Would YOU vote Arnold???

Why not? ronald reagan was an actor and he made a good president!!!

-Clicky- (http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/ns/news/us.jsp?feature=newz_1104president)

I like the idea of the amendment. Regarding Arnold becoming the president? Maybe.

Eh, I need to throw this in (from Conan o'Brien) -

"Lest you forget, Conan, in Batman and Robin, I was Mr. Freeze. I will freeze the budget crisis with my ray gun then turn to the camera and say 'You need to chill out.'"

Well let's put it this way, it would be nice to have a fascist in the white-house with a real-life germanic accent for a change. ;)

No, seriously I think Arnold would make at least as good a president as George W., and probably MUCH less dismal in the long run. Arnold at least has succeeded on his own merits in several walks of life before entering politics after all. :¬:

Anyone ever see Demolition Man? Listen to Sandra Bullock's speech in the beginning about how California was destroyed.

Eh, couldn't hurt, right? He seems like a smart enough guy.

Eh, couldn't hurt, right? He seems like a smart enough guy.As regards the latter part of your post, you are correct, when you compare Ahhnold to say... Bushie Jr.

As to the former, oohohoho. Hurt? You haven't seen hurt until you've seen Ahhnold in action.

At least he was a self made man as far as I know!

Opera Winfry started out poor and knows what its like! she gives to the poor and buys people cars!

Was Arnold just a foreign guy who just got into acting, and he made it himself? or was hee BORN rich and has NO connecection to the common man?

Is he a Democrat or Republican?

KAIN:

Anyone ever see Demolition Man? Listen to Sandra Bullock's speech in the beginning about how California was destroyed.

What does she MEAN California was destroyed??? (Maybie it was destroyed from the RICH people's perspective becuase they are only getting 25 million instead of 30 million! that won't likely HAPPEN, but its just a thought...)

Arnie seems to be a great governor even though it means giving up acting for the next few years.


As I said he is a great governor. Unfortunately he has to give up his acting for a few years because of his governor duties.

Originally posted by kipperthefrog
Was Arnold just a foreign guy who just got into acting, and he made it himself? or was hee BORN rich and has NO connecection to the common man?

Is he a Democrat or Republican?

He is a Republican. My understanding is that he was a poor immigrant from Austria who got his start in bodybuilding, then made a fortune in movies, and is now governor.

I don't know about the amendment part (haven't thought about it too much), but if an amendment did exist, he would get my vote. As a Californian myself, I found that I agreed with him on most of the propositions, so I would logically find myself supporting him as a presidential candidate.

Originally posted by Evil Dark Jedi
Arnie seems to be a great president even though it means giving up acting for the next few years.

er....you do know he's not ACTUALLY the president right now...just the governor of california.

I suppose I'd vote for him if I agreed with the platform he ran on, but based on what he's done in California I doubt he'd get MY vote :dozey:

It would be nice, but he cant be elected, as he was not born in America, unless I am mistaken.

you are correct, also, i dont think Regan was that great of a president, unless perhaps you own stock in companies who have defense contracts... :)

I really hate to say this because I like Arnold. But the founding fathers had good reason for disallowing just that. I'm sorry, but the United States of America should never have a foreign born president. You can't make exceptions just for one person. It would be dangerous to allow an individual who might have divided loyalties to govern this country. I truly think Arnold would mean well, but we'd be opening Pandora's box. Just like these idiots who emailed Ohio residents from England campaigning for Senator Kerry. It's out there. We do not need someone in the Oval Office who would potentially look to foreign opinion over the interests of the U.S. citizenry.

What about second generation Americans? Why is that so different? Say someone comes to America and has kids soon after, do they have divided loyalties? It is hard to say. I'm not sure place of birth is simple enough to determine national loyalties. Still, I'm not sure if it would be a good idea to allow it.

the United States of America should never have a foreign born president. You can't make exceptions just for one person. It would be dangerous to allow an individual who might have divided loyalties to govern this country.Quite short-sighted. For instance many second-generation Jewish people have divided loyalties between the needs of the US and the needs of Israel. Yet they could run for president. Your stance is really based on very little reason.

Originally posted by Spider AL
Quite short-sighted. For instance many second-generation Jewish people have divided loyalties between the needs of the US and the needs of Israel. Yet they could run for president. Your stance is really based on very little reason.

My stance is based only that it is a requirement put in place not by me, but by the framers of the United States constitution. I am not a fan of amending the constitution unless there are obvious needs such as abolition of slavery or the right to vote regardless of race or sex.

My stance is based only that it is a requirement put in place not by me, but by the framers of the United States constitution.That's not what you said in your original post. You put forward all sorts of reasons why you think those darned foreigners should be kept out of the oval office.

And your reply does nothing to address the questions that were posed to you, specifically, why do you think that someone born in the US who has divided national loyalties should be eligible to run for president, but someone born outside America who has wholeheartedly adopted the American way of life, should not be eligible? Doesn't make any sense at all.

I am not a fan of amending the constitution unless there are obvious needs such as abolition of slavery or the right to vote regardless of race or sex.Slavery was abolished because it was unjust. By purely technical standards, not allowing Arnold to run for President is also unjust. Thus, the constraints should be abolished.

I asked my Grandpa about Swartzenegger be presedent and he said he can't be president unless they change the constitution, and they will not change the constitution.Grampa also says Arnold was born in ausria and thats where the Nazis come from; maybie his dad was a nazi.

If they can pass stuff like the patriot act, they can pass the repeal of that law aginst foreign born presidents!

Another thing: I don't think Arnold would hurt America just becuase he's a foreign born person. Who KNOWS??? He might be even better than Bu$h!

well i think he could handle the job, mind you from what (admittedly little) ive seen of his work in california i think his actually winning an election might be a problem. as for the nationality thing, if he can be governer surely hes fit to be a president.

President Jesse Ventura is an interesting possiblity :D

Originally posted by Leper Messiah
from what (admittedly little) ive seen of his work in california i think his actually winning an election might be a problem.

Why? He won the governor race overwhelmingly as a Republican in an extremely Democratic state, in spite of the fact that there were multiple Republican candidates (two of which had a significant percent of the vote) and only one Democrat. Most (if not all) of the propositions he backed passed. All the experts say he appeals to the moderates, which are usually the people who decide an election.

Originally posted by Spider AL
That's not what you said in your original post. You put forward all sorts of reasons why you think those darned foreigners should be kept out of the oval office.

And your reply does nothing to address the questions that were posed to you, specifically, why do you think that someone born in the US who has divided national loyalties should be eligible to run for president, but someone born outside America who has wholeheartedly adopted the American way of life, should not be eligible? Doesn't make any sense at all.

Slavery was abolished because it was unjust. By purely technical standards, not allowing Arnold to run for President is also unjust. Thus, the constraints should be abolished.

What you simply don't understand is how important our constitution is to us. It is not something to be toyed with. Slavery was most definately unjust. But you can't compare one human being owning another human being with someone choosing to immigrate here and not being allowed to run for president.

Originally posted by kipperthefrog
Grampa also says Arnold was born in ausria and thats where the Nazis come from; maybie his dad was a nazi.


Indeed, his father, Gustav, was a high-ranking officer in the SA (Stormtroopers). However, Arnold didn't even attend his father's funeral, so I presume there's some animosity between them.

Originally posted by wassup
Indeed, his father, Gustav, was a high-ranking officer in the SA (Stormtroopers). However, Arnold didn't even attend his father's funeral, so I presume there's some animosity between them.

I'm no expert on his bio at all, but I remember the subject came up during the recall campaign and it was said that Arnold found out about Gustav's past after he died.

"Vote for me if you want to liv"

Well the way i see it he cant be any worse than Dublya, he seems bright enough. and why should he be blamed for the fact his dad was a nazi?

what is the quote from demolition man? I'm sure I heard it but cant think what it was.

anyway, there is no way he could be presedent, most americans are far to patriotic to let a foreigner in the white-house.

Originally posted by Shok_Tinoktin
Why? He won the governor race overwhelmingly as a Republican in an extremely Democratic state, in spite of the fact that there were multiple Republican candidates (two of which had a significant percent of the vote) and only one Democrat. Most (if not all) of the propositions he backed passed. All the experts say he appeals to the moderates, which are usually the people who decide an election.

i consider myself quite firmly proven wrong :D

What you simply don't understand is how important our constitution is to us. I understand that you weren't talking about the constitution three posts ago, and now you are. Let's go back to YOUR OWN reasons for not wanting Arnie to be allowed to run for president.

you can't compare one human being owning another human being with someone choosing to immigrate here and not being allowed to run for president.The relative severity of injustices is irrelevant. If legislation is unjust, it should be rescinded. I think you'll agree on that simple point.

Originally posted by Spider AL
I understand that you weren't talking about the constitution three posts ago, and now you are. Let's go back to YOUR OWN reasons for not wanting Arnie to be allowed to run for president.

The relative severity of injustices is irrelevant. If legislation is unjust, it should be rescinded. I think you'll agree on that simple point.

I most definately was. My "own reasons" are drawn from adopting, understanding and taking an oath to defend that constitution. Go back and re-read what I said. The constitution is not a living document. It was written over 200 years ago and has been tested time and time again. Constitutional amendments were made difficult to achieve to protect the document from trendy and ill conceived changes.

You don't run and change such a sacred thing based on the popularity of one beloved individual. I personally like Arnold. I am a big fan of his movies. Just because he kicked arse in the Terminator doesn't mean that he would make a good president. I'm not even going to debate his performance as governor with the context of what we are discussing. But he is governor because that is allowed by the state constitution of California.

Originally posted by ronbrothers

You don't run and change such a sacred thing based on the popularity of one beloved individual. I personally like Arnold. I am a big fan of his movies. Just because he kicked arse in the Terminator doesn't mean that he would make a good president. I'm not even going to debate his performance as governor with the context of what we are discussing. But he is governor because that is allowed by the state constitution of California.

Anyone KNOW his performance in California?

in any case I'd rather have MOST people than Bu$h, "MR patriot act and war for oil"

(some one who'd drop the economy and try to distract us with a war to "bring democracy to the middle east!" that time and effort can be better spent HERE!)

I most definately was. My "own reasons" are drawn from adopting, understanding and taking an oath to defend that constitution.Ah, so you admit that you were propounding your own reasons? Excellent. Let's discuss their validity.

You don't run and change such a sacred thing based on the popularityYou run and change such a "sacred" :rolleyes: thing, if something in it is unjust and/or doesn't make any sense. Just because someone was born in another country, doesn't make their commitment to America any less valuable. And there are many people with divided national loyalties in America, Fanatic Israel-supporters for example. You wouldn't like one of them to be President, would you? Of course not.

So, once again we see that this portion of the constitution makes no sense, and is unjust to thoroughly patriotic Americans who happened to have been born on another continent.

So of course one should change it, just as one should abolish slavery, or any other injustice of any level of severity. So your own reasoning is invalid, and that portion of your constitution that prevents foreign-born Americans from running for president is pointless and unjust as well.

QED.

I guess discriminating aginst forien born people to prevent them from being president is like discriminating aginst blacks to make them slaves! arnold is as american as any of us.

Hmmm.

Maybe one day, Jesus will come back. Then he will want to run for President of the USA. People will change the amendment for him.

Yet he was born Palestine and is popular like Arnold.

Originally posted by lukeiamyourdad
Hmmm.

Maybe one day, Jesus will come back. Then he will want to run for President of the USA. People will change the amendment for him.

Yet he was born Palestine and is popular like Arnold.

Jesus never tried to get the Roman Governors job on his first trip down....

what the hell would he want the US presidency for anyway?

Originally posted by Leper Messiah
Jesus never tried to get the Roman Governors job on his first trip down....

what the hell would he want the US presidency for anyway? ... I guess humour is truely lost on you.

Originally posted by Spider AL
Ah, so you admit that you were propounding your own reasons? Excellent. Let's discuss their validity.

You run and change such a "sacred" :rolleyes: thing, if something in it is unjust and/or doesn't make any sense. Just because someone was born in another country, doesn't make their commitment to America any less valuable. And there are many people with divided national loyalties in America, Fanatic Israel-supporters for example. You wouldn't like one of them to be President, would you? Of course not.

So, once again we see that this portion of the constitution makes no sense, and is unjust to thoroughly patriotic Americans who happened to have been born on another continent.

So of course one should change it, just as one should abolish slavery, or any other injustice of any level of severity. So your own reasoning is invalid, and that portion of your constitution that prevents foreign-born Americans from running for president is pointless and unjust as well.

QED.

Look at it this way. Pay special attention to what I'm saying here, because it is with the greatest respect possible.

The constitution does not allow a foreign born citizen to become president of the United States. That's it. End of story.

Consider this: should I be allowed to run for Prime Minister of England? No, I don't think so. If my daughter married Prince William and he (God forbid) died. Should she somehow become the next Queen of England? No, I don't think so either. Neither would be appropriate. I may be wrong, but I feel fairly confident in assuming that England's laws and/or traditions would forbid either scenario. I have no business trying to lobby to change either. England is not my country. England and her society was built and defended by English muscle and blood. It is a soverign nation.

My views are not based on isolationism. My desire to protect and preserve the laws, borders and culture of America are based on the same idea which I applied to your country.

I have just as much respect for the same for your country. I would rise in defense of the same. I would be just as unsettled at the sight of someone burning your flag as I would mine.

We are neighbors. We are extended family. But I would take just as much liberty defending my back yard as you would yours. And I would defend your right to do so.

So you're fully against ammending the constitution to ban gay marriage? And in fact...are against EVERY ammendment to the constitution? Because those were added to change it, which in most cases I would say was for the better, but it's okay because they all happened before your time? Am I missing something?

It's okay to ammend the constitution as long as it happened way back when?

Of course, because change was just an issue in the old times and doesn't happen anymore and never will again. :)

The constitution does not allow a foreign born citizen to become president of the United States. That's it. End of story.Pay special attention to this, Ron: It allowed slavery before it was amended, as has been pointed out many times.

The constitution is- rightly- not set in stone, as any document written such a long time ago should not be set in stone. We live in different times, and just as slavery is not acceptable now, neither is the idea that being BORN in a country makes you in some way more loyal than LOVING a country. We live in a global culture. Such ideas have been made obsolete by freedom of travel and ease of immigration.

Consider this: should I be allowed to run for Prime Minister of England?If you'd lived a decade or two or three in England, had taken an oath of citizenship and had become a pillar of the English community and had altogether demonstrated your immersion into English culture, yes, you should be allowed to shoot for the position of Prime Minister.

Of COURSE you should. Why shouldn't you? That's the whole point. That's what's unjust about the concept of second generation fiddle-faddle.

Article. V.
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

This is in the Constitution too. I agree that changes to the Constitution should not be taken lightly, but the fact that something is currently in the Constitution is not the end all of discussion in amending it.

They would have no trouble amending the constitution if they WANTED to.

Constitution issues aside, what I wonder is: Would Arnold make a good president? What was his performance in California? And what would he do if he WERE president?

I wouldn't vote for Arnold for President...and neither would I support a Constitutional amendment allowing immigrants to be President.

Arnold ran for governor as a conservative-leaning moderate, and he has done a lot to fix the mess that the ever-liberal Gray Davis left here, but in my opinion, he isn't conservative enough to win my support.

I didn't vote for him for governor because it was painfully obvious that he was presenting himself as a conservative by ripping off ideas and policy promises from the real conservative candidate, Tom McClintock (who, if you haven't guessed, I voted for).

Really, the only reason he won the governorship was by name recognition.

Originally posted by rccar328

Arnold ran for governor as a conservative-leaning moderate, and he has done a lot to fix the mess that the ever-liberal Gray Davis left here, but in my opinion, he isn't conservative enough to win my support.



what kind of mess did he leave and what did he do to clean it up?

that's funny, it almost like you're saying only liberals can mess things up. Gray Davis was just a bad leader, it had nothing to do with his stances on things or his party association.

Originally posted by InsaneSith
that's funny, it almost like you're saying only liberals can mess things up. Gray Davis was just a bad leader, it had nothing to do with his stances on things or his party association.

Agreed! Democrats make the best leaders! I didn't say liberals were bad leaders. I was just asking the details of Arnold's term for governer to determine is potential performance as president!( if people didn't like him in his own state, that would be a sighn that somthing is wrong.)

I was talking to rccar. My bad for not quoting.

Originally posted by kipperthefrog
At least he was a self made man as far as I know!

Opera Winfry started out poor and knows what its like! she gives to the poor and buys people cars!

Was Arnold just a foreign guy who just got into acting, and he made it himself? or was hee BORN rich and has NO connecection to the common man?

Is he a Democrat or Republican?



What does she MEAN California was destroyed??? (Maybie it was destroyed from the RICH people's perspective becuase they are only getting 25 million instead of 30 million! that won't likely HAPPEN, but its just a thought...)


U have made a good point he is a forgein alien which means he can't run for preisdent

Originally posted by kipperthefrog
(if people didn't like him in his own state, that would be a sighn that somthing is wrong.)

People like him in his own state.

Originally posted by Shok_Tinoktin
He won the governor race overwhelmingly as a Republican in an extremely Democratic state, in spite of the fact that there were multiple Republican candidates (two of which had a significant percent of the vote) and only one Democrat. Most (if not all) of the propositions he backed passed. All the experts say he appeals to the moderates, which are usually the people who decide an election.

If people like him in his own state, then that leave the question:

do they like him for his politics or just his movies?

Originally posted by kipperthefrog
If people like him in his own state, then that leave the question:

do they like him for his politics or just his movies?

just the movies

Originally posted by kipperthefrog
do they like him for his politics or just his movies?

Hard to say. My guess is that it is some combination. A lot of people I have talked to don't like him at all, because they have trouble taking him seriously because of the movies. Personally, I don't like the way he uses his movies when he's talking about politics. However, voting on propositions I found that I was voting the way he was campaigning for on many of them. In fact, I think I disagreed with him on only one. I like him for his politics.