|
Well, a huge gateway for gaining power in a democratic system is behaving like a politician, which is a cuss word but also is the case. I'm sure there are thousands of people who would be a better president than Hillary or Obama, and probably at least hundreds who could have outdone Lincoln or FDR. However, they would have had to win an election campaign. I personally would be concerned that people get so fidgety over worrying about setting a bad precedent or what have you, that instead we get a squeaker whereby President Cruz comes in and nukes Iran while installing the Permanent Guardians of the Bible in the Supreme Court. Berke Negri posted:I think it is only fair to worry about a "Clinton dynasty" when Chelsea is running for the white house.
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2015 03:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 16:42 |
|
|
So we are willing to accept dynasties because they are the lesser evil?  I never understood why people vote for the lesser evil.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2015 03:45
|
|
|
Enigma89 posted:So we are willing to accept dynasties because they are the lesser evil? Weren't you supporting Rand Paul until like last week?
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2015 03:46
|
|
|
TEAYCHES posted:That we believe that the most qualified candidate is the wife of a previous president is part of the problem. Why am I reminded of how Conservatives called it a problem that Obama was viewed as the best candidate because he was black? She's the best candidate cause she has the proven list of accomplishments and the base likes her. Her last name is not the only thing people like about her. Oh, and your claims of a Clinton Dynasty might be less full of poo poo if her daughter had ever had the slightest desire to enter politics.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2015 03:46
|
|
|
What were Clinton's signature breakthroughs and diplomatic accomplishments as Secretary of State?
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2015 03:48
|
|
|
Enigma89 posted:So we are willing to accept dynasties because they are the lesser evil? 2000 can never happen again.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2015 03:49
|
|
|
TEAYCHES posted:That we believe that the most qualified candidate is the wife of a previous president is part of the problem. She was a senator and secretary of state. That's pretty loving qualified. Being First Lady is how she got to be popular, which is how you gain success in politics in a democracy, and she used that popularity to launch an impressive political career. Sheesh, I don't even like her, but she really is qualified. I think implying that she married her way to the top somehow is actually kind of sexist.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2015 03:50
|
|
|
Vienna Circlejerk posted:She was a senator and secretary of state. That's pretty loving qualified. Being First Lady is how she got to be popular, which is how you gain success in politics in a democracy, and she used that popularity to launch an impressive political career. Sheesh, I don't even like her, but she really is qualified. I think implying that she married her way to the top somehow is actually kind of sexist. Her record as a Senator or as Secretary of State isn't great. She's a hawk on foreign affairs. I expect that if she becomes president she will fill the shoes of the previous war criminal.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2015 03:52
|
|
|
Enigma89 posted:So we are willing to accept dynasties because they are the lesser evil? I can't see why people think what they call American Dynasties are inherently evil. "Oh god, this person who governs well and whose policies I support is related to this OTHER person who governs well and whose policies I support. The Horror!" A dynasty only continues so long as that politician remains the best person for the base - when they're not, a better person succeeds and the politician in question gets better. Whats the evil here?
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2015 03:53
|
|
|
TEAYCHES posted:The best person the Democratic Party could nominate for the presidency is the wife of a previous president. Here's hoping the Republicans nominate the brother of a previous president, who was the son of a previous president. You don't understand what the word "oligarchy" means.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2015 03:53
|
|
|
TEAYCHES posted:What were Clinton's signature breakthroughs and diplomatic accomplishments as Secretary of State? I don't have to look them up to know they were more important, more valuable, and more difficult to achieve than anything done by the governor of some podunk state.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2015 03:54
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:I can't see why people think what they call American Dynasties are inherently evil. Yes, American politics works and generally chooses the best person for the.. base? Well not for the job, and maybe not the best person, but things are going pretty well, right? Nintendo Kid posted:You don't understand what the word "oligarchy" means. Define it for me.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2015 03:56
|
|
|
Vienna Circlejerk posted:I don't have to look them up to know they were more important, more valuable, and more difficult to achieve than anything done by the governor of some podunk state. What were Clinton's signature breakthroughs and diplomatic accomplishments as Secretary of State?
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2015 03:59
|
|
|
TEAYCHES posted:Yes, American politics works and generally chooses the best person for the.. base? Well not for the job, and maybe not the best person, but things are going pretty well, right? So politics is a popularity contest, and that is somehow because of families.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2015 04:02
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:So politics is a popularity contest, and that is somehow because of families. Pretty related, w/r/t name recognition.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2015 04:03
|
|
|
Berke Negri posted:I think it is only fair to worry about a "Clinton dynasty" when Chelsea is running for the white house. Additionally, these families have produced some drat fine statesmen. Dynasties can be good, dynasties can be bad. As voting goes, one should evaluate each member on a case-by-case, policy-by-policy basis rather than trying to make some sort of grandiose stand against the whole premise of recognition by association, which our civilization enshrines in ways far more fundamental than this.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2015 04:09
|
|
|
Barack Obama didn't even finish a full term as a Senator before he became president. George W. Bush was the governor of Texas and was only dimly aware of the rest of the country, much less the world. Bill Clinton was the governor of Arkansas, a state that most people forget even exists. But a woman runs for president, and people are all suddenly like, "Well what were her accomplishments as Secretary of State and as Senator from New York?" Go read her Wikipedia page if you care that much. She did the job successfully for four years, it gave her a huge amount of experience that almost nobody in the world has. She has already met, worked with, and negotiated with every significant world leader. If you don't like what you think her policies will be, that makes sense. I probably won't like them either (but I will like them more than the alternative). But concern trolling about her qualifications when she is the most qualified candidate either party can offer, period, is just ridiculous.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2015 04:10
|
|
|
Was there all this 'dynasty' talk when dubya first ran? E: Vienna Circlejerk posted:Barack Obama didn't even finish a full term as a Senator before he became president. Building off of this, imo as long as you were okay at your previous jobs in the chain to become president, their main value is giving political experience. You serve in the legislative before running for president to learn how to schmooze and get bills through and you be a governor/cabinet member to get management experience. Raskolnikov38 fucked around with this message at 04:16 on Mar 13, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2015 04:10
|
|
|
Vienna Circlejerk posted:Barack Obama didn't even finish a full term as a Senator before he became president. They were all lovely presidents, though.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2015 04:14
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:Was there all this 'dynasty' talk when dubya first ran? Yes.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2015 04:14
|
|
|
My right wing cousin shared a meme from a conservative Facebook messaging page comparing Hillary Clinton to Hitler based on the quote, "We must stop thinking of the individual and start thinking about what is best for society." I have no desire to argue with her on Facebook, but this quote immediately triggered my bullshit detector. Does anyone know what the context for it is?
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2015 04:14
|
|
|
sector_corrector posted:My right wing cousin shared a meme from a conservative Facebook messaging page comparing Hillary Clinton to Hitler based on the quote, "We must stop thinking of the individual and start thinking about what is best for society." I have no desire to argue with her on Facebook, but this quote immediately triggered my bullshit detector. Does anyone know what the context for it is? Liberals are "collectivists" and your cousin is retarded. It takes a village.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2015 04:15
|
|
|
Vienna Circlejerk posted:Barack Obama didn't even finish a full term as a Senator before he became president. my favorite is reminding people of Abraham Lincoln's lengthy resume: One-term U.S. Representative
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2015 04:16
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:Was there all this 'dynasty' talk when dubya first ran? Yes, but I think people were hoping it was going to be a John Adams and JQ Adams kind of deal, not a Henry II, Dick and John kind of deal.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2015 04:16
|
|
|
The election of John Quincy Adams signaled the death of democracy in America.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2015 04:17
|
|
|
PupsOfWar posted:my favorite is reminding people of Abraham Lincoln's lengthy resume of "One-term U.S. Representative" He was also a country lawyer, joining such acclaimed ranks as the hyperchicken from futurama.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2015 04:17
|
|
|
TEAYCHES posted:Liberals are "collectivists" and your cousin is retarded. Thanks for the briefing, idiot. I meant, like, where the quote is from. That's what context means, as a word.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2015 04:18
|
|
|
TEAYCHES posted:They were all lovely presidents, though. Well, George H. W. Bush was pretty qualified.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2015 04:18
|
|
|
TEAYCHES posted:Define it for me. OLIGARCHY, ˈäləˌɡärkē noun, plural oligarchies. 1. a form of government in which all power is vested in a few persons or in a dominant class or clique; government by the few. 2. a state or organization so ruled. 3. the persons or class so ruling. A few people having held a certain position that certainly doesn't have all power over a number of decades, with at least 8 years of none of the involved holding it, in no way counts. You sound like a 6th grader trying to be smart.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2015 04:20
|
|
|
1. a form of government in which all power is vested in a few persons or in a dominant class or clique; government by the few. 2. a state or organization so ruled. 3. the persons or class so ruling. Yes. Yes. This is America. I'm not kidding. Does anyone really disagree that we live in such a state? Obama called it special interests. There is a ruling class, there is money, there are two parties and a complete lack of campaign finance regulations. It's all happening. Yes.. Yes, it's an oligarchy. Congratulations. Who the gently caress honestly argues that American politics isn't government by a dominant class?
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2015 04:22
|
|
|
look buddy just support Jill Stein's liberal protest campaign and quit flailing around like a dork. Jill is the only relatively-well-known candidate who will commit to not murdering any foreigners. If you're really a single-issue voter on that account, that is the place for you. I understand that Jill won't win anything (will not, in fact, be on the ballot in a number of states) and that this fact is discouraging, but Rand Paul wasn't going to win either.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2015 04:22
|
|
|
Well I would say we're an oligarchy but for entirely different reasons than teayches.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2015 04:23
|
|
|
TEAYCHES posted:1. a form of government in which all power is vested in a few persons or in a dominant class or clique; government by the few. Yes but you were claiming or appear to claim that because Hilary's last name is Clinton we are an oligarchy whereas this quoted post is a much stronger argument for such a point.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2015 04:24
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:Yes but you were claiming or appear to claim that because Hilary's last name is Clinton we are an oligarchy whereas this quoted post is a much stronger argument for such a point. It's a symptom of a sick political system when you start nominating candidates from the same families.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2015 04:26
|
|
|
Look, not everybody can represent Galveston in the House. You're going to have to settle for what's out there.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2015 04:27
|
|
|
Vienna Circlejerk posted:Well, George H. W. Bush was pretty qualified. What were his qualifications outside of keeping Reagan's Alzheimers in check and the Latin American deathsquads funded?
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2015 04:27
|
|
|
TEAYCHES posted:What were his qualifications outside of keeping Reagan's Alzheimers in check and the Latin American deathsquads funded? can you use the internet
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2015 04:30
|
|
|
Vienna Circlejerk posted:can you use the internet I was making a point about ethics. Cheney was qualified too.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2015 04:30
|
|
|
TEAYCHES posted:I was making a point about ethics. Cheney was qualified too. No, you were talking about qualifications. Did you just arrive from DnD circa 2006?
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2015 04:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 16:42 |
|
|
TEAYCHES posted:It's a symptom of a sick political system when you start nominating candidates from the same families. I guess our political system has been sick for about 190 years, then. The disease does not appear to be fatal.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2015 04:32
|
|
