Dynasties?

[kana_marie]

I'm curious about people's views on this disturbing new trend. We have our 3rd Bush running for president and we have our 2nd Clinton running. If I remember correctly, none of this administrations were good enough to warrant a second or third. I'm sure they'll get their share of votes from loyal party era. But do you suppose any those votes will be based on merit? Should dynasties even be legal?

 

[Rakan.SA]

I'm curious about people's views on this disturbing new trend. We have our 3rd Bush running for president and we have our 2nd Clinton running. If I remember correctly, none of this administrations were good enough to warrant a second or third. I'm sure they'll get their share of votes from loyal party era. But do you suppose any those votes will be based on merit? Should dynasties even be legal?

if you dig and search on the bush family history in US government you'll be chocked
the bush family runs america.
they own it

 

[Shimus]

"They Own It" is a very serious accusation. Sure, they have a lot of family throughout the Government, and they can fund their own campaigns due to Capitalism and being prior heads of states, but that doesn't mean they own it by any stretch. And I doubt another bush will ever win. I know people are sick of Obama, but I think he'd do better than any Bush. Clinton on the other hand pretty much ran the government through Bill in his term in office. We all knew who wore the pants there. During his period of time, we had excess. We were plentiful in both state and nation levels of money. It was also a very solid time. After Bush took over, 9/11 happened. Wars Happened. Economies drained dry. Whatever Bill was doing was working.

 

[Rakan.SA]

"They Own It" is a very serious accusation. Sure, they have a lot of family throughout the Government, and they can fund their own campaigns due to Capitalism and being prior heads of states, but that doesn't mean they own it by any stretch. And I doubt another bush will ever win. I know people are sick of Obama, but I think he'd do better than any Bush. Clinton on the other hand pretty much ran the government through Bill in his term in office. We all knew who wore the pants there. During his period of time, we had excess. We were plentiful in both state and nation levels of money. It was also a very solid time. After Bush took over, 9/11 happened. Wars Happened. Economies drained dry. Whatever Bill was doing was working.

well if they got the CIA the government the money and the companies in their pocket then they almost own the country. you know what i mean.
plus i personally believe bush was behind 9/11 and that it was an inside job for many reasons. most important one is pure basic scientific reasons
iv been watching this organization for a long time. they got 2322 architects and engineers that prove that scientifically.
World Trade Center Building 7 Demolished on 9/11? - Home

this shows you how powerful the bushs are. i think if his brother is running for president most probably he will win. if not then 90% the next president is a republican.

and i also bet the next US president will go to war.

 

[thegrey]

well if they got the CIA the government the money and the companies in their pocket then they almost own the country. you know what i mean.
plus i personally believe bush was behind 9/11 and that it was an inside job for many reasons. most important one is pure basic scientific reasons
iv been watching this organization for a long time. they got 2322 architects and engineers that prove that scientifically.
World Trade Center Building 7 Demolished on 9/11? - Home

this shows you how powerful the bushs are. i think if his brother is running for president most probably he will win. if not then 90% the next president is a republican.

and i also bet the next US president will go to war.

If we or Israel are attacked, I HOPE the next U.S. president will declare war, and make it swift and sure! As long as we finish the fight and put an end to the slaughter of innocents, I'm all for it!

 

[thegrey]

I'm curious about people's views on this disturbing new trend. We have our 3rd Bush running for president and we have our 2nd Clinton running. If I remember correctly, none of this administrations were good enough to warrant a second or third. I'm sure they'll get their share of votes from loyal party era. But do you suppose any those votes will be based on merit? Should dynasties even be legal?

I don't like it either, but we can't ban anyone from running. I hope we stop the dynasty thing though. I had enough of it with the Kennedys.

 

[Lieutenant]

If we or Israel are attacked, I HOPE the next U.S. president will declare war, and make it swift and sure! As long as we finish the fight and put an end to the slaughter of innocents, I'm all for it!

I don't like it either, but we can't ban anyone from running. I hope we stop the dynasty thing though. I had enough of it with the Kennedys.

Use the multi-quote feature when quoting more than a post otherwise our automated spam cleaner might ban you.

@kana_marie Make sure to avoid using ambiguous titles/headlines.

 

[Rakan.SA]

put an end to the slaughter of innocents,

well all whats happening now is cuz of bush. 4 to 5 million dead and more than 13 million refugees. so i dont think life of innocent ppl really matters to you

 

[xTinx]

Every country is suffering from dynasty issues. This is not to say dynasties per se are bad because there are great dynasties too which led countries to the heights of glory. Take for instance the Golden Age of England. Wasn't Elizabeth I the daughter Henry the VIII? Even if power was concentrated on the same bloodline for decades, the whole nation still benefited from it. As long as they do not restrict freedom and their presence enrich the nation, then it's normal for me to support dynasties.

 

[Redheart]

There's nothing anyone can do about "dynasties." It's a government of the "ELITE." They choose one of their own. All their time. And who has a better chance at winning? Someone with a name people are familiar with. A Bush, a Clinton, etc. I'm not saying that Jeb or Hillary will win but fact is any of their progeny will be in the White House in future.

As for making it illegal for someone from particular families running for president, that would be unfair. They have equal rights. So if anyone wants to stop them from being leaders they should get into politics themselves. Take Obama as an example. Who'd have though he'd win an election?

 

[kana_marie]

well all whats happening now is cuz of bush. 4 to 5 million dead and more than 13 million refugees. so i dont think life of innocent ppl really matters to you

By "you", I'm curious who you're referring to. Are you referring to Americans in general? I'm going to assume you are, because its the only thing that makes sense. I would like say that a majority of Americans don't like this violence, especially towards innocents. While it may technically be our duty as Americans to support or president, few people agree with how things played out over there. As a matter of fact, less than 50% of the population even voted for Bush. You can't pass judgement on individuals, or groups of people because of a decision one man made.

 

[Rakan.SA]

By "you", I'm curious who you're referring to. Are you referring to Americans in general? I'm going to assume you are, because its the only thing that makes sense. I would like say that a majority of Americans don't like this violence, especially towards innocents. While it may technically be our duty as Americans to support or president, few people agree with how things played out over there. As a matter of fact, less than 50% of the population even voted for Bush. You can't pass judgement on individuals, or groups of people because of a decision one man made.

no not all americans of course.
ppl in the ME who visited the US and knows it well like me know that in general americans are good and kind ppl.
no one would disagrees about that in the ME.
and we do differentiate between the government and the ppl.

 

[missbishi]

I don't really see the possibility of a third Bush as constituting a dynasty. A dynasty, to me, implies a family where power and wealth are automatically handed down through the generations, perhaps like the Royal Family in the UK. What's happening here is what we'd call the "old boys network", meaning that people managet get themselves into high power positions purely because of who they know or are related to.

I can certainly see why the thought of Bush mk3 is alarming though. Whilst I have no sympathies for their political stance, it must be pretty frustrating for the Republicans out there who think a fresh face is the way forward.

 

[TommyVercetti]

Not really dynasties per se, but I would concede to a term like 'political dynasty'. It's obvious that these candidates are the candidates because of their family name, and before you say that 'but so and so has been in the government, or he or she has had the experience etc,' don't be fooled, anybody can groom anybody. It's just in the best interest of the two parties to put forward the most likely candidate to win. It just so happens that people vote for established family names like Bush or Clinton. I don't really think it matters who will win, both will be a slave to their respective parties and their hands will be tied for the most part. I've always respected Hillary, even though she can be infuriating sometimes.