This is the GOAT POTUS. 1. FDR was supported by fascists in

File: Teddy.jpg (120KB, 1200x1200px) Image search: [Google]

120KB, 1200x1200px

>>138729122
Theodore Roosevelt was much better. He was basically a Proto-Fascist.

File: Wilson.png (78KB, 220x292px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 220x292px

>>138729122
>>138731030
Name a better President than pic related.... I'll wait.

File: 104466932-PE_Color.240x240.jpg (9KB, 240x240px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 240x240px

>>138729122
>>138731030
>>138731159

>>138729122
FDR and Lyndon B Johnson effectively ruined the US

>>138731419
>no argument

>>138729122
Welfarite cock sucker.

>>138731159
piece of garbage that enslaved us to the fed? any POTUS was better than that and he stroked out and his cabinet and wife were the ones making the decisions his last year in office.

File: IMG_0803.jpg (1MB, 1200x1479px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1200x1479px

>>138729122
No he was a socialist retard who was controlled by soviet agents
Harry Hopkins being the most important one

>>138729122
Stfu cunt. Jews will always win. Go to sleep with the Pakistans around. YOU LOST

>>138729122
Maybe, just maybe, hating blacks and jews doesn't make you cool or a good leader?

>>138731983
>FDR started social security and expanded the executive branch and federal governments role
>LBJ started the "great society" which basically destroyed the black family, he also possibly helped the deep state assasinate Kennedy

>>138731159
>federal reserve
>first globalist president
>lied and brought us into ww1
>federal income tax

get the fuck outta here

>>138732170
T. Inbred low IQ redneck

>>138732416
>FDR started social security and expanded the executive branch and federal governments role
>this is bad

Holy shit. Do you think he would've stayed out of the war had pearl harbour not happened?

>>138732497
Yeah, these retards unironically believe that a smaller government can accomplish more than a larger one.
They also believe that social security is bad.

>>138732581
He let Pearl Harbor happen.

>>138731419
>>138732416

As far as big-government presidents go, Lincoln is another contender. Also greatly expanded the legal power and protection of the corporation, and the first to leverage large amounts of Mexican immigrant labor.

>>138729122
>killed livestock and burned crops in order to make sure prices stayed high - during a famine

>>138732461
Not an argument

>>138732869
>They also believe that social security is bad.
It is when you can't pay for it and have open borders

>>138732445
Don't forget the CPI, which spawned our media propaganda complex and the fact he downplayed the danger of influenza to avoid hurting war rallies and bond drives.

You forgot Harry S Truman was also associated to the KKK

>>138732416
Kennedy wife was fucking sure of it.

>>138733161
It's still bad even when you don't have open borders. Up until Franklin D Roosevelt started his dysgenic social security programs, the nigger population was decreasing. Afterwards, it started increasing. Excessive welfare will always encourage low IQ people to multiply.

>>138733852
You realize that high IQ people breeding doesn't = high IQ kids?

>>138734021
IQ is highly heritable.

File: 1502495087546.png (683KB, 1409x2289px) Image search: [Google]

683KB, 1409x2289px

>>138734176
I don't think you understand what heritability is. I don't blame you, most of /pol/ doesn't. Read pic related and clear your ignorance.

>>138733161
>can't pay for it

Just tax the rich more.

Believe me, the poor need that money more than the rich do.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_racial_and_ethnic_demographics_of_the_United_States#Population_by_race_.28estimates.29.5B21.5D

The black population in the US had been steadily increasing from 1790 up until the 1930's, precisely when Franklin D Roosevelt enacted the social programs. Ever since, the black population has been steadily increasing.

>>138734601
>steadily increasing
>steadily increasing
I think you meam decreasing but the source you linked indicates it has always been increasing

>>138734871
Yes, I meant decreasing. Maybe it has always been increasing in total numbers, but not percentage wise.

>>138734335
How does that disprove anything I said? People with high IQ tend to have high IQ children. What part of this do you not understand?

>>138735224
>How does that disprove anything I said? People with high IQ tend to have high IQ children. What part of this do you not understand?
Can you not read complicated English?
Not only don't you understand heritability, you're also unaware of regression to the mean.

>>138736064
You're just throwing out these concepts without explaining how they relate to our discussion. I guess you're trying to intimidate me intellectually, but it's failing horribly.