Fair enough, I should have said something like “in recent history”.
A detail…like the presidents Roosevelt being so distantly related as to have been unrelated until a marriage brought the family strains closer together after a 300 (or so) year divergence. Which seems to my barbaric mind like a European royalty strategy.
So, through the diligent work of the BBQ Demons it is established that there is an element of dynastic rule in the USA (not counting the Rooseveltses). I put it to you that there was also an element of slave-ownership among the very people who drafted that “all men are created equal…” nonsense. In other news, smokers tell themselves “I should smoke less because smoking is bad for me”.
“Oh, waiter! Uhm, this conversation isn’t very good.”
The Adams make it clear that this country was not founded in opposition to dynastic rule. It was opposed to dynastic rule without elections.
So are you proposing that once a person serves a term as president all of their immediate relatives should be barred from running for that office? How closely related are we talking? Wouldn’t this require a constitutional amendment?
All of their immediate relatives including themselves apparently.
Were it my decision I’d just go with a lottery for all currently elected positions. If your feet are on US soil, you’re in the game. After all, those least suited for public office are the ones who seek it hardest. May as well give everyone else an equal chance whether they like it or not.
How close? I’d say if an ex-POTUS has the ear and interests of a proposed candidate, that’s too close. It’s like p0rnography–hard to define, but you know it when you see it.
Gotcha, do you base every decision in your life on quotes from satirical novels or just this one?
Doesn’t seem germane, but thanks for asking anyway. I appreciate your genuine curiosity. In point of fact, I base most of my decisions upon what strikes me as wisdom irrespective of the source. On its surface it seems a rather dependent philosophy, but the alternative is to just pull junk out of my ass and call that the truth.
So many ways to get what you want!
I use the best. I use the rest.
You think a lottery for all currently elected positions is wise?
You shouldn’t have used Wisdom as a dump stat.
Are you suggesting the current system has merit? The one that gives us pedophilic administrations, endless wars against poors that nobody wants, an upside down tax system, a massive daycare and consumer indoctrination program masquerading as an education system?
I mean…yeah. I kinda do think that. Sortition is hardly a new idea and has worked in the past.
You actually want to randomly pick from a population that gave us pedophilic administrations, endless wars against the poors, an upside down tax system, a massive daycare and consumer indoctrination program masquerading as an education system?
And wants to give all of that to us even harder.
Ayup. As a starter, because only about 50% of us (a few more, actually) like pedophiles in government. While there thus remains a 50/50 chance a pedo/pedolover might be assigned a job in the lottery, there remains a 90%+ chance of a pedo/pedolover being elected. Essentially, were it a caveclan I was a member of, should someone a little shady stand up and try to lead the clan one day, my instinct would be to trick them into being bear bait. Which would make me a stealth leader and thus suspect as well, but I stand my ground here.
Yeah; the problem is the people more than the system. No matter what system you replace the presently one with it’ll still go bad because it’ll be run by bad people.
It’s a core issue with any plan to make the world better by installing the ideological system of your choice. Switch a murderous tyranny over to Communism, you end up with Stalin and Mao because the same people are there and the culture hasn’t changed.
You seem a little… obsessed.
If I’m in a pizza place and see you coming with something under your coat, I’m diving out the back door.
I’m not sure I get your point. Can you use more words and say what you actually mean to say?
You seem obsessed by the idea that an extraordinary percentage of people are or support pedos.
Like the gunman who shot up a pizza place at the height of the pizzagate nonsense.
Interesting conclusion. But to speak to it: half or more of the people elected the pedos, and protect them to this day from any consequence. This suggests, to my apparently feeble mind, a fair amount of support.
Assuming you have evidence they believed “the pedos” were pedos. Which you don’t because they didn’t.
Your posts are hysterical, and I don’t mean funny.
Thanks for the misogyny, and I don’t mean appreciative.
WTF are you talking about?
- I don’t know what gender Inigo_Montoya is.
- “hysterical” is not a gendered term.
I don’t know why you needed to clarify that you would not be thanking me for “rising in price or value”
When you understand that remark, you will understand how idiotic it is to getting your nose out of joint about “hysterical”.