Reply to Oligarchy

Forum Index » Political Discussion

Reply to "Oligarchy"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=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.
[/quote]
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....[/quote]

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

1982-1990-Reagan [b]Bush[/b]
1990-1994-[b]Bush[/b]-Quayle
1994-2002-[b]Clinton[/b]-Gore ([b]JEB [/b]as a gov)
2002-2010-Bush-Cheney (with [b]HRC [/b]in the senate, [b]Jeb[/b] as a gov)
2010-Obama (With [b]HRC[/b] 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.
[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics