We need to put an end to America's Royal Families.

[AndyA]

First it was the Reagan-Bush years. Eight wonderful years that opened the door to everything to follow.

Then we had 4 years of Bush.

Followed by 8 years of Clinton.

Followed by 8 years of Bush II.

Do we really want to follow this up with another 4/8 years of Clinton II?

What the hell? Is America now an oligarchy? If Hillary is elected, we face a potential 36 years with just two families basically running the country.

Where's the diversity? Where's the representation? What the hell, we'll have middle-aged people who've never known anything but a Bush/Clinton monarchy in America!

Put a stop to America's Royal Families. This is NOT what our Founding Fathers envisioned for this country!

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[timtom]

33. Excellent response!

lol (and I don't do that very often).

[RiverStone]

38. Good math + good OP! Agree on both counts!...n/t

[fenriswolf]

58. well if they are a team then they have already had

two terms as a "team" so it would be unconstitutional for a third term.

[Fredda Weinberg]

60. That's not logical either. We elect members of a team and if we

like the results, we continue selecting from the valued source. This is reasonable.

Your convoluted logic is not. It wouldn't hold up in a bar, much less a federal courthouse.

Cheers!

[mondo joe]

61. By that ridiculous standard Al Gore should not have been allowed to run. He was

a literal part of the previous administration.

For that matter, political parties are in their way more like a dynasty than family is.

But in the end, the Founders established a system that would let the voters decide, rather than creating a paternalistic model that treats voters like infants who can't be trusted with choices.

[Hutzpa]

73. You meant to say Diebold,

Diebold would be the ones to decide this election, you forgot

voters don't have their counts anymore.

[mondo joe]

75. If you think the election is simply determined by Diebold, then it really doesn't matter

whether presidents are related or not, does it?

[babylonsister]

2. I'm more than ready for the dynasties to end. nt

[fenriswolf]

3. put an end to royal families in general

and up the inheritance tax, you can only leave 1 million dollars to each family member and everything else is taken as a tax.

[K Gardner]

4. Your post makes too much sense for most here to comprehend. Enough is enough. Time for a new page,

a new dream, for America.

[creeksneakers2]

32. Post makes no sense at all

What does the longevity of the Bush cabal have to do with the Clintons? The Clinton were in for eight years. They did a fine job. Why risk hiring somebody new when the last guy you had did a good job? What is to be gained by constantly putting someone with less experience in charge?

[fenriswolf]

59. as great of a job that clinton did

he performed a couple of huge acts that go against democratic ideals. It seems as if instead of improving campaign reform, voting integrity, etc. As well as to help outsourcing, forstall corporate regulation, etc that it was more of a place holder presidancy to keep us liberals happy untill another republican got into office and contineud to drive america into the toilet.

[in_cog_ni_to]

5. Poppy Bush-Clinton-psycho Bush-Rodham. What's the problem?

The Rodham quip goes to DUer BleedingHeartPatriot, who thought of it. :)

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

14. Hahaha! I like your version.

:rofl:

:toast:

MKJ

[supernova]

6. The #1 reason I don't want to vote for her

is the dynasty aspect of it all.

Policy-wise, she is too centrist for me, but if she is the nominee, it really will pain me to vote for her.

But this B/C/B/C pattern is not a healthy thing for a democratic republic... at all.

[mondo joe]

7. How absent minded of the Founding Fathers to not include some sort of prohibition

of something they didn't want. :eyes:

Whether WE want it or not will have to be decided in the polling booth.

[AndyA]

11. A polling booth controlled by the powers that be?

If you haven't caught on that much of the voting in this country of late is INACCURATE if not outright FRAUDULENT, you haven't been paying attention at all.

With so much of this country depending on some form of electronic voting, what happens in the polling booths is not truly representative of the people.

[mondo joe]

16. Even if some of the voting is inaccurate (thank you Diebold) doesn't mean it all is.

If your beginning assumption is that election will be inaccurate, it doesn't really matter who the fake president is and whether that person is related to a past president or not.

[TwilightZone]

21. Well, considering John Adams and John Quincy Adams, they obviously didn't have a problem with it.

The "dynasty" meme is simply the dumbest one on this website.

[mondo joe]

22. I rather think the Founders felt people should be elected on their merits, regardless of family

relation.

[TwilightZone]

23. Agreed.

The historical revisionism around here is astonishing.

[mondo joe]

24. Don't worry. The same people touting the imagined wishes of the Founders, as soon as

they are corrected, are just as likely to come back saying the Founders were a bunch of slave holding patriarchs and who cares what they thought anyway.

[TwilightZone]

27. Hehe. So true.

That pretty much sums it up, doesn't it?

[Gman]

8. Not again...

[AndyA]

15. Yes, this shit again. It's too important to ignore.

Take a powder.

[mondo joe]

18. If it's that important work on an amendment to the constitution prohibiting people

from running based on their family rather than on their personal qualifications.

[Gman]

43. This shit is so old and tiring

you just need to get past it. As Mondo says, if you don't like it, get an amendment passed (good luck). Until then, give us all a break from the whining.

[Township75]

9. I was so happy to hear Jeb Bush wasn't running in the GOP, too bad we Dems can't do the same.

*

[MonkeyFunk]

12. My, what an original idea!

[Cleita]

13. I'm not into dynasties either. I've had enough with the Bushies.

[DemGa]

17. I don't factor the Bush dynasty into what the Clintons do

Would you say the same if not for the reign of the Bushes? Why should the Bush crime family influence my view of H. Clinton?

[TwilightZone]

19. Bush - Clinton - Bush. Failure - Success - Failure

What exactly was your point again?

[TankLV]

26. they won't listen - typical...

[TwilightZone]

20. The Founding Fathers? Are you serious? Ever heard of John Adams and John Quincy Adams?

If you're going to resort to historical references, I suggest that you have a clue what you're talking about.

[AndyA]

34. Yes, I have.

In total, the two of them served 16 years, a far cry less than what we're discussing here, and there were other Presidents who served in between. They did not serve 16 consecutive years in a row.

Let's compare apples to apples, OK? :eyes:

[mondo joe]

37. So no you're fine with "dynasties" as long as they're broken up a little?

For goodness sakes.

[TwilightZone]

49. Kind of like...

Bush - Clinton - Bush - Clinton.

Hmm...looks broken up a little to me.

[mondo joe]

51. And after all, what is a political party but a sort of dynasty? Perhaps the OP should

be opposed to consecutive presidents from the same political party.

In fact why not just make things simple and just ditch the whole voting thing altogether?

[AndyA]

68. No, I never said that.

Those may be your thoughts, but they certainly aren't mine.

[mondo joe]

70. Sorry - do you mean you're NOT okay with John Adams and John Quincy Adams as well as the

Roosevelts?

You appeared to say they were different because there were bigger gaps in their "dynasties".

[AndyA]

72. I was attempting to show that the Adams' and Roosevelt examples

were not the same thing.

We are talking about TWO FAMILIES in control for almost FOUR DECADES, CONSECUTIVELY.

There is a BIG difference.

If it had been Bush-Clinton-Kerry-Someone Else-Clinton (sorry, just couldn't include Bush II), it would be a different story.

Think about it: FOUR DECADES - TWO FAMILIES. What the hell are they covering up for each other?

[mondo joe]

74. So please, please, please, draft exactly the amendment that you think would

prohibit whatever you think is the problem.

It would be nice for you to sink your goalposts into the ground rather than moving them constantly.

[AndyA]

77. If you still don't see the problem, you probably never will.

And some people are just not worth the effort, or enjoy twisting others words to get their jollies.

There is a reason our ancestors came to America, and it was not to have two families rule the country for four decades uninterrupted. :eyes:

[mondo joe]

78. The problem is that you just don't like Hillary, but you excuse other family relations.

If you can't even state the principle that you think should be applied consistently, as an amendment, you're just proving that you're just grousing and don't have a principle to stand on.

[AndyA]

79. I've already said I would vote for Hillary if she's the nominee.

So it isn't a matter of whether I like her or not.

It's a matter of principle. America should be about diversity. America should be about equality.

You don't get diversity and equality when only two families are running the show for four decades.

And it's not my place to write an amendment, it should be up to our elected officials. And I wouldn't mind seeing some a little more fresh blood there, either.

It might surprise you to discover that a few people have been getting away with murder (literally) lately, and no one seems to be doing much about it. Another good reason for change.

Enough already - you just enjoy arguing for the sake or arguing. :eyes:

[mondo joe]

81. What America should be about is freedom of choice.

Limiting who voters can choose based on family is just as bad a passing rule on based on family.

If you think voters are too stupid to figure out whether they want a family member of a past president to run, your principles aren't worth shit.

[TwilightZone]

40. You just disproved your own point.

Bill and Hillary would, at most, serve 16 non-consecutive years, with other presidents serving in between.

Want to try again?

[TankLV]

25. Should we kill the Roosevelts too?

here let me wield the knife so you can cut off your nose to spite your face...

[TwilightZone]

28. Good point, and much more recent an example than mine.

:toast:

[AndyA]

39. Yes, and you are both in the Twilight Zone.

We are not talking consecutive years in your examples.

Nor are we talking as many years.

Not the same, not by a long shot.

I think you have Kool-Aid in your glass instead of beer... :eyes:

[mondo joe]

42. Bill and Hillary wouldn't have consecutive offices - they wouldn't even have consecutive

campaigns.

You're really fishing now for any way to justify your opposition to Hillary.

[AndyA]

66. It's the Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton thing that bugs me.

Bill and Poppy seem to be pretty good buds all of a sudden.

[mondo joe]

69. Tell you what, you draft the Constitution Amendment that you think would prevent what

you consider so flawed. Let's see it in whole, since you move the goalpost every time someone points out that flaws in your reasoning.

[TwilightZone]

44. Bill and Hillary are serving consecutive terms?

Do you even read the stuff that you write?

Once again, you disprove your own point.

[AndyA]

67. The Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton would be consecutive terms.

Almost FOUR DECADES worth of consecutive terms. It's unprecedented.

[mondo joe]

71. No. Bush - Bush - Bush - Bush would be consecutive terms.

Bush family terms and Clinton family terms aren't consecutive. They're broke up by others' terms.

[mondo joe]

29. Yes, and Duke Theodore of Kennedy too.

After all, if the presidency is a dynasty what does that make Congress?

[TwilightZone]

52. Very true. I guess that RFK had no right running after JFK was president.

[AndyA]

36. There's a drastic difference in the number of years served.

I believe the total was around 21 (from memory). And they did not serve consecutively.

You may cut off your own body parts if you so desire. :eyes:

[cloud75]

55. i'm tired of john edwards running for president 2004 now 2008

shouldn't we give someone else a chance his two america's theme didn't work in 2004 and it's not working in 2008.

[AndyA]

65. When you can find someone else who will do what John Edwards is

going to do, you let me know.

In case you haven't noticed, the Two America's "Theme" is REALITY.

[Thothmes]

62. Don't forget the Kennedys

[La Lioness Priyanka]

30. hillary and bill married each other, its not a legacy that fathers leave to sons.

its also not a 'royal family' heritage unless they come from the same line, which they dont.

[timtom]

47. Perhaps the apparent intimacy

of Bill Clinton with "Poppy" Bush generate the illusion of 2 dynasties in tag team arrangement.

[cloud75]

48. thanks for explaining that i tried you did a better job.

[Jed Dilligan]

31. I used to be more bothered by the dynasty thing,

but lately I've come to realize that leaders whose consciousness was formed in the culture wars of the 60s and 70s are holding back our progress. The fights of back then were legitimate fights and it's good that our side (mostly) won. The world of today and the fights of today are very different, and I would rather have a president from that world and fighting those fights than another one stuck on refighting the old world's battles.

[CANDO]

35. Why are you a sexist?

She is OWED the presidency. Why? To get back at those who hated her in the 90's. Doesn't matter if she governs as a moderate Republican just like her husband. Just give up and give in, she's inevitable. God, I just want to puke!

[iamthebandfanman]

41. how about we put an end to corporate control first?

then we will worry about the people elected specifically....

until we get them outa government, nothing matters.

[live love laugh]

45. The Reich has been pushing this same propoganda for years now. "We" my ass. n/t

[cloud75]

46. bill came from humble beginnings that's hardly royalty bill and hillary

are a married couple that have represented the american people well...the bush family is more of a royalty family. They come from lots of money, prescott bush gw's grandfather was a u.s. senator they, other family members have been in politics and they have always been in the oil business. please don't compare the clintons to the bushs i'm sick of that.

[LanternWaste]

50. It's not an oligarchy--

It's not an oligarchy-- it's a representative democracy. If successive members of a family are elected into office, it is by definition, not Royalty.

If it's not what the founding fathers envisioned, then one can only assume that strict laws would have been made to prevent a qualified candidate from holding office due to blood. Were that to happen, I'd fear an oligarchy more than were it not to happen...

[stravu9]

53. I Agree!

With Bells On!

[Vinca]

54. It would be like the continuation of a soap opera.

The important things will be lost to questions about who's sleeping in the Lincoln Bedroom and whether or not Bill is behaving himself.

[mondo joe]

57. You mean if a Dem other than Clinton wins the Repubs and the Media will only be

focused on the Important Things?

[mitchtv]

56. OMG! REALLY? That's such a NEW idea!!!!!

This is HUGH !1!!!1!!!

[Donald Ian Rankin]

63. Voting against Clinton because her husband was president is as bad as voting for her because he was.

Exactly as bad, because it's exactly the same form of stupidity.

Vote for the best candidate, irrespective of their name.

[Orangepeel]

64. This alone is not a good reason not to vote for someone

There are plenty of legitimate reasons why someone would choose a candidate other than Hillary Clinton. But some sort of paranoid fear of dynasties is not one of them. So what if it is Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton?

Hillary Clinton will still be term limited. It isn't like the US is going to convert to a monarchy because she's married to a former president. And, although Bush has been a god-awful president, it is not because he is the son of a former president (although that is the reason he got the R nomination). It is because he is a god-awful excuse for a human.

We aren't still voting for the Adams family.

[Initech]

76. I agree, I am tired of hearing about Bush and Clinton.

I will be casting my vote for Edwards in the primaries.

[OhioChick]

80. Agreed. n/t

[Triana]

82. THANK YOU Andy - well said (n/t)