If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Hill)   America was founded in opposition to government based on hereditary inheritance of power**. (** Does not apply in Michigan.)   (thehill.com) divider line 27
    More: Interesting  
•       •       •

1227 clicks; posted to Politics » on 25 Feb 2014 at 9:47 AM (38 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



27 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2014-02-25 07:43:37 AM  
Same goes for the Bushes, the Clintons, the Kennedys, the Tafts. I'm sick of all of them.
 
2014-02-25 09:48:25 AM  
You can't really inherit votes.
 
2014-02-25 09:49:56 AM  
If you like her, vote for her. If you don't, don't. Same goes for the Bushes, the Clintons, the Kennedys, the Tafts. They have to earn their votes like anyone else, no one holds office by birthright.
 
2014-02-25 09:50:40 AM  
No, it wasn't. It was founded so wealthy, powerful colonial landowners and their descendents could run things without having to answer to Britain.
 
2014-02-25 09:51:13 AM  
Subby I think you missed the part where voting takes place
 
2014-02-25 09:53:43 AM  

Sir Cumference the Flatulent: Same goes for the Bushes, the Clintons, the Kennedys, the Tafts. I'm sick of all of them.


Luckily for these families, you're not the majority of the populace, among whom name recognition is a more important factor(by an unpleasantly large factor) than policy positions.
 
2014-02-25 09:55:02 AM  
Political family is political.
 
2014-02-25 09:55:54 AM  
Voting is irrelevant when you're given the same old choices every time.
 
2014-02-25 09:56:25 AM  

phaseolus: If you like her, vote for her. If you don't, don't. Same goes for the Bushes, the Clintons, the Kennedys, the Tafts. They have to earn their votes like anyone else, no one holds office by birthright.


Pretty much... Lots of folks in my district (4th MA) were pissing and moaning about Joe Kennedy III running for Congress a couple of years back. When I voted for him, it wasn't because of his last name or family ties, it was because of his statements and beliefs and because I found his opponent (Sean Bielat) unworthy of my vote.
 
2014-02-25 09:57:59 AM  
If that's the case, then why does our government constantly try to protect and increase the wealth of a few extremely wealthy and influential families?
 
2014-02-25 09:58:33 AM  
Who cares what her last name is, just as long as the letter after her last name is correct.
 
2014-02-25 10:00:17 AM  

phaseolus: If you like her, vote for her. If you don't, don't. Same goes for the Bushes, the Clintons, the Kennedys, the Tafts, the Murkowskis, the Levins, the Adamses, the Chafees, the Pauls, the Carnahans, the Macks, the Bonos (now the Bono-Macks), the Sanchezes, the Udalls, and others. They have to earn their votes like anyone else, no one holds office by birthright.


If you don't want dynasties, don't elect people whose family members have served.

// of course, that's a different kind of limitation of access, but don't worry your pretty heads about it
 
2014-02-25 10:01:49 AM  

markfara: No, it wasn't. It was founded so wealthy, powerful colonial landowners and their descendents could run things without having to answer to Britain.



This.  Does anyone seriously think that our government actually reflects the policy preferences and will of the majority of the people, as opposed to the wealthy elite that effectively run the show?

Hell, a fine example is that the government is seriously considering allowing the time warner/comcast merger, despite the fact that those companies are universally hated by their captive customers.  Whose interest is the government trying to protect here?
 
2014-02-25 10:04:42 AM  

Sir Cumference the Flatulent: Same goes for the Bushes, the Clintons, the Kennedys, the Tafts. I'm sick of all of them.


Are you advocating that certain people be denied the right to run for office simply because of one drop of blood?

Because that is the practical effect of your comment; punishing one person for the perfectly legal actions of another.  We let felons run for office. So, you are creating a form of super-felon, barred from a facet of public political life without conviction, trial, or even charge, simply because they share blood with another person who did something not only legal, but necessary for government to run.

Don't like someone related to someone else holding political office trying to hold political office?  Then vote against them.  Dynasties exist because they have a mechanism to insure the passing power along.  "Hoping a bunch of farkers vote for my son" is a plan, not a mechanism.
 
2014-02-25 10:05:43 AM  
When he was 55 yrs. old he married a 27 yr. old.  Nicely done old man.

www.headforart.com
 
2014-02-25 10:09:46 AM  
I didn't realize that spouses had a "hereditary" relationship.
 
2014-02-25 10:14:16 AM  

phalamir: Sir Cumference the Flatulent: Same goes for the Bushes, the Clintons, the Kennedys, the Tafts. I'm sick of all of them.

Are you advocating that certain people be denied the right to run for office simply because of one drop of blood?

Because that is the practical effect of your comment; punishing one person for the perfectly legal actions of another.  We let felons run for office. So, you are creating a form of super-felon, barred from a facet of public political life without conviction, trial, or even charge, simply because they share blood with another person who did something not only legal, but necessary for government to run.

Don't like someone related to someone else holding political office trying to hold political office?  Then vote against them.   Dynasties exist because they have a mechanism to insure the passing power along.  "Hoping a bunch of farkers vote for my son" is a plan, not a mechanism.


I think his comment was more geared to the ** Does not apply in Michigan part of the headline.

As far as the highlighted portion of your comments, do you really think that being born as part of a political family doesn't help a person gain office by letting them establish the networks necessary for support?  If you think that then you must be the type that thinks that Junior and RMoney are millionaires completely because of the sweat of their brow and not because Daddy introduced them to the right people early on in life.
 
2014-02-25 10:22:57 AM  
Dynasties totally exist in America. All it takes is to share a last name with someone famous and you're a shoo-in, regardless of policies. That's why Hillary was elected in 2008 instead of some unknown dude with a weird name.
 
2014-02-25 10:28:56 AM  

Saiga410: Who cares what her last name is, just as long as the letter after her last name is correct.


Bless your heart.
 
2014-02-25 10:33:47 AM  

Sir Cumference the Flatulent: Same goes for the Bushes, the Clintons, the Kennedys, the Tafts. I'm sick of all of them.


Comparing the Clinton power couple to the Bush or Kennedy political families, which have been active in US politics for a century or more, is about as apples-to-oranges as you can get.
 
2014-02-25 10:46:20 AM  

pueblonative: phalamir: Sir Cumference the Flatulent: Same goes for the Bushes, the Clintons, the Kennedys, the Tafts. I'm sick of all of them.

Are you advocating that certain people be denied the right to run for office simply because of one drop of blood?

Because that is the practical effect of your comment; punishing one person for the perfectly legal actions of another.  We let felons run for office. So, you are creating a form of super-felon, barred from a facet of public political life without conviction, trial, or even charge, simply because they share blood with another person who did something not only legal, but necessary for government to run.

Don't like someone related to someone else holding political office trying to hold political office?  Then vote against them.   Dynasties exist because they have a mechanism to insure the passing power along.  "Hoping a bunch of farkers vote for my son" is a plan, not a mechanism.

I think his comment was more geared to the ** Does not apply in Michigan part of the headline.

As far as the highlighted portion of your comments, do you really think that being born as part of a political family doesn't help a person gain office by letting them establish the networks necessary for support?  If you think that then you must be the type that thinks that Junior and RMoney are millionaires completely because of the sweat of their brow and not because Daddy introduced them to the right people early on in life.


I didn't say being in a political family doesn't help; but it isn't a mechanism to insure succession.  Voters can still pull whatever lever they want on Election Day.  In contrast, there is a mechanism in Britain to insure the Windsors stay as monarchs for a very long time, barring mass suicide/homicide.  Charles will be the next British monarch, barring his death or the complete dissolution of Britain as we know it.  And if he dies, William will take up the position.  These are as undeniable as the sun rising in the east.  Short massive disruption, they cannot help but occur.  Yes, a political family can tilt the playing field almost vertical in their favor, but a dynasty doesn't even have a playing field, because there is no game, just cause and effect.

When these Dingells start canceling elections and simply declaring themselves to the position, then come to talk to me about dynasties.
 
2014-02-25 10:54:15 AM  
No it wasn't.

It was founded on the principle of representative government.*

*-Offer not valid in the District of Columbia
 
2014-02-25 12:43:39 PM  

Car_Ramrod: Dynasties totally exist in America. All it takes is to share a last name with someone famous and you're a shoo-in, regardless of policies. That's why Hillary was elected in 2008 instead of some unknown dude with a weird name.


Romney's only qualification was "my daddy ran for President." The same for W.
 
2014-02-25 12:57:17 PM  
pueblonative:

...do you really think that being born as part of a political family doesn't help a person gain office by letting them establish the networks necessary for support?


"General Kenobi... years ago you served my father in the Clone Wars..."
 
2014-02-25 01:45:29 PM  

Chummer45: markfara: No, it wasn't. It was founded so wealthy, powerful colonial landowners and their descendents could run things without having to answer to Britain.


This.  Does anyone seriously think that our government actually reflects the policy preferences and will of the majority of the people, as opposed to the wealthy elite that effectively run the show?

Hell, a fine example is that the government is seriously considering allowing the time warner/comcast merger, despite the fact that those companies are universally hated by their captive customers.  Whose interest is the government trying to protect here?


You need some post-cynicism in your life.

IDEALISM: My political party represents me! And that's great!

CYNICISM: This country isn't a true democracy. Parties ignore the people and mostly just listen to elites and established interest groups. And that's an outrage!

POSTCYNICISM: This country isn't a true democracy. Parties ignore the people and mostly just listen to elites and established interest groups. And thank God, considering how over half the people believe evolution is a lie and mostly just vote for whoever has the nicer haircut and will cut taxes/increase spending the most. Elites and established interest groups may be kinda evil, but at least they have a vested interest in making the economy not explode too catastrophically*, and they don't let creationism get taught in schools because that would be embarrassing. And that's great!

*Note: They don't always do a very good job at this.
 
2014-02-25 02:12:07 PM  

markfara: No, it wasn't. It was founded so wealthy, powerful colonial landowners and their descendents could run things without having to answer to Britain.


Don't forget criminals and rabble rousers.
 
2014-02-25 05:00:49 PM  

meyerkev: Chummer45: markfara: No, it wasn't. It was founded so wealthy, powerful colonial landowners and their descendents could run things without having to answer to Britain.


This.  Does anyone seriously think that our government actually reflects the policy preferences and will of the majority of the people, as opposed to the wealthy elite that effectively run the show?

Hell, a fine example is that the government is seriously considering allowing the time warner/comcast merger, despite the fact that those companies are universally hated by their captive customers.  Whose interest is the government trying to protect here?

You need some post-cynicism in your life.

IDEALISM: My political party represents me! And that's great!

CYNICISM: This country isn't a true democracy. Parties ignore the people and mostly just listen to elites and established interest groups. And that's an outrage!

POSTCYNICISM: This country isn't a true democracy. Parties ignore the people and mostly just listen to elites and established interest groups. And thank God, considering how over half the people believe evolution is a lie and mostly just vote for whoever has the nicer haircut and will cut taxes/increase spending the most. Elites and established interest groups may be kinda evil, but at least they have a vested interest in making the economy not explode too catastrophically*, and they don't let creationism get taught in schools because that would be embarrassing. And that's great!

*Note: They don't always do a very good job at this.


Yeah, and there's that cynicism is lazy-mode criticism.  "shiat's really awful, and my solution to this is to not vote".  If they really believed what they were saying, they'd find a way to make a change and push that.
 
Displayed 27 of 27 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report