fdr was all show. The man was the beginning of the end. He was backed by bankers, the same troupe we have in control today. He won the election by promising something for nothing in contrast to Hoover who wanted to provide relief for the people through their own efforts. Hoover wanted the people to work for their payout. fdr wanted them to not work for their payout. fdr started welfare system and condemned whole generations of families to destitution. What change? You should have asked.
(at 3:02) Since when has being "excited about presenting a speech" had ANYTHING to do with a man's ability to lead or rule? We need to disconnect the perception that somehow, being exciting or emotional is equal to being a strong leader. Just because someone is somehow more attractive, or has a good personality, that does not necessarily mean he will be a good leader.
Tom Waits! :D
exkefiroth 9 months ago
its the smoot-hawley tariff you misspelled
alcaponefan1 9 months ago
@jimprjayp If what you know about history were put in a shot glass, you'd still have enough room to get drunk.
elperromagico 1 year ago
fdr was all show. The man was the beginning of the end. He was backed by bankers, the same troupe we have in control today. He won the election by promising something for nothing in contrast to Hoover who wanted to provide relief for the people through their own efforts. Hoover wanted the people to work for their payout. fdr wanted them to not work for their payout. fdr started welfare system and condemned whole generations of families to destitution. What change? You should have asked.
jimprjayp 2 years ago
(at 3:02) Since when has being "excited about presenting a speech" had ANYTHING to do with a man's ability to lead or rule? We need to disconnect the perception that somehow, being exciting or emotional is equal to being a strong leader. Just because someone is somehow more attractive, or has a good personality, that does not necessarily mean he will be a good leader.
johe64 2 years ago