It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Can we agree on a rule: No Dynasties?

page: 2
11
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 30 2018 @ 11:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: PurpleFox
Dilly dilly!


Chive much?



Edit: also no dynasties and we need term limits.
edit on 30-1-2018 by Bigburgh because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 30 2018 @ 11:57 PM
link   
a reply to: Bigburgh

Hurray for term limits!



posted on Jan, 31 2018 @ 12:00 AM
link   
a reply to: Look2theSacredHeart

So basically, no one related to a president can run for president again? Does it count if they're related but don't share the same last name? Here's a link with the varies degrees of relation for various US presidents (HERE). How can you outlaw something like this?

Also, limiting it to only the presidency isn't ending political dynasties lol. Long ago, I did a "job shadowing" mini-internship with a member of a political dynasty in my State. Several of their extended family members had positions at the county, State, and federal level. I'd guess that a lot of small cities and counties/States with small populations would have similar situations, which makes limiting this proposal to only presidents a bad idea.

Of course, arbitrarily disqualifying otherwise qualified candidates based on their familial ties is also completely anti-democratic and unconstitutional. The US Constitution lays out the requirements for presidential candidates, so your proposal would literally require a constitutional amendment. I just don't see that passing, especially when major politicians, donors, and powerbrokers know how hard it is to push an unknown candidate from scratch. Name recognition helps a lot when dealing with presidential campaigns that literally costs hundred of millions of dollars per candidate.



posted on Jan, 31 2018 @ 12:21 AM
link   
a reply to: enlightenedservant

You can overcomplicate it like that if you want to. I get it- you don't have a problem with several members of immensely powerful families running the country.

I'm not voting for dynasties. They smell corrupt and aristocratic. Won't do it. Just like how I don't drink soda - it rots your teeth. That's a *rule.*

Now, ratcheting the idea up to amending the Constitution is not dealing with a rule. That's a *law.* Inflating the idea to that level is a convenient straw man for you to knock down.

The point of this thread is discussing the rule of no dynasties in the presidency. Just like the rule of recycle your beer bottles, some follow it, some don't.



posted on Jan, 31 2018 @ 12:57 AM
link   
Look2theSacredHeart
enlightenedservant

Hold on a sec.
You both have a point.

A son or daughter might disagree with their parents. I have.

For starters, I'm blood related to that ginger kennedy. Loved JFK.. Loved John more, knew him. Uncle Ted, bless his liver.( but couldn't stand him )
I'm the Rose bloodline.

And I'm still involved with the Special Olympics.

There was a time, a time when there was a middle road.

There is more... but who cares anymore.

Edit: i care.



edit on 31-1-2018 by Bigburgh because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 31 2018 @ 01:05 AM
link   
a reply to: Bigburgh

You seem cool. But if you run for president, not voting for you if you're all Kennedy. Unless you're secretly Bernie Sanders.

Now there's a conspiracy theory. Bernie, the secret Kennedy!



posted on Jan, 31 2018 @ 01:11 AM
link   
Too little too late. The dynasties in control of our government are Goldman Sachs and the like.



posted on Jan, 31 2018 @ 01:16 AM
link   
No I want to see Lurch Sorry Eric Trump as president.



posted on Jan, 31 2018 @ 02:18 AM
link   
a reply to: Look2theSacredHeart
The time to worry is when the potential dynasty has a permanent grip on party machinery.
The Medici worked their way up from being the Kennedy family of Florence to being Dukes of Tuscany, but that was because they had their own party.
Modern democracies are probably big enough to make that task too difficult. Being brother of John did not get Teddy to the top. England has known four generations of the Churchill family in politics, over nearly a century and a half, but they don't rule the country because they can't boss their party.



posted on Jan, 31 2018 @ 03:01 AM
link   
a reply to: toysforadults

And Bill Gates in charge of security



posted on Jan, 31 2018 @ 03:13 AM
link   
a reply to: Look2theSacredHeart

just a thought :

how about attempting to elect the best candidate for the job ?

instead of suggesting excluding people just because of the fact that thier father , grand father etc held office



posted on Jan, 31 2018 @ 03:31 AM
link   
a reply to: Look2theSacredHeart

Yep, no dynasties should be a constitutional amendment.



posted on Jan, 31 2018 @ 03:32 AM
link   
a reply to: ignorant_ape

Name checks out



posted on Jan, 31 2018 @ 01:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Look2theSacredHeart

You say I'm overcomplicating it, yet you're the one trying to change the entire presidential election system. To implement your "rule", it would require a constitutional amendment. That's not "overcomplication"; it's a simple fact.

And you won't even go into detail on what familial ties constitutes a "dynasty", all while admitting that you'd allow the political dynasties at the local, state, and federal level (other than the presidency). That shows that you don't really have a problem with dynasties at all, which defeats the point of your OP.



posted on Jan, 31 2018 @ 07:04 PM
link   
Wasn't JFK to be considered on the outside of the elite, considering his untimely death and all? Then again you'd have to believe in the CT aspect of that.




top topics



 
11
<< 1   >>

log in

join