All I want to know is why? Why continue these dynasties?

GaryPDX: All I want to know is why? Why continue these dynasties?

Because they have the money and name recognition and those two things are most of what you need to get elected.

mitchcumstein1: GaryPDX: All I want to know is why? Why continue these dynasties?

Because they have the money and name recognition and those two things are most of what you need to get elected.

And the Founders weep for the failed Grand Experiment.

GaryPDX: mitchcumstein1: GaryPDX: All I want to know is why? Why continue these dynasties?

Because they have the money and name recognition and those two things are most of what you need to get elected.

And the Founders weep for the failed Grand Experiment.

I don't know about that. The Founders were all wealthy land owners, many of whom belonged to secret societies and had family members go on to serve in prominent positions in government in business. They were just the earliest version of what's going on now.

mitchcumstein1: I don't know about that. The Founders were all wealthy land owners, many of whom belonged to secret societies and had family members go on to serve in prominent positions in government in business. They were just the earliest version of what's going on now.

There's a huge difference. There was a lot more freedom back then.

GaryPDX: There's a huge difference. There was a lot more freedom back then.



the negro community of that time period frowns upon your shenanigans

GaryPDX: mitchcumstein1: I don't know about that. The Founders were all wealthy land owners, many of whom belonged to secret societies and had family members go on to serve in prominent positions in government in business. They were just the earliest version of what's going on now.

There's a huge difference. There was a lot more freedom back then.

You're farking with me now, nice.

GaryPDX: All I want to know is why? Why continue these dynasties?

1. We're human beings. this is how human beings prefer to ensure a smooth transfer of power. we've done this for centuries. it's as natural as breathing.

2. We're an empire. traditionally, empires tend to favor the formation of dynastic bloodlines.

I'm not saying it's right but it's a natural human tendancy for empires to transfer/concentrate political and economic power into a few bloodlines.

Weaver95

I don't think the US qualifies as an Empire.

Swampthing in Korea: Weaver95

I don't think the US qualifies as an Empire.

"An empire is an extensive group of states or ethnic peoples united and ruled over by a single monarch or ruling authority; having a strong centralized political power; and a large commercial organization under the control of one person or group within this nation state."

Oh we definitely are...

GaryPDX: mitchcumstein1: I don't know about that. The Founders were all wealthy land owners, many of whom belonged to secret societies and had family members go on to serve in prominent positions in government in business. They were just the earliest version of what's going on now.

There's a huge difference. There was a lot more freedom back then.



Susan B. Anthony, arrested for the radical and illegal act of voting while female, frowns on your shenanigans.

Sounds like "The War of the Roses"....make that "Hosers"

Jonny Chimpo: Swampthing in Korea: Weaver95

I don't think the US qualifies as an Empire.

"An empire is an extensive group of states or ethnic peoples united and ruled over by a single monarch or ruling authority; having a strong centralized political power; and a large commercial organization under the control of one person or group within this nation state."

Oh we definitely are...

By that definition every damn country is an Empire.

Australia: Different ethnic groups, states, centralized power (federal and state governemnt)

France: Different ethnic groups, states, centralized power (federal governemnt)

Britain: Different ethnic groups, states, centralized power (federal governemnt)

Swampthing in Korea: Weaver95

I don't think the US qualifies as an Empire.

We still hold some territories whose people might not identify themselves as Americans first. Puerto Rico comes to mind.

Nicholas Urfe: Swampthing in Korea: Weaver95

I don't think the US qualifies as an Empire.

We still hold some territories whose people might not identify themselves as Americans first. Puerto Rico comes to mind.

That is a protectorate as I recall. Many nation-states have held protectorates through history, and have not been an Empire

Hawaii and Alaska, Guam, Puerto Rico, US Virgin Islands, American Samoa, Iraq, Afghanistan..

If we think of former territories, there's the Philippines, the Panama Canal zone, Cuba, and occupation in Japan, Korea and Germany post-war, and these are just off the top of my head.

bobbette: Hawaii and Alaska, Guam, Puerto Rico, US Virgin Islands, American Samoa, Iraq, Afghanistan..

If we think of former territories, there's the Philippines, the Panama Canal zone, Cuba, and occupation in Japan, Korea and Germany post-war, and these are just off the top of my head.

The US has military bases in 131 countries I believe. No, I don't know them all.

GaryPDX: mitchcumstein1: GaryPDX: All I want to know is why? Why continue these dynasties?

Because they have the money and name recognition and those two things are most of what you need to get elected.

And the Founders weep for the failed Grand Experiment.

You mean John Adams right? And his son John Quincy Adams?

bobbette

Hawaii and Alaska are self-governing states that are part of a union. Not subject territories.

Phillipines was a suject territory, that I agree with, but was never permanantly annexed. Japan, Korea and Germany were areas temporarily occupied, never conquered and ruled as part of a larger, unified political unit.

Iraq and Afghanistan are again occupied and soon to be independent. Not Imperial provinces

Pechorin: bobbette: Hawaii and Alaska, Guam, Puerto Rico, US Virgin Islands, American Samoa, Iraq, Afghanistan..

If we think of former territories, there's the Philippines, the Panama Canal zone, Cuba, and occupation in Japan, Korea and Germany post-war, and these are just off the top of my head.

The US has military bases in 131 countries I believe. No, I don't know them all.

Again, foreign bases are distinct from conquest and annexation. They are there at the invitation of the government in question.

Many countries maintain military bases in foreign territory for convenience of supply and deployment.

Swampthing in Korea: Pechorin: bobbette: Hawaii and Alaska, Guam, Puerto Rico, US Virgin Islands, American Samoa, Iraq, Afghanistan..

If we think of former territories, there's the Philippines, the Panama Canal zone, Cuba, and occupation in Japan, Korea and Germany post-war, and these are just off the top of my head.

The US has military bases in 131 countries I believe. No, I don't know them all.

Again, foreign bases are distinct from conquest and annexation. They are there at the invitation of the government in question.

Many countries maintain military bases in foreign territory for convenience of supply and deployment.

I know, I was only pointing that fact out.

But also, what other countries maintain military bases on foreign territory? Russia maybe? Some ex-colonial powers maybe?

Pechorin: Swampthing in Korea: Pechorin: bobbette: Hawaii and Alaska, Guam, Puerto Rico, US Virgin Islands, American Samoa, Iraq, Afghanistan..

If we think of former territories, there's the Philippines, the Panama Canal zone, Cuba, and occupation in Japan, Korea and Germany post-war, and these are just off the top of my head.

The US has military bases in 131 countries I believe. No, I don't know them all.

Again, foreign bases are distinct from conquest and annexation. They are there at the invitation of the government in question.

Many countries maintain military bases in foreign territory for convenience of supply and deployment.

I know, I was only pointing that fact out.

But also, what other countries maintain military bases on foreign territory? Russia maybe? Some ex-colonial powers maybe?

France had a crapload of deployments in Africa

Australia has a few bases in Papua New Guinea and one in Singapore in the past.

Russia has many bases through Central Asia.

Canada has a base or two in Germany and the wasteland known as Quebec.

Swampthing in Korea: Pechorin: Swampthing in Korea: Pechorin: bobbette: Hawaii and Alaska, Guam, Puerto Rico, US Virgin Islands, American Samoa, Iraq, Afghanistan..

If we think of former territories, there's the Philippines, the Panama Canal zone, Cuba, and occupation in Japan, Korea and Germany post-war, and these are just off the top of my head.

The US has military bases in 131 countries I believe. No, I don't know them all.

Again, foreign bases are distinct from conquest and annexation. They are there at the invitation of the government in question.

Many countries maintain military bases in foreign territory for convenience of supply and deployment.

I know, I was only pointing that fact out.

But also, what other countries maintain military bases on foreign territory? Russia maybe? Some ex-colonial powers maybe?

France had a crapload of deployments in Africa

Australia has a few bases in Papua New Guinea and one in Singapore in the past.

Russia has many bases through Central Asia.

Canada has a base or two in Germany and the wasteland known as Quebec.

Do any of them have bases in 131 countries and spend as much money and resources on their overseas bases as the US? Have any of them invaded and occupied a foreign country or 2 in the past 25 years? Russia doesn't count.

Pechorin: Swampthing in Korea: Pechorin: Swampthing in Korea: Pechorin: bobbette: Hawaii and Alaska, Guam, Puerto Rico, US Virgin Islands, American Samoa, Iraq, Afghanistan..

If we think of former territories, there's the Philippines, the Panama Canal zone, Cuba, and occupation in Japan, Korea and Germany post-war, and these are just off the top of my head.

The US has military bases in 131 countries I believe. No, I don't know them all.

Again, foreign bases are distinct from conquest and annexation. They are there at the invitation of the government in question.

Many countries maintain military bases in foreign territory for convenience of supply and deployment.

I know, I was only pointing that fact out.

But also, what other countries maintain military bases on foreign territory? Russia maybe? Some ex-colonial powers maybe?

France had a crapload of deployments in Africa

Australia has a few bases in Papua New Guinea and one in Singapore in the past.

Russia has many bases through Central Asia.

Canada has a base or two in Germany and the wasteland known as Quebec.

Do any of them have bases in 131 countries and spend as much money and resources on their overseas bases as the US? Have any of them invaded and occupied a foreign country or 2 in the past 25 years? Russia doesn't count.

Invading and occupying other countries does not make a nation-state an Empire.

Nor does spending money on foreign bases.

Swampthing in Korea: Pechorin: Swampthing in Korea: Pechorin: Swampthing in Korea: Pechorin: bobbette: Hawaii and Alaska, Guam, Puerto Rico, US Virgin Islands, American Samoa, Iraq, Afghanistan..

If we think of former territories, there's the Philippines, the Panama Canal zone, Cuba, and occupation in Japan, Korea and Germany post-war, and these are just off the top of my head.

The US has military bases in 131 countries I believe. No, I don't know them all.

Again, foreign bases are distinct from conquest and annexation. They are there at the invitation of the government in question.

Many countries maintain military bases in foreign territory for convenience of supply and deployment.

I know, I was only pointing that fact out.

But also, what other countries maintain military bases on foreign territory? Russia maybe? Some ex-colonial powers maybe?

France had a crapload of deployments in Africa

Australia has a few bases in Papua New Guinea and one in Singapore in the past.

Russia has many bases through Central Asia.

Canada has a base or two in Germany and the wasteland known as Quebec.

Do any of them have bases in 131 countries and spend as much money and resources on their overseas bases as the US? Have any of them invaded and occupied a foreign country or 2 in the past 25 years? Russia doesn't count.

Invading and occupying other countries does not make a nation-state an Empire.

Nor does spending money on foreign bases.

I'm not saying it does. I'm just playing devil's advocate here. What would make a country an empire in your view?

To some people any military use is 'imperial'. With such a broad definition, its easy to call the US an empire.

LargeCanine: To some people any military use is 'imperial'. With such a broad definition, its easy to call the US an empire.

Yet again, I'm not saying the US is an empire. But what do you believe would constitute an empire?

Pechorin: Swampthing in Korea: Pechorin: Swampthing in Korea: Pechorin: Swampthing in Korea: Pechorin: bobbette: Hawaii and Alaska, Guam, Puerto Rico, US Virgin Islands, American Samoa, Iraq, Afghanistan..

If we think of former territories, there's the Philippines, the Panama Canal zone, Cuba, and occupation in Japan, Korea and Germany post-war, and these are just off the top of my head.

The US has military bases in 131 countries I believe. No, I don't know them all.

Again, foreign bases are distinct from conquest and annexation. They are there at the invitation of the government in question.

Many countries maintain military bases in foreign territory for convenience of supply and deployment.

I know, I was only pointing that fact out.

But also, what other countries maintain military bases on foreign territory? Russia maybe? Some ex-colonial powers maybe?

France had a crapload of deployments in Africa

Australia has a few bases in Papua New Guinea and one in Singapore in the past.

Russia has many bases through Central Asia.

Canada has a base or two in Germany and the wasteland known as Quebec.

Do any of them have bases in 131 countries and spend as much money and resources on their overseas bases as the US? Have any of them invaded and occupied a foreign country or 2 in the past 25 years? Russia doesn't count.

Invading and occupying other countries does not make a nation-state an Empire.

Nor does spending money on foreign bases.

I'm not saying it does. I'm just playing devil's advocate here. What would make a country an empire in your view?

Well, and this is pretty obvious, it must be ruled by an actual Emperor or a hereditary monarch with absolute power.

Second, it must engage in territorial expansion through military strength,

Third, it must actively conquer and then permanantly annex territory occupied by groups that were formerly independent, and incorporate those areas into a unified structure of governance.

LargeCanine: To some people any military use is 'imperial'. With such a broad definition, its easy to call the US an empire.

we have 'no fly' lists, spy on our own citizens, invaded Iran and Iraq (and currently occupy those countries with military forces). we directly or indirectly have significant impact on the economies of a large portion of the world, and our cultural standards have spread around the globe. we've developed dynastic bloodlines that rule regions of the US, as well as a few that control national politics (The Kennedy family, the Bush family, the Clinton family to name a few) and have done so for a couple generations and plan to continue doing so.

we're an empire. we're a somewhat confused empire at times, but we're an empire just the same. Not that there's anything wrong with being imperial, it's just a larger and more expansive form of Republic. Just so long as we can prevent regional factionalism from disrupting our government then we should be able to continue with our empire for another 200 years or so.

Weaver95: LargeCanine: To some people any military use is 'imperial'. With such a broad definition, its easy to call the US an empire.

we have 'no fly' lists, spy on our own citizens, invaded Iran and Iraq (and currently occupy those countries with military forces). we directly or indirectly have significant impact on the economies of a large portion of the world, and our cultural standards have spread around the globe. we've developed dynastic bloodlines that rule regions of the US, as well as a few that control national politics (The Kennedy family, the Bush family, the Clinton family to name a few) and have done so for a couple generations and plan to continue doing so.

we're an empire. we're a somewhat confused empire at times, but we're an empire just the same. Not that there's anything wrong with being imperial, it's just a larger and more expansive form of Republic. Just so long as we can prevent regional factionalism from disrupting our government then we should be able to continue with our empire for another 200 years or so.

When did we invade Iran. Did I miss this?

Weaver95: LargeCanine: To some people any military use is 'imperial'. With such a broad definition, its easy to call the US an empire.

we have 'no fly' lists, spy on our own citizens, invaded Iran and Iraq (and currently occupy those countries with military forces). we directly or indirectly have significant impact on the economies of a large portion of the world, and our cultural standards have spread around the globe. we've developed dynastic bloodlines that rule regions of the US, as well as a few that control national politics (The Kennedy family, the Bush family, the Clinton family to name a few) and have done so for a couple generations and plan to continue doing so.

we're an empire. we're a somewhat confused empire at times, but we're an empire just the same. Not that there's anything wrong with being imperial, it's just a larger and more expansive form of Republic. Just so long as we can prevent regional factionalism from disrupting our government then we should be able to continue with our empire for another 200 years or so.

See, I don't think we're an empire in the traditional sense. The 3 guidelines laid out by Swampthing in Korea would define an empire in the traditional sense. We are a sort of 21st century Imperial Republic. It'll be interesting to see how future generations view the US at this time.

Pechorin: Weaver95: LargeCanine: To some people any military use is 'imperial'. With such a broad definition, its easy to call the US an empire.

we have 'no fly' lists, spy on our own citizens, invaded Iran and Iraq (and currently occupy those countries with military forces). we directly or indirectly have significant impact on the economies of a large portion of the world, and our cultural standards have spread around the globe. we've developed dynastic bloodlines that rule regions of the US, as well as a few that control national politics (The Kennedy family, the Bush family, the Clinton family to name a few) and have done so for a couple generations and plan to continue doing so.

we're an empire. we're a somewhat confused empire at times, but we're an empire just the same. Not that there's anything wrong with being imperial, it's just a larger and more expansive form of Republic. Just so long as we can prevent regional factionalism from disrupting our government then we should be able to continue with our empire for another 200 years or so.

See, I don't think we're an empire in the traditional sense. The 3 guidelines laid out by Swampthing in Korea would define an empire in the traditional sense. We are a sort of 21st century Imperial Republic. It'll be interesting to see how future generations view the US at this time.

The US is a national-state with huge international influence and concerns.

Swampthing in Korea: Well, and this is pretty obvious, it must be ruled by an actual Emperor or a hereditary monarch with absolute power.

Second, it must engage in territorial expansion through military strength,

Third, it must actively conquer and then permanantly annex territory occupied by groups that were formerly independent, and incorporate those areas into a unified structure of governance.

The Holy German Empire satisfies only the first criterion: it had an Emperor. It was not even hereditary.

globalwarmingpraiser: When did we invade Iran. Did I miss this?

Afghanistan. Sorry - freudian slip. Or prophecy? TIME WILL TELL! dumdumDUM!

Pechorin: LargeCanine: To some people any military use is 'imperial'. With such a broad definition, its easy to call the US an empire.

Yet again, I'm not saying the US is an empire. But what do you believe would constitute an empire?

Swampthing's definition above is concise.
1) Hereditory sovereign
2) Expansion through conquest
note - some folks would point out the annexation of the southwest territories as an example of US imperial expansion. Its not so simple. California, for example VOTED - including the ethnically latin families to petition for entry into the US. And we purchased the rest.
3) Permanent annexation through force

I would add that an Empire would appoint governors of their conquored territores and most certainly would NOT try to prepare them for independence, like the US did time and time again: Germany, Italy, Japan, Iraq, etc etc. We let territories go, if they wanted. The Phillipines, etc.

Also, tax money flows to the center of an empire. The subject territories send money to the capital. The US is the opposite, we spent gobs of money rebuilding Japan,Germany, Iraq and other places we temporarily occupied.


If anything the US is an uniquely an anti-Empire. There is not even a word for it.

"Imperial Republic" is an interestng term. I like it. It might fit. Reminds me of the book :Imperial Grunts" by Kaplan.

Grunhilde Gonzalez: Swampthing in Korea: Well, and this is pretty obvious, it must be ruled by an actual Emperor or a hereditary monarch with absolute power.

Second, it must engage in territorial expansion through military strength,

Third, it must actively conquer and then permanantly annex territory occupied by groups that were formerly independent, and incorporate those areas into a unified structure of governance.

The Holy German Empire satisfies only the first criterion: it had an Emperor. It was not even hereditary.

Lol

The old quote: The Holy Roman Empire was neither holy nor Roman nor an empire!

38 posts and nobody has posted Emperor Palpatine yet. Farkers are slacking.

Pechorin: 38 posts and nobody has posted Emperor Palpatine yet. Farkers are slacking.

The Galactic Empire was an Empire in all respects, although Palpatine was not interested in hereditary rule, but eternal rule via soul transference to clone bodies.

LargeCanine: 1) Hereditory sovereign

16 years of Bush/Clinton/Bush. with more of them waiting in the wings.

2) Expansion through conquest
note - some folks would point out the annexation of the southwest territories as an example of US imperial expansion. Its not so simple. California, for example VOTED - including the ethnically latin families to petition for entry into the US. And we purchased the rest.

Iraq. Afghanistan. Plus we keep all of south america on a pretty short leash, with carrot and stick economic/military interventions to keep things going our way.

3) Permanent annexation through force

Again - see our middle east policies.

Also, tax money flows to the center of an empire. The subject territories send money to the capital. The US is the opposite, we spent gobs of money rebuilding Japan,Germany, Iraq and other places we temporarily occupied.

US fiscal policy is to collect personal income taxes and then have the FEDERAL government disburse those funds according to THEIR policy, and frequently forcing state governments to cede funding decisions to federal authority. For example - failure to comply with federal guidlines and your local government stops getting highway repair funds. All that money flows to D.C. and is disbursed by D.C. Local governments cannot compete with that flow of money.


If anything the US is an uniquely an anti-Empire. There is not even a word for it.

Nah, we're just slightly different in terms of some of the details. we're just a bit deluded about the realities of our situation.

Swampthing in Korea:
Well, and this is pretty obvious, it must be ruled by an actual Emperor or a hereditary monarch with absolute power.

Second, it must engage in territorial expansion through military strength,

Third, it must actively conquer and then permanantly annex territory occupied by groups that were formerly independent, and incorporate those areas into a unified structure of governance.

1. No. That is a requirement placed on it by you.

2.It's called California, New Mexico, Texas, Colorado, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, Guam, etc..

3.See above..

We have bases in 131 countries in the world yes. How many of the Governments of those countries did we put into power either through direct military intervention or covert operations.

Just becuase we do not have a hereditary Emperor who wears robes and olive branches for a hat does not mean we are not in fact an Empire.

Also, in modern times control is maintained over "vassal" states through economic manipulation as much as it is covert military operations.

Read more American History.

Gumercules: Swampthing in Korea:
Well, and this is pretty obvious, it must be ruled by an actual Emperor or a hereditary monarch with absolute power.

Second, it must engage in territorial expansion through military strength,

Third, it must actively conquer and then permanantly annex territory occupied by groups that were formerly independent, and incorporate those areas into a unified structure of governance.

1. No. That is a requirement placed on it by you.

2.It's called California, New Mexico, Texas, Colorado, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, Guam, etc..

3.See above..

We have bases in 131 countries in the world yes. How many of the Governments of those countries did we put into power either through direct military intervention or covert operations.

Just becuase we do not have a hereditary Emperor who wears robes and olive branches for a hat does not mean we are not in fact an Empire.

Also, in modern times control is maintained over "vassal" states through economic manipulation as much as it is covert military operations.

Read more American History.

1: Empires have almost always focused on hereditary monarchies: Assyria, Achaemenid, Parthian and Sassanian Persia, Byzantium, Charlemagne's empire, the Chinese Empires of Han, Tang, Song, Yuan, Ming and Chi'ing, Russia under the Ruriks and Romanovs, Byzantium, Rome ect...

History is on my side here.

2 and 3: Some were states that petitioned to join the union and were organized as self-governing entities within the union, or where purchases via treaty. Others were territories administered by the US, but were NOT incorporated as provinces. They functioned as protectorates, a common international arrangement.

And again, foreign military bases do not equal an Empire.

Weaver:

The Bushes and Clintons were elected and left after set term limits. Hardly monarchial.

Swampthing

1. History is on your side "almost always". If you take the Roman empire into consideration there were so many assassinations and coups and not to mention the division of the Empire that it almost becomes unreasonable to call it a hereditary Post. As unreasonable as calling the United States in it's current form a Constitutional Republic.

2.Almost the entire western half of our country was aquired through the Mexican American War. The treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo was signed under US cannons and occupational Forces.

The Phillipines, Guam, Cuba, Puerto Rico, and Wake Island were all aquired during the Spanish American War.
-The Phillipines were occupied and brutally administrated for years under direct military rule until the roughly 3 million "Phillipino Insurgents" were irradicated or forced into submission by US Marines for the most part. Then when there was no will left to fight a submissive US friendly Government was installed.
-Cuba was for the most part left to be controlled by the Mafia and Agricultural Companies after a series of US supported dictators were installed.

There were plenty of failed missions and many successes. But for the most part the US empire spread pretty quickly and quietly (to us) through most of the 20 th century.

Let's not forget our CIA adventures in Iran and Iraq and Suadi Arabia...

An Empire does not require having Legions in encampments or non-native Governors installed or any of that crap from the last two millenia. Most of the vassal countries paid "tribute" not through direct taxes but though manufacturing cheap product for US consumption (Taiwan, Phillipines, etc) or through monopoly control of Agricultural production by US firms protected by US military might (Phillipines, Hawaii, Cuba, etc.) or by being a convenient place to put a naval base or refueling station. In the last thirty years with Globalization of the Economy we have seen submissive and friendly governments installed, supported, and emplaced to ensure the continued dominance of the US in the largest sphere of influence ever controlled by a single power.

Look up the History of the country of Panama now that we are on the Spanish American War. It involved the USS Oregon having to take two months to reach Cuba an take part in the Battle of Santiago Harbor.

Just becuase no one has ever had the gall to come right out and declare themselves Emperor and Supreme ruler does not mean the USA is not an Empire. We are an Empire by no doubt. A new one by history's standard maybe, but an Empire for sure.

Why wasn't Chelsea picked as Hillary's replacement (not that I'd want that)? You'd think Bill/Hillary would have pushed for that. Wonder if it was floated but Chelsea wanted to stay in the private sector making beaucoup bucks.

/yes she's underage but the constitution has been waived in other cases. several Congressmen's kin came to Congress this same way.

I'm not surprised. It's just as bad as "Chicago Politics" here in the Empire State. The only good thing to come out of this is that we're finally rid of Hillary on the state level.

Have to keep the ruling class free of outsiders...

uncdwm
Congress age restrictions are much lower than a Senators in most states.

I for one, am not surprised by this in the least. How else were they going to get a Kennedy to eventually become the First Female President?

Gumercules: Have to keep the ruling class free of outsiders...

uncdwm
Congress age restrictions are much lower than a Senators in most states.

I for one, am not surprised by this in the least. How else were they going to get a Kennedy to eventually become the First Female President?
I'm not surprised either. But...

House of Reps min age = 25
Senata min age = 30

Chelsea is 28yo which is close and it wouldn't have been the first time that req't was waived (just one of many pieces of the constitution not followed). I'm just surprised there hasn't been more mention of Chelsea even if only by those former Hillary supporters during the primary.

FTFA: On the other hand, her name is pretty much everywhere in New York, ranging from the international airport named after her father to the Triboro Bridge, which was recently renamed for uncle Bobby, once the state's junior senator.

Naming a bridge after Bobby may be a bad idea, considering all the problems the Kennedy family has had with bridges

/please resume the semantics discussion

That_Dude: FTFA: On the other hand, her name is pretty much everywhere in New York, ranging from the international airport named after her father to the Triboro Bridge, which was recently renamed for uncle Bobby, once the state's junior senator.

Naming a bridge after Bobby may be a bad idea, considering all the problems the Kennedy family has had with bridges

/please resume the semantics discussion

Like Chevy naming their new drop top the JFK...