Quote:
Originally Posted by Botnst
I would agree if you could demonstrate that he was uniquely able to do the job, but I doubt that is true. On the contrary I believe that history supports my argument that it is a job that many people could do at least adequately. A proportion of them could do the job more than adequately. I would rather take a chance on the modest risk of a total screw-up like Carter than risk the voting public believing that some family may have a genetic propensity to leadership. That is the first step to accepting aristocracy.
No thank you. The history of the planet thus far recommends against that particular governmental form.
B
|
I would vote for the best person to do the job and not necessarily if he is with or against one camp. If I don't like Joe, I vote against Joe but his brother, mother, father or son is a different story. So what you are saying is that you would rather take a larger risk supporting someone else than having someone who is better but related to someone else in power just coz? Sounds like you would rather have the better man sit out because you are afraid of having a dynasty. Kinda makes me think of cutting the nose to spite the face.