http://gamingtrend.com
July 28, 2014, 04:14:30 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News:
 
   Home   Help Search Calendar Login Register  
Pages: [1] 2 3   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: SCOTUS Screws Us Again: Welcome to the Police State!  (Read 2002 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
ATB
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 15304


Thanks for everything, Ryan. 1979-2013


View Profile
« on: April 02, 2014, 03:48:48 PM »

Justices strike down political donor limits
« Last Edit: April 25, 2014, 04:18:21 PM by ATB » Logged
Scraper
Gaming Trend Staff
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3886



View Profile
« Reply #1 on: April 02, 2014, 04:37:06 PM »

What a shocker it was a 5-4 split down party lines. Surprise surprise.  Roll Eyes
Logged

" And they are a strong and frightening force, impervious to, and immunized against, the feeble lance of mere reason." Isaac Asimov
Turtle
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 9313



View Profile WWW
« Reply #2 on: April 02, 2014, 06:50:16 PM »

And, it'll take a long time for the crap to trickle down from this to cause a furor.

That and people are now recognizing that it's no longer the 1%, and never was, it's now the 0.01% that have many more times more wealth than expected. The kind of wealth where you can buy even a SCOTUS judge, and some of them have almost said outright it's happened.

Anyone know which party's judges went in favor of this?
Logged
Scraper
Gaming Trend Staff
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3886



View Profile
« Reply #3 on: April 03, 2014, 12:37:31 PM »

Quote from: Turtle on April 02, 2014, 06:50:16 PM

And, it'll take a long time for the crap to trickle down from this to cause a furor.

That and people are now recognizing that it's no longer the 1%, and never was, it's now the 0.01% that have many more times more wealth than expected. The kind of wealth where you can buy even a SCOTUS judge, and some of them have almost said outright it's happened.

Anyone know which party's judges went in favor of this?

Predictably it was the conservative judges. They routinely rule in favor of big business. That's dumbing it down a bit, but essentially that's what they do.
Logged

" And they are a strong and frightening force, impervious to, and immunized against, the feeble lance of mere reason." Isaac Asimov
Caine
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 9835


My cocaine


View Profile
« Reply #4 on: April 03, 2014, 05:03:13 PM »

That John McCain disapproves of this increases my respect of the man.  How the court in favor doesn't see the risks with letting the floodgates down is pretty indicative of how much influence the big donors already have.  The message here is clear: If you want your side to have the best campaigns, you need to drop the cash.  Between this and the 2010 ruling about third party spending, we can look forward to more "ruling through deep pockets".   Neither side is immune to this, but I would love to see how much was spent by the parties over the last few years compared to the next election.
Logged

"It's like chess with big guns against aliens. Which isn't like chess at all when I think about it." - Jake Solomon
Isgrimnur
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 8725



View Profile
« Reply #5 on: April 03, 2014, 05:39:53 PM »

John McCain is so schizophrenic for me. Every time he does something that earns my respect, he turns around and does something just as stupid. It's just waiting for the other shoe to drop.
Logged

Hadron Smasher on 360; IsgrimnurTTU on PS3

I'd rather be watching hockey.
hepcat
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 9135


I'M the one that knocks! Now...burp me!


View Profile
« Reply #6 on: April 07, 2014, 04:33:55 PM »

Every time I see the acronym SCOTUS I think it's the name of a new super villain group in a comic book before I remember its true meaning.  
Logged

Warning:  You will see my penis. -Brian

Just remember: once a user figures out gluten noting them they're allowed to make fun of you. - Ceekay speaking in tongues.
ATB
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 15304


Thanks for everything, Ryan. 1979-2013


View Profile
« Reply #7 on: April 07, 2014, 04:46:35 PM »

Quote from: hepcat on April 07, 2014, 04:33:55 PM

Every time I see the acronym SCOTUS I think it's the name of a new super villain group in a comic book before I remember its true meaning.  

The former isn't the same as the latter?
« Last Edit: April 07, 2014, 04:48:27 PM by ATB » Logged
hepcat
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 9135


I'M the one that knocks! Now...burp me!


View Profile
« Reply #8 on: April 07, 2014, 05:00:49 PM »

Depends on what decision they hand down.  Of course, that applies to everyone's opinion.
Logged

Warning:  You will see my penis. -Brian

Just remember: once a user figures out gluten noting them they're allowed to make fun of you. - Ceekay speaking in tongues.
Caine
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 9835


My cocaine


View Profile
« Reply #9 on: April 07, 2014, 05:26:31 PM »

every time I read it, my brain inserts an R into the acronym and I'm left giggling like Beavis. 
Logged

"It's like chess with big guns against aliens. Which isn't like chess at all when I think about it." - Jake Solomon
hepcat
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 9135


I'M the one that knocks! Now...burp me!


View Profile
« Reply #10 on: April 07, 2014, 05:31:53 PM »

 icon_lol  Yeah, SCORTUS!

...wait...what?

SCOTURS?
Logged

Warning:  You will see my penis. -Brian

Just remember: once a user figures out gluten noting them they're allowed to make fun of you. - Ceekay speaking in tongues.
Dante Rising
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2290


View Profile
« Reply #11 on: April 18, 2014, 11:03:56 AM »

I would hazard to say that the Democratic Party is far from being the party of the poor. 7 of the top 10 wealthiest members of Congress are Democrats. Hollywood is a well known bastion of Democratic funding, and both candidates in 2012 spent over 1 billion dollars. In terms of big business, both Microsoft and Google were significant donators to the Obama campaign.

I'd be happier if each candidate got $100 and a used Winnebago.
« Last Edit: April 18, 2014, 11:11:03 AM by Dante Rising » Logged
Lee
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3198


View Profile
« Reply #12 on: April 19, 2014, 07:36:11 AM »

"Party of the poor" has a different meaning from "party for the poor" Dante. Dems are, supposedly, the latter.
Logged
ATB
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 15304


Thanks for everything, Ryan. 1979-2013


View Profile
« Reply #13 on: April 21, 2014, 06:55:55 PM »

So is  term limits the answer?

Perhaps even for SCOTUS?

6 years for the POTUS
6 years for Reps
8 years for Senate
18 years for SCOTUS?  
Logged
Scraper
Gaming Trend Staff
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3886



View Profile
« Reply #14 on: April 21, 2014, 07:10:24 PM »

Quote from: ATB on April 21, 2014, 06:55:55 PM

So is  term limits the answer?

Perhaps even for SCOTUS?

6 years for the POTUS
6 years for Reps
8 years for Senate
18 years for SCOTUS?  

Those term limits don't really make sense. POTUS should and is 8, reps could be 6 and probably should be, Senate is a 6 year term so maybe a 12 year limit. Scotus should just be an age limit, like the rest of the federal court system.
Logged

" And they are a strong and frightening force, impervious to, and immunized against, the feeble lance of mere reason." Isaac Asimov
Isgrimnur
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 8725



View Profile
« Reply #15 on: April 22, 2014, 04:30:08 AM »

Ask California how term limits have worked for them. By most accounts, it ended up ceding even more power to the lobbyists, as they had to "train" new members of government every few years about the issues.
Logged

Hadron Smasher on 360; IsgrimnurTTU on PS3

I'd rather be watching hockey.
ATB
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 15304


Thanks for everything, Ryan. 1979-2013


View Profile
« Reply #16 on: April 22, 2014, 06:17:32 AM »

Quote from: Isgrimnur on April 22, 2014, 04:30:08 AM

Ask California how term limits have worked for them. By most accounts, it ended up ceding even more power to the lobbyists, as they had to "train" new members of government every few years about the issues.

So what's teh solution?
Logged
Isgrimnur
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 8725



View Profile
« Reply #17 on: April 22, 2014, 01:59:45 PM »

There isn't one. 

Congressmen never get out of the short term game, having to run for re-election every two years.  And people, in general terms, suck at long-range planning.  They're much more willing to sell out any hard decisions for quick and easy profit for their voters because they have to keep raising money and trying to hold on to their jobs.

Senators are more able to feather their own nests and ignore constituencies because they're not motivated by always having to defend their jobs.

It's the age-old question of power.  There aren't enough people that are qualified to do the job, morally upstanding enough to fight against the self-serving nature of politics, and willing to do the job.

All you end up doing is replacing one set of corrupt, self-serving, short-sighted leaders with another.  You can look at the creation and history of the Soviet Union to truly illustrate that one. Were the Communist Party leaders any less corrupt and self-serving than the Tsar and the bureaucracy that served him?
Logged

Hadron Smasher on 360; IsgrimnurTTU on PS3

I'd rather be watching hockey.
ATB
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 15304


Thanks for everything, Ryan. 1979-2013


View Profile
« Reply #18 on: April 25, 2014, 04:19:10 PM »

WTF is going on?

Anonymous calls can lead to searches.  This is great!
Logged
Caine
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 9835


My cocaine


View Profile
« Reply #19 on: April 25, 2014, 04:27:46 PM »

Quote from: ATB on April 25, 2014, 04:19:10 PM

WTF is going on?

Anonymous calls can lead to searches.  This is great!
yeah, I read about this after popehat blogged it.  Why am I not surprised that the court ruled in favor of increasing "reasonable suspicion"?
Logged

"It's like chess with big guns against aliens. Which isn't like chess at all when I think about it." - Jake Solomon
Scraper
Gaming Trend Staff
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3886



View Profile
« Reply #20 on: April 25, 2014, 04:56:07 PM »

Quote from: ATB on April 25, 2014, 04:19:10 PM

WTF is going on?

Anonymous calls can lead to searches.  This is great!

Again this shouldn't be a shocker when you have a conservative Supreme Court. The only real surprise here is that Scalia spoke out against it so strongly. Especially after he just publicly stated that the 4th amendment is not absolute (when referring to mass data collection).
Logged

" And they are a strong and frightening force, impervious to, and immunized against, the feeble lance of mere reason." Isaac Asimov
Autistic Angel
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3603


View Profile
« Reply #21 on: April 25, 2014, 08:07:55 PM »

Quote from: Scraper on April 25, 2014, 04:56:07 PM

Quote from: ATB on April 25, 2014, 04:19:10 PM

WTF is going on?

Anonymous calls can lead to searches.  This is great!

Again this shouldn't be a shocker when you have a conservative Supreme Court. The only real surprise here is that Scalia spoke out against it so strongly. Especially after he just publicly stated that the 4th amendment is not absolute (when referring to mass data collection).


I don't think either side of the political spectrum can claim the high ground on the issue of domestic espionage any more.  I've been really vocal about about tearing down the "Both Sides Do It" false equivalences we see so often in American politics, but casual erosion of personal privacy rights is something the Democratic and Republican parties both own.

And that's the problem: as a liberal who absolutely abhors this easy-access data mining of innocent civilians, who can I vote for to roll back these powers?  Chris Christie?  Hillary Clinton?  Jeb Bush or Joe Biden?  The only political figure I can even imagine abandoning these tactics is Elizabeth Warren, and there's zero indication she's planning a presidential run.

I'm not a single-issue voter, but all other things being equal, I would vote for any candidate who vowed to curtail these domestic spying programs.  It's right up there with their failure to improve the VA system on my list of the Obama administration's biggest failures.

-Autistic Angel
Logged
Scraper
Gaming Trend Staff
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3886



View Profile
« Reply #22 on: April 27, 2014, 11:59:26 PM »

Quote from: Autistic Angel on April 25, 2014, 08:07:55 PM

Quote from: Scraper on April 25, 2014, 04:56:07 PM

Quote from: ATB on April 25, 2014, 04:19:10 PM

WTF is going on?

Anonymous calls can lead to searches.  This is great!

Again this shouldn't be a shocker when you have a conservative Supreme Court. The only real surprise here is that Scalia spoke out against it so strongly. Especially after he just publicly stated that the 4th amendment is not absolute (when referring to mass data collection).


I don't think either side of the political spectrum can claim the high ground on the issue of domestic espionage any more.  I've been really vocal about about tearing down the "Both Sides Do It" false equivalences we see so often in American politics, but casual erosion of personal privacy rights is something the Democratic and Republican parties both own.

And that's the problem: as a liberal who absolutely abhors this easy-access data mining of innocent civilians, who can I vote for to roll back these powers?  Chris Christie?  Hillary Clinton?  Jeb Bush or Joe Biden?  The only political figure I can even imagine abandoning these tactics is Elizabeth Warren, and there's zero indication she's planning a presidential run.

I'm not a single-issue voter, but all other things being equal, I would vote for any candidate who vowed to curtail these domestic spying programs.  It's right up there with their failure to improve the VA system on my list of the Obama administration's biggest failures.

-Autistic Angel

Rand Paul maybe?
Logged

" And they are a strong and frightening force, impervious to, and immunized against, the feeble lance of mere reason." Isaac Asimov
Isgrimnur
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 8725



View Profile
« Reply #23 on: April 28, 2014, 02:42:50 AM »

He's way too isolationist on the international scale. The world economy is way too complex a thing for us to bring all the troops home and let the wolves have free run to tear down any semblance of a civilization in the developing world.
Logged

Hadron Smasher on 360; IsgrimnurTTU on PS3

I'd rather be watching hockey.
Rip
Gaming Trend Reader

Offline Offline

Posts: 399


View Profile WWW
« Reply #24 on: April 29, 2014, 03:23:27 AM »

Quote from: Scraper on April 27, 2014, 11:59:26 PM

Quote from: Autistic Angel on April 25, 2014, 08:07:55 PM

Quote from: Scraper on April 25, 2014, 04:56:07 PM

Quote from: ATB on April 25, 2014, 04:19:10 PM

WTF is going on?

Anonymous calls can lead to searches.  This is great!

Again this shouldn't be a shocker when you have a conservative Supreme Court. The only real surprise here is that Scalia spoke out against it so strongly. Especially after he just publicly stated that the 4th amendment is not absolute (when referring to mass data collection).


I don't think either side of the political spectrum can claim the high ground on the issue of domestic espionage any more.  I've been really vocal about about tearing down the "Both Sides Do It" false equivalences we see so often in American politics, but casual erosion of personal privacy rights is something the Democratic and Republican parties both own.

And that's the problem: as a liberal who absolutely abhors this easy-access data mining of innocent civilians, who can I vote for to roll back these powers?  Chris Christie?  Hillary Clinton?  Jeb Bush or Joe Biden?  The only political figure I can even imagine abandoning these tactics is Elizabeth Warren, and there's zero indication she's planning a presidential run.

I'm not a single-issue voter, but all other things being equal, I would vote for any candidate who vowed to curtail these domestic spying programs.  It's right up there with their failure to improve the VA system on my list of the Obama administration's biggest failures.

-Autistic Angel

Rand Paul maybe?

He is my front runner right now.
Logged
Fireball
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1603


View Profile WWW
« Reply #25 on: June 17, 2014, 08:22:20 PM »

Quote from: ATB on April 21, 2014, 06:55:55 PM

So is  term limits the answer?

Perhaps even for SCOTUS?

6 years for the POTUS
6 years for Reps
8 years for Senate
18 years for SCOTUS?  

Term limits are a terrible idea, particularly in legislative bodies.
Logged

Fireball
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1603


View Profile WWW
« Reply #26 on: June 17, 2014, 08:27:28 PM »

Quote from: Isgrimnur on April 22, 2014, 01:59:45 PM

There isn't one. 

Not one magic bullet, but there are things we can do to improve the situation. They'd require Constitutional amendments, though:

1) End partisan redistricting. Perhaps adopt both non-partisan redistricting and the California primary system nationwide, or perhaps have no primaries and have ranked preference voting.

2) Publicly finance all campaigns, by either making the public financing so generous that everyone will want to opt into it, or just outlawing private contributions to campaigns.

3) Space elections further apart. Four years for Representatives, eight years for Senators would make a decent amount of sense. This would also have the benefit of getting rid of "mid-term" elections.

4) Increase the size of the US House by at least double.

These four reforms would limit the influence of partisan activists in selecting eventual winners, reduce the power of large or institutional donors, address electoral fatigue and reduce the number of constituents each member has to serve.
Logged

Moliere
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 5089



View Profile
« Reply #27 on: June 18, 2014, 07:38:35 PM »

Quote from: Fireball on June 17, 2014, 08:27:28 PM

1) End partisan redistricting. Perhaps adopt both non-partisan redistricting and the California primary system nationwide, or perhaps have no primaries and have ranked preference voting.
I like the idea of ranked preference voting.

Quote from: Fireball on June 17, 2014, 08:27:28 PM

2) Publicly finance all campaigns, by either making the public financing so generous that everyone will want to opt into it, or just outlawing private contributions to campaigns.
I don't like the idea of tax money going to pay for campaigns. Would everyone on the ballot get the same amount of money or only the Democrats and Republicans? It's a bit of a contradiction for a libertarian to accept tax money for their campaign. Would a Ross Perot not be able to finance his own campaign? Is the public financing only in the general election and not the primaries? If so, then the advantage will be given to anyone that can raise the most money to win their primary. If not, then the budget to finance every primary candidate that happens to get on the ballot will become astronomical.

Quote from: Fireball on June 17, 2014, 08:27:28 PM

3) Space elections further apart. Four years for Representatives, eight years for Senators would make a decent amount of sense. This would also have the benefit of getting rid of "mid-term" elections.
Anything that spares me from having to see political ads and the accumulation of trash (signs trying to garner name recognition) on every street corner is a good thing.

Quote from: Fireball on June 17, 2014, 08:27:28 PM

4) Increase the size of the US House by at least double.
Yes! Districts are way too large.
Logged

That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.
Fireball
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1603


View Profile WWW
« Reply #28 on: June 18, 2014, 07:56:13 PM »

Quote from: Moliere on June 18, 2014, 07:38:35 PM

Quote from: Fireball on June 17, 2014, 08:27:28 PM

2) Publicly finance all campaigns, by either making the public financing so generous that everyone will want to opt into it, or just outlawing private contributions to campaigns.
I don't like the idea of tax money going to pay for campaigns. Would everyone on the ballot get the same amount of money or only the Democrats and Republicans? It's a bit of a contradiction for a libertarian to accept tax money for their campaign. Would a Ross Perot not be able to finance his own campaign? Is the public financing only in the general election and not the primaries? If so, then the advantage will be given to anyone that can raise the most money to win their primary. If not, then the budget to finance every primary candidate that happens to get on the ballot will become astronomical.

There are a lot of different ways to handle public financing. Most would prevent a billionaire from swinging in and trying to buy an election because, well, that's part of the point. You can set thresholds such as gathering signatures to prevent just anyone from securing funds for the primary. You can fund all parties equally in the general election, or fund parties based upon previous performance (with set amounts for parties who had received more than, say, 0.5%, 5%, 15% and 25% of the vote).

Even if you assume that you'd have an astronomical number of candidates, and that you funded the House campaigns at an incredibly generous amount ($1,500,000 for major party nominees, $500,000 for minor party nominees, $500,000 for major party primary candidates, $100,000 for minor party primary candidates) and that all candidates met those highest thresholds, it'd amount to less than $5 billion per cycle... you're talking less than 0.07% of the Federal budget for the two year cycle.
Logged

ATB
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 15304


Thanks for everything, Ryan. 1979-2013


View Profile
« Reply #29 on: June 21, 2014, 04:56:36 PM »

article in usatoday says all the supremes are millionares.... seems about right.  why be different from the house, senate and potus?
Logged
hepcat
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 9135


I'M the one that knocks! Now...burp me!


View Profile
« Reply #30 on: June 21, 2014, 10:26:06 PM »

I think it has more to do with the fact that most were successful lawyers before becoming a supreme.
Logged

Warning:  You will see my penis. -Brian

Just remember: once a user figures out gluten noting them they're allowed to make fun of you. - Ceekay speaking in tongues.
ATB
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 15304


Thanks for everything, Ryan. 1979-2013


View Profile
« Reply #31 on: June 21, 2014, 11:51:35 PM »

Quote from: hepcat on June 21, 2014, 10:26:06 PM

I think it has more to do with the fact that most were successful lawyers before becoming a supreme.

Well sure.  But lots of congressmen were successful businessmen before being elected. 
Logged
hepcat
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 9135


I'M the one that knocks! Now...burp me!


View Profile
« Reply #32 on: June 22, 2014, 12:11:30 AM »

Which is why those that were are also well off.  I'm not quite sure what point you're trying to make.   icon_confused
Logged

Warning:  You will see my penis. -Brian

Just remember: once a user figures out gluten noting them they're allowed to make fun of you. - Ceekay speaking in tongues.
ATB
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 15304


Thanks for everything, Ryan. 1979-2013


View Profile
« Reply #33 on: June 22, 2014, 03:12:13 PM »

Quote from: hepcat on June 22, 2014, 12:11:30 AM

Which is why those that were are also well off.  I'm not quite sure what point you're trying to make.   icon_confused

 nod

Yeah. i didn't type my second thought.

Point is they can't represent the people very well when they're not really 'one of us'.
Logged
Isgrimnur
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 8725



View Profile
« Reply #34 on: June 22, 2014, 07:23:52 PM »

Yeah, it's not like out leadership have always been rich, white landowners or anything.  Or that life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness was strongly based off of life, liberty, and property.
Logged

Hadron Smasher on 360; IsgrimnurTTU on PS3

I'd rather be watching hockey.
hepcat
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 9135


I'M the one that knocks! Now...burp me!


View Profile
« Reply #35 on: June 22, 2014, 08:16:40 PM »

Who do you want leading the country:  the 40 year old guy who lives at home with his elderly mom and has no desire to work, or the guy who put himself through college and then became a successful businessman?

Is there corruption in government?  Of course there is.  It has been and always will be a problem. But the solution won't be found in trying to foster class warfare based off some na´ve notion that "wealthy equals bad".
Logged

Warning:  You will see my penis. -Brian

Just remember: once a user figures out gluten noting them they're allowed to make fun of you. - Ceekay speaking in tongues.
Ironrod
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3358



View Profile WWW
« Reply #36 on: June 23, 2014, 03:43:57 AM »

One could make a case that wealthy congressmen have more luxury of independence than those of modest means. Or that they represent the interests that made them wealthy. One can likely find examples for all points on that spectrum.

But the point was made about the SCOTUS being a millionaire's club, and SCOTUS theoretically doesn't represent anybody.
Logged

Curio City Online - Weird stuff you can buy
Curious Business - The Curio City Blog
hepcat
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 9135


I'M the one that knocks! Now...burp me!


View Profile
« Reply #37 on: June 23, 2014, 01:18:57 PM »

My issue right now is politics is becoming more and more of a dynasty.  I know the Adams family did it first, but with the Bush clan putting the same combo on the throne, and then Hillary Clinton trying to wrest control of the country while another Bush sits down in Florida plotting from his Iron Throne, it's becoming more like a bad fantasy movie every year.
« Last Edit: June 23, 2014, 01:22:57 PM by hepcat » Logged

Warning:  You will see my penis. -Brian

Just remember: once a user figures out gluten noting them they're allowed to make fun of you. - Ceekay speaking in tongues.
Fireball
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1603


View Profile WWW
« Reply #38 on: June 23, 2014, 02:53:44 PM »

Members of Congress are generally very wealthy because as wealthy people they tend to know the sorts of people who can afford to fund campaigns, and can afford the often large personal expenses that come with running a campaign.

As for dynasties, we've always had them in American politics. Before the Clintons and Bushes there were the Kennedys, the Tafts, the Harrisons, the Adamses, and many more that we never hear about because while powerful in their day they didn't rise to the sorts of prominence that gets them recorded in history. Even today, we also have (presently) second-tier dynasties of that sort, like the Browns, the Salazars and the Castros. Nancy Pelosi is the daughter of a powerful politician from Maryland.

The notion that American politics is more dynastic today than it was in the past is generally untrue.
Logged

hepcat
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 9135


I'M the one that knocks! Now...burp me!


View Profile
« Reply #39 on: June 23, 2014, 04:27:12 PM »

I guess I just feel that way because the highest seat seems to be either occupied or potentially occupied by someone in the immediate family of either the Bush clan or the Clinton clan over the last few elections/upcoming election.
Logged

Warning:  You will see my penis. -Brian

Just remember: once a user figures out gluten noting them they're allowed to make fun of you. - Ceekay speaking in tongues.
Pages: [1] 2 3   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.189 seconds with 103 queries. (Pretty URLs adds 0.045s, 2q)