4 ms·

Yeah and it's also the only country in the world where those elections lead to the same couple of families winning every time...

• briandear 11y ago
  Every time? Hyperbolize much? Bush and the John Adams family are the only families to have more than 1 President in them. How about we stick to facts? As far as "only country in the world.." How many countries of the world have Royal families? How many of those were elected? Someone explain why the British Royal family gets a single pound in tax-payer money. What does the King of Sweden actually do again? Let's be intellectually consistent instead of just bashing the U.S. because it's fashionable.
  • vacri 11y ago
    Someone explain why the British Royal family gets a single pound in tax-payer money. Speaking of intellectual consistency, the British taxpayer gets more money from the royal family than the family gets in taxes. The government administers estates owned by the royal family and takes the revenue - the net cash flow is about £100M annually from Lizzie and crew to the UK taxpayer. This isn't soft measures like "enhances tourism". It's direct income from the estates. If the UK gummint were to cut them off, the Windsors could take back control of their estates, and the gummint would be that much in the red. Continuing in the vein of intellectual consistency, the UK is a representative democracy - the people who pass law are voted in by citizens. The monarch does not make law, so elections for the monarch are meaningless in the context of law- or policy-making. You can hate on the royal family all you want, but it doesn't change that they contribute more financially than they get, and they don't get to make law. And the UK has a multipolar political system, though it's stupid FPTP voting method gives it a lot of similarities to a two-party system. Ultimately though, your hated royals actually inhabit a country with more political choices for the proles than the US has. King of Sweden... I'm less familiar with.
• dagw 11y ago
  This has happened twice in US. The same number of times it's happened in the UK with prime ministers for example.
• dragonwriter 11y ago
  Hyperbole much? Out of fifty-something Presidential elections under the Constitution, there have been two close family members of a past President elected, the families involved winning a total of five elections. That's not the same couple of families winning every time.
  • clarky07 11y ago
    3 times. Adams, Bush, Harrison. Point remains.
  • MrDosu 11y ago
    Have a look at this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_families https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_families Seriously read through the other countries and then go to the US. You will laugh, I promise... Limiting it to presidents is kinda silly.
  • knodi123 11y ago
    no, but let's say that either Jeb or Hillary wins a couple of terms. If that occurs, then at the end of their term, we'll be able to say there have been THREE different last names in the white house in the last 35 years. Political dynasties are real.
    • dragonwriter 11y ago
      If you have to assume the results of two future elections to make your argument, its not really grounded in fact so much as speculation.
      • knodi123 11y ago
        yes, but odds are fairly good that hillary will run against jeb. And half of all presidents have served 2 terms. So it wasn't "assuming the results to make my argument", so much as "pointing out how much worse it will be in a fairly probable future." It's bad enough now that we've had 4 terms of bushes, and that hillary's a lock for the democratic nomination. my point stands already.