yes but it's not necessary, average income has been on rise since 1934 and there was a deflation in ~1939 so it would eventually raise the average standards.

Stewie, don't bother.

He wants a god-emperor that will kill all his enemies and take all his rights, except not, because this god-emperor would be him, even though there might be millions of people with better experience to be god-emperor, but even if so, he'd somehow be recognized out of billions, and be a noble.

topkek. Go back to Rome you plebeian.

the real income is actually lower now than in the past, in the 50s you could pay off a house with an entry level position.

proof? actually, don't even bother; even if that's true FDR died in '45, what's him got to do with this?

also I really wonder the answer of this question;

and besides, since when did you start thinking about the state of the average americans? I thought the health of state was superior to individual lives for you, given your fascist status.

Edited 9/13/2016 00:47:51

All of what you're saying is something that Gim Sung did way back.

Unemployment went down to 0%. Almost every Korean denizen helps fund their state. He brought Korea out of little more than a Japanese colony to a strong and industrial country for its size. His approval in polls was 100%. At his death, unemployment was still at 0%, almost all of Pyongyang and more beyond came to his funeral. He brought legal equality to all sexes and races, he brought free healthcare and kept the environment clean.

Mmm, and zero taxation, best leader.

April 1 is a holiday there, actually, when the last tax, income tax, was ended (on April 1, 1974).

FDR illegally imprisoned thousands of Japanese-Americans, including women and children, stripping them of their rights without due process and threatened to shoot them should they try to escape all while covering it up from the media and silencing anybody who tried to speak out against it.

This automatically disqualifies him from being a good president.

Additionally, he didn't win the war. As a strict capitalist I will admit that the USSR won WW2. The Russians kept the vast majority of the German army occupied and the VAST MAJORITY of German causalities were taken on soviet soil. By the time D-Day happened the Germans were in full retreat through Belarus. The only adversary that America played a pivotal role in defeating was Japan and that was hardly a difficult task.

There is also significant evidence that the economy had not made a full recovery but had just stagnated in a deplorable state (kind of like how it is now) and it wasn't until WW2 that it started booming again.

Edited 9/13/2016 01:27:30

FDR illegally imprisoned thousands of Japanese-Americans, including women and children, stripping them of their rights without due process and threatened to shoot them should they try to escape all while covering it up from the media and silencing anybody who tried to speak out against it.

+120,000

Additionally, he didn't win the war. As a strict capitalist I will admit that the USSR won WW2. The Russians kept the vast majority of the German army occupied and the VAST MAJORITY of German causalities were taken on soviet soil. The only adversary that America played a pivotal role in defeating was Japan and that was hardly a difficult task.

+1, Council Band defintely won it.

Additionally, he didn't win the war. As a strict capitalist I will admit that the USSR won WW2. The Russians kept the vast majority of the German army occupied and the VAST MAJORITY of German causalities were taken on soviet soil. By the time D-Day happened the Germans were in full retreat through Belarus. The only adversary that America played a pivotal role in defeating was Japan and that was hardly a difficult task.

No. Hitler won WW2 for the allies with his supreme incompetence. Examples include invading the USSR, converting jet fighters to bombers, and demanding that almost every bomber had to have dive capability.

Yes, we've had President's afflicted by Polio

Interesting grammar.

@Rogue Nikolai Krogius


Finally.

Any disease that is considered life threatening should disqualify imo. No sense electing a new president only to find out they have a a year or two to live. It simply messes up things that are going through the works. Anything important that requires time will be put on hold for god knows how long. Nothing will get done the rest of the term.

Any mental instability issues should disqualify a candidate for presidency. That should be a given and not debated. Any big name that pushes for a mentally unstable person has a second agenda. Hell, all big names have a second agenda. A mentally unstable president just makes it worse.

Any disease that is considered life threatening should disqualify imo.

Isn't this why there are underpresidents? And after that, Head Law? There's a whole list, I think. If they're thought to be the best for the job, even if their holding of that job is going to be small, they should have the chance to do it.

Any mental instability issues should disqualify a candidate for presidency.

Donald Trump has cognitive dissonance, please disqualify.

Besides brain illness being often hard to mean and subjective, this could potentially be wielded just to shut up folk in brain illness healing buildings that are "out of politic liking".

Mmm, Hillary has some stupidity disease, she attacked the folk in a folkdom, she's obviously not fit to lead.

should having a sub-retard level IQ be a disqualification?

what about the temperament of a spoiled 4 year old?

should having a sub-retard level IQ be a disqualification?

Why be so cruel towards Clinton?

what about the temperament of a spoiled 4 year old?

Yeah she uses insults and belittles her opponents, but don't call her a four year old. She might not have the maturity of Trump with respecting your opponents and their supporters, or quoting a opponent (Obama) to calm tensions, but don't be so cutting.

ok smegma butter

Isn't this why there are underpresidents? And after that, Head Law? There's a whole list, I think. If they're thought to be the best for the job, even if their holding of that job is going to be small, they should have the chance to do it.

You make a fair point but it kinda goes around what I'm saying. If we have a candidate who is running and they have a life threatening illness I don't want to vote for a dead guy and have his vp do nothing significant the rest of the term. It makes sense if the president is assassinated, there is somebody to take his place. To me, it just makes more sense to have a physically fit leader.

As for your remarks towards Donald Trump, if he really has a legitimate mental disease then he should be disqualified. If you cannot make stable decisions with the lives of people in your hands you should not be leader period.

For the love of god this thread is pure cancer.

khancer*

stable decisions with the lives of people in your hands

...then both Donald Trump and Hilary Clinton need to get disqualified now, they're for more and more wars, directly killing folk, and for naught but some funding.

^ +1