Do you people not understand? YOu don't have ALL THAT CHOICE, you do in the beginning sure, but how long does the media show EVERYBODY'S face all day long? By the end of the game you have CFR member A or Bilderberger member B. Not a list of 30 people. And what you mean they don't get along? Both Bush JR and Clinton were in Canada last year, TOGETHER! People paid like $500 to hear them fucking talk... gay.
you articulated, exactly, my thoughts on the matter. political analysis\commentators like to try and skew opinion in favour of their own personal\media-driven prejudices. a dynasty is an absurd definition for these two families, for many of the reasons aleady expressed in this clip.
when asked why i don't own a tv, i cite this type of reporting as my main reason
Get a haircut. And understand Bush Sr ran things during Reagen's term. Same with Cheney. You try to act so smart but you are not. They are in cahoots.
Slight Correction, Teddy didnt Serve two full terms, he was put into the office after McKinley got shot (in fact the republican's feared that he would be president [as they should have]). So he Served on full term, in fact he promised he wouldnt run for a second and later ended up regretting that and re running in 1912 (and losing the nomination to Taft). Taft lost that election to Wilson.
Heh, I am only 16 but I am strong in history. YES it does!! We say we have had 43 when only 42! That could have happened with Roosevelt too (44 presidents) odd isn't it?
the harrison thing is has no bearing on the bush clinton thing mostly because the served 20 years apart and an niether (especially william) served for a long time
Also, if you're going to use the term, "senior", I think you should say, "Bush THE senior" or "the senior Bush", not "Bush senior". Or "HW Bush" vs "W Bush", "Bush 41" vs "Bush 43". But they're not Bush Sr. and Bush Jr.
I just thought you would want to be more accurate since you're so concerned about the accurate use of the word "dynasty".
Wow! Thanks Capt Obvious. I thought people were talking about a literal dynasty, I didn't even stop to consider that such a comment could be an exaggeration. I feel a lot better knowing that even if another Clinton is the nominee for the American Socialist Party, at least it can't result in an actual dynasty.
Hey TheCrimsonLion, there are families with lots of politicians (like the Bushes) but that doesn't comprise most of the government or most of the presidents.
There are always new people on the scene working their way up.
That may be true but the families all seem to have the same suporting lobbiest and in doing so have created a system of government that appears more like aristocrasy. I only say this because those who are put in charge of "the masses" has never been one of said masses but another of america's ivy league elite. The people around the white house seem to like keeping positions within the families to prevent change. But..what do i know.
Yo Joe, id like to say that you have some good insight on politics being 17 and going to vote for the first time this November makes me research a lot on who I should vote for. The things you have covered had made me think and do some deeper research and I thank you.
hey so we know that Mccain is gonna get the nomination for republicans and Obama is gonna get the democratic (sry clinton fans she is just riding on empty right now) so I had an interesting question ,Joe who do you think would make good running mates for their respective parties?
So many variables to consider! McCain could swing right with Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour, or choose his fanboy Joe Lieberman, but either way would alienate a voting bloc. One strong choice is Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty.
Obama has tons of choices too. Gov. Bill Richardson brings experience cred and he's from a swing state (NM) and Hispanic. Sen. Jim Webb is from a new swing state (VA) and he was Secretary of the Navy. Then there's Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius.
I think you should do a video about all the "experience" Hillary claims to bring to the table. She has only served one term more then Barrack, and has never held an executive position. Whats all this 37 years of experience garbage?
If you live in Texas' 14th district, then Ron Paul is your congressman. The primary for that seat is next week, March 4th, and Republican Chris Peden is trying to beat Ron Paul in the primary.
I hereby endorse Ron Paul in the Galveston metro area Republican primary. RON PAUL FOR CONGRESS!!!!
My opinion of why there is a limit on presidential terms is... it is merely a safeguard to prevent corruption, there is a lot of corruption in politics, it happens after a long enough time to plenty of politicians, sometime the power just gets to you and you forget about why you are truly in office. By the way FDR was the only president who served more than 2 terms.
Africa is a typical example of how elected leaders eventually become dictators, because the taste of power is too great. A recent example is Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe. After leading his country (relatively) successfully for a few terms, he decided (at the age of 84) to extend it to 28 years. Zimbabwe is now in utter ruins due to his progressively weak leadership.
I don't believe there is a "Clinton/Bush-conspiracy", i.e. keeping the power in two families. I think the concern is, having had 20 years of Clinton and Bushes, would 4-8 more years bring any change?
That's an important question, erjomegjo, and one of the reasons I support Obama. Though I think the fairer version would just say "eight years of Clinton".
Very good argument. Question: why were presidential term limits introduced? I know there was a constitutional amendment made in the 1950's that made it so a president could only serve two terms, but what was the reasoning behind that? I've never been able to find out conclusively.
That's a monster of a question. My biggest concerns right now are backing away from the recent steps we've taken toward a more authoritarian, less free society, and leading the world by example more than coercion.
I usually vote for Democrats. I send them money and volunteer too, and the ideological category I can be classified in is the "progressive netroots".
I'd like to think all presidents (past & future) were elected on a democratic basis. Sometimes we get it right, sometimes we all get fooled. Nothing to do with the continuation of a dynasty.
Do you people not understand? YOu don't have ALL THAT CHOICE, you do in the beginning sure, but how long does the media show EVERYBODY'S face all day long? By the end of the game you have CFR member A or Bilderberger member B. Not a list of 30 people. And what you mean they don't get along? Both Bush JR and Clinton were in Canada last year, TOGETHER! People paid like $500 to hear them fucking talk... gay.
VD420herpes 2 years ago
no dynasty but the clinton and bush families have much influence in bilderberg group even worse
MrBriandude 2 years ago
Russ Baker argues the evidence that the Bush Dynasty was always a joint venture of the "extraction industries" (oil and minerals) and the C I A.
moreaudan 3 years ago
you articulated, exactly, my thoughts on the matter. political analysis\commentators like to try and skew opinion in favour of their own personal\media-driven prejudices. a dynasty is an absurd definition for these two families, for many of the reasons aleady expressed in this clip.
when asked why i don't own a tv, i cite this type of reporting as my main reason
hume12345 3 years ago
Get a haircut. And understand Bush Sr ran things during Reagen's term. Same with Cheney. You try to act so smart but you are not. They are in cahoots.
willmolinar 3 years ago
Indeed Phreedahm, thank you for all of the comments!
JoeFelice 3 years ago
Hey, I showed my government teacher your channel and we watch it in class now to spark discussions! Keep it up we love you!
OGCAries 3 years ago
Holy crap!
JoeFelice 3 years ago
Great job! keep the good work up! cheers all the way from Switzerland!
defbenskiswiss 3 years ago
Danke
JoeFelice 3 years ago
Good observations but you missed the part where Reagan was losing his mind and HW Bush was pulling his strings and making his mouth move.
MasterOfSparks 4 years ago
Slight Correction, Teddy didnt Serve two full terms, he was put into the office after McKinley got shot (in fact the republican's feared that he would be president [as they should have]). So he Served on full term, in fact he promised he wouldnt run for a second and later ended up regretting that and re running in 1912 (and losing the nomination to Taft). Taft lost that election to Wilson.
jem7992 4 years ago
Thank's jem, that's great stuff. The Roosevelt presidencies can indeed be thought of as four and two fragments.
Since you're a scholar, I gotta ask, doesn't it bother you that we count Cleveland twice?
JoeFelice 4 years ago
Heh, I am only 16 but I am strong in history. YES it does!! We say we have had 43 when only 42! That could have happened with Roosevelt too (44 presidents) odd isn't it?
jem7992 4 years ago
I'm so glad that Shaycarl recommended you. You are really a joy to listen to.
197224003 4 years ago
the harrison thing is has no bearing on the bush clinton thing mostly because the served 20 years apart and an niether (especially william) served for a long time
coolchristriankid 4 years ago
You know your stuff, man. Props.
JoeFelice 4 years ago
thanks I'm in an AP history class so I know this stuff
coolchristriankid 4 years ago
And I feel good after reading your comments :)
JoeFelice 4 years ago
thank you for making these interesting and informative videos.
mosle123 4 years ago
good stuff joe.. you got another sub ;)
-Brent
ItsBrent 4 years ago
good stuff joe.. you got another sub ;)
-Brent
ItsBrent 4 years ago
Howdy Brent, and likewise.
JoeFelice 4 years ago
Also, if you're going to use the term, "senior", I think you should say, "Bush THE senior" or "the senior Bush", not "Bush senior". Or "HW Bush" vs "W Bush", "Bush 41" vs "Bush 43". But they're not Bush Sr. and Bush Jr.
I just thought you would want to be more accurate since you're so concerned about the accurate use of the word "dynasty".
yegreskin 4 years ago
Wow! Thanks Capt Obvious. I thought people were talking about a literal dynasty, I didn't even stop to consider that such a comment could be an exaggeration. I feel a lot better knowing that even if another Clinton is the nominee for the American Socialist Party, at least it can't result in an actual dynasty.
yegreskin 4 years ago
Great stuff man:D...5 stars for you!
mshiny1987 4 years ago
Great vid, we're on opposite sides of the coin in most of our views but I love what you have to say. Keep it up.
IndyArmyVet 4 years ago 2
Love the vids, keep em up <3
postiez 4 years ago
By the sounds of the families involved in the white house, it seems that the US is run through aristocracy as opposed to a democracy.
TheCrimsonLion 4 years ago
Hey TheCrimsonLion, there are families with lots of politicians (like the Bushes) but that doesn't comprise most of the government or most of the presidents.
There are always new people on the scene working their way up.
JoeFelice 4 years ago
That may be true but the families all seem to have the same suporting lobbiest and in doing so have created a system of government that appears more like aristocrasy. I only say this because those who are put in charge of "the masses" has never been one of said masses but another of america's ivy league elite. The people around the white house seem to like keeping positions within the families to prevent change. But..what do i know.
TheCrimsonLion 4 years ago
haha yeah I hear ya hahaits gonna be a crazy couple of months in politics haha
Georgiaboy56 4 years ago
haha, touche!
JoeFelice 4 years ago
This is interesting
homieBtotheJ 4 years ago
Yo Joe, id like to say that you have some good insight on politics being 17 and going to vote for the first time this November makes me research a lot on who I should vote for. The things you have covered had made me think and do some deeper research and I thank you.
bionic0n3 4 years ago
lol yeah same hear lol cpt dont turn 18 till dedember =( one freakin month ahh
Georgiaboy56 4 years ago
That stinks, Georgiaboy. I turned 18 just 6 days after election day 1996 so I know how you feel.
And thanks, bionic0n3!
JoeFelice 4 years ago
hey so we know that Mccain is gonna get the nomination for republicans and Obama is gonna get the democratic (sry clinton fans she is just riding on empty right now) so I had an interesting question ,Joe who do you think would make good running mates for their respective parties?
Georgiaboy56 4 years ago
So many variables to consider! McCain could swing right with Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour, or choose his fanboy Joe Lieberman, but either way would alienate a voting bloc. One strong choice is Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty.
Obama has tons of choices too. Gov. Bill Richardson brings experience cred and he's from a swing state (NM) and Hispanic. Sen. Jim Webb is from a new swing state (VA) and he was Secretary of the Navy. Then there's Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius.
But VP's are often surprises.
JoeFelice 4 years ago
do you think he will go with a big name VP? someone like john Edwards?
Georgiaboy56 4 years ago
obama, I mean
Georgiaboy56 4 years ago
It is so hard to say, man. I bet even Barack has no idea. They often create a search committee after they get enough delegates to sew up the primary.
JoeFelice 4 years ago
So... Obama for 2008?
NathanCharrois 4 years ago
Go Jeb Bush 4 Prez 2012. heh.
I think you should do a video about all the "experience" Hillary claims to bring to the table. She has only served one term more then Barrack, and has never held an executive position. Whats all this 37 years of experience garbage?
usnationalist 4 years ago
If you live in Texas' 14th district, then Ron Paul is your congressman. The primary for that seat is next week, March 4th, and Republican Chris Peden is trying to beat Ron Paul in the primary.
I hereby endorse Ron Paul in the Galveston metro area Republican primary. RON PAUL FOR CONGRESS!!!!
JoeFelice 4 years ago
You left out a Clinton
JoeFelice 4 years ago
My opinion of why there is a limit on presidential terms is... it is merely a safeguard to prevent corruption, there is a lot of corruption in politics, it happens after a long enough time to plenty of politicians, sometime the power just gets to you and you forget about why you are truly in office. By the way FDR was the only president who served more than 2 terms.
EngelFilms 4 years ago 2
Gee, my comment was deleted!
Oh well, I'll try again.
Yes, you're spot on EngelFilms.
Power corrupts all (esp. politicians)!
Africa is a typical example of how elected leaders eventually become dictators, because the taste of power is too great. A recent example is Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe. After leading his country (relatively) successfully for a few terms, he decided (at the age of 84) to extend it to 28 years. Zimbabwe is now in utter ruins due to his progressively weak leadership.
saikoza 4 years ago
I don't believe there is a "Clinton/Bush-conspiracy", i.e. keeping the power in two families. I think the concern is, having had 20 years of Clinton and Bushes, would 4-8 more years bring any change?
erjomegjo 4 years ago
That's an important question, erjomegjo, and one of the reasons I support Obama. Though I think the fairer version would just say "eight years of Clinton".
JoeFelice 4 years ago
Very good argument. Question: why were presidential term limits introduced? I know there was a constitutional amendment made in the 1950's that made it so a president could only serve two terms, but what was the reasoning behind that? I've never been able to find out conclusively.
Maddog53 4 years ago
What issues do you vote on? or are you just a democrat... but I don't see that.
thegreenskies 4 years ago
That's a monster of a question. My biggest concerns right now are backing away from the recent steps we've taken toward a more authoritarian, less free society, and leading the world by example more than coercion.
I usually vote for Democrats. I send them money and volunteer too, and the ideological category I can be classified in is the "progressive netroots".
JoeFelice 4 years ago
If you really want your freedoms back, vote for Ron Paul.
Buckeyes1647 4 years ago
OHIO FOR HILLARY!
SylviaDouche 4 years ago
I'd like to think all presidents (past & future) were elected on a democratic basis. Sometimes we get it right, sometimes we all get fooled. Nothing to do with the continuation of a dynasty.
saikoza 4 years ago
Very true, thank you for replying to that question. I was just thinking about that, so i just posted it.
snake430 4 years ago
Very true, thank you for replying to that question. I was just thinking about that, so i thought i would just post it.
snake430 4 years ago
HOGWASH
Democrats08 4 years ago
Interesting screenname, Democrats08, since your channel appears to be completely dedicated to Ron Paul.
JoeFelice 4 years ago
That's what Ron Paul does to people.
thegreenskies 4 years ago
This is my favorite angle that you use in your videos..I love the way the brick contrasts with the Van Gough.. At least I think thats who it is??
shaycarl 4 years ago
It is indeed, my Starry Night closet.
JoeFelice 4 years ago