Video & Multimedia
Related: About this forumMojorabbit
(16,020 posts)VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)The look like someone is standing behind him doing the gesturing for him...like an SNL skit or something...truly weird and freakish how his hands and arms look in that.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)We didn't have term limits then...and FDR was duly elected everytime....he didn't just proclaim himself President you cretin
Bucky
(53,795 posts)Paul says the Congress limited FDR so he wouldn't serve in perpetuity. He needs to study history. Congress didn't limit presidents to two terms until after FDR was dead. The third term was controversial, sure, but it still was the result of a third election. FDR's 4th election was a no-brainer for the Democrats, not "switching horses in the middle of the stream" and such. But in fact, FDR got his lowest percentage of all in 1944 (Republicans ran a liberal internationalist that year). Even with a war going on, rational people could distinguish between politics and national security (a skill today's Republicans seem to have lost).
Roosevelt died three months into his 4th term. He wasn't going to serve in perpetuity. In fact, rumors were already in circulation in 1944 that he might resign for health reasons after the war was over. He didn't make it that long. It was only after he died that they dared try to pass term limits with the 22nd Amendment. But even then, if you read it, the wording in the 22nd specifically exempts the "current president" (written to win over Truman supporters) from the two term limit. In other words, Truman could have run again in 1952.
Actually he did put his name into some early primaries in 1952. He got clobbered, dropped out of the running, and slunk out of office with the lowest approval ratings until Dubya's con game got exposed in 2006. So there wasn't a perpetuity potential for the midcentury Democratic presidents. This isn't key to Paul's point, but I think it's worth noting that Rand Paul is willing to bullshit away about history in order to make a point. Facts don't matter to him. It's a thing to be alert to next time you see him talking.
Bucky
(53,795 posts)CheapShotArtist
(333 posts)huh, Rand? Bush ll and Reagan had more executive orders in their presidencies. Where was the outrage from you hypocrites then?
Scuba
(53,475 posts)PA Democrat
(13,225 posts)He really is stupid. Put down Ayn Rand and read some HISTORY Congressman.
maddiemom
(5,106 posts)"arrogance" now, in place of "uppity." We've come a long way, baby!