Terminator for President?

lol i was thinking about that the other day,

yeha i can remember sandra bullock saying to sly stallone "the president Schwarzenegger Library"

and sly went

"they made him president?"



that was filmed in 1993 and the film was based in the future (2026) strangeeeeeeee!!

No way should he get to run for president. The Constitution forbids it, and the last thing we need is a Constitutional convention.

Arnold has said that he admires Hitler. He also was found to have molested women. He has stated that he wants to be king of the mountain and be the only one on that mountain. And he tried to terminate pensions for nurses, teachers, firefighters and police in California. There was such an outcry that he had to abandon that idea.

All good reasons for not voting for him. As for changing the Constitution, well, I wouldn't put anything past these guys in power. In 2000, the president was basically chosen by the Supreme Court, who shouldn't have had anything to do with it, according to the Constitution. Yet, it happened. Even though Arnie has extremely low approval ratings, nothing would surprise me, even him running for prez.

-Forestlady

Grady Philpott, who is almost as old as I am (but I am much handsomer) has it right. It's not often that a single individual's actions actually drive a constitutional amendment, although I believe that the term limitation (the 22nd Amendment in 1951) was in reaction to Roosevelt's four terms.

However, one interesting thing I keep hearing is the idea of an amendment denying citizenship to children of illegal immigrants. Given the political climate, that is a possibility -- although a remote one.

If Karl Rove is the country's Secret Kingmaker, then why wouldn't he be true to his faith and make Mitt Romney President?

I mean, if we're going to be ridiculous here, let's at least be consistently ridiculous LOL!!

Arnold would not win, unless the democrats nominated Michael Jackson.

Repealing or modifying the 14th Amendment would be incredibly touchy, far beyond the implications for illegal immigrants because of its history. It was, afterall, intended to grant citizenship to slaves. The inevitable parallels which will be drawn by the one side between the circumstances of slaves and illegals (however controversial such analogies may be) will make things very bitter.

It is far more likely in my mind that if the Republicans get the next nomination as well and can get a good grasp on the SCOTUS, that they'll bring a case under the Jurisdiction clause in hopes of broadening the exceptions defined in United States v. Wong Kim Ark. I doubt they'd get it.


From a conspiracy angle one would expect something quite different. Given the assumptions that the NWO has its origins in Europe, includes racism in its elitist ideology, and seeks something akin to the Nazi vision (where most of a united world labors to support a dominant "capital" nation) then I would expect them to try and effect a jus sanguinis modification- requiring at least one citizen parent for example. The aim of such a conspiracy would presumably be twofold-
1. To weaken America as an independent nation through furthering conflict over our immigration policy and creating questions of national identity/loyalty for individuals by promoting citizen/non-citizen marriages.
2. To justify within the NWO racist ideology the relegation of America to a subservient role in the new order.

Of course, I'm not saying I wholeheartedly believe that part, it's just what I'd expect if there really is a potent NWO movement which has an ideology similar to historical ideologies which are comparable to the popular conception of an "NWO".

Originally posted by The Vagabond
Repealing or modifying the 14th Amendment would be incredibly touchy, far beyond the implications for illegal immigrants because of its history. It was, afterall, intended to grant citizenship to slaves. The inevitable parallels which will be drawn by the one side between the circumstances of slaves and illegals (however controversial such analogies may be) will make things very bitter.

It is far more likely in my mind that if the Republicans get the next nomination as well and can get a good grasp on the SCOTUS, that they'll bring a case under the Jurisdiction clause in hopes of broadening the exceptions defined in United States v. Wong Kim Ark. I doubt they'd get it.


From a conspiracy angle one would expect something quite different. Given the assumptions that the NWO has its origins in Europe, includes racism in its elitist ideology, and seeks something akin to the Nazi vision (where most of a united world labors to support a dominant "capital" nation) then I would expect them to try and effect a jus sanguinis modification- requiring at least one citizen parent for example. The aim of such a conspiracy would presumably be twofold-
1. To weaken America as an independent nation through furthering conflict over our immigration policy and creating questions of national identity/loyalty for individuals by promoting citizen/non-citizen marriages.
2. To justify within the NWO racist ideology the relegation of America to a subservient role in the new order.

Of course, I'm not saying I wholeheartedly believe that part, it's just what I'd expect if there really is a potent NWO movement which has an ideology similar to historical ideologies which are comparable to the popular conception of an "NWO".

Vagabond, the proof of a potent New World Order conspiracy is on sites that the makers have no experience themselves. I have seen many stories of weird Illumaniti rituals, mostly written by Christian fundamentalists who were supposedly once part of the world of "devil worship and witchcraft". And sure there are secret societies, such as the ones at Yale and Harvard. Mostly to insure their future success in the world. "The old boy network".

Also the theory that America is controlled by "zionists". If that were true, why has Israel been caught with spies here if they controlled us? And of course we are friends with Israel because they control us. It isn't because they are smack down in the middle of the MIDDLE EAST, in which many of our resources lie.

I want to see some proof of a mass conspiracy of evil, greedy, individuals with money whose main intent is to start a world war so they have less people to control afterward. It sounds like something that you would hear from a paranoid schizophrenic. And the people talking about it read it somewhere, and they say "oh this makes sense".

The truth is, the NWO is a bunch of purple elephants that can shapeshift, and they live under the ground. They went there to escape the flood, and then established relations with Noah. There main intent is on coming out from the ground and being the most powerful and beautiful animals again.

I like Arnold a lot and I think he would make a great president, that's if he was actually following his own beliefs and not catering to lobbyists. I think the idea of only american born people should be allowed as pres. is dumb, as it is in other countries. I think if they lived in the US all their lives, like over 30 years in the US, why would it be a problem by then?

Originally posted by RetinoidReceptor
The truth is, the NWO is a bunch of purple elephants that can shapeshift, and they live under the ground.

Actually, I was thinking more along the lines of a "good ol' boys club" with a ton of "old money" as it is called, and a "my leavings have no odor" type of attitude.

The reason I would even mention such motives as perhaps being in play in this issue is similar to the Nazi vision I described in my debate with Zenlover28. That, in a nutshell, would be that they seek to expand their control over the entire world through an economic system whereby poor nations work for merely for a subsistence, which the offending ideology believes they can only obtain with any security by supporting the welfare of a superior culture which would be able to manage their labor and trickle down the benefits of advanced culture and technology to them.

Afterall, when you consider the prominence of certain "good ol' boys clubs" in American politics, and the ties that many of these people have to pro-Nazi Americans, not to mention Operation Paperclip, one might be inspired to wonder whether the Nazis lost or just switched venues. Hitler did acknowledge in the sequel to Mein Kampf that America was the greatest threat to a "Greater Germany" and that challenging us directly could not be attempted even in his lifetime. (Oddly, I believe he set a date of 1984 for that war).

And what happened after WWII? Instead of Germany taking 40 years to arm up for a war to take over America, America took in the German technocrats, sacked the upper echelon leadership, and immediately went to work trying to assert influence over Europe, though the anti-climactic end of the Cold War really kept that from going the distance. One must wonder if there was an attempt by American Nazi sympathizers to run the Mein Kampf plan in reverse.

Well he is married to a kenndey after all, so maybe anything is possible, can you imagine the comdey value, he would be worse than GWB (hang on did i say that? is that possible:lol

And we all know what happens to kenndys in power, they tend to end up dead.

Vagabond, you bring up great points with your comments about repealing the 14th Amendment; however, I'd like to mention that such a groundswell for eliminating automatic citizenship (in addition to a much more restrictive and punitive immigration policy) is not limited to Republicans.

Here in Arizona, the only perceivable weakness which our very popular Democratic incumbent Governor has is her 'laxity' toward the immigration policy, which she has begun to address. And, of course, President Bush's laissez-faire approach to immigration is certainly not shared by a large portion of his fellow Republicans in Congress, especially the House.

I'm not sure what this is indicative of; perhaps it's a basic re-alignment of American politics, with the present Republican-leaning and Democrat-leaning groups both losing membership to an emergent populist group with the remaining Republicans becoming more libertarian and the remaining Democrats becoming more socialist.

Certainly present issues have already transcended the labels of the two old parties; the Greens on one Side and the Libertarians on the other never seem to muster much support; and an "independent" candidate a la Ross Perot seems to be the most popular alternative to the two old parties. I don't think you'll find any more important issue that exemplifies this incumbent political realignment more than the immigration issues.

o.p. by Vagabond
one might be inspired to wonder whether the Nazis lost or just switched venues

Statements such as this are subject to what I call 'capping', whereby the post containing the mentioned material is quickly but innocuously buried under two or more 'cappers', deftly changing the subject and redirecting the thread. Why does that always seem to happen when the truth comes out?

Your post strikes directly at the heart of what has resulted from the last 60 years of usurpation and manipulation of the American political process, a parasitic condition that continues today in the hands of a global consortium of fascist elitists hiding behind their charitable causes and corporate facades. Finding it here in the Arnie for Pres. thread is oddly appropriate.

The truth cannot be 'capped', nor contained. Thank you, Vagabond, for sharing it. May your wisdom and courage fuel the groundswell of understanding that must bring about an ocean of accountability and reform.

Thanks Icarus, but I would like to say that I don't believe that O_T_S and snakebite intentionally "capped" my post. Although I considered it a relevant explanation of the factors I took into consideration while crafting my views on this matter, it definately was not as directly relevant as my first post to which O_T_S respnded.

I think I've seen the capping phenomenon of which you speak before, but sometimes it just happens at random too.

All the same I'm glad somebody agrees.