Is Arnold Schwarzeneger the next President?

Originally posted by donwhite

US Con. Art. 1, Sec. 1, Cl. 5. “No person except a . . . “ can be president. There is an exception but it no longer applies. George Washington asked the writers to permit persons who were citizens in 1789 to be eligible to the office of prez. It is said he did this so his “adopted son” Alexander Hamilton would be eligible. Vice President Aaron Burr dramatically ended that possibility in 1804.

Ok, if we are getting anally specific, that is the way it reads NOW. With all the things that need to get done with America, this is a paltry issue in my opinion, and certainly not worth changing the Constitution over...ever.

If we had genuine campaign finance reform that would not be so. When the public pays for public elections - instead of selling elections to the high bidders - we would see great changes all the way around.

Even so, over a 20 year period we would only see a max of 5 presidents. Out of roughly 300 million, that's still a long shot by far.

On this modified #3 I agree.

Phrase it how you like, same thing.

Is this shorthand for jingoism?

No, and it should be obvious to the casual observer. If Mexicans require their President to look good in high heeled shoes, I really wouldn't expect them to care one wit what America thinks of it.

It's just part of an internal debate that has little to do with other nations unless they wanted to try to throw an operative into our elections (provided this stipulation changed)

I think it was meant to add Austrian born Cal. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger to the GOP list of hopefuls.

Of course, but again, I don't see the point. Arnold isn't really something to write home about to me.

I'd be happy to leave him off the selection list permanantly.

[edit on 22-5-2007 by KrazyJethro]

Originally posted by KrazyJethro
Honestly, if we can't find a single natural born citizen that is competent enough to be president, then we might as well pack up shop and give over our riches to Mexico.

it's not about competence, it's about finding the best person for the job.

There is no justification to change the Constitution for ANY non-US born citizen for any reason.

except for the issue of equality...

There are two simple reasons for this:

1) There are plenty of educated natural born citizens to choose from.

again, a naturalized citizen may do the job better

2) The Constitution should really only be changed if it really needs to be, and it really doesn't need to be.

or it could be changed for issues of equality....

Originally posted by KrazyJethro
1) That's the way the Constitution reads, and without a strong case that it would lead to a positive impact on American's lives, their rights, etc, there is no need to change it.

how about this: it would lead to a positive affect on how americans view naturalized citizens, thus creating an environment with more tolerance.

2) It really has no detrimental effect to stay as is considering the average joe has a better chance of winning the lottery than being president.

donwhite covered this, it's about how we finance campaigns.

3) I think people would be hard pressed to say that someone not naturally born could do a better job than all who are naturally born, and/or to provide a rational and logical case for it.

yet you'd be hard pressed to show that someone who was not naturally born would do an inherently inferior job.

4) There is no need, pressing or otherwise.

you're right, there's no need except for the scarey amount of anti-immigrant sentiment in this country that could get resolved with it.

5) I don't know many people who care much about non-American points of view on our internal requirements for office.

that just comes off as xenophobia....

the whole point is that THEY ARE AMERICANS. are you saying that i'm not american? i'm a naturalized citizen of these united states, i've lived here since i was two years old, does that make me not american?

I just don't see the point.

it's called being progressive.

Originally posted by KrazyJethro
Ok, if we are getting anally specific, that is the way it reads NOW. With all the things that need to get done with America, this is a paltry issue in my opinion, and certainly not worth changing the Constitution over...ever.

ever? again with the xenophobia.

Even so, over a 20 year period we would only see a max of 5 presidents. Out of roughly 300 million, that's still a long shot by far.

no, in a 20 year period there can be a lot more presidents... so long as presidents keep dying.

No, and it should be obvious to the casual observer. If Mexicans require their President to look good in high heeled shoes, I really wouldn't expect them to care one wit what America thinks of it.

that doesn't even make any sense.

It's just part of an internal debate that has little to do with other nations unless they wanted to try to throw an operative into our elections (provided this stipulation changed)

the whole point would be NATURALIZED CITIZENS. these wouldn't be operatives of another nation, they'd be AMERICANS.

I'd be happy to leave him off the selection list permanantly.

and you don't see the problem with that? leaving an entire segment of the population off the selection list is the same thing as saying they aren't as american as the rest of the population.
citizen = citizen, it shouldn't matter where you're born.

So Madness, would you like to see Arnold as the next president? My opinion is that I would. I like his approach to things.

Originally posted by followerofchrist
So Madness, would you like to see Arnold as the next president?

no, i really don't think he's the man for the job

My opinion is that I would. I like his approach to things.

well, i like his approach in some aspects. like his willingness to change his mind and realize that he was wrong. however, i don't think he's suited to run a whole country.

i don't think he's suited to run a whole country.

Even I think he is not suited for the job.But the problem is,if there is a possibility of any kind of changes in the constitution to accomodate him and he runs,then there might be a real possibility. Democracy is often blinded by the image of a person most of the times than his ability. Isn't it?

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
it's not about competence, it's about finding the best person for the job.

I would think competence is a trait of the right person for the job. Splitting hairs gets annoying, but feel free if you like.

except for the issue of equality...

Bah, it's such a minor issue in the realm of equality that it barely registers. If this is to be changed for equality reasons I would think it should be at the lower end of a long list of things to fix first.

Shoot, get rid of hate crime laws. That would be a much bigger start than this.

how about this: it would lead to a positive affect on how americans view naturalized citizens, thus creating an environment with more tolerance.

Do you really think opinion of naturalized citizens vs born citizens is that bad that we need a stunt like this to aim us in the right direction? Honestly, I think we have a far bigger problem with the image of immigrants, especially the illegal kind.

Much bigger problems at hand.

donwhite covered this, it's about how we finance campaigns.

Yes, so I read, but I don't think it would matter much either way. To say otherwise would be to ignore the current power base in Washington altogether.

yet you'd be hard pressed to show that someone who was not naturally born would do an inherently inferior job.

True, although I never intended to show that, or even imply it. It's just a fact that I don't think makes a lot of difference when stacked up to the mountains of real problems we have atm.

I'd be far more inclined to support the repeal of several Constitutional amendments before I'd introduce this one.

you're right, there's no need except for the scary amount of anti-immigrant sentiment in this country that could get resolved with it.

Well, there will always be those types of people, although it mostly seems to be anti-ILLEGALS more than anything else.

Who can blame them? There are millions of people in America right now that have no legal right to be here.

5) I don't know many people who care much about non-American points of view on our internal requirements for office.

that just comes off as xenophobia....

Perhaps you and the dictionary have a different definition of xenophobia (that or you use it very liberally). I left my quote in so you could compare it to the definition below.

Xenophobia: an unreasonable fear or hatred of foreigners or strangers or of that which is foreign or strange.

www.dictionary.com

To even equate us (and me) for not caring what other nations think of our internal debates has nothing to do with fear or hatred, it's just not their business in any way shape or form, much in the same way I'd say it's not our problem if France requires it's president to be catholic (obviously an example).

it's called being progressive.

Awesome.....so what? Be progressive on things that mean more to the people. Hard to put a lot of time and effort into caring about this when my taxes are ridiculous, cost of living is on the rise, and my paychecks are not.

ever? again with the xenophobia.

Again with the calous use of words. Perhaps accuracy in vocabulary has gone to.... well actually I know it has, but it's no excuse.

Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that I can't see this getting (or deserving) any serious attention in my lifetime.

It would take my lifetime (which I am now 30) to fix the issues in this country.

no, in a 20 year period there can be a lot more presidents... so long as presidents keep dying.

OK, fine. I can see you arguing with a wall.

No, and it should be obvious to the casual observer. If Mexicans require their President to look good in high heeled shoes, I really wouldn't expect them to care one wit what America thinks of it.

that doesn't even make any sense.

Sure it does. We are currently discussing requirements of office.

the whole point would be NATURALIZED CITIZENS. these wouldn't be operatives of another nation, they'd be AMERICANS.

And you know this how? It's certainly as possible as buying a naturalized citizen (if not slightly more so in my opinion).

I understand your point, and still fail to see the NEED.

I'd be happy to leave him off the selection list permanantly.


and you don't see the problem with that? leaving an entire segment of the population off the selection list is the same thing as saying they aren't as american as the rest of the population.
citizen = citizen, it shouldn't matter where you're born.

Read it again, I said HIM, not them. Him was to mean Arnold. I personally wouldn't like to see him as president for political reasons.

posted by KrazyJethro

(1) I think competence is a trait of the right person for the job. If this is to be changed for equality reasons I would think it should be at the lower end of a long list of things to fix first . . there will always be those types of people, although it mostly seems to be anti-illegal [immigrants] more than anything else. Who can blame them? There are millions of people in America right now that have no legal right to be here.

(2) Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that I can't see this getting or deserving any serious attention in my lifetime. It would take my lifetime which I am now 30, to fix the issues in this country . . It's certainly as possible as buying a naturalized citizen if not slightly more so in my opinion. I understand your point, and still fail to see the NEED. [Edited by Don W]

Disclaimer: I have reduced KrazyJethro’s post to the issues I mean to deal with. If I have inadvertently mis-quoted him, please note that fact and also excuse me.

1) To amend the US Con requires a 2/3rds vote in each chamber of the Congress and 3/4ths of the states must approve; that’s 38 states. Whether it’s a good idea or not, I think it is more likely we will win the war in Iraq, establish a pro-American government, assign the oil to ExxonMobil and withdraw our troops back to America before the end of 2007 than it is the US Con will be amended in time to let Arnold run for president in 2008.

2) That means allowing about 50 years to “fix” the problems in America. I doubt we can agree on what problems need fixing not to say agree on how to fix them. I’d say Problem One is to reign in a presidency gone berserk. Problem Two is to arrange universal access to affordable health care. And for me, Problem Three is to assure free quality public education K-16 for every child.

[edit on 6/1/2007 by donwhite]

Originally posted by donwhite

1) To amend the US Con requires a 2/3rds vote in each chamber of the Congress and 3/4ths of the states must approve; that’s 38 states. Whether it’s a good idea or not, I think it is more likely we will win the war in Iraq, establish a pro-American government, assign the oil to ExxonMobil and withdraw our troops back to America before the end of 2007 than it is the US Con will be amended in time to let Arnold run for president in 2008.

I agree, although (no offense), I don't really see the point of mentioning this point.

2) That means allowing about 50 years to “fix” the problems in America. I doubt we can agree on what problems need fixing not to say agree on how to fix them. I’d say Problem One is to reign in a presidency gone berserk. Problem Two is to arrange universal access to affordable health care. And for me, Problem Three is to assure free quality public education K-16 for every child.

[edit on 6/1/2007 by donwhite]

We dramatically disagree it seems.

1) I think saying the president is really any more "berserk" than former presidents or the Congress over the past 40 years (to be generous) is a bit short sighted.

Lots of folks like to lay it all at his feet, when in reality (meaning non-biased), the whole shebang is screwed up and owned by corporate america.

2) I'd never get behind this. There are many things that need adjusting in the realm of healthcare, but creating any form of universal (governmental) healthcare is certainly something I'd rebel before supporting.

3) K-16? What exactly is the point of sending all kids to college when nationalized education as it stands now is such a fundamental failure?

Not all kids are worth sending to college, by any means, nor is it even close to needed to send them all to college.

I'd support the reinvestment of trade apprenticeships before anything close to your idea.

posted by KrazyJethro

We dramatically disagree it seems.

1) I think the whole shebang is screwed up and owned by corporate America.

2) I'd never get behind this . . creating any form of universal (governmental) healthcare is something I'd rebel before supporting.

3) K-16? What exactly is the point of sending all kids to college when nationalized education as it stands now is such a fundamental failure? Not all kids are worth sending to college, by any means, nor is it even close to needed to send them all to college. I'd support the reinvestment of trade apprenticeships before anything close to your idea. [Edited by Don W]

1) So Mr KJ, are you saying Marx had it right after all? Or a more readily saleable approach here, that the two Roosevelts had it right?

2) The current outlay for health in America is about 18% of GDP and may cross the 20% line in 2010-2012 if nothing is done to slow it. A long time ago (1999), Germany at 9% was No. 2 in health care as a percent of GDP. I am sure it is more now but I don’t know how much more. All other industrialized countries were lower than the US or Germany. Our highest of all countries expenditure - not to raise the question why its poorer outcomes - means America is at a competitive disadvantage in terms of our pricing of goods and services to sell or perform abroad. All other things being equal, America is priced out of the world market by our higher health care costs. We need to address that and soon, IMO. Even if we are unmoved by one person in six being unable to afford health care. The Second Commandment of Jesus is for the Rich, not the poor.

3A) Entry into the middle class is predicated on a 4 year baccalaureate degree. Before Reagan dealt the coup de grace to the American union movement by firing the PATCO workers, unionized blue collar laborers did indeed make as much as school teachers, librarians, policemen and firemen. In fact, it was blue collar laborers who sent their children to college that made the current service economy possible. Let us not forget where we came from.

3B) Yes, good quality vocational or trade schools are the equal to any college and the choice of which to pursue ought to be up to the student, and not based on how much money or credit he or his family can lay its hands on. If we insist on forcing students to make loans, then the borrower ought to be able to add say 3%-4% to his FICA take-out to repay the interest free loan to the government over his working life. Let’s help ourselves, not the bankers.

[edit on 6/1/2007 by donwhite]

Originally posted by donwhite

1) So Mr KJ, are you saying Marx had it right after all? Or a more readily saleable approach here, that the two Roosevelts had it right?

I have no idea what you mean here. Most of the time an ounce of explanation prevents a pound of misunderstanding, so, I'll hold off reply until I can get clarity on what you mean.

It's only reasonable. Thanks.

2) The current outlay for health in America is about 18% of GDP and may cross the 20% line in 2010-2012 if nothing is done to slow it. A long time ago (1999), Germany at 9% was No. 2 in health care as a percent of GDP. I am sure it is more now but I don’t know how much more. All other industrialized countries were lower than the US or Germany.

According to this article from March 2006, the US stands at around 16% while Germany stands around 11%.

However, that's an all encompasing number. Does it take into consideration the rampent over-prescribing of medication or the desire for many in America to use the far more expensive name brand medications? (That would also include the out of control psychiatric industry).

Does it include voluntary procedures such as botox or breast implants? Actually, it probably includes all those since it really only deals with total expenditures in "healthcare sector", which is pretty much everything.

I would submit that there are many reasons for this issue. Abundance of processed foods and the presence of unhealthy food everywhere. This leads to a variety of health issues such as diabetis, heart disease, etc, etc, etc.

There are many elements that should be looked at, and a virtual encyclopedia could be written about America and it's healthcare cost.

www.boston.com/news/world/articles/2006/03/05/global_health/

Our highest of all countries expenditure - not to raise the question why its poorer outcomes - means America is at a competitive disadvantage in terms of our pricing of goods and services to sell or perform abroad. All other things being equal, America is priced out of the world market by our higher health care costs. We need to address that and soon, IMO.

Hate to break it to you, but America has been pricing and inflating itself out of the marketplace for quite a while. We have been shifting from a production economy to a consumption one since the early 1900s, and we are now pretty much unable to make the large part of the goods we use.

This is a fundamental problem, yes, but not one isolated to healthcare by any means.

3A) Entry into the middle class is predicated on a 4 year baccalaureate degree. Before Reagan dealt the coup de grace to the American union movement by firing the PATCO workers, blue collar laborers did indeed make as much as school teachers, librarians, policemen and firemen. In fact, it was blue collar laborers who sent their children to college that made the current service economy possible. Let us not forget where we came from.

I think the unions are doing just fine. In fact, they help in the raping of the American economy at this point.

However, getting a college degree is NOT the fundamental basis for being middle class. It speaks volumes that people think it so considering you could easily spend $50,000 (on the low end) to get out and get a crap job that pays poorly.

A college degree is becoming more and more worthless as time goes on. I've gotten a far better education with my library card.

3B) Yes, good quality vocational or trade schools are the equal to any college and the choice of which to pursue ought to be up to the student, and not based on how much money or credit he or his family can lay its hands on. If we insist on forcing students to make loans, then the borrower ought to be able to add say 3%-4% to his FICA take-out to repay the interest free loan to the government over his working life. Let’s help ourselves, not the bankers.

You say "let's not help the bankers", but you dont really mean it, or so it seems. Even allowing fractional reserve banking IS helping the bankers whether or not you can get some of my money to pay for it or not (which is what FICA is).

No one if FORCING people to take loans. The vast majority of Americans do not go to college, and rightfully so.

Additionally, I did not say trade schools, I said apprenticeships. There is a huge difference.

I think when push comes to shove, you are socialist, or at least lean that way.

Me, I'd love to kick the socialists out of washington. With a gun if needed.

posted by KrazyJethro
I have no idea what you mean here. Most of the time an ounce of explanation prevents a pound of misunderstanding, so, I'll hold off reply until I can get clarity on what you mean.

KrazyJethro posted: “ . . when in reality (meaning non-biased), the whole shebang is screwed up and owned by corporate America.

donwhite responded: So Mr KJ, are you saying Marx had it right after all?

I thought you were lamenting our country being “owned by corporate America” so I remarked it seems you are closer to Marxist thinking then you may normally care to admit. That’s all. It’s very difficult to be 100% ideologically pure.

My reference to the 2 Roosevelt OTOH, recalled to my mind that it was Teddy Roosevelt - the Trust Buster - who believed in regulating capitalists. The latter Roosevelt saw the adoption of various regulatory agencies which have largely been disassembled by Reagan and the 2 Bushes. It is no coincidence that the division between rich and poor in America is growing faster than ever and is further apart than anytime since the Gilded Age. All the social and economic gains made between 1933 and 1975 have largely been undone.

I stand corrected on my numbers relating to health care. Thanks.

More Later.

[edit on 6/1/2007 by donwhite]

For those of you who have reservations about a person from a different country holding the highest office here,I have an interesting information. India is practically run by a lady named Sonia Gandhi who is of Italian origin. She is the president of the ruling coalition called UPA - United Progressive Alliance formed of different parties. She is the one who decided who the Prime Minister should be and now she is gonna have a very sstrong say about the office of the President. I'am just quoting this here as an example. I'am in no way implying that this model will work for us.