Oligarchy

[Anonymous]

PaleoConPrep wrote:

Anonymous wrote:First there was George HW, then Clinton, then George W, then Hillary and now I see Chelsea getting ready in the corner. How did we ended up in this Oligarchy?

And what ever happened to the will of the people? Now RNC is acting like voters are interfering with their decisions! Where did the Democracy go?

You are 100% right. The Bush-Clinton mafia a is/was in control of Anerican politics. Trump has put an end to that. A law needs to be passed stating that if one is elected President, none of his relatives may run for the office until 20 years after his lat year in office. A Trump/Buchanan or Trump/Webb ticket would destroy Hilary.

A law? WTF? Do you actually know anything about our system of government?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If not for this Trump guy, by now we all would have been lining up behind our king Jeb and queen Hillary and would have been in peace. No questions asked.

But this Trump guy came along and ruined our "establishment" didn't he?

Trump, with his billions, is part and parcel of the plutocracy. But keep on supporting the obscenity that is Citizens United. Keep on paying lip service to failed trickle down dogma instead of tax policies which would counteract the extreme concentration of wealth among the 0.1% who have a death grip on the political process.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Who capitalizes "Oligarchy" and "Democracy" in these uses? Makes me think of someone in a basement running off socialist flyers on a ditto machine.

lol, I agree.

[Anonymous]

A government by the corporations, for the corporates
not by the people for the people

[Anonymous]

Whatever political leanings OP has, I agree with the general point. It does seem that between the Bushes and the Clintons, we have had a political dynasty for most of the last 30+ years.

Bushes and Clintons (and Kennedys and Romneys to a degree) have had a place in every government level, and it just seems icky and un-American to concentrate power in the same few names over and over again.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Whatever political leanings OP has, I agree with the general point. It does seem that between the Bushes and the Clintons, we have had a political dynasty for most of the last 30+ years.

Bushes and Clintons (and Kennedys and Romneys to a degree) have had a place in every government level, and it just seems icky and un-American to concentrate power in the same few names over and over again.

The sky is not falling. The voters have the opportunity to select the person the feel is most qualified. Service as a Governor or US Senator is practically a prerequisite to serving as President and being in a position to accomplish anything of import. I don't view having been twice-elected as a US Senator and serving for eight years and then serving as Secretary of State for four years as a disqualifying factor simply because her spouse served as President more than a decade and a half in the past. Moreover, Hillary not free to pushes her own policies at Stare and one just 1 percent of the collective vote in the Senate. She will be elected, or not, as the case may be, on her own merits, as was Dubya, for better or worse. Just take a look at Jeb!, who was arguably the heir apparent to what you consider the Bush dynasty.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Whatever political leanings OP has, I agree with the general point. It does seem that between the Bushes and the Clintons, we have had a political dynasty for most of the last 30+ years.

Bushes and Clintons (and Kennedys and Romneys to a degree) have had a place in every government level, and it just seems icky and un-American to concentrate power in the same few names over and over again.

This is a stretch, PP. Mitt served a single term as governor of Massachusetts. His father served, what, a couple of terms in Michigan? The only presidential dynasty in recent memory is the Bush family.

The Clintons aren't a multiple-generation case and so aren't a dynasty in the strictest sense. If Chelsea runs for office, well....

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Whatever political leanings OP has, I agree with the general point. It does seem that between the Bushes and the Clintons, we have had a political dynasty for most of the last 30+ years.

Bushes and Clintons (and Kennedys and Romneys to a degree) have had a place in every government level, and it just seems icky and un-American to concentrate power in the same few names over and over again.

This is a stretch, PP. Mitt served a single term as governor of Massachusetts. His father served, what, a couple of terms in Michigan? The only presidential dynasty in recent memory is the Bush family.

The Clintons aren't a multiple-generation case and so aren't a dynasty in the strictest sense. If Chelsea runs for office, well....

I was using dynasty in the loose sense of the word.

1982-1990-Reagan Bush
1990-1994-Bush-Quayle
1994-2002-Clinton-Gore (JEB as a gov)
2002-2010-Bush-Cheney (with HRC in the senate, Jeb as a gov)
2010-Obama (With HRC in the cabinet till 2013)
2016 election--Bush, Clinton again as names in the running.

I don't think it is healthy to have the same names, same families, over and over again in our politics.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Whatever political leanings OP has, I agree with the general point. It does seem that between the Bushes and the Clintons, we have had a political dynasty for most of the last 30+ years.

Bushes and Clintons (and Kennedys and Romneys to a degree) have had a place in every government level, and it just seems icky and un-American to concentrate power in the same few names over and over again.

The sky is not falling. The voters have the opportunity to select the person the feel is most qualified. Service as a Governor or US Senator is practically a prerequisite to serving as President and being in a position to accomplish anything of import. I don't view having been twice-elected as a US Senator and serving for eight years and then serving as Secretary of State for four years as a disqualifying factor simply because her spouse served as President more than a decade and a half in the past. Moreover, Hillary not free to pushes her own policies at Stare and one just 1 percent of the collective vote in the Senate. She will be elected, or not, as the case may be, on her own merits, as was Dubya, for better or worse. Just take a look at Jeb!, who was arguably the heir apparent to what you consider the Bush dynasty.

I think you are deliberately skewing my point here. I didn't say the sky was falling or that HRC's service wasn't necessary for being qualified. I did say, though, that it was "icky" to keep seeing the same names over and over again.

And if you really believe this "The voters have the opportunity to select the person the feel is most qualified", you're a little delusional. Voters have the opportunity to vote of rate candidate with the brand recognition, the oodles of money, and the super pacs, and FTMP, those are the same people who have been running the show for three decades.

AS you said, Bush the heir apparent was discarded because, in part, people have had enough. I believe HRC would have been rejected whole heartedly, as she was in 2008, if it weren't for the juggernaut of Trump and everyone's fear that he will win. Plus, she has the money and super delegates to run that BS does not.

I don't see how you can sit back and believe this continuation of politics as usual is good for the country. That is how we end up with nightmares like Trump.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:A government by the corporations, for the corporates
not by the people for the people

That's what the GOP has been pushing for the last 30 years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Whatever political leanings OP has, I agree with the general point. It does seem that between the Bushes and the Clintons, we have had a political dynasty for most of the last 30+ years.

Bushes and Clintons (and Kennedys and Romneys to a degree) have had a place in every government level, and it just seems icky and un-American to concentrate power in the same few names over and over again.

This is a stretch, PP. Mitt served a single term as governor of Massachusetts. His father served, what, a couple of terms in Michigan? The only presidential dynasty in recent memory is the Bush family.

The Clintons aren't a multiple-generation case and so aren't a dynasty in the strictest sense. If Chelsea runs for office, well....

I was using dynasty in the loose sense of the word.

1982-1990-Reagan Bush
1990-1994-Bush-Quayle
1994-2002-Clinton-Gore (JEB as a gov)
2002-2010-Bush-Cheney (with HRC in the senate, Jeb as a gov)
2010-Obama (With HRC in the cabinet till 2013)
2016 election--Bush, Clinton again as names in the running.

I don't think it is healthy to have the same names, same families, over and over again in our politics.

I'm pretty damn happy FDR was here to fix the nation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Whatever political leanings OP has, I agree with the general point. It does seem that between the Bushes and the Clintons, we have had a political dynasty for most of the last 30+ years.

Bushes and Clintons (and Kennedys and Romneys to a degree) have had a place in every government level, and it just seems icky and un-American to concentrate power in the same few names over and over again.

This is a stretch, PP. Mitt served a single term as governor of Massachusetts. His father served, what, a couple of terms in Michigan? The only presidential dynasty in recent memory is the Bush family.

The Clintons aren't a multiple-generation case and so aren't a dynasty in the strictest sense. If Chelsea runs for office, well....

I was using dynasty in the loose sense of the word.

1982-1990-Reagan Bush
1990-1994-Bush-Quayle
1994-2002-Clinton-Gore (JEB as a gov)
2002-2010-Bush-Cheney (with HRC in the senate, Jeb as a gov)
2010-Obama (With HRC in the cabinet till 2013)
2016 election--Bush, Clinton again as names in the running.

I don't think it is healthy to have the same names, same families, over and over again in our politics.

I'm pretty damn happy FDR was here to fix the nation.

And there was over 25 years in between each of these presidencies! I tis not the same as having someone on the WH with the same last name one for decades at a time. Look, I like the Kennedy's. I even liked Ted, as a senator. But I would be looking sideways even at them if we had a Kennedy in the White House and the senate and the cabinet for the better part of 30 years.

I am not saying HRC or JEB shouldn't be allowed to run or that they are unqualified. But they are representative of the general dissatisfaction people with politics as usual and an overall fatigue. I hate Trump, I am a super liberal anarchist, hence Bernie supporter. But the conservatives have the balls, some of them at least, to back the radical candidate. The democrats are too scared to shake things up and believe the only way to beat Trump is total back on the establishment. I think this is wrong.

[Anonymous]

Yes, well, all I can tell you is that despite spending an eye-popping $41 million last month, Bernie trails HRC by millions of votes. Interesting, huh?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yes, well, all I can tell you is that despite spending an eye-popping $41 million last month, Bernie trails HRC by millions of votes. Interesting, huh?

For whatever "eye popping" factor you seem to think there is, Hillary and her PACs and SuperPACs are spending twice as much money as Sanders. Yet she isn't twice as far ahead. Interesting, huh.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yes, well, all I can tell you is that despite spending an eye-popping $41 million last month, Bernie trails HRC by millions of votes. Interesting, huh?

No, it is he very definition of UNinteresting that people stick with the familiar, name recognition brand. Especially since HRC already had the pledged super delegates. People keep making these supposedly clever, throwaway comments, but no one has really said why it is a good thing, or if it is, to have the same families running this country over and over again.

And hint: it is not because there's a shortage of qualified candidates. It's because people are too afraid to try something different.