Why Did FDR Run for a Third Term? | Casual Historian

[@ActualJusticeWarrior]

Came from Kirk Wilcox, heard good things

[@CasualHistorian]

Thanks for visiting

[@drkavnger99]

Came because of AJW. Good and bad takes alike here.

[@Blunter1929]

I like turtles

[@MRdotMIND]

@@CasualHistorian Paul Johnson? A History of the American People? I didn't see it on your expansive shelves. Good video!

[@jameeyg87]

Came from ajw

[@Idahoguy10157]

It’s a shame the norm for members of Congress is to be in congress for decades. Congress needs term limits

[@blugaledoh2669]

Uh, no. Congress members should not be elected. More opportunities for corruption and fraud. The reason Congress members are given life membership is because since they have no need for reelection they can focus on their job.

[@blugaledoh2669]

@@night6724 ah sorry I must be confusing something.

[@blugaledoh2669]

@@night6724 I meant Justices.

[@blugaledoh2669]

@@night6724 I believe the president appoint the justices but cannot removed him on his own.

[@blugaledoh2669]

@@night6724 but yeah I agree

[@kevinaguilar7541]

While the past 6 months has shattered my perception of Theodore Roosevelt and FDR, yet, I am thankful of learning the truth about him.

[@soupycask]

What video shattered your perception of Theodore Roosevelt?

[@kevinaguilar7541]

@@soupycask I believe videos from this channel.

[@irondiver2034]

Finally someone who intelligently and fairly covers FDR’s desire to hold onto power, preserve and push forward even progressive ideas.

[@decannerlin5950]

Yeah.

[@mrlarry271]

Did not know a lot of this about FDR. There was more going on behind the scenes than people are led to believe. The expansion of government that FDR initiated would be extremely difficult to undo now. Still interesting to see further into his psychology and that his motives were not always squeaky clean just like many a politician.

[@PremierCCGuyMMXVI]

I still view FDR as one of the greatest presidents and I largely agree with what he did on most things but this was definitely a welcomed perspective. Wilkie was a really good candidate for President and he was later put in the Roosevelt administration. He definitely would have some a good job as President. But FDR had many flaws and I think it’s important we know how each President truly was. While I admire TR and FDR, both had really huge egos and definitely not a good quality you want as President.

[@ComedyJakob]

You don't have to be a good person to do a bad thing, and you can do a bad thing for good reasons.

[@j.van-history]

Great video, I like how you have incorporated some really awesome research and period videos. I also appreciate how you mention fdr's motivation. And you are right when you mention his policy towards the Chinese and Russians. Keep up the good work.

[@itsblitz4437]

Especially when he allowed spys 🕵️‍♂️ in the U.S.

[@robertortiz-wilson1588]

​@@itsblitz4437yep.

[@MaryamofShomal]

@@itsblitz4437😟😧

[@sean6653]

I'm so glad to have found this video. My great grandparents and grandparents were democrats who both didn't like FDR... but every normal academic source I found was either Pollyanna and cheer leading, or actual war propaganda. Thanks for covering this video without burning incense or engaging in the hagiography too often associated with the progressive era, and especially Roosevelt presidents.

[@Liberty7628]

Like FDR or hate FDR, it’s a shame he broke the two term tradition set by Washington.

[@CloroxBleachCompany]

No, it’s a shame the ELECTORATE did not formalize the precedent set by Washington by amending the constitution earlier on.

[@Chris-ey8zf]

The American people voted him overwhemingly 4 times in a row for a reason. Classic Republican take to want the public's vote to not matter.

[@thebigdawgj]

@@Chris-ey8zf You realize "the public" overwhelmingly voted for Trump, not Biden, right? It was the Democrats who didn't want the public's vote to matter so they had to futz with things to make their guy win.

[@Chris-ey8zf]

@@thebigdawgj Yeah, that's not true at all. Trump lost the popular vote by a considerable margin, and he lost the electoral vote as well. Get your QANON bullshit out of here. Gain some critical thinking skills.

[@fuckamericanidiot]

@@Chris-ey8zf You don't think the current administration is capable of cheating to win an election? 🤨 That is absurd to you? Trillions of dollars were resting on the loss of Donald Trump. 3 trillion dollars.....the biggest upward transfer of wealth in human history. Critical thinking? You are the last person to call someone out for a lack of critical thinking skills. You: "Government murdered JFK? Yes. MX? Yes. MLK? Of course. Bay Of Tonkin was a hoax to gain money and power? Yes. The US hasn't formally declared war for 70+ years? Correct. A political party may have cheated to gain power? Pffffffffft tinfoil hat brigaaaaaaade!!!" Moron.

[@1967MLP]

excellent report sir!

[@zacharymarentette5269]

Im surprised you didn't mention 9066

[@itsblitz4437]

You should make a video on bust the myths by the FDR cult and showcase the many things FDR did wrong and change history as we know it.

[@Dirkinsang]

At 15:18 you mention comparisons between FDR's attempted purge and Kristallnacht (1938, which was not a political purge) when you probably mean the Night of the Long Knives (1934, when the NSDAP purged its 'progressive' wing).

[@stevilkenevil9960]

Krystalnacht was a purge of comunist jews why do you think the HA hated jews because they were all comunists?

[@str.77]

The "Röhm Putsch" was not a purge of a "progressive wing" of the NSDAP, not based on policy but on power. Röhm wasn't the one that wanted to emphasize Socialism in Nazism - that were the Strasser brothers - but the one that wanted his SA stormtroopers to be the military power, also giving him political power, though he had no intention of toppling Hitler. (Of course, preferring the SA over the regular army would have threatened Hitler's position - the SA were hugely unpopular as they were the ones engaging in all the beating up, torturing, mudering in 1933 - and would also have made his plans of conquest impossible. Of course, the Night of the Long Knives also purged several old (and not so old) enemies as well, including Gregor Strasser. But it is a myth that it was about getting rid of Socialist Nazis.

[@str.77]

@@stevilkenevil9960 Nonsense!

[@Dirkinsang]

@@str.77 We are not really in disagreement. Mine was a statement of fact, not intent. The Night of the Long Knives resulted in the removal of those seeking a more revolutionary takeover of German institutions by those who were, at least at the time, more accommodations. Perhaps the salient feature of the purge is not well expressed by `progressive,' but I won't mince the issue.

[@str.77]

@@Dirkinsang Yeah, but "more revolutionary" doesn't mean "more socialist" or "more progressive".

[@Cultofcarl]

Well minus the continued fan fic of Jan 6th right off the bat. It’s good to learn something about what a crazy presidency fdr was.

[@jameeyg87]

Fan fic of Jan 6th? How so?

[@dalongibson733191]

@@jameeyg87that it was simply a violation democratic norms in the same vein as seeking a third term, even though one was completely legal and the other was nothing short of trodding on our founding document and the rule of law.

[@mcwildstyle9106]

@@dalongibson733191because it pretty much was a violation of democratic process

[@ChaelSonnen000]

yeah that intro immediately turned me off the rest of the video

[@robertortiz-wilson1588]

I really, really appreciate you making this video and others on FDR!

[@zacharyhenderson2902]

I want Wendell Willard Wilkie!!!!

[@freeman7079]

Dude, you nailed it. If your channel continues to grow, please don’t give into the political division like everyone else does….

[@krunchyapples]

AJW brought me here, and you've just gotten another subscribe

[@spnsoccer]

Great video, and an interesting take on a contrarian viewpoint, FDR is commonly ranked as the third best U.S. President. With the two term limit, how can the country avoid the lame duck nature of the last 2 years of a presidential 2nd term?

[@mister_i9245]

I like FDR, and while I think that during his 3rd and 4th terms he did a good job, I don't think that it was a good idea for him to have had those 3rd and 4th terms.

[@patrickhewitt7899]

That 4 term did not last very long. Most presidents had a non written rule of 2 terms it was the war that made him go longer. It's like replacing a good general in the middle of a battle when your winning that would be stupid to do.

[@mister_i9245]

@@patrickhewitt7899 I mean, the point of the video was that the reason he sought a third term wasn't because of the war. And while I think that the war probably had something to do with it, it definitely isn't the end all be all of the story. Though yes his 4th term didn't last too long and I would have preferred Wallace, at least Truman was alright.

[@woodchuck003]

All of FDRs terms lasted way too long. The successful programs he takes credit for were actually started under Hoover and the New Deal as a whole letter recession in 1936. You also can't claim to like FDR and then complain about modern day presidents not telling the truth.. FDR is a close second for worst president.

[@patrickhewitt7899]

@@woodchuck003 you are right it was the war that got us out of the depression massive sales of guns and the such.

[@patrickhewitt7899]

@@mister_i9245 it's was because of the war he sought a third and 4th term the only other president that tried to run a third term was teddy Roosevelt and that was because he really disliked the current president at the time fun fact teddy was related to FDR as I said the war ran on until he died Truman became president because he died shortly after FDR death. Oh teddy ran under the bullmoose party because the spot for his original party was taken by the president.

[@zacharymarentette5269]

10:21 that must have been hella awkward for all 3 of them.

[@bjohnson1489]

It took a world war to put the economy back on its feet. Everything fdr did just dragged out the depression

[@Chris-ey8zf]

It took moronic Republicans to put the country and the world into the great depression in the first place.

[@Chris-ey8zf]

@@night6724 No, he wasn't.

[@Chris-ey8zf]

@@night6724 This is completely false. He did nothing of the sort. His hands-off approach helped to make the Depression worse.

[@Chris-ey8zf]

@@night6724 Casual HIstorian is a right wing hack when it comes to certain politicians. You need to try reading some actual books and not listen to people who admit they are not true historians and don't have any citations to go with their videos. Hoover was a Republican by the way, which should show you exactly why he was absolutely not a 'progressive'. He was a conservative through and through. The Smoot Hawley tariff was to protect businesses, not workers, and it was one of the most catastrophic acts in American history. Also, Hoover is on record with quote after quote saying he opposed giving American workers help through the 'dole', thinking that will make them lazy. He wanted businesses to voluntarily help, which of course, they did not. Hoover opposed congressional proposals to provide federal relief to the unemployed, refused to abandon the gold standard at the time because he thought any other monetary standard was socialism, and he did absolutely nothing to help American workers whatsoever until unemployment was above 25%, at which point he had to do something or there would have been another revolution on his hands. His garbage 'infrastructure' bill that helped build the Hoover Dam was a half-assed mess, because it didn't actually give money to those who needed it, but simply employed a small amount of people and further enriching big business. Even his increase in taxes was below the levels they were in 1920. Simply put, Hoover was a hardcore republican, not a progressive, and certainly nothing close to FDR. FDR was no saint, but Hoover was an incompetent buffoon.

[@SandfordSmythe]

Providing needed relief for a suffering nation dragged out the Depression? The idea being that eliminating the poor is good economics ?

[@paulgaskins7713]

‘The Politics of Upheaval’ Very good book written in 43 basically a treatise on why to vote republican in 44. It’s crazy to hear the word conservative in describing a democrat. Oh how it’s changed

[@zorafilms]

28:33 so McCarthy was right.

[@str.77]

Sure, Paul was right. Allen Klein was a bad choice as manager.

[@zorafilms]

@@str.77 lul

[@theMOCmaster]

That AmerAsia video will be fascinating, its a great tragedy that the Communists won the civil war there and continue their human rights abuses to this day

[@BoxiesAU]

Great video, but your audio and the clip audio is way unbalanced. Much higher volume on the historical footage

[@jaketeale6464]

Great video

[@mapmanlxii1715]

Excellent breakdown of FDR and his megalomania, great breakdown on the lasting damage done by FDRs fellow travelers!

[@itsblitz4437]

Call it the FDR myth busters.

[@jakexu2347]

When will you talk about LBJ or Nixon?

[@aaronbell8113]

The casual historian is a really good name for your channel. As you continue to casually give your opinions as fact without backing your statements up with anything at all

[@itsblitz4437]

I guess Cynical Historian can show how Woodrow Wilson changed everything for the worst, then I can see Casual Historian trying to dismantle the FDR myths and show FDR being the worst president.

[@woodchuck003]

Is actually ironic how the Cynical historian has a habit of banning everyone who proves how he's economically incorrect when it comes to the New Deal. Cypher claims to get bigoted comments but he includes the comments that tell he is wrong.

[@itsblitz4437]

@@woodchuck003 yeah I know what you are taking about. It may be that he has a political bias probably. P.s. Have you watched the Actual Justice Warrior by any chance?

[@woodchuck003]

@Trade Bum Simmons Pretty sure the negative side of Lincoln has been discussed on this channel. Also the lack of a dedicated video doesn't prove bias, your argument seems to be based on a logic fallacy.

[@woodchuck003]

@Trade Bum Simmons FDR is still a POS, there are no positives, worst president in history and there is so much propoganda. My High School history book tried to claim his desision to burn crops lead to food security.

[@woodchuck003]

@Trade Bum Simmons no you were again making poor assumptions based off of your poor understanding of history. Woodrow Wilson is actually in my number two worst president ever. When you ask me my opinion about Jefferson are you talking about his unconstitutional Louisiana purchase? Because Jefferson actually agreed with you, originally he thought that a constitutional amendment had to be passed in order to give him the authority to purchase land at such a level. Also I'm not sure how you would rate Jimmy Carter is anywhere close to FDR? Being a horrible micro manager is not the same as attempting to court pack? Jimmy Carter also did the reverse of trying to centralize authority he deregulated, notably the airlines (Carter also made Homebrew legal). I think you're suffering from having your position dictated you by political propaganda. Even from a social liberal perspective FDR is a horrible president, unless of course you're a socialist.

[@DOCTORKHANblog]

Casual Historian really does have this fixation with "norms"? I think it's long past time he tell us what these are and why it's a problem that they're broken. Because to a partisan, Trump and FDR did nothing wrong.

[@itsblitz4437]

Well There are still pretty interesting real life parallels between the two, how both presidents are both norm busters, and can be megalomaniacal.

[@blugaledoh2669]

@@itsblitz4437 Trump is more megalomaniacal.

[@thebigdawgj]

@@blugaledoh2669 Citation needed.

[@ThelastdesertRanger]

@@blugaledoh2669 at most Trump is just more obvious

[@darthsilversith667]

A 3rd term? Didn’t he successfully run for a 4th term but died before seeing it out?

[@robert48044]

The party nominated him, that might be a story in itself

[@chaddelk3605]

It clearly had to take an act of God himself to remove President Franklin Delano Roosevelt from office.

[@sidneyadnopoz3427]

I think FDR did an ok job overall, but he probably shouldn't have run for third and fourth terms, if only to preserve tradition.

[@paulgaskins7713]

Wow, the border, referring to the mason dixon line. Craaaazzzyyyy

[@pranavnaresh4675]

How was FDR responsible for Soviet infiltration in OSS & Manhattan Project?

[@West_Kagle]

Really?

[@ChaelSonnen000]

even on a random video about an older president, these people still cant get trump's name out of their mouths 😂

[@Kuudere-Kun]

Kin od hurts the "It was a War agaisnt Fascism" narrative to say we should have favored the Chinese Fascists over the Communists.

[@robertortiz-wilson1588]

The Chinese Nationalists were not Fascist you fool. You also just straight up ignored how it was the Nationalists who were actually doing a majority of the fighting against the Imperial Japanese Army. Not the Communists in reality.

[@Ceilingcat9001]

Let's go Franklin!

[@ryantpritchett2814]

What happened to Brandon? Oh man i hope he is ok.

[@bigiron9334]

Underrated channel. Doing his part to fight the cult of fdr

[@richardschulman8821]

When did NEW Deal Policies become unpopular?

[@WhiteCamry]

When Reagan was elected.

[@robertortiz-wilson1588]

​@@WhiteCamry*before Reagan was elected. Hence why he was elected.

[@Makingnewnamesisdumb]

This dude is being ironic in the beginning when he's talking about jan 6th, right?

[@odysseusrex5908]

Well of course Roosevelt ran for his own aggrandizement, that doesn't mean he wasn't the indispensable man of the hour. You say other would not have made Roosevelt's mistakes. That is probably true, but they, of course, would have made their own. One thing that comes immediately to mind, somebody else might have chosen not to pursue the Manhattan Project. There is no way to know, but the possibility must be considered.

[@str.77]

"might have chosen not to pursue the Manhattan Project", which would really have been a tragedy, wouldn't it???

[@redram5150]

"Indispensable" I had a good laugh at that. Great joke

[@odysseusrex5908]

@@str.77 You mean to the millions of people who would have died from direct combat action, starvation, and disease as the war ground on for who knows how much longer? Yeah, I imagine so.

[@odysseusrex5908]

@@redram5150 Do you really think everything would have played out exactly as it did with a different president?

[@redram5150]

@@odysseusrex5908 it's impossible to say anyone would make the exact same decisions as another person, but I will say we were going to win the war regardless. War is at its heart a competition of economies. Ours was the largest on the planet. On top of that, the New Deal was dragging the economy down and the war forced FDR to loosen the stranglehold his policies had created. A different president with a less authoritarian approach would have shortened the depression by years. On top of that, the generals and admirals make the vast majority of decisions, especially in the field. One could even argue that FDR would have opted to invade Japan rather than use atom bombs, which would have cost hundreds of thousands of American lives and drug out the war several more years.

[@tomfrazier1103]

"Progressive" is a branding word? As in advertising?

[@kyleosterberg8030]

While I like your premise that FDR ran for a 3rd term for selfish reasons, I don't think it's fair to say his possible successors wouldn't make his mistakes. Maybe they would. Maybe they wouldn't. It's possible they would make bigger mistakes. It's possible they would have won the war earlier. There are too many unknowns. There is no guarantee that things would have been better if FDR had not run for a third term.

[@HistoricalFanatics]

28:46

[@ShalK423]

The swastika placement...

[@snappatruce]

1:25 No, they weren’t wrong.

[@theshenpartei]

First and early also happy Halloween

[@andrewhoyle1521]

Actually I love fdr but I'm not a fan of term limits. People should vote for who ever they want. Term limits make that impossible.

[@aplace5791]

Trump beat the case, why do you all ignore that?

[@paulgaskins7713]

Casual historian is way better than the cynical historian because you are non partisan.

[@paulgaskins7713]

I wonder what FDR would think about joe Biden.

[@alfredfowler9766]

His blaming Trump for democratic malfeasance is a problem with this post. His speaking for others is common practice from the Democratic party!!!

[@Kill3rGr1zzly]

He’s a Republican.

[@ryantpritchett2814]

@@Kill3rGr1zzly yeah and im the king of whales.... like all the whales.

[@richardschulman8821]

You are correct regarding SOVIETS seduction of FDR. Worth subscribing

[@angerycamel2]

Casual historian completely ignoring the covert american uboat war which fdr pursued against germany during his second term, Winston Churchhill privately urging Churchhill to do anything he could to get the american public on side of a war against Germany and the fact that once Japan finally did provide an excuse for america to enter the war, which fdr had already been participating in navally along with instituting a peacetime draft, fdr made victory in european theater a complete priority despite the fact that america had been attacked in the pacific. FDR, was rightly concerned, regardless of his japanese oil embargo and Uboat war with germany, that when america inevitably entered the war (although there were still very much were anti war candidates which the video fails to mention), it might not be directed in the way FDR desired...the europe first policy, no seperate peace, and so on and so forth. This video, while properly showing FDR's consolidation of power in his first two terms did earn him many enemies in the legislature and court, doesnt really rebuke the war theory.

[@iglesiasjibboom6477]

Postivity for this.

[@matsal3211]

I disagree with polls due to Americans becoming my progressive after FDR 2nd bill of rights which at the same time Americans wanted a guarantee health care

[@jeffslote9671]

I enjoyed this balanced take on FDR. He's arguably one of America's worst presidents. Now that he's been taken down how about the under appreciated or misunderstood presidents. Nixon for example.

[@12halo3]

worst? What fucking lead are you drinking

[@thomaswatson1739]

Nixon was garbage

[@dalongibson733191]

“Balanced”

[@matthewgabbard6415]

Wow, remember Progressive Republicans? Where did they go?

[@elganso1000]

God gave him Polio for a good reason.

[@CriticalNuance]

Maintaining democratic norms in America is less important than making the country more equitable and defacto democratic. FDR was president for 4 terms because that is what the people chose in a democratic fashion when there was no law to say it should be otherwise. Without FDR and his policies and his iron will of accomplishing those goals America would not have advanced to the level it did. Democratic norms in government today are what absolutely hold back progress by either rotten party today and encourage the parties to become more corrupt. These norms mean that a candidate with less votes can win the presidency. These norms mean gerrymandering can grossly skew elections. These norms mean that the filibuster stays in place undermining the power of whoever was elected by the people. These norms mean that politicians can take legalized bribes from corporations and billionaires to enact their will rather than the will of the masses. Many of the "democratic norms" of today are in reality the enemy of democracy and freedom. Don't defend the norm. Defend what is right regardless of the norm.

[@gunbutter830]

You Sir, are well and truly brainwashed. You believe democracy is getting what you want, when you want it. The constitution is design to make things slow and deliberate. Making sure the change politicians want is an actual benefit to the people. It’s designed to slow the “cult” of ego and personality. Also, working for equal outcomes (equity) is evil. To attempt to institute that which is impossible (equal outcomes) will only bring human misery.

[@CriticalNuance]

@@gunbutter830 Equitable - characterized by equity or fairness; just and right; fair; reasonable Equity - the quality of being fair or impartial; something that is fair and just. None of this speaks to "equal outcomes" that is the weak strawman of the progressive position. "Equal opportunity" to do whatever the hell you want with your life. We don't live in a democracy. We live in an oligarchy where corporations pay politicians to hold back policies with mass majority support.

[@gch5559]

This is why I hate democracy. "The people voted for the dictator, so its okay :)"

[@gch5559]

@@CriticalNuance bs. Progressives have made the claim that economic or social inequality proves the existence of discrimination. And therefore they are automatically unjustified. They (oftenly) want redistribution of wealth by class and race. Redistribution is designed to create equality of outcome. Equity is used to differentiate the goal of progressive policies from equality. Because equality which means treating people the same is hostile to progressive policies. So please stop the gaslighting. An oligarchy is where few people hold power. In america neither minorities or majorities have power in general. The only powers corporations have is because of the mutual agreement between government and industry to grant special right to certain corporations which actually is anathema to a free market. The majority of people actually like that government interferes with the economy. So the corporations, government and the people are on the same page. But this is not universal because america is a republic. And this form of government tries to stop majorities, minorities and any other group from breaching certain rights. If the evil corporations are the source of all the problems I would like proof because there is none that I have seen that show politicians changing position because of a bag of money. And people still have the power to elect someone else if they want to. You can put as much money into a campaign as you want but if you truly think voting for a progressive will solve everything they can. I also challenge the idea that the policies have mass support. Many people say they support progressive policies but when they are explained what they actually entail they often change their opinion. But the more democratic and social we become, the more corporations will lobby the government for priviliges.

[@CriticalNuance]

@@gch5559 Everything you just said is wrong and it's beyond the purview of the comments section to debunk your flawed thinking. In short redistribution of wealth is often justified based on the input of workers vs the elite class in society. Even considering most concepts of reallocation of wealth this is not in pursuit of equal outcome. I don't know what else to tell you other than progressives want true positive freedom for all people through unshackling from poverty wages and more workers control over the work environment. When people are more free they will not chose to lead the same lives and equality of outcome is neither the goal or even a possibility. Raising the basement of society is the goal. All forms of politicians take donations from corporations and politicians are allowed to have personal special interests. For example Joe Manchin has a coal brokerage firm, which he handed off to his son, but from which he has personally made millions of dollars in the last decade. His coal money is bigger than his senate salary so he will never lift a finger against the destructive coal industry. His daughter is a CEO at a pharmaceutical company and she was personally involved in massive arbitrary spikes in epipen medication. With personal ties and massive donations from drug companies no wonder congress won't pass legislation for negotiating drug prices down like every other developed nation. With insurance companies as massive donors in Washington no wonder the U.S. can't have universal healthcare like every other developed nation. It's an oligarchy because corporations and corrupt politicians do what they want and ignore their constituents. Progressive economic policies are massively popular in poll after poll whether or not you chose to belive it. Lastly, if you are trying to make a distinction between a democracy and a republic, they are the same exact thing. Just look up the definitions. We are a constitutional Republic with a representative democracy, meaning we elect representatives to do what we tell them. They aren't in charge, we are. From the president on down they are elected servants. That's how it is supposed to be. Not this nonsense where politicians don't hold town halls or answer their phones or listen to their constituents and only take paid fundraiser meetings.

[@brenoaugustoii4892]

But the question is that democratic norm is really a good one. Merkel went 15 years in germany and no one denys is a democracy.Not only that without term limits politicians think more in long term.

[@robertortiz-wilson1588]

She deserves a lot more criticisms for her bad decisions.

[@aaronbell8113]

OBVIOSLY you are wrong

[@zorafilms]

Rooseelt

[@arshiff336]

Is Cynical Historian a tankie? Judging by his content and his stand that anyone that uses the term cultural Marxism is a Not-See.

[@gch5559]

He thinks that we got cultural marxism from nazi's. Ofcourse if he honestly would judge his opponents he would see what they mean but word games are more important to him. Even if nazi's would have had the modern right's conception of cultural marxism then it wouldn't automatically make you a nazi. I mean nazi's agreed with the communist view on bourgois capitalism. Does that make nazi's communists. It is also gaslighting because it tries to deny the obvious by calling your enemy names. So for his blatantly obvious political bias towards leftism and his downplaying of communist atrocities could lead you to believe he is a tankie. But I truly believe he is a postmodernist wokescold. Not a tankie or even a commie.

[@arshiff336]

@@gch5559 Very well put Sir, I enjoyed your precision in your response. I have heard post-modernist but not woke scold. What is a woke scold?

[@gch5559]

@@arshiff336 a wokescold is someone who is woke. Thnx for the compliment btw. Glad to provide precise and clear points.

[@dinotsar6396]

@@gch5559 I wouldn’t call him a wokescold, either. His video about technology and how it impacts political polarization is very critical of Tumblr and the whole culture that permeated it.

[@gch5559]

@@dinotsar6396 Maybe you have a point in that he isn't as far as I know an sjw. But he is postmodern and critical in his methodology. He accepts the constructivist and new leftist framework. I don't think he is an tumblr sjw or a marxist but he is "woke" in a more fundamental important way. He follow the two essential woke doctrines of critical theory and postmodernism.

[@robertlucero7794]

Made it through 90 seconds of this sophomoric nonsense. Wow.

[@patrickhewitt7899]

The stupid reason would be because he want the third term because his relative teddy did not get that sweet third term so fdr wanted to show him up. Lol nah it because we were in the middle of World War 2 and to change Presidents at that time did not make sense this also go's for that very short 4 term.

[@AureliusLaurentius1099]

World war 2 started for America in December 41

[@patrickhewitt7899]

@@AureliusLaurentius1099 yeah I know but most of his terms were during the war. Before that he was trying to do the new deal to get the US out of the depression. Yes 41 was pearl harbor the start of us and the war. The sinking by German u boat of the lusatania sorry of I can spell that ship's names started us in world War 1. I did not fall asleep in history class also my mom had a teaching degree in history. Any other history facts you want like the many reasons why the Roman empire fell or like some dummy try to say that Rome was ruled by Christian ruler nope that happened after the split of Rome and the eastern part was ruled by Constantine the was was pegan Roman gods ruled. I grind people into the ground with history facts. Then they get upset 😡

[@joshbrown1381]

wow out the gate with the Jan6 B.S.

[@akashtambe6134]

If they were wrong so then ever any rally happened to criticize government was wrong in American history

[@thomasdonovan3580]

Unsubscribed

[@xyphrowner6217]

And kyle kulinski overhypes this guy lol