Presidential Dynasties

CaptainChewbacca · Post by **CaptainChewbacca** » 2007-12-18 06:58pm

Einhander Sn0m4n wrote:They also seem to be the people who torture their kids with axe handles, bullwhips, and rock salt in the basement for five days straight if they find the thimble fourth row down third from the left just half a centimeter from the perfect center of its cubby in the thimble box or if the kids dare to question the logic of bashing gays over a crawfish dinner while wearing cotton/poly underwear.

What do you have against cotton-poly underwear?

Aaron · Post by **Aaron** » 2007-12-18 07:06pm

There's something in the bible against wearing mixed fabrics. Einy was being sarcastic.

Post by **The Yosemite Bear** » 2007-12-18 07:48pm

Hail Caesar!!

now where's my bread and circuses?

for that matter where's my sexual liberation, and decent standard of living?

Zwinmar · Post by **Zwinmar** » 2007-12-18 08:18pm

It doesn't help that the Potus is 'elected" not by "we the people" but rather by the electorial college.

SAMAS · Post by **SAMAS** » 2007-12-18 11:02pm

Darth Wong wrote:
Elmca wrote:
tim31 wrote:If the founding fathers had forseen it, they probably would have made a (contrived, crazy) amendment to steer clear of it. But then, they wouldn't have concieved of a former first lady vying for the top job.
They didn't have to forsee it. It happened to one of them.

John Adams, 2nd President of the United States and John Quincy Adams, his son and 6th POTUS, both served during the time when the founding fathers (some of them anyway) were still around. Granted, they were elected over 20 years apart (1797 versus 1824) so the comparison isn't exact, but it's pretty close.

If the founding fathers had anything to say about a "dynasty" forming, I think they would have. JQA served as Monroe's Secretary of State and didn't hide his presidential ambitions.
Far too many Americans tend to assume that the Holy Founding Fathers (Peace Be Upon Them) were shining paragons of ethical perfection, and that they would support whatever is most fair and ethical in any given situation. They owned slaves, for fuck's sake. American treatment of their "Founding Fathers" is basically idolatry; they just won't admit it because that's a violation of one of their stupid Biblical Ten Commandments.

It should also be mentioned that John Adams and John Q. were both Federalists, and as such really didn't see it as a bad thing.

Patrick Degan · Post by **Patrick Degan** » 2007-12-18 11:04pm

Darth Massacrus wrote:
Flagg wrote:
Gil Hamilton wrote:Don't forget that Jeb Bush is out there as former governor of Florida, and can conceivably run for president too.
I'm more worried about his son, George P Bush. He's half hispanic, and I think he could be put forward as a Republican nominee in the not too distant future. Jeb has way too much baggage, I think. What with his junkie daughter and theif wife.
I think that a President George P. Bush would be likely at some point.

Doubt it, as he's not quite white enough for the GOP —their dirty little not-so-secret, remember?

Lusankya · Post by **Lusankya** » 2007-12-19 01:02am

Patrick Degan wrote:
Darth Massacrus wrote: I think that a President George P. Bush would be likely at some point.
Doubt it, as he's not quite white enough for the GOP —their dirty little not-so-secret, remember?

But he still has pedigree. After all, look at how many other men in his family have done well in politics. Why would they be doing that if they weren't good politicians?

Flagg · Post by **Flagg** » 2007-12-19 01:25am

Darth Massacrus wrote:
Flagg wrote:
Gil Hamilton wrote:Don't forget that Jeb Bush is out there as former governor of Florida, and can conceivably run for president too.
I'm more worried about his son, George P Bush. He's half hispanic, and I think he could be put forward as a Republican nominee in the not too distant future. Jeb has way too much baggage, I think. What with his junkie daughter and theif wife.
I think that a President George P. Bush would be likely at some point.

I think it really comes down to how W is remembered in the coming years. I can't imagine him being viewed positively after the shit he's pulled, but you really never can tell.

Flagg · Post by **Flagg** » 2007-12-19 01:27am

Patrick Degan wrote:
Darth Massacrus wrote:
Flagg wrote: I'm more worried about his son, George P Bush. He's half hispanic, and I think he could be put forward as a Republican nominee in the not too distant future. Jeb has way too much baggage, I think. What with his junkie daughter and theif wife.
I think that a President George P. Bush would be likely at some point.
Doubt it, as he's not quite white enough for the GOP —their dirty little not-so-secret, remember?

Yeah, and this country is becoming less white on a daily basis. The GOP has shown a willingness to include certain hispanics. Look at Mel Martinez. I could see a George P Bush cantidacy in 2016 or 2020.

The Duchess of Zeon · Post by **The Duchess of Zeon** » 2007-12-19 01:30am

Remember that the Five Good Emperors also included individuals born in Hispania, in the first instance of someone born outside of Rome receiving the Purple.

At any rate, there is historical precedent for this aplenty. It was the way that almost every single historical Republic operated. The Netherlands, Venice, ancient Rome, all of them tended to have sustained family dominance of high positions, often alternating, with the families forming political parties which would trade off power in a system of compromises which prevented civil violence, and those exchanges would go on for hundreds of years in some cases.

Post by **The Yosemite Bear** » 2007-12-19 01:48am

wait until George's twin daughters start poisoning people.... (oh wait am I adding rennisance popes into the equasion)?

Vaporous · Post by **Vaporous** » 2007-12-19 01:56am

The Founding Fathers picked their successors for years. It's not really a coincidence that veeps and secretaries of state had a tendency to get the job, or that four of our first five presidents were Virginians.

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2007-12-19 02:21am

The Duchess of Zeon wrote:Remember that the Five Good Emperors also included individuals born in Hispania, in the first instance of someone born outside of Rome receiving the Purple.

At any rate, there is historical precedent for this aplenty. It was the way that almost every single historical Republic operated. The Netherlands, Venice, ancient Rome, all of them tended to have sustained family dominance of high positions, often alternating, with the families forming political parties which would trade off power in a system of compromises which prevented civil violence, and those exchanges would go on for hundreds of years in some cases.

What does this have to do with the fact that its a complete lack of genuine democracy?

Mlenk · Post by **Mlenk** » 2007-12-19 02:58am

Flagg wrote:
Darth Massacrus wrote:
Flagg wrote: I'm more worried about his son, George P Bush. He's half hispanic, and I think he could be put forward as a Republican nominee in the not too distant future. Jeb has way too much baggage, I think. What with his junkie daughter and theif wife.
I think that a President George P. Bush would be likely at some point.
I think it really comes down to how W is remembered in the coming years. I can't imagine him being viewed positively after the shit he's pulled, but you really never can tell.

I wouldn't be surprised, given how depressingly short the general public attention span seems to be nowadays.

Adrian Laguna · Post by **Adrian Laguna** » 2007-12-19 03:19am

Illuminatus Primus wrote:What does this have to do with the fact that its a complete lack of genuine democracy?

Is that thing even possible? I think the only guys who managed where a nation consisting of one city and several hamlets. They avoided dynasty creation by developing a tradition of exiling virtually every single politician at one point and/or another during their career.

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2007-12-19 03:29am

Adrian Laguna wrote:
Illuminatus Primus wrote:What does this have to do with the fact that its a complete lack of genuine democracy?
Is that thing even possible? I think the only guys who managed where a nation consisting of one city and several hamlets. They avoided dynasty creation by developing a tradition of exiling virtually every single politician at one point and/or another during their career.

Most of our history has been horrifically primitive, with life being cheap, disease being caused by evil spirits, the Earth being flat, and without any other form of reason. Should we just give up and not care and not try to improve anything? This is what I get out of "realists" who "reply" to threads criticizing the corruption of modern political systems. A realist is one who understands how things actually are; they don't actually advocate that as the ideal or preference.

Flagg · Post by **Flagg** » 2007-12-19 03:31am

Mlenk wrote:
Flagg wrote:
Darth Massacrus wrote: I think that a President George P. Bush would be likely at some point.
I think it really comes down to how W is remembered in the coming years. I can't imagine him being viewed positively after the shit he's pulled, but you really never can tell.
I wouldn't be surprised, given how depressingly short the general public attention span seems to be nowadays.

Yeah, it has to end up as iconic for it to stick. Like Nixon. Short of that, though...

Adrian Laguna · Post by **Adrian Laguna** » 2007-12-19 03:50am

Illuminatus Primus wrote:Most of our history has been horrifically primitive, with life being cheap, disease being caused by evil spirits, the Earth being flat, and without any other form of reason. Should we just give up and not care and not try to improve anything? This is what I get out of "realists" who "reply" to threads criticizing the corruption of modern political systems. A realist is one who understands how things actually are; they don't actually advocate that as the ideal or preference.

I'm not sure what you mean.

Could you rephrase please?

Patrick Degan · Post by **Patrick Degan** » 2007-12-19 02:00pm

Flagg wrote:
Patrick Degan wrote:
Darth Massacrus wrote: I think that a President George P. Bush would be likely at some point.
Doubt it, as he's not quite white enough for the GOP —their dirty little not-so-secret, remember?
Yeah, and this country is becoming less white on a daily basis. The GOP has shown a willingness to include certain hispanics. Look at Mel Martinez. I could see a George P Bush cantidacy in 2016 or 2020.

So what if the country is becoming less-white? Sure, the GOP will include certain hispanics just like they include certain blacks —in certain positions. Just not the ones in which the doors to the actual top-level leadership are open to them.

Post by **K. A. Pital** » 2007-12-19 02:17pm

Adrian Laguna wrote:Is that thing even possible?

Actually, yes. Low-corruption democratic environments have formed in some longstanding social-democratic places, which aren't oligarchies or entrenched aristocracies. But why think about those places?

Let's look back at the age of the Holland Aristocracy, WOOHOO!

Seriously, are you looking forward to improving society in the future, or are you excusing your inaction with long-winded bullshit about the past how "everything has always been that way"..

Gee, slavery wouldn't have been abolished were most people as conservative as that.