Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » American Aristocracy

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!    
Author Topic: American Aristocracy
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Well today the news is official.

Jeb Bush publicly announced.

It is a foregone conclusion Hillary will run, the only reason she hasn't stated it yet is because she doesn't want to burn all her "momentum" early when Fox and others starts putting together Benghazi videos.

We also have Chelsea Clinton announcing she "might run for office."

Granted, we've had "political families" in America for a long time, but does it hurt us? In a nation of over 300,000,000 is it good for us to be effectively ruled by a few families on a rotating basis?

[ April 23, 2014, 10:09 PM: Message edited by: Seneca ]

Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DJQuag
Member
Member # 3582

 - posted      Profile for DJQuag   Email DJQuag       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I don't think that it's a good thing, no, but I don't see a way to avoid it. Half the battle for a politician is name recognition, and the family of successful politicians are going to have familiar names.

Even if we disagree sometimes about what specifically the American populace is naive about, I think most of us here feel that the populace as a whole is incredibly gullible and lacking in forethought.

Posts: 476 | Registered: Jan 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Not to mention having a family member's connections and experiance to draw from, not to mention donor base, is a HUGE advantage.
Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
ScottF
Member
Member # 6897

 - posted      Profile for ScottF         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I keep procrastinating in not applying for citizenship for my wife and I (Canucks in the US for 15 years as permanent residents). One of the motivations to do it is to have the right to vote. Sadly, this kind of news makes me less excited at the prospect of having a vote.
Posts: 177 | Registered: Mar 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Whaddya think? Duck Dynasty or something else? [Smile]
Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Connections and wealth are probably the most significant qualifications to get into a national race. Once you're in it, though, you have to hold up your end of the conversation. The only time I think that that process was completely thwarted was Bush II who rode into office on the strength of his father's connections. You could argue that Bill would lend that kind of advantage to Hillary, but IMO she outshines him on that front all on her own. Jeb also is relatively self-reliant, but in his case the Bush name (thanks to his brother's poor showing in office) carries a lot of baggage.
Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JoshuaD
Member
Member # 1420

 - posted      Profile for JoshuaD   Email JoshuaD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Seneca: Granted, we've had "political families" in America for a long time, but does it hurt us? In a nation of over 300,000,000 is it good for us to be effectively ruled by a few families on a rotating basis?
I really don't know. I understand the thing that bothers you, but I do think it is rational to expect that Jeb Bush or Hillary Clinton will govern more responsibly than an unknown person. They understand the very complex machinery of Washington much better than an outsider would.

We get to choose. We get to look at these people and decide whether we want them to be our leaders. I don't mind that they're more likely to be considered because they have family members who previously served as President.

Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
but I do think it is rational to expect that Jeb Bush or Hillary Clinton will govern more responsibly than an unknown person. They understand the very complex machinery of Washington much better than an outsider would.
Is this a joke? I would have replaced the words "more responsibly" with "in a more corrupt fashion."

Because they are 'insiders' as you suggest, they make everything worse the longer they are there.

quote:
We get to choose.
What kind of a choice is it?
Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Do you think that Adams II was "corrupt"?

I liked him better than his daddy. Ditto Bush Jr. Sure Iraq II was a boondoggle but far less damaging to America that our first Iraqi war.

[ April 24, 2014, 07:32 PM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JoshuaD
Member
Member # 1420

 - posted      Profile for JoshuaD   Email JoshuaD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
quote:
JoshuaD: but I do think it is rational to expect that Jeb Bush or Hillary Clinton will govern more responsibly than an unknown person. They understand the very complex machinery of Washington much better than an outsider would.
Seneca: Is this a joke? I would have replaced the words "more responsibly" with "in a more corrupt fashion."

Because they are 'insiders' as you suggest, they make everything worse the longer they are there.

What's the shelf life for a politician and their family? At what pace does an outsider turn into a corrupt insider, and what metrics do we use to measure that corrupt-insidedness?
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
So Hillary will officially announce this Sunday.

It looks like we could be in for a Bush v Clinton race, one of the worst possible outcomes.


But who knows, maybe if that happens a 3rd party candidate might have a shot since hopefully America is disgusted enough with both Bushes and Clinton?

Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It would certainly make me consider a third party candidate. Sadly, neither of the viable third parties right now have anybody sensible fronting them, either. [Frown]
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
It would certainly make me consider a third party candidate. Sadly, neither of the viable third parties right now have anybody sensible fronting them, either. [Frown]

Time to pencil in "none of the above." [Eek!]
Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
But who knows, maybe if that happens a 3rd party candidate might have a shot since hopefully America is disgusted enough with both Bushes and Clinton?
Despite propaganda efforts on both sides most of America doesn't really register it beyond what their closest political affiliation suggests. There's a change for it to show up in the primaries, but no third party will have a chance in the main event given our voting system. No amount of theoretical disgust will ever overcome the way a single vote, simple plurality system locks the system down so that there are only ever two viable options.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
It would certainly make me consider a third party candidate. Sadly, neither of the viable third parties right now have anybody sensible fronting them, either. [Frown]

I'm putting good odds that I'll vote for Stein again. My biggest disagreement with her is on IRV vs. Approval voting, which is a technical difference, not a major political one.

I am given hope that the Democrats may be improving, in that the Senate Democrats hired Stephanie Kelton to be their economic policy advisor, but I'll need to see some evidence of benefit that in actual policy proposals put forth by whoever actually gets the Presidential nod in the primaries.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I'm putting good odds that I'll vote for Stein again.
I live in Wisconsin, sadly, so my vote actually matters. [Frown]
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It will be sad yet interesting to see how some liberals will rationalize their eventual "succumbing" to voting for Clinton despite all their admissions about how unsuitable she is.

I pledge now not to vote for Jeb Bush no matter what. I wonder how many on the other side would pledge to avoid any vote, under any circumstances, for Clinton also?

Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
OpsanusTau
Member
Member # 2350

 - posted      Profile for OpsanusTau   Email OpsanusTau   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I will not be voting for anybody born prior to ca. 1960, so that probably covers it.

(SO OVER baby boomers)

Posts: 3791 | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
jasonr
Member
Member # 969

 - posted      Profile for jasonr   Email jasonr   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
The only time I think that that process was completely thwarted was Bush II who rode into office on the strength of his father's connections.
Rather silly to suggest that Bush SR. had the juice to get his son elected in 2000 with little more than his name, but couldn't get himself elected in 1992.

There's still alot of skill to running a campaign and making yourself a successful candidate.

Posts: 7629 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Greg Davidson
Member
Member # 3377

 - posted      Profile for Greg Davidson   Email Greg Davidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Hillary Clinton is not a great candidate, but she has the potential to be a good President. To avoid the partisan noise, why don't we compare her only to previous Democratic political nominees. How would she compare to Obama, Kerry, Gore, Bill Clinton, Dukakis, or Mondale?

It terms of governing, it's a mixed bag - she lacks Bill's politicking skills or Mondale's (or Kerry's) experience working Capitol Hill, but at the same time, today's Washington means facing Republicans who will use make unprecedented use of scorched Earth tactics (government shut-downs, impeachment, threatening to default on the national debt - there's nothing comparable by modern Democrats). Hillary will be more ready for the viciousness of the assault than any other candidate on the list. As I think I said back in 2008, she's actually better positioned to push back effectively on the Republicans than Obama was - he would be more likely to be conciliatory (and that did not have beneficial effects).

Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I wonder how many on the other side would pledge to avoid any vote, under any circumstances, for Clinton also?
Most of my votes nowadays are against candidates. But I will gladly pledge to not vote for Clinton if her opponent is not exceptionally objectionable.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Can't recall an election in living memory where there was only one opponent.

I think many people use the "wasted vote" idea to justify their vote for a democrat or republican they secretly like but don't want to have to publicly defend. Otherwise third party candidates would have won long ago.

[ April 10, 2015, 10:46 PM: Message edited by: Seneca ]

Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Greg Davidson:
Hillary will be more ready for the viciousness of the assault than any other candidate on the list.

Hillary has been the subject of intense hatred from the right ever since Bill was President, and so from this standpoint I'd say she's absolutely used to being vilified by the right. However this doesn't speak to her ability to overcome their animosity and work with the other side. I have a sneaking suspicious that Republicans have a special place in hell reserved for her specifically over other Democrat figures. I'm not sure this would be a helpful scenario to introduce to the White House, aside from all the other possible reasons to dislike her.

I'm with Tom that anti-voting seems more like a mainstream mentality now that being scared of one candidate is much more likely than actually believing in the other one. Wouldn't it be cute if there was an anti-vote option where instead of choosing a candidate to 'get a point' you could use your vote to 'cancel a point' from a candidate? A true anti-vote, if you will, which would have the effect of saying "anyone but him/her," as it would advantage all opponents equally. I bet if anti-voting was a thing lots of people would come out of the woodwork who normally wouldn't vote just to try to stop a certain person becoming President.

Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Greg Davidson
Member
Member # 3377

 - posted      Profile for Greg Davidson   Email Greg Davidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I don't think that any Democrat can have a plan to "work with the other side"; given the dynamics and party base that supports an unprecedented level of vitriol and obstructionism, the most "effective" approach probably would have been to escalate using other methods of persuasion that were similarly unusual in their intensity. For example, someone with the ethics of an LBJ might have used the tactic of considering war crimes prosecution as a means of threatening key members of the Republican Party who served in the Bush Administration. I think that this would have been very bad for the country, but that approach would probably have been more "effective" in undercutting Republican opposition.
Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Oh I would love to see the nuclear option taken where both sides (rightly) accuse people on the other side of war crimes and move towards prosecution. I disagree fully that this particular tactic would be bad for the country...in the long term.
Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It's abundantly clear that Martin O'Malley would have not the baggage and could work with the GOP in Congress much more easily than Hillary could. Does anyone dispute that?
Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It would be hard to come up with a person on Earth for whom that would not be true. [Smile]
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Greg Davidson
Member
Member # 3377

 - posted      Profile for Greg Davidson   Email Greg Davidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I disagree - let me make a prediction that whoever is the Democratic nominee, there will be a new basis for rage on the part of the Republicans due to some part of his or her background that can be twisted into a cartoon form of evil.
Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I think Warren has already worked with some Republicans on key issues and sees eye to eye with them in certain respects. They aren't the Neocons, but they do have a contingent she could reach out to if she were President.
Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Greg Davidson
Member
Member # 3377

 - posted      Profile for Greg Davidson   Email Greg Davidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Don't forget the Republican "JFK wanted for Treason" flyer - note how the language used is similar to that out of the mouths of today's Republican Congressmen and Governors

link

Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
let me make a prediction that whoever is the Democratic nominee, there will be a new basis for rage on the part of the Republicans
Oh, no argument. They'll mock up some rationale for anger, no matter what. But it won't be Clinton-quality mock anger.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I think many will use any excuse they can find to vote for Hillary without having to be honest about their secret preference for her because she is so dirty and corrupt and ethical allegiance to her is virtually impossible. I have already read several articles preemptively attempting to rationalize this from leftist authors who had previously written pieces opposing most of what she voted for as a Senator. What hypocrites.


No matter who the GOP nominates I expect many people to claim that the GOP candidate is "forcing their hand" to vote for Hillary rather than "waste their vote."

I will not vote for either Bush or Clinton regardless of the mental gymnastics that the Rove/Clinton machines attempt to use to attract voters.

[ April 12, 2015, 02:10 PM: Message edited by: Seneca ]

Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Greg Davidson
Member
Member # 3377

 - posted      Profile for Greg Davidson   Email Greg Davidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Going back since LBJ, how many prior Presidents do you believe are more ethical than Hillary Clinton? Please list them so we can examine your standards for ethics.

If you want to add in the losing candidates for the Presidency going back 50 years, I would be interested in your list as well.

Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
No matter who the GOP nominates I expect many people to claim that the GOP candidate is "forcing their hand" to vote for Hillary rather than "waste their vote."
Can you suggest a likely GOP candidate whom I wouldn't find repugnant?
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Greg Davidson:
Going back since LBJ, how many prior Presidents do you believe are more ethical than Hillary Clinton? Please list them so we can examine your standards for ethics.

If you want to add in the losing candidates for the Presidency going back 50 years, I would be interested in your list as well.

Instead of wasting time playing silly "worse than" games let me ask a simple question.

Who here will commit to voting for neither Clinton or Bush no matter what?

Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
That would be stupid, Seneca. Scott Walker would be, for example, much -- much -- worse than Clinton.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
NobleHunter
Member
Member # 2450

 - posted      Profile for NobleHunter   Email NobleHunter   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I will [Razz]
Posts: 2581 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JoshCrow
Member
Member # 6048

 - posted      Profile for JoshCrow   Email JoshCrow   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'll commit to that.

I'm also a Canadian citizen and can't vote anyways. [Smile]

Posts: 2281 | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
yossarian22c
Member
Member # 1779

 - posted      Profile for yossarian22c   Email yossarian22c       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
How about this Seneca, I will not vote for Hillary in the primary. Unless the republicans decide to recruit someone like Huntsman I won't commit to anything for the general. Voting in the US is a binary choice. Putting down a protest vote for a green or libertarian won't mitigate the disastrous economic policies of Paul or foreign policy follies of Walker.
Posts: 1121 | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KidTokyo
Member
Member # 6601

 - posted      Profile for KidTokyo   Email KidTokyo       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I made a commitment to not vote for Hillary more than 6 years ago, but I'll do it again because I like it.

I pledge not to vote for Hillary.

God that feels great. Never gets old. [Big Grin]

It goes without saying this also applies to Jeb Arbusto.

Posts: 2336 | Registered: Sep 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1