General Discussion

TXCritter

(344 posts)

132. No more dynasties. Period.

Thu Apr 6, 2017, 10:55 AM

Apr 2017

I started saying no more dynasties when W ran. For me, it's exclusive to the presidency. It's not about the person running, it's about the mental weakness of the electorate. The electorate should reject qualification by proximity.

Imagine this

HW Bush
Bill Clinton
W Bush
B Obama
H Clinton
Jeb Bush
M Obama
Neil Bush?
C Clinton

I don't see that as OK. I see it as a feature of the GOP because the current GOP favors a strong Executive. Their attacks on the Judicial Branch are clear indicators that they want Marbury vs Madison overturned and establish a strong executive with no checks and balances. So, for Republicans, the monarchy worship goes hand in hand with their patriarchal, theocratic goals.

But Democrats? I would hope we are above celebrity worship. For the next candidate I don't want to see any Roosevelts, Trumans, Kennedys, Johnsons, Carters, Clintons or Obamas who are close relations to the original sitting president. How close is close? Admittedly, I'm not sure.

For the record, I don't want to see Sanders run again either. He's become too divisive to the party. Also, Gore & Biden are out. We need some newer blood. Sen. Warren would be my first choice.

Click here to purchase valentine hearts!

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

217 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

"No more dynasties"--for women, that is [View all] BainsBane Apr 2017 OP

Men are terrified of HRC, she has principals and intelligence far ahead of the lizards. DK504 Apr 2017 #1

She's strong and smart BainsBane Apr 2017 #2

It's not as though she'd ever run again...so why talk abour her candidacy in the present tense? Ken Burch Apr 2017 #55

Because her treatment is an example of misogyny in action BainsBane Apr 2017 #59

The RIGHT savaged her on gender. NOT the Left. Ken Burch Apr 2017 #63

Bullshit BainsBane Apr 2017 #71

The vast majority of opposition to HRC in the primaries was on the issues and nothing else. Ken Burch Apr 2017 #75

On economic issues, there really wasn't much daylight WomenRising2017 Apr 2017 #77

I realize she was challenged. It sounds like a lot of people think Ken Burch Apr 2017 #80

She was challenged by Senator Sanders, WomenRising2017 Apr 2017 #81

He campaigned for her all fall. Ken Burch Apr 2017 #82

There was absolutely a valid reason for him to run and campaign WomenRising2017 Apr 2017 #85

I'll explain, but I won't debate it if you choose to reject my explanations: Ken Burch Apr 2017 #89

So the "she's the corporate candidate" message ehrnst Apr 2017 #103

Yes, I do. Ken Burch Apr 2017 #190

And quoted the number of delegates he got in the primary as many times as he could ehrnst Apr 2017 #102

The defining spirit of the Sanders campaign was a belief in the need for transformational change- Ken Burch Apr 2017 #191

welcome to du. niyad Apr 2017 #141

Post removed Post removed Apr 2017 #110

Ahh, the good old days mcar Apr 2017 #115

You deserve hazard pay for wading through that BainsBane Apr 2017 #116

History matters loyalsister Apr 2017 #124

Thank you for that post. You've offered the best analysis so far in this thread. Ken Burch Apr 2017 #157

Let me shorten that; A lot of people fell for the con. And they don't want to admit it. nt fleabiscuit Apr 2017 #164

They responded loyalsister Apr 2017 #165

I don't plan on ever considering sabotage and foreign intervention as miscalculations. fleabiscuit Apr 2017 #168

It wasn't a con to not support HRC in the primaries. Ken Burch Apr 2017 #201

Non sequitur. nt fleabiscuit Apr 2017 #204

LOL NurseJackie Apr 2017 #83

They could have chosen not to echo the right. synergie Apr 2017 #87

"Don't vote with your vagina" kcr Apr 2017 #91

I condemned those who used such words at the time. Ken Burch Apr 2017 #93

You condemned them at the time. But will pretend it never happened now? kcr Apr 2017 #94

What I'm saying is that it didn't DEFINE the Sanders campaign. Ken Burch Apr 2017 #96

Post removed Post removed Apr 2017 #97

He never decided to run a campaign for white people Ken Burch Apr 2017 #98

Sanders is in front of the cameras and sending out messages daily ehrnst Apr 2017 #107

+1 betsuni Apr 2017 #99

You said misogyny did NOT happen on the left. That's what's being refuted. ehrnst Apr 2017 #104

It happened. It shouldn't have. It didn't DEFINE anti-HRC sentiment on the Left. Ken Burch Apr 2017 #198

So you've changed your mind about it. That's good. ehrnst Apr 2017 #202

I recall that very clearly... (nt) ehrnst Apr 2017 #101

I remember that last one... Mike Nelson Apr 2017 #125

...and... Mike Nelson Apr 2017 #127

"I won't vote for her just because she's a woman" Baconator Apr 2017 #135

If you need to ask that question most likely you won't accept the answer. George II Apr 2017 #142

Try me... Baconator Apr 2017 #145

Are you serious? NastyRiffraff Apr 2017 #147

It just seems odd to vote for someone based on genetics... Baconator Apr 2017 #148

How so? NastyRiffraff Apr 2017 #149

Your mileage may vary... Baconator Apr 2017 #150

Your concern is noted. NastyRiffraff Apr 2017 #160

Wrong - there is PLENTY of sexism towards her on the left ehrnst Apr 2017 #100

yeah, throw your vote away on the LIAR, stein.. Cha Apr 2017 #162

Those were a handful of people. Ken Burch Apr 2017 #185

Really? Nothing from the left? LisaM Apr 2017 #177

Yes, it would be significant to elect a woman. Ken Burch Apr 2017 #182

Thank you for proving my point. n/t LisaM Apr 2017 #186

I didn't prove your point. Ken Burch Apr 2017 #188

Yes, you did prove my point. LisaM Apr 2017 #192

Nobody had to support HRC in the primaries to prove they weren't sexist. Ken Burch Apr 2017 #195

"Why DID it have to be HRC, btw? What was so special about her compared to any other woman lunamagica Apr 2017 #203

I agree that she had experience. That's not the only thing that matters. Ken Burch Apr 2017 #207

So, what else matters that she didn't have? lunamagica Apr 2017 #211

OK...compared to Elizabeth Warren, for example? Ken Burch Apr 2017 #212

What makes you think Hillary will never run again? lapucelle Apr 2017 #129

Two losses like she has taken... Baconator Apr 2017 #136

Apparently not to everyone, including me. lapucelle Apr 2017 #138

Just difficult to see any real path to victory... Baconator Apr 2017 #139

We see "issues" with male candidates all the time. lapucelle Apr 2017 #161

She won the hearts of the American people by 2.9 million people. pnwmom Apr 2017 #144

I think future candidates will really have to 'win hearts'... Baconator Apr 2017 #146

One loss for the GE. And Nixon became president after losing the GE once. lunamagica Apr 2017 #205

How'd that one turn out...? Baconator Apr 2017 #213

The way it turned out has nothing to do with the fact that he won after losing once lunamagica Apr 2017 #214

I'm not saying it's impossible... Baconator Apr 2017 #215

I don't know, it's to early to tell. and I never said that lunamagica Apr 2017 #216

We can make an educated estimate... Baconator Apr 2017 #217

I don't think any of THEM will run again. Or should. Ken Burch Apr 2017 #155

NO BUSH NO CLINTON snooper2 Apr 2017 #117

Thousands of times we were told no more Clinton's no more Bush's Eliot Rosewater Apr 2017 #176

...the lizards? Warren DeMontague Apr 2017 #27

cool... haven't heard them for ages Fast Walker 52 Apr 2017 #38

Not men on the left. Ken Burch Apr 2017 #57

So please explain these comments by men on the left ehrnst Apr 2017 #105

Post removed Post removed Apr 2017 #86

Especially men who voted for Hillary, donated, phone banked, knocked on doors, etc. IronLionZion Apr 2017 #152

What I find amusing... tammywammy Apr 2017 #3

No doubt BainsBane Apr 2017 #6

And looking ahead to George Prescott Bush, son of jeb! calimary Apr 2017 #34

... AngryAmish Apr 2017 #4

Care to express your point in words? BainsBane Apr 2017 #8

I know he's not Trump, but a trigger warning please next time? ;) moriah Apr 2017 #114

Before or after the sun goes Nova? AngryAmish Apr 2017 #118

K&R betsuni Apr 2017 #5

I criticized the whole Dynasty thing when people here were flouting Joe Kennedy III a few weeks ago. Warren DeMontague Apr 2017 #7

Nope, I know for a fact you're wrong BainsBane Apr 2017 #9

Here's the Joe Kennedy thread Warren DeMontague Apr 2017 #10

The no more Clinton dynasty people aren't even in that thread BainsBane Apr 2017 #14

I dunno, I'm not part of any contingency. Warren DeMontague Apr 2017 #15

Did I put your name in the OP? BainsBane Apr 2017 #18

i made that same point in the thread. Warren DeMontague Apr 2017 #21

Fair points BainsBane Apr 2017 #23

Al Gore is another BainsBane Apr 2017 #24

You are absolutely right about Gore, and Trudeau. But also Dubya. Warren DeMontague Apr 2017 #26

It may not be at all BainsBane Apr 2017 #31

Kudos to you both for the respectful exchange. YoungDemCA Apr 2017 #39

Ah, Bain and I go way back, lol. Warren DeMontague Apr 2017 #45

yep. (nt) ehrnst Apr 2017 #106

It is name ID crazycatlady Apr 2017 #111

The thing is, the two times we've won the WH in the past 36 years, we've run relative unknowns. Warren DeMontague Apr 2017 #153

The Clintons are hardly a dynasty anyway. LisaM Apr 2017 #51

Check out this thread BainsBane Apr 2017 #52

Oh brother! LisaM Apr 2017 #58

I know I made a beeline... Orsino Apr 2017 #119

I worry about that because of Trump BainsBane Apr 2017 #120

It doesn't matter that the Clintons are two (or three) different people. Orsino Apr 2017 #122

The demographics they attract BainsBane Apr 2017 #143

Clintons evolve. Orsino Apr 2017 #167

You're a walking poster for my OP BainsBane Apr 2017 #169

she attracts minority voters and single women who tend to have it toughest economically JI7 Apr 2017 #166

Also realize this BainsBane Apr 2017 #121

Yes. The woman card thing is a powerful innoculation... Orsino Apr 2017 #123

it's not a card BainsBane Apr 2017 #170

I say it's a card, and I'm for playing it. Orsino Apr 2017 #171

You're playing a card alright BainsBane Apr 2017 #172

Exactly. Gore1FL Apr 2017 #73

Excellent job! caroldansen Apr 2017 #11

Thanks! BainsBane Apr 2017 #22

Thanks very much for posting this. NurseJackie Apr 2017 #12

K&R brer cat Apr 2017 #13

K&R! nt JTFrog Apr 2017 #16

Some here highly praised mcar Apr 2017 #17

Add the Trudeau 'dynasty' deurbano Apr 2017 #19

Good point BainsBane Apr 2017 #20

Indeed. Who DOESN'T gush over Justin Trudeau? SunSeeker Apr 2017 #133

They are only human. BainsBane Apr 2017 #137

In fairness genxlib Apr 2017 #25

Sounds perfectly reasonable to me. nt BainsBane Apr 2017 #28

+Infinity NastyRiffraff Apr 2017 #29

No one is saying that Chelsea Clinton is unfit to serve because she was PoindexterOglethorpe Apr 2017 #30

Actually they did BainsBane Apr 2017 #33

Alas, a hidden post means that if you weren't PoindexterOglethorpe Apr 2017 #35

If two isn't a dynasty BainsBane Apr 2017 #36

People these days are awfully quck to start using the word Dynasty. PoindexterOglethorpe Apr 2017 #37

seems fair BainsBane Apr 2017 #54

George Prescott Bush (son of Jeb) is in politics right now. Demit Apr 2017 #62

Actually, FDR Jr. was a Congressman from New York thucythucy Apr 2017 #134

Glad you are one of those who understand that about Chelsea. moriah Apr 2017 #113

"I can't be sexist. I support Liz Warren and Tulsi Gabbard." - And they talk about those two... George II Apr 2017 #32

So it's sexist to question the idea of nominating ANY members of the Clinton family? Ken Burch Apr 2017 #43

Actually, it kind of is. kcr Apr 2017 #92

I think this started because somebody in the press started floating the Chelsea idea this week. Ken Burch Apr 2017 #95

The savaging of Warren from the left once she endorsed HRC ehrnst Apr 2017 #108

Pay no attention to the brazen nepotism in the Trump family. YoungDemCA Apr 2017 #40

We've all denounced that. Ken Burch Apr 2017 #42

No. For anyone. Ken Burch Apr 2017 #41

Oh, yes. That's exactly what I'm arguing BainsBane Apr 2017 #44

FDR was a class traitor...standing with the poor against the 1%. Ken Burch Apr 2017 #47

You are working really hard to avoid the point BainsBane Apr 2017 #49

I've never said that nobody's opposition to HRC was based in sexism. Ken Burch Apr 2017 #53

I give up BainsBane Apr 2017 #60

IT's the Right who hates the idea of a woman being president...not the Left. Ken Burch Apr 2017 #61

Might need a thinner paintbrush. PdxSean Apr 2017 #46

If you look closely at my post BainsBane Apr 2017 #48

KnR to you, BB Hekate Apr 2017 #50

Great Post BB Gothmog Apr 2017 #56

Thanks, Gothmog! BainsBane Apr 2017 #65

Sexism exists, yes. People should look long and hard at why they hold the opinions on people they do JCanete Apr 2017 #64

Interesting, because Carter represented a rightward turn for the party BainsBane Apr 2017 #67

on what did carter represent a rightward turn? I may be mistaken there, and I don't mean to say that JCanete Apr 2017 #70

Here BainsBane Apr 2017 #74

thanks for that! nt JCanete Apr 2017 #76

Dynasties are quintessentially American. guillaumeb Apr 2017 #66

There are prominent families around the world BainsBane Apr 2017 #69

THANK YOU!! "respecting one woman or person of color doesn't mean one is immune to racism or sexism" uponit7771 Apr 2017 #68

The excuse for the Trump voters BainsBane Apr 2017 #78

... AngryAmish Apr 2017 #72

Great points. R B Garr Apr 2017 #79

Thanks! BainsBane Apr 2017 #84

Must be lonely in that ideological corner of yours. nt redgreenandblue Apr 2017 #88

Oh, please. Her OP has over 80 likes (so far) do you call that lonely? lunamagica Apr 2017 #208

"The whitelash that Toni Morrison wrote about"--here's the link: raccoon Apr 2017 #90

Thanks. BainsBane Apr 2017 #112

We live it daily, hourly, every second and it was rampant Guilded Lilly Apr 2017 #109

I don't even get it .. JHan Apr 2017 #126

Precisely. BainsBane Apr 2017 #131

I'm a feminist janterry Apr 2017 #128

Not the point BainsBane Apr 2017 #130

For myself, wealth concerns me with ANYONE we might nominate. Ken Burch Apr 2017 #156

I'll be checking back with you around June BainsBane Apr 2017 #174

Go ahead. I don't hold either of those views. Never have. Ken Burch Apr 2017 #175

I don't know how many times I have to say BainsBane Apr 2017 #180

I'm as anti-sexist as you are. Ken Burch Apr 2017 #184

No more dynasties. Period. TXCritter Apr 2017 #132

k and r + several gazillion for truth!! niyad Apr 2017 #140

+1000 Blue_Tires Apr 2017 #151

Very Distressing Post Rilgin Apr 2017 #154

It isn't about policy or why people voted as they did. BainsBane Apr 2017 #158

no Rilgin Apr 2017 #159

Rilgin is right and your history is simply wrong. Jim Lane Apr 2017 #163

The point is people here BainsBane Apr 2017 #173

About FDR and JFK Jim Lane Apr 2017 #206

So your point is to attack democrats. Rilgin Apr 2017 #209

Excellent post. Kentonio Apr 2017 #181

So sick of this bullshit. Kentonio Apr 2017 #178

Nothing makes her someone you need to be talking about BainsBane Apr 2017 #179

Well first of all, let's start with the basic fact that I couldn't care less what you believe. Kentonio Apr 2017 #183

If the argument would have been about qualifications BainsBane Apr 2017 #187

You don't have to have been born into a political family to be part of a dynasty. Kentonio Apr 2017 #189

"but I think you've misunderstood slightly" melman Apr 2017 #210

This message was self-deleted by its author ymetca Apr 2017 #193

All true. Ken Burch Apr 2017 #196

"Showed up just in time"? BainsBane Apr 2017 #197

This message was self-deleted by its author ymetca Apr 2017 #199

Great post BB. Spot on, as usual lunamagica Apr 2017 #194

Thanks, lunamagica! BainsBane Apr 2017 #200