Demand Freedom and Choice: A Clinton or a Bush in 2016

[HenryBHough]

If it's to be a choice of dynasties then one party or the other oughta give a Kennedy a shot at their nomination.

Guess which one would be most gullible.....

 

[Dot Com]

dynasties are-one step-removed from what they practice in the country the framers fled from. Sadly, the low-info voters "in this great nation" (rw-speak) place "name recognition" near the top of their reasons for voting for someone.

Also, as others have mentioned, big $$$ (wall st, insurance, pharma, Big Ag) favors water-carriers for the wealthy who can be counted on to toe the line (do as they're told). Bush' and Clintons have proven that they can be trusted corporate puppets.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Is there anybody actually suggesting that neither Hillary nor Jeb should be permitted to run, rather than just mocking the fact that these families seem to keep a stranglehold over political power in the United States?

yes

Who?

The whole 'political dynasty' crowd. Of course it is only implied and hinted at, because people know it is legitimate and legal for both to run. Or maybe you are one of those who don't believe when I say Chicago Welfare moms I'm not hinting at black people on welfare?

Oh, so this is your imagination running amok, and nobody actually believes that these buffoons should not be allowed to run.

wake up

 

[JoeB131]

If the reason they are the front runners is that they are the ones who everyone knows can raise the money to win, then it's bad. And, I think that is largely the case with Hillary. Superpacs will control spending in this election by about 80% or more. There's an aspect to Hill's aspirations of "she's been waiting," "she's been the loyal SoS........" But challenging her in a dem primary, and taking any money or momentum, as Ted did to Jimmy, will probably make anyone with a serious challenge a pariah.

I think it's more than that. The main reason why no one can mount a successful challenge to Hillary at this point is that she's at the ideological center of her party. It isn't like 2008 where she was in a position on Iraq that was in oppossition to most of where the party was at that point. The idealogical left might want a more liberal candidate but the rank and file of the Democrats really don't.

With Bush, the problem is that most of the other candidates are outright fucking nuts. The big money people in the GOP realize this. Maybe Walker, but Walker is untested.

I still think that Bush would be a horrible candidate for the Republicans, but it's not like they have a lot of alternatives.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Is there anybody actually suggesting that neither Hillary nor Jeb should be permitted to run, rather than just mocking the fact that these families seem to keep a stranglehold over political power in the United States?

yes

Who?

The whole 'political dynasty' crowd. Of course it is only implied and hinted at, because people know it is legitimate and legal for both to run. Or maybe you are one of those who don't believe when I say Chicago Welfare moms I'm not hinting at black people on welfare?

Oh, so this is your imagination running amok, and nobody actually believes that these buffoons should not be allowed to run.

You need to get out more often. These people are out there.

Believe

because they do