If Romney pulls out, what happens ?

[caketastydelish]

He used the war in his politcal campaign of 1940. One of his campaign promises was "you boys are not going to be sent into any foreign war." Yeah, he kept that one didnt he?

Yep. Right until the day that Japan attacked us, and then Germany Declared war on us.

Sorry, I meant to say re-elected once, prior to the start of WWII. The ongoing violence in Europe was a main poltical theme of him getting his third term.

No, it was the fact that people were fed-up with Republicans after Herbert Hoover, and they realized the lies of "de-regulation" as well as the government not doing diddly squat when people had no jobs and were starving. People trusted FDR more than any Republican simply because unlike them, FDR actually did favored government programs that would help people get jobs.

 

[choxorn]

If Romney pulls out, there will be a bit of a sticky mess.

He used the war in his politcal campaign of 1940. One of his campaign promises was "you boys are not going to be sent into any foreign war." Yeah, he kept that one didnt he?

Of all the presidents you could point to who failed to keep the US out of a war when they promised otherwise, you pick the one who probably had the least responsibility for the war he got into? If you're a leader, and someone attacks your country, you can be damn sure you're not going to let any promises getting in the way of defending your country/invading the other one.

 

[Ailedhoo]

He used the war in his politcal campaign of 1940. One of his campaign promises was "you boys are not going to be sent into any foreign war." Yeah, he kept that one didnt he?



Sorry, I meant to say re-elected once, prior to the start of WWII. The ongoing violence in Europe was a main poltical theme of him getting his third term.

Was not America attacked by Japen, then FDR observed that "this means war," leading to Hitler to declare war on the USA as part of the Axis allaince policy? Sometimes a promise is broken not from the figure who made the promise but from those who force the figure to break it.

O and as a Brit I am greatful that we had some more help coming in. FDR.

 

[MobBoss]

Are you all turning a blind eye to FDRs policies against Japan that may well have made war with them inevitable?

Of all the presidents you could point to who failed to keep the US out of a war when they promised otherwise, you pick the one who probably had the least responsibility for the war he got into?

Seriously? You dont think doing this against Japan didnt provoke them in the slightest?

Accordingly, the Roosevelt administration, while curtly dismissing Japanese diplomatic overtures to harmonize relations, imposed a series of increasingly stringent economic sanctions on Japan. In 1939 the United States terminated the 1911 commercial treaty with Japan. “On July 2, 1940, Roosevelt signed the Export Control Act, authorizing the President to license or prohibit the export of essential defense materials.” Under this authority, “[o]n July 31, exports of aviation motor fuels and lubricants and No. 1 heavy melting iron and steel scrap were restricted.” Next, in a move aimed at Japan, Roosevelt slapped an embargo, effective October 16, “on all exports of scrap iron and steel to destinations other than Britain and the nations of the Western Hemisphere.” Finally, on July 26, 1941, Roosevelt “froze Japanese assets in the United States, thus bringing commercial relations between the nations to an effective end. One week later Roosevelt embargoed the export of such grades of oil as still were in commercial flow to Japan.”[2] The British and the Dutch followed suit, embargoing exports to Japan from their colonies in southeast Asia.

There are also a lot of allegation that FDR even knew about the attack on Pearl Harbor and didnt take any action - politcal or military - to counter it. Now, i'm not sure i'd believe that, but his administration did indeed take political action against Japan in 1939/40 that they had to know would provoke them to war.

 

[Cutlass]

He used the war in his politcal campaign of 1940. One of his campaign promises was "you boys are not going to be sent into any foreign war." Yeah, he kept that one didnt he?



Sorry, I meant to say re-elected once, prior to the start of WWII. The ongoing violence in Europe was a main poltical theme of him getting his third term.

Nice goalpost move.

 

[cegman]

Nice goalpost move.

Sorry but he was talking about Obama getting re-elected why would he post about FDR getting Elected the first time? Anyone that ran against Hoover would get elected the first time. I understood what he meant. Oh and WWII started in 1939 it was a significant part of the campaign. (But definitely not all of it. Roosevelt ate dog too )

 

[Dachs]

Yep. Right until the day that Japan attacked us, and then Germany Declared war on us.

Nope. We were already practically bankrolling the British war effort by the summer of 1941, and in the summer and fall of that year we had begun to fight an undeclared naval war against Germany. (American servicemen were actually killed by the Nazis in October 1941, over a month before Japan attacked.)

However, I consider this a Good Thing. USA #1.

No, it was the fact that people were fed-up with Republicans after Herbert Hoover, and they realized the lies of "de-regulation" as well as the government not doing diddly squat when people had no jobs and were starving. People trusted FDR more than any Republican simply because unlike them, FDR actually did favored government programs that would help people get jobs.

Interestingly, although this may have been what people believed at the time about Hoover's policies, it bears no actual resemblance to them.

 

[MobBoss]

Nice goalpost move.

Well, since we are talking about the re-election of Obama I thought it was clear what we were comparing....

So, typo, not goalpost move. If it confused you, I understand.

 

[cegman]

Interestingly, although this may have been what people believed at the time about Hoover's policies, it bears no actual resemblance to them.

Thank you for posting this. This belief is the American school system at work.

I'm glad you posted it though my basic knowledge of history pales in comparison to yours.

I highly recommend not doubting Dachs when it comes to history. All my experience with him has shown him to be an unbiased historian.

 

[peter grimes]

So how is it going to help to elect someone who has shown little concern for the jobless in his career such as is the case with Romney?

There are some pretty funny macros infesting all of reddit called 'relatable romney'.

Fun times

http://www.reddit.com/search?q=reddit:adviceanimals+romney

 

[Cutlass]

Well, since we are talking about the re-election of Obama I thought it was clear what we were comparing....

So, typo, not goalpost move. If it confused you, I understand.

Then you should have said that. You still have 2 reelections of FDR before American involvement in WWII. And you can't make the case that European involvement in WWII had anything to do with FDR's 1940 reelection. FDR won that election by nearly 55% to 45% of the popular vote. Willkie wasn't that different from FDR on the war issue, which was to support Brittan while keeping the US out of the fighting. Now Willkie simply was not well known. But the war was also not what the election turned on.

Sorry but he was talking about Obama getting re-elected why would he post about FDR getting Elected the first time? Anyone that ran against Hoover would get elected the first time. I understood what he meant. Oh and WWII started in 1939 it was a significant part of the campaign. (But definitely not all of it. Roosevelt ate dog too )

The point is that FDR was reelected twice while war was not a significant issue in the elections.

 

[Disgustipated]

Not unless the economy somehow turns upwards in the next couple of months. If it keeps getting worse the message could get to be 'anyone but Barack' by the time November rolls around.

Obama is ahead right now. although only slightly.

Obama would have to make one more major mistake to lose.

For the record I support Obama. Republicans still haven't learned their lesson (some are pushing for intervention in Syria). Democratic presidents keep us out of war.

 

[MobBoss]

Then you should have said that.

What part of typo did you not get? Is simple clarification not good enough for you?

You still have 2 reelections of FDR before American involvement in WWII.
And you can't make the case that European involvement in WWII had anything to do with FDR's 1940 reelection. FDR won that election by nearly 55% to 45% of the popular vote. Willkie wasn't that different from FDR on the war issue, which was to support Brittan while keeping the US out of the fighting. Now Willkie simply was not well known. But the war was also not what the election turned on.

Willkie crusaded against Roosevelt's attempt to break the two-term presidential tradition, arguing that "if one man is indispensable, then none of us is free." Even some Democrats who had supported Roosevelt in the past disapproved of FDR's attempt to win a third term, and Willkie hoped to win their votes. Willkie also criticized what he claimed was the incompetence and waste in Roosevelt's New Deal welfare programs; he stated that as President he would keep most of FDR's government programs but would make them more efficient. However, many Americans still blamed business leaders for the Great Depression, and the fact that Willkie symbolized "Big Business" hurt him with many working-class voters. Willkie was a fearless campaigner; he often visited industrial areas where Republicans were still blamed for causing the Great Depression and where FDR was highly popular. In these areas Willkie frequently had rotten fruit and vegetables thrown at him, and was heckled by crowds, yet was unfazed.

Willkie also accused Roosevelt of leaving the nation unprepared for war, but Roosevelt's military buildup and transformation of the nation into the "arsenal of democracy" removed the "unpreparedness" charge as a major issue. Willkie then reversed his approach and charged Roosevelt with secretly planning to take the nation into World War II. This accusation did cut into Roosevelt's support; in response FDR, in a pledge that he would later regret, promised that he would "not send American boys into any foreign wars."

On Election Day—November 5, 1940—Roosevelt received 27.3 million votes to Willkie's 22.3 million, and in the Electoral College, Roosevelt defeated Willkie 449–82. Willkie did get over six million more votes than the GOP's 1936 nominee, Alf Landon, and he ran strong in rural areas in the American Midwest, taking over 57% of the farm vote. Roosevelt, meanwhile, carried every American city with a population of more than 400,000 except Cincinnati, Ohio.

The point is that FDR was reelected twice while war was not a significant issue in the elections.

You're right Cutlass, the war in Europe had no affect on the election at all.

For the record I support Obama. Republicans still haven't learned their lesson (some are pushing for intervention in Syria). Democratic presidents keep us out of war.

Historically this is not a factual statement.

 

[Dachs]

I think the biggest strike against Willkie was his name. I wouldn't vote for a dude named "Wendell W. Willkie" over Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

 

[choxorn]

Mobby, notice the word "significant" next to effect. Yes, the war was going on, and yes, it was an issue. But not a big enough one to have a significant effect on the 1940 election.

 

[Leoreth]

I think the biggest strike against Willkie was his name. I wouldn't vote for a dude named "Wendell W. Willkie" over Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

When someone with the first name Woodrow can become president he at least had a shot.

 

[caketastydelish]

Nope. We were already practically bankrolling the British war effort by the summer of 1941, and in the summer and fall of that year we had begun to fight an undeclared naval war against Germany. (American servicemen were actually killed by the Nazis in October 1941, over a month before Japan attacked.)

However, I consider this a Good Thing. USA #1.

I already know about the lend-lease. Germany attacking us without the US officially going to war is just more proof that Roosevelt did a good job of keeping us out of it. Can you imagine what would happen if any country attacked an American vessel today?

Interestingly, although this may have been what people believed at the time about Hoover's policies, it bears no actual resemblance to them.

Then what were his policies exactly? And why did people get fed up with the Republican Party after him, and continue to vote Democrat for a really long time?

Are you all turning a blind eye to FDRs policies against Japan that may well have made war with them inevitable?



Seriously? You dont think doing this against Japan didnt provoke them in the slightest?

Yes yes. We boycott them, and then they attack us. Seems fair.

There are also a lot of allegation that FDR even knew about the attack on Pearl Harbor and didnt take any action - politcal or military - to counter it. Now, i'm not sure i'd believe that, but his administration did indeed take political action against Japan in 1939/40 that they had to know would provoke them to war.

There's also lots of other conspiracy theories, including but not limited to Abraham Lincoln being gay, aliens contributing to the pyramids, and the founding fathers of the united states all being masons. Who cares?

 

[Cutlass]

What part of typo did you not get? Is simple clarification not good enough for you?







You're right Cutlass, the war in Europe had no affect on the election at all.

The point is that FDR won 2 reelections where the war did not matter. Do you really want to argue that minor differences of opinion on the war between the 2 candidates caused a 10% margin of victory? A far more important consideration was domestic policy, as it always is.

 

[MobBoss]

I think making the promise of no americans being sent to die in a foreign war a very powerful campaign promise. Especially when the entire world was being inflamed by it.

Plus, if you really look into FDRs early policies to fight the great depression, one of the first things he did was create the FDIC, and help out the banking industry in order to promote investiment capital and create industrial growth. If he were around today he'd probably get labeled a conservative by todays liberals.

 

[JollyRoger]

I think making the promise of no americans being sent to die in a foreign war a very powerful campaign promise.

Yep - especially for nationbuilding.