By 2024, we may have had 28 out of 36 years of US presidency held by 2 families.

[Bonobo]

I'm sorry, but that is fucked up and not a good reflection of where we are as a country or a society.

[dsc]

1. yeah America was a real shit hole

from 1933 to 1953 when only two people held the office.

[Agschmid]

2. This.

[Bonobo]

4. Point missed by a mile, DSC.

Those were two individuals.

That does not speak to the nepotism and oligarchy implicit in what I am talking about.

[dsc]

9. FDR was the cousin of a President

as was his wife. He was as much a dynastical candidate as Hillary.

[Bonobo]

11. Citing Roosevelts to discount the observation of oligarchy is not very effective.

The fact that FDR was a great president has no bearing on this.

[dsc]

16. under your theory we would have been better off keeping Hoover

I wouldn't want that brought up either if I were you.

[Bonobo]

19. Still missing the point.

Whether the president is good or not is not the issue, but I can see that you will stick with your position.

But you should be aware that your argument would similarly defend any form of dictatorship as well as long as it was a benevolent one.

[dsc]

21. and your would as long as the line didn't pass in a family

like the Soviet Union or China or Venezuela.

[daleanime]

35. I don't think it actually a matter of missing the point....

as much as not being willing to concede a point.

[George II]

89. So a freely elected President is a "dictatorship" to you?

[Bonobo]

90. Good Christ what has happened to education? nt

[hifiguy]

17. And 20 years separated the Roosevelts

who were what, third or fourth cousins?

[dsc]

30. His wife was a first cousin

and very close to Teddy. FDR ran for VP in 1924 which was 12 years after Teddy ran and lost in 1912. BTW it is now 20 years since Clinton last ran and won.

[hifiguy]

41. FDR was not a part of TR's administration.

And TR died in 1919.

[appalachiablue]

91. Eleanor was a 5th cousin. Bill is campaigning actively today and very much around.

[dsc]

94. she was Franklin's fifth cousin

but she was Teddy's niece and a favorite niece at that. So I was wrong to say she was a first cousin.

[artislife]

28. No...but good try. nt

[NuclearDem]

34. I don't think you understand what nepotism means.

Because it sure doesn't apply to Hillary Clinton.

[George II]

88. And two families.

[brooklynite]

3. You're right; 8 years of Ted Cruz would be a major improvement.

Hillary Clinton is winning on her own terms. I can live with that.

[Bonobo]

5. Do you get paid per straw man or something? nt

[brooklynite]

8. Remember, I'm a 1%er; I don't need to get paid...(actually, I have a nice Government job...)

But if the outcome really bothers you, find an electable alternative candidate.

[Bonobo]

13. Did you get that job by rubbing elbows or do you rub elbows because you have that job?

Serious question.

[brooklynite]

20. Neither...

...my wife has become successful in the private sector, and we chose not to have kids (you'd be amazed how much you save)

[Bonobo]

23. I would not be surprised.

I know how much kids cost, but giving the gift of life is a wonderful thing and well worth it.

But it sounds like you are admitting that wealth in the private sector has provided you with the opportunity to gain a good government job with access to the power brokers. That's wonderful for you! I think Hillary is the perfect candidate for you and I can certainly understand why you would want to support the most likely winner.

[brooklynite]

40. No, I have a Masters Degree in Urban Planning and 31 years of professional experience

My wife and I both started out in the Government; she shifted to the private sector and I stayed public. Sorry if that screws up your stereotypes.

[Bonobo]

43. And your government contacts had nothing to do with the private sector success? nt

[brooklynite]

53. No. Are you suggesting that she couldn't achieve success on her own?

Sort of like the people who suggest that Hillary Clinton is only a success because of her husband, right?

[Bonobo]

55. Are you suggesting that Hillary did not receive the benefits from her marriage with Bill?

Are you seriously suggesting that a no-name with her qualification would have won the senate position she won in her non-native state and then been able to turn that into a SOS position?

Are we talking reality here or story book stuff?

[brooklynite]

56. Hillary Clinton = "a no-name"...

...I'll just leave it at that.

[Bonobo]

66. That's not what I said.

I said "if a non-name" ran for Senate.

Which means, and it is true, that without the Clinton name and BEFORE her senate position, she would have been a no-name person.

That is not disparaging in the least. It would be a fact if she did not have the Clinton name.

Do you really need to mischaracterize my words?

[George II]

95. When all is said and done, I think she'll wind up doing MORE than her husband over her...

...entire political career.

[wyldwolf]

6. don't you believe in democracy?

[Garrett78]

27. Yes. Too bad the US isn't a democracy.

I know, I know, it's a democratic republic. Well, it isn't really that either. It's a plutocracy.

Recommended reading: "Our Democracy?" by Robert Jensen

And Lawrence Lessig to Bill Moyers:

"I mean, we have the data to show this now. There was a Princeton study by Martin Gilens and Ben Page. The largest empirical study of actual policy decisions by our government in the history of our government. And what they did is they related our actual decisions to what the economic elite care about, what the organized interest groups care about, and what the average voter cares about.

And when they look at the economic elite, you know, as the percentage of economic elite who support an idea goes up, the probability of it passing goes up. As the organized interests care about something more and more, the probability of it passing goes up. But as the average voter cares about something, it has no effect at all, statistically no effect at all on the probability of it passing. If we can go from zero percent of the average voters caring about something to 100 percent and it doesn't change the probability of it actually being enacted. And when you look at those numbers, that graph, this flat line, that flat line is a metaphor for our democracy. Our democracy is flat lined. Because when you can show clearly there's no relationship between what the average voter cares about, only if it happens to coincide with what the economic elite care about, you've shown that we don't have a democracy anymore."

[wyldwolf]

29. Anyone who meets the constitutional requirements for President can run.

[Garrett78]

31. Then surely the US is democratic.

[wyldwolf]

39. obviously

[Garrett78]

49. Are you really that simple-minded or are you just messing around?

There are constitutional requirements to run for POTUS. Anyone who meets those requirements can run for POTUS. Therefore, the US is a democracy. That's your argument? Wow.

From the Jensen piece that I recommended you read:

"There is much about the standard story that is true, but it leaves out one crucial element: No matter who votes in elections, powerful unelected forces—the captains of industry and finance—set the parameters of political action. Voting matters, but it matters far less than most people believe, or want to believe. This raises the impolite question of whether democracy and capitalism are compatible. Is political equality possible amid widening economic inequality? Can power be distributed when wealth is concentrated?

These questions remain unspeakable in mainstream political circles, even though the economic inequality continues to widen and the distorting effects of concentrated wealth are more evident than ever. The limited successes of the Occupy movement nudged this into view, but this impolite question must be central in our conversations, raised without sectarian rhetoric and with a clearer analysis of the foundational nature of the problem.

Let me be clear: I’m not suggesting that there is nothing democratic about the contemporary United States, nor am I suggesting that we live in a fascist state. It’s important to avoid rhetorical overkill. Rather, I’m simply recognizing that, counter to the mythology of the United States, no existing nation-state is a democracy in any deep sense. The question is, to what degree are the features of a society—not just the formal political process, but the economic and social structures as well—truly democratic. Formulating the question that way opens up a more meaningful discussion of those realities.

Onto the question of who we mean by us: I think we have for too long believed that the population of the United States is more “left” than it is, or at least more “left” as I define the term.

Conservatives insist this is a “center-right” country, and progressives counter that various polls suggest popular support for policies that are left of center, such as national health insurance. Whatever the outcome of that limited debate, here’s what we have to acknowledge: If by “left” we mean a consistent critique of the domination/subordination dynamic that structures life in these United States, the left is essentially invisible. Such a left would be anti-capitalist and consistently critical of U.S. imperial adventures abroad. Such a left would take seriously the deeply embedded white-supremacist nature of U.S. society, as well as the devaluing and exploitation of women that is so deep that its sexual component is a routine part of pop culture. And such a left would recognize that the high-energy/high-technology industrial system that produces the much sought-after American “lifestyle” is a death cult, so fundamentally unsustainable that continued allegiance to that lifestyle guarantees catastrophic results for coming generations, and possibly for those of us currently here."

And, as Lessig pointed out to Moyers (as if it wasn't already pretty damn obvious), studies make it clear that there's no correlation between what the average voter wants and what actually gets enacted. But there's a very strong correlation between what the economic elite want and what gets enacted.

When the likes of Citigroup are writing federal legislation, which then becomes law, I think it's safe to say the US is much more of a plutocracy than a democracy.

[wyldwolf]

51. do you really not understand the constitution's presidential requirements?

[Bonobo]

33. Don't you? nt

[wyldwolf]

36. Yes. I believe anyone who meets the constitutional requirements for President can run.

Regardless of who else in their family has run and/or held the office before.

[Bonobo]

37. You see things so clearly!

[wyldwolf]

44. I do.

[Garrett78]

57. It's quite simple you see.

There are constitutional requirements to run for POTUS.

And, technically speaking, anyone who meets those requirements can run for POTUS.

Therefore, the US is a democracy.

Who can possibly argue against that logic?

[BlueCheese]

7. It's not fair to blame Hillary Clinton for the Bushes.

So what if Bill and Hillary Clinton are president for 16 years out of 32? If they do a good job (and Bill certainly did), why is that a problem? FDR was president for 12 years all by himself.

[Bonobo]

10. It speaks to America's elitism and oligarchic nature.

An objective viewing of this, from a historical perspective, should make that clear IMO.

[brooklynite]

12. All you have to is get more voters to support your guy...

...how's that going?

[Bonobo]

14. Not well and that is disappointing but entirely expected.

America's president is a reflection of America.

My eyes are wide open. Always have been.

[Fumesucker]

64. President Al Gore says Hi from 2000

[Garrett78]

38. Bill Clinton pushed several disastrous policies that hurt many people.

Lesser evil, sure. But let's not pretend like Clinton and his "era of big government is over" agenda didn't cause a lot of problems (NAFTA, so-called welfare reform, horrific crime bill, etc., etc., etc.).

[hifiguy]

48. Chimpy thinks of the Clintons as

"honorary members" of the Bush Crime Family and considers HRH "like a sister-in-law."

Andhere's the proof:

Former President Bush has spoken at length about his close ties to former President Bill Clinton, at times calling him his "brother from another mother."

CNN's Candy Crowley asked Bush during an interview published Friday where that leaves Hillary Clinton: "My sister-in-law!" the president responded light-heartedly.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2014/12/05/george-w-bush-hillary-clinton-is-like-my-sister-in-law/

I presume that the WaPo is still considered an acceptable source.

And that quote is enough to gag a goat and tells me exactly what I EVER need to know about the Clintons. Both of them.

[hifiguy]

15. That whirring you hear is Mr Jefferson and Mr Madison

hitting 10,000 rpms in their graves.

[JaneyVee]

18. America is 239 years old.

[Garrett78]

22. 28 out of 36, actually.

[Bonobo]

24. Thank you. Corrected. nt

[leveymg]

25. It's like something out of the Roman Empire.

Meanwhile, in Saudi Arabia dissidents are crucified and they bankroll conservative US media and both major political dynasties in America.

Meanwhile, in sports, back at the Colisseum they . . .

[brooklynite]

42. Actually, most Roman Emperors "adopted" someone to succeed them.

Hereditary succession was relatively rare.

[leveymg]

61. I must be thinking of the Hapsburgs or the Pahlavis

Same point, different empire.

[Warren DeMontague]

26. People display brand loyalty.

Not that surprising.

I dont think any of it precludes Hillary Clinton from potentially being a good president. She doesnt get it by default, to my mind, because of her name, but her name doesn't disqualify her either.

[Bonobo]

32. Warren, if we are being honest...

We should admit that Hillary was catapulted into her position as Senator. Nepotism may not be the right word, but it was unarguably due to her husband being president. This is not to say she was not qualified (as anyone would be with a good law degree I suppose), but denying this fact is just disingenuous. She was a carpetbagger in a district that she knew she could get a W.

This senatorship, along with her name, was then curried into a position as SOS. Was she good in the job? Sure. Let's say she was.

That doesn't change the above facts though. Again, I don't know if nepotism is the right word, but it's close.

Let's not cringe from reality when it is inconvenient or embarrassing.

[JaneyVee]

45. There is nothing cringe-worthy.

She is extremely accomplished and supremely qualified to lead America. And there is no denying that those had nothing to do with Bill and everything to do with her own successful career and life.

[Bonobo]

47. "those had nothing to do with Bill"

Okay.

[JaneyVee]

63. You realize she had a successful life even before Bill, right?

Law school, a lawyer, the children's defense fund, activist, etc.

[Bonobo]

68. Those things plus $3 bucks would have bought her a pumpkin-spice latte. Not a senate position. nt

[JaneyVee]

70. What? Being a lawyer is practically a pre-requisite for a senate position.

Not to mention she has vast knowledge on a wide range of global and domestic issues.

[Bonobo]

71. Look at the number of lawyers vs. the number of senators.

So, as I said. A pumpkin-spice latte.

[JaneyVee]

72. Jeez, those goal posts got moved.

What did Bernie Sanders major in?

[Bonobo]

73. Wow, Janey, your logic skills need some sharpening. nt

[JaneyVee]

77. You went from saying she has no accomplishments, to saying....

Those accomplishments are worthless. And we still haven't even started on her entire post law firm career. I guess her only accomplishment is marrying Bill.

[Bonobo]

80. I said her small number of accomplishments were a guarantee of nothing more than a latte.

And I stand by that.

[hifiguy]

50. Absolutely.

She'd never have come within a mile of the Senate otherwise, much less a run for the presidency.

[Warren DeMontague]

52. Sure, but what are the "normal" pathways via which people become, say, senators?

If i look at Hillary Rodham Clinton's life en total, i see someone who was accomplished and capable and smart from the delivery of her commencement address.

I suspect part of the deal with her marriage was that she sublimated her own series of accomplishments, for a time, working behind the scenes of her husband, a preternaturally gifted politician the likes of which we will probably not see again any time soon.

So did she "deserve" to become a senator? Probably more than a lot of the idiots who wander into the job from assorted statehouses, like pig castration lady from iowa or the diaper guy, or the guy in texas who is obsessed with marrying box turtles.

My point being, i suppose, that if HRC had followed a different trajectory from wellseley and watergate to now, one that didnt involve being a part of her husband's rise, she might very well have found herself in a similar accomplished position through different means.

My issues with her have to do with things like some of her votes in the first decade of this century, once she got that Senate seat. That is what gives me hesitation.

And when we live in a world where some of the other contenders are there because they inherented a shitload of money and a bad toupee, or because they're an "outsider" neurosurgeon who doesnt believe in evolution, Hillary's road through DC seems downright ordinary.

[CheshireDog]

46. Who cares?

As long as the person is a good president, who cares about their family lineage? Discounting someone because their husband was president 16 years ago seems really ridiculous, and should have no bearing on your vote. Would you like add a line to the constitution that only one person from each family may ever hold office?

[NurseJackie]

54. They're so frustrated and consumed with irrational fear, I think they actually would.

[brooklynite]

59. I wonder how many of the so-offended supported Ted Kennedy in 2000.

[NurseJackie]

65. Excellent observation. The number is probably higher than we think.

[Nedsdag]

58. Bonobo, you are a brave person for bringing this up.

TBTH, I agree with you, but there are those who say Hillary only married Bill and is not related.

But if she wanted to be her own woman, she should've dropped her married name.

[Bonobo]

67. Facts are stubborn things. nt

[jfern]

60. And neither was very good

Bill Clinton's deregulate everything caused the Great Recession.

[reformist2]

62. Nepotism = Corruption. Sorry, there's no way around it.

[Hydra]

69. We've had various members of the Bush Dynasty since the Reagan Coup

While President Obama seems like an outsider, he's done a magnificent job of protecting Bushco and continuing their policies, so I don't count him as change to the dynasty...just different branding.

[Persondem]

74. So what? It's a shallow arguement. By the time this country had its 6th president we had already

had a family repeat. One could even say that it is an American thing to do. Adams's & Roosevelt's did at least an ok job and ranged to possibly greatest ever. Just think if FDR had been seen as a legacy candidate and derided and shunned by the electorate. The 30's and 40's could have gone very differently and not for the better.

Names are superficial; it's the experience and performance that matter.

Besides, the R's had 2 Bushes, so the D's can balance that with 2 Clintons. I am confident that 8 years of a second Clinton would be a helluva lot better than the 8 years of second Bush was.

[Bonobo]

76. Not as shallow as your argument that Bernie is "crazy looking". THAT is shallow. nt

[Persondem]

78. Gee since you brought it up how about repeating the whole line I used?

Naaaa ......... had you worried huh?

btw, Sanders being "crazy looking" is an internet meme so it's not like I made that up.

Shallow perhaps, but "crazy" is in the eye of the beholder.

Nothing like hijacking your own thread. Shall we continue down this side road or get back to YOUR bit of shallowness with your concern over names?

[Bonobo]

79. Hell, man, I started a whole OP on your fucked up statement. nt

[Persondem]

82. I noticed that it didn't get much play.

So most of my "fucked up statement" is apparently irrefutable since you picked out the only subjective part of it to mention in this thread. Ok. Sounds good to me.

And just for kicks and giggles ....

Sanders is still an old, crazy looking, conscientious objecting, tax raising, Socialist from New England who would get creamed in a general election by GOP ads that would make use of all those facts (and one subjective opinion).

Hey, I gave you the chance to NOT go down this road, but apparently you just had to drag it up again.

[Bonobo]

86. Nah, most people concluded it was an assholeish

Right wing statement.

[Travis_0004]

75. Honestly, I don't care

I want to support the best candidate, which is Bearnie.

There are plenty of actual issues with Clinton, so the fact that her husband was president doesn't matter to me.

If I wanted to support an ex Walmart board member, who supported the Iraq war, I would become a Republican.

[Bernblu]

81. And by then Chelsea Clinton will be ready to run against George P. Bush

What a country!

[zentrum]

83. And a 158 families

…..funding half the election (for all candidates except Bernie).

It's the death knell of Democracy.

[thesquanderer]

84. Arguably, just one family

see

http://time.com/3584031/george-bush-bill-clinton/

[Hulk]

85. She never was...

..and Bill never was either. They sing a good song, but I hope to high heaven that she doesn't get the nomination. We won't move ahead at all, and corporations and the wealthy will continue to plunder for at least four more years.

A lot can happen with a year to go, in politics.

[George II]

87. Point?

[Drunken Irishman]

92. I wonder how many people used this line when RFK ran?

Is it fucked up? America has always been a nation built on political dynasties - whether the Adams, Tafts, Roosevelts, Kennedys, Bushes or Clintons.

It is what it is. Clinton has earned it just as much as Bernie.

[Bonobo]

93. "It is what it is."