U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Elections
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Jump to a detailed profile or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Business Search - 14 Million verified businesses
Search for:  near: 
Reply Start New Thread
 
Unread 11-14-2007, 06:58 PM
 
Location: Santa Monica
4,708 posts, read 5,111,861 times
Reputation: 999
Default No More U.S. Presidential Dynasties!

I am strongly inclined not to vote for Hillary Clinton on the basis of wanting to wipe clean the political playing field of both the Clintons and Bushes. What we have been seeing is an "entitlement" rationale for the major candidates in both parties since 2000. Previous talk about presidential aspirations of Jeb Bush of Florida add weight to this phenomenon.

This kind of "brand name" and "dynastic" reflex in both parties needs to come to a complete end. Voters need to be encouraged to think about the major domestic political issues on their own terms, without the "noise" produced by dealing with the legacy of the candidate's "dynastic" predecessor.

Another aspect of this phenomenon to consider is the issue of the unelected advisors and appointees that will assuredly follow the next dynast into the Administration. This certainly happens within one party or the other, when powerful and well-connected party functionaries and fund-raisers are given appointed positions (often for which they aren't qualified). But when another dynast takes office, you have appointees and hangers-on who are "personally loyal" to the dynast (and the dynasty), to the detriment of the appointee's inclination to serve the "public interest."

Last edited by ParkTwain; 11-14-2007 at 07:09 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Unread 11-14-2007, 07:02 PM
 
Location: Alvarado, TX
2,908 posts, read 2,674,128 times
Reputation: 765
Quote:
Originally Posted by ParkTwain View Post
I am strongly inclined not to vote for Hillary Clinton on the basis of wanting to wipe clean the political playing field of both the Clintons and Bushes. What we have been seeing is an "entitlement" rationale for the major candidates in both parties since 2000. Previous talk about presidential aspirations of Jeb Bush of Florida add weight to this phenomenon.

This kind of "brand name" and "dynastic" reflex in both parties needs to come to a complete end. Voters need to be encouraged to think about the major domestic political issues on their own terms, without the "noise" produced by dealing with the legacy of the candidate's dynastic predecessor.
Well, shiver me timbers, Mate, I agree with you on this one!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Unread 11-14-2007, 07:07 PM
 
2,952 posts
Reputation: 658
I think voting or not voting for a candidate because of their so-called "legacy" is a very poor reason. I vote for the best man or women for the job. But rest assured that Bush and potentially Clinton will not be the last time this will happen in our country.

However, if this reason keeps some people from casting their votes for Hillary well that's kind of nice too!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Unread 11-14-2007, 07:11 PM
 
Location: Santa Monica
4,708 posts, read 5,111,861 times
Reputation: 999
Even if Hillary is the "strongest" candidate, she carries huge baggage as a member of a fledgeling Clinton political dynasty. No constitutional office should be made the entitled property of a dynasty.

Dubya has cured me of presidential dynasties forever. Look at the damage this way of thinking has done to the country. We're talking about more than de facto aristocracy here, which would apply to any rich guy/gal running for president; we're talking about a political organization that is based on family ties rather than on political issues.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Unread 11-14-2007, 07:14 PM
 
Location: South Central PA
1,561 posts, read 2,657,475 times
Reputation: 335
Yeah... we are heading into Oligarchy territory.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Unread 11-14-2007, 07:17 PM
 
Location: southern california
46,509 posts, read 40,869,286 times
Reputation: 37093
i strongly agree with this post its a good one.
however i am much more concerned bout the guy that just dropped 3 trillion and has his own private army (40% of war budget is blackwater)
this needs to stop pretty quick.lookin less like an elected official and more like a king by the minute.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Unread 11-14-2007, 08:47 PM
 
1,155 posts, read 1,102,829 times
Reputation: 174
[quote=ParkTwain;2001086]I
This kind of "brand name" and "dynastic" reflex

More like gag reflex. Good post that I totally agree with. I'm glad more people are starting to see the problem of having two families running the country into the ground.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Unread 11-15-2007, 12:08 AM
 
Location: Northglenn, Colorado
3,688 posts, read 6,288,396 times
Reputation: 898
Quote:
Originally Posted by ParkTwain View Post
I am strongly inclined not to vote for Hillary Clinton on the basis of wanting to wipe clean the political playing field of both the Clintons and Bushes. What we have been seeing is an "entitlement" rationale for the major candidates in both parties since 2000. Previous talk about presidential aspirations of Jeb Bush of Florida add weight to this phenomenon.

This kind of "brand name" and "dynastic" reflex in both parties needs to come to a complete end. Voters need to be encouraged to think about the major domestic political issues on their own terms, without the "noise" produced by dealing with the legacy of the candidate's "dynastic" predecessor.

Another aspect of this phenomenon to consider is the issue of the unelected advisors and appointees that will assuredly follow the next dynast into the Administration. This certainly happens within one party or the other, when powerful and well-connected party functionaries and fund-raisers are given appointed positions (often for which they aren't qualified). But when another dynast takes office, you have appointees and hangers-on who are "personally loyal" to the dynast (and the dynasty), to the detriment of the appointee's inclination to serve the "public interest."
wow!!! one thing I can actualy agree with you on. hehe
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Unread 11-16-2007, 06:42 AM
 
11 posts, read 8,675 times
Reputation: 11
They are more than just dynasties : Nearly all US Presidents are descendant from the British and French Royal Families
[Revelation] Nearly all US Presidents are descendant from the British and French Royal Families
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Unread 11-16-2007, 06:49 AM
 
2,952 posts
Reputation: 658
Quote:
Originally Posted by thecounterpunch View Post
I thought someone earlier posted that Clinton came from a lower class background, his mother, Virginia Kelly was know for her love of gambling, and drinking. . . I venture a guess being a descendant of royalty would be a surprise to her!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $74,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Elections

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2014, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 - Top