slightly reading between the lines, it sounds like he is suggesting exactly what I feel is the right track here.

Let Trump do whatever it is that he is going to do. If individual elements / components of his policy suggestions are good, help him with them. And if/when he suggests dangerous, counterproductive or bigoted things, call him out, dig in your heels, and do everything you can to raise awareness and stop him.

Let Trump dig his own grave trying to fulfill all of his contradictory promises to a large angry mob.

But in the meantime, don't obstruct good things simply because they came from the "wrong side". That has been the Republican modus operandi -- show the people there is a better way. Trump talked about rebuilding infrastructure in his victory speech. FDR's "New Deal" did a lot of that with the Tennessee Valley Authority and other projects. That created a LOT of jobs and helped pull the US out of the great depression. Any infrastructure / public works stuff that Trump pushes for that would actually have positive results while creating jobs? Sign off on that shit!

Trump's Wall could be a fulcrum point. Pointless and somewhat offensive in premise, but some good could come from trying to build it or even actually succeeding (which I find highly unlikely). I think the appropriate response to Trump's Wall for Democrat legislators would be to vocally point out that tax money would probably be better spent elsewhere, but otherwise playing along to a certain extent. That wall is going to be a big millstone around Trump's neck -- no need to work overly hard to help him try to wriggle out of it.

As great as John Oliver is, he spent more time there mocking them over petty things as opposed to really concentrating on the (admittedly real) flaws in their platforms.

OK, Stein's "music" is cringeworthy. And Johnson's "skirt" comment is creepy and ill advised, but clearly meant in a metaphorical way.

It kinda bothers me when people (not just Oliver) do it to Trump and Clinton also. Like Trump having "tiny hands", or bringing up cankles or pantsuits for Clinton.

All of those things can be funny, a few times. But bringing them up constantly makes it seem like we have nothing of actual substance to criticize them for -- which is clearly not the case.


He did bring up legitimate concerns for some of Stein and Johnson's signature platforms. In both cases, that criticism boiled down to "you can't actually do that", as in the president doesn't actually have the power to implement the policy that they want. That's fair ... BUT, pretty much every single politician ever makes campaign promises that they don't actually have the power to implement. You pretty much have to if you want to get elected.

That doesn't mean that setting those policies as goals can't have value. Obama wanted a much more thorough overhaul of healthcare and insurance, but he didn't have the power to make it happen unilaterally. So we ended up with a watered-down version of Obamacare after the Republicans in the legislature did everything they could to obstruct it. But still, even though it isn't exactly what Obama originally had in mind, there are plenty of people now with some health coverage who had none before. That's a tangible positive result.

Trump will never build his wall, even if he ends up in the White House (not likely). I offer no defense for this idiotic idea, but it is at least possible for massive public works projects to be used to create jobs, improve infrastructure, and have other tangible positive effects; like FDR's New Deal.

Hillary would face lots of obstruction if she attempts to implement her plan to let people attend public universities for free. Probably more than Obama did on Obamacare. But trying to do something to make post-secondary education more available to everyone is a good goal. Even if the cynic in me thinks she only produced this "plan" as a way to try to win support of Sanders voters.

Johnson couldn't eliminate income tax, or abolish all those departments he mentioned. But he could rein in a lot of spending that the Executive branch does have power over. That could be a good thing in many cases (I'd be happy to see the TSA eliminated and military spending drastically reduced), but there are also a lot of potential problems. See Kansas transformation to "Brownbackistan" as a result of Sam Brownback's drastic tax cuts.

And Stein couldn't forgive student loan debt for this "entire generation". But just like Clinton's proposal to make public universities free, there is potential value to be found in just trying to do something about the insane problems with our university system. Hillary is a savvy enough politician to know not to say too much about her plan, which would open it up to scrutiny and criticism. Stein stepped into that by revealing her political inexperience, but I tend to trust that she does actually want to do something as opposed to Hillary just saying what she needs to say to get more votes.

@bobknight33

i wasn't making a claim that using labor and solidarity rhetoric has helped black or working poor communities.i was simply saying that was the tactic the democrats used to garner and solidify votes.

see:FDR

the current state of republican/democrat power structure is almost purely a machine to retain political power.it may go one way one election cycle and another the next,but BOTH parties attempt to crush any dissenting voice from the current narrative of power,and neither really offer any substantive change.

go ahead and ask your friends who gary johnson and jill stein are,chances are they never even heard of them.

because americans taken as a whole,are pretty fucking stupid.

i have watched a few of this guys videos,and while he has great energy,passion and a penchant for sly humor,but he tends to impose his understandings as somehow being more valid and accurate.

just take his example of the role of government.
he makes a valid point,and then solidifies his position by implying his view is set in this countries original documents.

which is fair,but only to a point...he literally ignores the federalist papers,which he actually references,and it was these 200+ papers and/or arguments that debated the actual role of the federal government vs the role of state government.

@MonkeySpank he is actually right.america is not a true direct democracy but rather a democratically elected representative republic.

after he makes some valid,if fairly biased points,he devolves into the gospel of capitalism and how it is a natural extension of our democratic republic.

really dude?
name ONE corporation that is democratic in any fashion?
you can't?
maybe that is due to the very obvious and plain fact that corporations are tyrannical by their very design.

this semi-educated man is just preaching the gospel of his religion:capitalism.

and referencing lenin like 20 times?
dude...read a fucking book on the history of the soviet union.

oh jesus..now he defending trickle down economics.....
sighs..how the zealots adore their doctrine of their holy texts,even if those texts are just figments of some economists wet dreams and has been proven to be an utter and glorious failure.

sanders is a democratic socialist,not like a denmark flavor but more of a FDR flavor.you know...the most popular president in this countries history and ushered in the most prosperous era in this countries history.

i could do a play by play on this man all day,and make him cry like a pretty little thailand ladyboy who cant afford his life-changing surgery into a actual woman.

well..he does have that douchebag hair.so he may already be looking for a surgeon.

yeah..im with @MonkeySpank,this dude just needs a good cock punch.

@coolhund -- Yes, Truman, not FDR. Brain fart, wrote the wrong name -- thanks for correcting.

FDR didnt decide that. Truman did. Truman was a weakling. He was like a teenage bully who suddenly got unbelievable power. Even Churchill noticed how much he changed and how he always attacked and tried to provoke Stalin.
And that decision wasnt made because of fear of more lost lives. it was made because after Germany was defeated Russia very quickly advanced towards Japan. Truman didnt want want Russia to get a say in Japan at all costs. Yet they knew Japan was willing to surrender, with only one condition: The emperor would not be touched. The Americans didnt even want to accept that single condition. But the funny thing is, they did after the war. The emperor was not touched. But Truman, in his world, was pretty smart. He not only stopped any possibility of the Russians being able to get a part of Japan, he also showed Stalin what a powerful nation the USA has become, and that it should be feared. In reality, it was 2 atom bombs for NOTHING. Those 2 bombs were a huge factor in the start of the cold war, but ultimately it was Truman and the people behind him, who started that war. He always saw an enemy in Russia. He did everything to ensure they would think the USA is their enemy. Yet memos of Stalin and other documents showed clearly that Stalin never wanted a confrontation with the USA and even after the cold war started, he never took an attack on them into consideration.
Its just another chapter in the aggression and chaos the USA spreads on this planet.

I found Colbert's question about "unknown knowns" the most interesting, but here's the thing:

Bush was the Commander in Chief. He didn't present their "intelligence evidence" of Iraq's WMDs to the American people because he *had* to. He tells the military what to do, they do it; the people don't get "veto rights". The only reason he presented it to the American people (I still remember watching Colin Powell show satellite photos etc.) was to shore up votes for his re-election. Which is exactly what any politician would do in that situation -- make a decision, and present that decision in the best possible light to the voters.

In other words, when Bush et al. were presenting that stuff to us, they weren't selling the actual invasion itself to us. They were selling us an image of their own legitimacy and competence. Viewed like that, of course they aren't going to inform us of those "unknown knowns"; it would shatter the image of them confidently and capably doing what they knew they had to do -- which was the actual point of it (selling that image to us, I mean).


I was sold, at the time. As were most (but not all) Americans, including many many people much older and wiser than I was (and am). I now agree that the invasion was a colossal mistake and that Bush's presidency in general was rather disastrous. BUT, that being said, I think it is problematic to hold these kinds of decisions against a president beyond a certain point.

FDR decided to drop two atom bombs on Japan rather than continuing with conventional warfare and risking many more American (and Japanese) lives with an invasion. Many people have questioned (and continue to question) that decision. But FDR was there. He was the Commander in Chief, he had some facts and plenty of unverifiable information and suggestions from his cabinet and intelligence sources of the time, and he made the decision.

I don't envy people in power who have to make weighty decisions like that based on incomplete information, only to have people question those decisions by citing information that they didn't have at the time. For the rest of their lives.

Haha, I totally thought of that "I welcome their hatred" quote as well. FDR went on to crush the following election and Varoufakis... err, resigns despite what I assume to be similar levels of support from the electorate? Maybe his opponents found his disdain for ties a bridge too far.

I came here to say thank you for taking the time to write such golden comments re. the economic situation in the EU. Your perspective has been very enlightening.

Well, didn't see that coming.

Edit: Prime candidate for FinMin appears to be Stathakis, who was also present during the conference in Austin, 11/2013. Lapavitsas would be fun though.

Edit #2: "I shall wear the creditors’ loathing with pride." -- bwahahaha, Varoufakis DID channel his inner FDR.

όχι, bitches!

Or as a cartoon, if you prefer.

Edit: With all the nasty fearmongering by the Greek private media and the corrupt elite, it takes balls of steel to basically tell them to fuck off. The Greek economy is fucked³, politicians from the entire Eurozone were arguing for, even demanding the Syriza government to step down, so they can resume business as usual with either the old nepotic elite or freshly installed technocrats. Piss off, the demos replied.

The result itself doesn't matter that much. The process itself, like the Scottish referendum, might have set into motion a development that cannot be stopped nor undone.

Edit #2: the vitriol and pure hatred from the conservatives and many social-democrats is despicable. What champions of democracy they are. Tsipras and Varoufakis should channel their inner FDR and welcome their hatred.