Can we agree on a rule: No Dynasties?

So, the Democrats trotted out Joe Kennedy III tonight for remarks on the State of the Union. Uh-oh. Oprah didn't catch on, so guess who they want us to have a political crush on.

NO. Just no. NO dynasties. Yeah, I know the Adamses did it, and so did the Bushes, and the Roosevelts were cousins or something, but NO. We are not an aristocracy.

In 2004, I saw then-Senator Obama in US Weekly or some other beach magazine. It was a photo of him running in the waves in Hawaii in an article called "Hot Politicians." And then he gave the speech at the Democratic convention.... Not only was he not geriatric, he was also good looking. And thus the story began.

Now Joe Kennedy III isn't bad looking, if you like that over groomed type of guy. I bet they're trying another candidate who grabs attention with looks. Plus, he's got that whole Kennedy mystique.

No more Kennedys. Or Clintons. Or Bushes. Or Obamas. For Pete's sake, this isn't ancient Rome.

a reply to: Look2theSacredHeart

Sure, I could agree to that.


Additionally, doesn't it make you think that there might be something instinctual about actively needing to put distance between leaders and their kin? Kind of fascinating.

a reply to: Look2theSacredHeart

Bah, just shut up and vote for who we tell you to.

Peasant.

I want King Bezos to run the entire country with Elon Musk forever after we reach the singularity.

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: Look2theSacredHeart


Additionally, doesn't it make you think that there might be something instinctual about actively needing to put distance between leaders and their kin? Kind of fascinating.

Forcing dynasties on people raised in the American mythos of equality is like forcing horse meat on your restaurant customers. Culturally, it's gross.

originally posted by: Look2theSacredHeart

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: Look2theSacredHeart


Additionally, doesn't it make you think that there might be something instinctual about actively needing to put distance between leaders and their kin? Kind of fascinating.

Forcing dynasties on people raised in the American mythos of equality is like forcing horse meat on your restaurant customers. Culturally, it's gross.

No one forced them on us. We keep voting them in.

a reply to: Look2theSacredHeart

I'm speaking of choice. Those who choose the dynasties.

It's not secret that Americans fawn over British royalty.

After seeing Joe Kennedy III spit all over everyone within 30'...

I'm sure Trump is terrified.

MAGA

originally posted by: Look2theSacredHeart
So, the Democrats trotted out Joe Kennedy III tonight for remarks on the State of the Union. Uh-oh. Oprah didn't catch on, so guess who they want us to have a political crush on.

NO. Just no. NO dynasties. Yeah, I know the Adamses did it, and so did the Bushes, and the Roosevelts were cousins or something, but NO. We are not an aristocracy.

In 2004, I saw then-Senator Obama in US Weekly or some other beach magazine. It was a photo of him running in the waves in Hawaii in an article called "Hot Politicians." And then he gave the speech at the Democratic convention.... Not only was he not geriatric, he was also good looking. And thus the story began.

Now Joe Kennedy III isn't bad looking, if you like that over groomed type of guy. I bet they're trying another candidate who grabs attention with looks. Plus, he's got that whole Kennedy mystique.

No more Kennedys. Or Clintons. Or Bushes. Or Obamas. For Pete's sake, this isn't ancient Rome.

With 6 huge corporations controlling 90% of what the average American sees, hears or reads, it isn't as simple as just not wanting something.
An informed citizenry is required for an informed decision. Is that possible with the monopolistic tendency our present corpocracy presents us with?

No dynasties would be nice, no Ivanka's, no Trump jr's, no Chelseys or Hillarys

1. If they're voted in by the public, then what does it matter whose family they're from?

2. Does this "no dynasty" rule only apply to the presidency, or does it also apply to other federal positions as well as State & local positions?

3. How many elected family members makes it a "dynasty" (2, 3, 10, 20?)?

4. Is it only a "dynasty" if the family members are elected to the same office/position? Or would you be banned from running for office in your own district if a cousin in a another State wins an election?

originally posted by: whyamIhere
After seeing Joe Kennedy III spit all over everyone within 30'...

I'm sure Trump is terrified.

MAGA

Spittin Joe.

He (Trump) can give out those 7/11 rain ponchos at the debates.

originally posted by: VictorVonDoom
a reply to: Look2theSacredHeart

Bah, just shut up and vote for who we tell you to.

Peasant.

And that is precisely why HRC lost.

a reply to: enlightenedservant

1. The only reason they're put up to be voted on is because of their holy status as relatives of a former president. George Bush was a bumbling reminder of his dad, and Hillary never would have made Senator, even, without Bill. In a country any larger than Monaco, you have more than a few families with qualified candidates.

2. President. If Alaska wants to elect all of the Palins as governor, go for broke. Not my problem.

3. Two is the minimum for Dynasty. I would say 3 is oligarchy, and 4 plus is royalty.

4. I'm limiting the rule to presidency, but excluding blood relatives from public office would be interesting. It's public service, not family business. Plus, the more politicians in a family, the more opportunities for bribery and conflicts of interest.

a reply to: seasonal

If enough of us say the hell with it and vote 3rd party, yes.

Edit to add: being fed up with the two party system would be a wonderful development for the US populous. People get all curious about their other options. They educate themselves outside of the msm. When Nader was doing his thing, part of his appeal was that he was counter culture. Rand Paul, same thing.

a reply to: Martin75

We didn't vote Hillary in. Everyone was thinking she'd be coronated.

a reply to: JinMI

See seasonal's reply. We choose red or blue, but the two candidates who get to that point are carefully orchestrated by the parties. The parties choose, and if they think a dynasty is good marketing, they go with it.

Roger that!

As a matter of principle.

Not to mention we should all have leart our lessons by now.

originally posted by: enlightenedservant
1. If they're voted in by the public, then what does it matter whose family they're from?

Oh, yeah, right, the Two Party + MSM System spoon feeds US Corruption groomed "candidates", then "we" "vote" for them, an on and on it all goes.

You should know above all that.