JCC are american Dynasties "Un-american" or just part of the process

Discussion in 'Community' started by Likewater, Oct 20, 2012.

  1. Likewater Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Dec 31, 2009
    star 4
    Some call them political families some call them Dynasties, I feel they are just creepy.

    In New York we have the Cuomo's

    https://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4GGHP_enUS416US417&q=cuomo

    Nationaly whe had the Bush's and now the Romney's are making their play for power.

    in the past we had the Roosavelts who are rememberd fondly, and the ever famouse Kennedy's also called Camelot (For reasons i dont understand)

    Do you feel slightly creeped out by their prepecity to grab power? Do you feel they provide some sort of stability and familiarity?

    It's not new, the Adams could be said to be United States first political family.

    But its existance striked me as wrong some how, in a way I just can't put my finger on. Does anyone else feel similar? Or feel its simply a natural part of the political process?
  2. Aytee-Aytee Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Jul 20, 2008
    star 5
    I'm more creeped out by people who cannot spell "Roosevelt".

    EDIT -- Or "nationally", or "we", or "existence", or "Adamses", etc. etc.
    Last edited by Aytee-Aytee, Oct 20, 2012
  3. GrandAdmiralJello Moderator Communitatis Litterarumque

    Manager
    Member Since:
    Nov 28, 2000
    star 10
    We've had political families long before the Adamses--these thirteen colonies were founded by a small handful of families which maintained the natural and reasonable desire to maintain their position.

    We're not a Bolshevik country.
    heels1785 likes this.
  4. DarthLowBudget Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Jan 17, 2004
    star 5
    Yeah, these people are all democratically elected, its not like their power is enforced arbitrarily. Some people get into politics. Its no big deal.
  5. Darth Guy Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Aug 16, 2002
    star 10
    Nothing wrong with people having a lot of political power just because they have a lot of money.
    DarthBoba and tom like this.
  6. DarthLowBudget Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Jan 17, 2004
    star 5
    Ok, you got me. I guess I just don't think that they're "creepy." They're just a thing.
  7. tom Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Mar 14, 2004
    star 6
    they certainly aren't "un-american".
  8. Darth Guy Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Aug 16, 2002
    star 10
  9. GenAntilles Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Jul 24, 2007
    star 5
    To be honest I'd feel safer with the rich and powerful leading than the poor and insignificant.
  10. Coruscant Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Feb 15, 2004
    star 7

    To be honest, I'd feel safer having people with the right policies and vision for the nation at the right time, leading the nation, regardless of whether they're rich and powerful or poor and insignificant.
    Valairy Scot and Juliet316 like this.
  11. GrandAdmiralJello Moderator Communitatis Litterarumque

    Manager
    Member Since:
    Nov 28, 2000
    star 10
    Careful, you know who might show up and elaborate.


    Misa ab iPhono meo.
    Spider-Fan likes this.
  12. GenAntilles Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Jul 24, 2007
    star 5
    Having the right ideas and policies are meaningless if you don't have the power and resources to make them happen.
    Valairy Scot likes this.
  13. tom Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Mar 14, 2004
    star 6
    presumably if you were in a position of leadership you would have the power and resources.
    Juliet316 likes this.
  14. Darth Guy Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Aug 16, 2002
    star 10
    So you're saying you like the Franklin Roosevelt and Kennedy Administrations?
  15. GenAntilles Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Jul 24, 2007
    star 5
    For the most part of FDR yes, and definitely JFK. Two good presidents.
  16. Darth Guy Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Aug 16, 2002
    star 10
    I thought you were libertarian/conservative.
  17. Aytee-Aytee Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Jul 20, 2008
    star 5
    Getting shot in the head is always the best way for a politician to increase his or her popularity overnight. See also: Abraham Lincoln, Gabrielle Giffords.

    Getting shot in the belly or the back? Not so much.

    But hey, at least you might get a cartoon cat named after you....

    EDIT -- "Garfield Administration Minus Garfield" lol
    Last edited by Aytee-Aytee, Oct 20, 2012
  18. GenAntilles Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Jul 24, 2007
    star 5
    I'd say I lean conservative. I don't care for FDR's New Deal policies mind you. But the man was a great president and a great leader who led us through the Great Depression and WWII. I'd vote for FDR over Hoover any day. And JFK was a great president. Stood up to the Communists, increased our defense, fought for civil rights, lowered taxes. If he came back to life and ran for office I'd vote for him.

    Hey JFK was a good president even before his tragic death. Though if he hadn't have died all his sordid personal details would've gotten out and made reelection for him a nightmare.
  19. Jabba-wocky Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    May 4, 2003
    star 8
    Why would you vote for Roosevelt over Hoover if you would have preferred government non-intervention to the large-scale Keynesian stimulus Roosevelt enacted?
  20. GenAntilles Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Jul 24, 2007
    star 5
    Because Hoover's solutions were worse. FDR himself blasted Hoover for reckless and extravagant spending and raising taxes. FDR slammed Hoover for increasing the national debt and raising tariffs and blocking trade And Hoover also placed millions on the government dole. Roosevelt's running mate, John Nance Garner, accused the Republican of "leading the country down the path of socialism". So yeah... I'd pick FDR over Hoover.
  21. Aytee-Aytee Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Jul 20, 2008
    star 5
    "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for BRaaAAIiNSSS."
    Last edited by Aytee-Aytee, Oct 20, 2012
  22. Jabba-wocky Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    May 4, 2003
    star 8
    That's just objectively wrong. Roosevelt made far more direct government intervention into the economy than did Herbert Hoover at any time.
  23. GenAntilles Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Jul 24, 2007
    star 5
    Hoover did a lot of government intervention, tax raising, and tarrifs. He just did it all TERRIBLY. Roosevelt at least made it seem like it was working. I may not like government intervention but there are times when it is needed, if only to make the masses think things are getting better and appease them. Better to have those policies than risk mass rioting or someone like MacArthur or Huey Long somehow gaining power in the crisis.
  24. DarthLowBudget Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Jan 17, 2004
    star 5
    So you're saying that Government spending and intervention didn't get us out of the Great Depression, and that Roosevelt was only responsible for putting up a good front to keep people happy while the whole thing quietly sorted itself out on its own?
  25. Darth Guy Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Aug 16, 2002
    star 10
    As Stephen Colbert once said (paraphrasing modern Republicans), it wasn't the massive government spending of the New Deal that dragged the U.S. out of the Great Depression. It was the even more massive government spending of World War II.
    DarthBoba likes this.