by Sixstrings » Thu 12 Apr 2012, 18:47:13
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Lore', '[')b]Enough of this pension to resurrect some sort of a dynasty here in the US. We seem to have this deep-seated longing to reestablish a monarchy in which the ghosts of rulers that we remember and liked can somehow be squeezed out of the genes of their immediate family.
Yeah if Hillary had one that would have been rather odd.. Bush - Clinton - Clinton - Bush - Bush - Clinton
At least with the Clintons they're not really about a "dynasty," no sons and Chelsea has no interest. The Bush's though.. they fancy the idea of dynasty.. Jeb will be running one day, probably in 2016. Then they've got another Bush lined up for after him.
As for royalty.. Americans do like a "daddy figure" for president. We seem to swing back in forth, the Republicans are the daddy figures but then we rebel now and then and elect a Democrat.
Romney just looks like a president, he's right out of central casting for a movie. But yet, whenever he speaks -- just listen to him sometime -- it's all NONSENSE *the man literally has nothing to say*. He looks the part, but doesn't measure up oratorically.
Obama, on the other hand, isn't too "presidential" but is very intelligent. Looking back now, I actually think Hillary would have been good as well. Much of the foreign policy success of this administration is thanks to Hillary. She'll be a bit old in 2016; she's already looking rough. I'll probably vote for her though. It's time for a woman and Hillary is the best qualified.
What we really need from Democrats, and just don't get any more, is very strong principled leadership. This is why "daddy figure" voters go Republican. It doesn't have to be that way though -- think of FDR, it's possible for a liberal to be tough as nails and charismatic and regal. During his presidency, FDR was LOVED by the working class so much it was common for folks to have the president's picture up in their home. Republicans hated him with passion.. called him a "traitor to his class." Republicans wanted the poor and old to starve in the streets. Republicans have always been against anything for the working man, that has never changed and never will.
Best of all worlds is somebody like a Teddy Roosevelt. A Republican, yet pro-American mercantilist -- he was a reformer, known as the "trust buster" (monopolies). Tough as nails, military guy, above all PRO AMERICA. That kind of leader is impossible now, we're a globalist paradigm now and there really is no "America" just global finance and the interests of the monied elite.
Lastly Reagan.. he seemed like a great president at the time and for a while after.. but since becoming "aware" on so many issues, I really see how it was Reagan who set this country down the wrong path and a lot of people are poor and well get poorer because of his ideas. Globalism, Reaganomics, deficit spending, free trade deals. I don't want to bother googling the graphs, just trust me though wage growth has been a flat line ever since Reagan. That's no accident.
So that's the conundrum with the daddy figures --
they really ain't your daddy, they don't give a damn about you, the "daddy figure" Republican candidates are more akin to the CEO of the company you work at. They DO NOT GIVE A DAMN about you, they will lay you off cut your benefits, take away your healthcare, fire you on the spot, their interests are not your interests.
Mitt Romney can try to trinagualte and flip-flop and be weird and making bizarre jokes and outright lie all he likes -- I won't fall for it, I'm voting Obama. And the SCOTUS is important, I must keep voting Dem no matter what this Republican supreme court has been bad we can't let it go further to the right. The whole difference between Obama and Romney boils down to whose taxes go up, the poor and working class or the super rich. That's the big difference, folks. Vote accordingly.
The country is safe in Obama's hands, he got OBL for Christ's sake what more do you want, we're out of Iraq we'll be out of Iran soon
there's no darn reason to vote Romney unless you're wealthy and want lower taxes and more money printing -- that's exactly what Romney will do, that's the Bush doctrine, super low taxes on the rich then print money to fund the government.
At least Obama is being responsible and wants to raise taxes on the super rich.