April 15, 2013

GOP frontrunner for 2060 Presidential nomination named

From the NYT:
Mr. Bush, 66, who has remained largely removed from the spotlight in the four years since leaving the White House, returned to television screens on Monday in a series of hospital snapshots with his new granddaughter, Mila, who was born to Jenna and Henry Hager in New York on Saturday night. 

21 comments:

Anonymous said...

The French got it right way back when. No more Bush's, no more Kennedy's.

Anonymous said...

Not happening -- not Vibrant or Diverse enough. It will definitely be a Jeb Bush descendant.

Besides, I don't know if there will still be a USA by then, but there definitely won't be a GOP, thank God.

Auntie Analogue said...


For cryin' out loud, wasn't the cheesy TV 'Dynasty' already one dynasty too many for us?

Another Bush? Sheesh, we may as well elect a monarch to serve for life and whose heirs would inherit the throne through some warped feminist corruption of primogeniture.

Dr. Dealgood said...

By 2060, the world will be deep in the throes of a Mad Max style dystopia.

Anonymous said...

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/14/books/review/clive-james-by-the-book.html?_r=1&

eah said...

I'm not that desperate. Perhaps the GOP is.

Anonymous said...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=371ySKWZ9mU

Timmy Turtle said...

Cute, but politics has been getting more racial every election. This will continue and in less than 10 years, Whites will be voting as a block in much larger numbers.

And other blocks will emerge. There is nothing sacred about 2 party system. Once we are more fragmented, Whites go from being a majority with no power, to the most powerful minority ever.

Anononymous said...

Auntie Analogue:
"we may as well elect a monarch to serve for life and whose heirs would inherit"


If your position at the top is guaranteed, then you would be motivated to competently manage your dominions as if it were your private property. You would even be motivated to plan for the long term future because your genetically-related heirs will inherit it after you die.

With democracy it's get the majority to vote for you or die; anything goes. Dole out benefits for votes. Have massive immigration of voters for your party. Ruin the country if you have to, as long as you win the election.

Anonymous said...

The Republican party doesn't have anyone besides the Bush family. It sucks, but it is what it is.

The next Republican president is probably going to be Jeb or George P.

Anonymous said...

An odd name for a 'patrician' family.

A slavic name/nickname. Even Mila Kunis' real first name is not "Mila".

You would think given their backgrounds they would chose something more in line with their family history and culture. Something like "dorothy".

Anonymous said...

Breaking news today is that neither GHWB-41 nor GWB-43 are attending Margaret Thatcher's funeral.

Boy, the elites REALLY HATED that poor woman.

And the elites know how to carry a grudge.

Anonymous said...

There is nothing sacred about 2 party system.

Except that it is a natural result of first-past-post elections with single rep districts. Southern strategy, Northern strategy, Sailer strategy.. What ever strategy it shall have Republican party will exist for a foreseeable future.

What should happen may or may not happen. What cannot happen, will not happen.

Hunsdon said...

Anonydroid at 11:49 pm said: If your position at the top is guaranteed, then you would be motivated to competently manage your dominions as if it were your private property. You would even be motivated to plan for the long term future because your genetically-related heirs will inherit it after you die.

Hunsdon: In Kazakhstan, Nursultan Nazarbayev regards the country as his property, and plans to hand it down to his kids. He's an autocrat, but he plays a pretty good hand in a tough neighborhood. Without venturing into hagiography, there are plenty of worse leaders in the world.

He's got a long term interest in seeing the family business prosper.

Timmy Turtle said...

We need to explore the permanence of the two party system. I think Steve wrote something on why there are usually two parties.

But we have had 3 way Presidential races before. And as we become racially fragmented, it seems a likely outcome. The elites will want it to remain that way, but remember this:

Blacks and Browns on the Dem side are getting tired of being represented by White guys/gals. This should be very interesting in the next 10 years.

Hunsdon said...

In the immortal words of the man we mostly thought might be the first black president, STAY OUT DA BUSHES.

Mr. Anon said...

Why does ever President get their own library, presidential center, etc? We should not suffer these clowns to erect shrines to themselves. In the past, good taste prevented it. But of course, the shameless vulgarians we now elect (or who are elected for us) to the office are incapable of anything like good taste.

FWG said...

Will there be a GOP in 2060?

Noah172 said...

Anonymous 11:49 wrote:

If your position at the top is guaranteed, then you would be motivated to competently manage your dominions as if it were your private property. You would even be motivated to plan for the long term future because your genetically-related heirs will inherit it after you die.

Hunsdon wrote:

He's [Nazarbayev] got a long term interest in seeing the family business prosper.

The Kim family business in North Korea, the Assad family business in Syria, what would have become of the Hussein family business in Iraq (had we not overthrown them in 2003), the Castro family business in Cuba, the former Duvalier family business in Haiti, among others, all stand as refutations of the above line of thinking.

Paul Mendez said...

Many people voted for Obama just so they could be part of "making history" be electing America's first black president.

So why not want to be part of "making history" by electing the first 3-generational presidential dynasty?

Anonymous said...

Question: Consider the choice of patrilineal vs. matrilineal, with men holding the office, but daughters (or sisters) passing the right to office.

The main point being there may be a difference in the leadership potential of lineal heirs due to mate selection. High status women may be more likely than high status men to choose mates that have high probability of producing offspring with leadership character.

Neil Templeton