President Schwarzenegger

Ya!! it sounds far fetched, but this guy just may be the next putz to run this evolving fascist nation;
http://www.news10.net/storyfull1.asp?id=9090

Could this guy win?.
If the Amendment becomes law, I am able to run for pres.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Or how about an Iraqi US president?. LOL...

Godless.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

yea though the purpose might be sketchy, the amendment itself isn't bad.


A country of idiots shouldn't be run by idiots. That doesn't mean Arnie should be elected but the reasoning (if any) behind having only Americans run for the presidency is a tad bit absurd. Unless anyone wants to challenge?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Passing constitutional ammendments is practically impossible, that's why so few have been passed despite thousands of proposed ammendments. Still, if anyone can get it done, it's Arnold. The guy came to the US with nothing but a plan to suceed in weightlifting, then acting, then politics. Conservatives love him because he's the terminator, despite the fact that he's actually fairly liberal. It wouldn't surprise me to see him elected president. The need for a constitutional ammendment is the only thing holding him back.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

A. A constitutional amendment wouldn't pass.
B. He couldn't get a nomination, even as a Democrat if he switched parties.
C. Even if an amendment passed, and he got a nomination, he wouldn't be elected.

BTW, I love the guy, he's really great for California and he's doing a great job.

 

The amendment is already law. He should not become President. That law should not be changed.

 

("He's simple, he's dumb, he's the pilot")

I'm of the opinion that such change should be a matter of principle, and not of immediate cause. Constitutional amendments should not be specific, like "flag burning", anti-abortion, or gender-discriminatory, and while this amendment passes that test, it should not be raised with a specific candidate in mind.

To the other, Schwarzeneggar is almost the consummate Reaganite inasmuch as he's a recognizable figurehead at the center of a larger operation. Even though this may be a reasonable fashion of government, the people will need some time to adjust to the idea of electing a slate, but that seems to be what the GOP is after. Of course, these are American voters, and these voters have raised an actor-turned-California-governor to the presidency, so it's actually likely that he would win the presidency if we changed the birth requirement.

For some reason, Americans really really want their lives to look like movies or soap operas or some stupid sh@t like that. It wouldn't be so bad if people aspired to some of the better novels and poems out there, but who has the time for such complexity? The role of entertainment and diversion in social progress quite obviously escapes the majority. The notion that such a role exists seems quite beyond the grasp of the larger portion of our society.

Even middle America suffers from this mixing of political cause with reason. It's sensational, breaks up the monotony of a really big sky.

Remember: Democrats say they'll make you smarter, more attractive, and they'll get the chickweed out of your lawn. Republicans will tell you what's wrong with government and then set about proving it. Middle America may distrust the Hollywood elite, but they'll believe anybody who comes at them promising a better tomorrow through greed, superstition, and fear.

 

The role of a good president is his charisma, not good deeds done. People forget about politics and things so-and-so has done, but not how they present themselves and make people feel when they see and hear him during a speech. Kennedy and Reagan? They weren't so great politically, but they were great, charismatic leaders.

To me, I feel as if the role of president should be purely charismatic. It's not as if the president has to do all the hard work as that's what his advisors and other cabinet members are for. All the president has to do is say yes or no to a proposal which his advisors and cabinet members give him a good/bad probability so the answer the president gives is gonna be pretty obvious. Not to mention they can manipulate the president with any information given to him so they're the ones that basically run the show.

So I would love for Swartzenegger to be president so long as he has qualified and trustworthy people working for (running) him. Ahhnold can do aneething. Heck, he'd probably solve this whole "war on terror" in less than a year! Usahma.. I vill squahsh you like a bug!

- N

 

Its funny but here in England Reagan was never seen as charismatic,he was seen as a moron.There was even a weekly skit on him in a comedy show on TV at the time called The Presidents Brain Is Missing.
It wouldn't suprise me if Arnie became President.I just wonder why Americans feel comfortable voting for people who are either not very bright (Bush 2 and Reagan) or with no experience (Arnold)

 

Such foolish generalization! How many matches did it take for that strawman T?

I haven't been here long enough to know left from right but I see failed logic when I see failed logic.

 

hah... very very possible considering the precedents of GWB and Reagan. These days governorships are the easiest road to the presidency- senate records always turn out to be bad news in campaigns (ahem).

Funny how its so postmodern, especially the dictum that 'life mimics art'. Swartzenegger's Austrian accent has become literally part of our lives, his body our ideal of perfection, in a way his foreign nature has defined what it is to be American.

 

I like the idea of this constitutional amendment. Why shouldn't a foreign-born citizen have the opportunity to become our President?

What I don't like about this is the possibility that Schwarzenegger will try to run for the Presidential office. It's not kuz he's a movie star, although that is a bit weird. He just isn't an ideal candidate to me. I'd prefer someone else, someone that leans more liberal than he does.

I'll give him this: He is a better choice than Bush. But then again, who isn't?

 

Well for now I rather have Bush

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Rather than Pat Robertson!. :bugeye:

But seriously folkes; what good can come from such an amendment. What would be the criteria?. You can become president of the US after a year of living here? or do you have to be loaded like Arni? Or do you at least have to be governor of California? once. LOL.

Actors don't make very good presidents thus far, Yea! I know some conservatives may scream Reagan!!. was this, or that. But I clearly remember his campaingn. He showed the expence of food items and how much they cost, after eitght years of his presidency someone took those same items of food and showed the inflation of their cost. Regan did nothing to lower prices, he did nothing to raise the middle class' standard of living, he did nothing to help the poor. Fact is there were more poor people after his eight years, than when he got into office. So can someone explain why he is considered a great president?.

Godless.

 

If one isn't born in this country, he isn't likely to have the interests of this country as his highest priority over his fatherland; this is especially true in our age of zealous nationalism. What if our interests suddenly conflict with those of the country of birth of our President?

On the other hand, why not? Suppose a person came here at age two or three, speaks the language perfectly, is a citizen, etc. He's just as concerned about our politics as those who were born here.

Heheh, when Bush was elected I laughed. If this ammendment passes, I'll cry.

 

Is the United States one of the few countries that demand place of birth as a prerequisite for the head office? Of is it more common? Anyway, it shouldn't matter where you were born, as long as you are a citizen for x number of years.

Considering the next batch of wannabe Republican presidents like Trent Lott, Jeb Bush, and John McCain, I think Arnold is the best pick. His social stances are moderate-to-liberal, while he doesn't seem to be ideologically hardened on economics. However, can anybody imagine the Terminator negotiating with the new Palestinian leader and the Israeli PM to bring an end to that conflict? I know Reagan was an actor too, but he wasn't an iconic meathead action hero. Arnold's fame and reputation as a movie star far exceeds anything Reagan did in Hollywood. I don't know what his cred would be in high-stakes international situations.

 

It's an old joke. And it still holds true to a certain degree. Certes, it was Bob Dole, a Republican, promising more than he could possibly deliver as president in 1996 when he rescued Slick Willie from the Sistah Souljah flap, but liberalism is most often derided as being a pipe dream; liberals are said to have their heads in the clouds. Or, as the older context has it, Democrats will tell you what you want to hear. They're political cocaine: easy to try and you're willing to crawl back at the slightest hint of another fix. Of course, that makes the GOP heroin, so ... yeah, we all could have been contenders.

However, a harmony of old and new comes from the Republicans, anyway: they fear the very things that make us human: inefficiency, compassion, knowledge of the unpleasant, &c. I cannot stress strongly enough that the stuff of the George W. Bush presidency is so foul as to bring stern condemnation in Reagan's day. This wolf in sheep's clothing calling itself American freedom, the ultimate surrender to our fears, was believed to be the potential result of such corruption that it was damn near sinful to believe a good man like (fill in the blank) capable of. I mean, I'm lucky. My father never was much for throwing punches. And it's a good thing, because there were a few times he would have, were he prone to take a poke. And I promise you, §outh§tar, truly and personally, that to describe dispassionately the mere facts of George W. Bush's presidency as conjecture on a possible future for the United States of America was, indeed, an offense worthy of considering violence. The foil-vested, shiny-happy-miserable utopia of the ants was a far-fetched but occasional argument against liberalism, and while we're still a fair leap from the foil clothing, that Orwellian accusations and nostalgic recollections of Goering are not only commonplace but, within a certain reasonable context, fair issues to argue, is something history as recent as the 1980s saw as an argument against liberalism.

Tax and spend. Big government. Socialist-utopian nightmare, lobotomies for the smart, and mass executions of the Sabbatarians.°

Give or take a few points for the absolute hyperbole, historical continuity is at least as ironic as Rupert tripping over Pluto and smashing into Uranus.°

But, strangely, as the conservative beast morphs into its ferocious form, we find one thing true enough: for all we've heard from Republicans over the last 25 years at least about what's wrong with government, this little demonstration called the George W. Bush White House is rather a neat example.

And, for the record, I don't know how many years I am removed from the original quote. Nor do I know how far removed I am from mere knowledge of its original source. Or form. It could be a Dennis Leary joke for all I know.
____________________

° mass executions of the Sabbatarians - Theoretically, that includes Wiccans, but nobody really cares about them, anyway. If the Sabbatarian joke seems obscure, ask one. It's likely there's some paranoid conspiracy theory in play. I so wish I had retained a copy of a tract I read a few years ago in which a theory among Seventh-Day Adventists held that the UN would institute a one-world government and arrest all the Sabbatarians as nonconformists. Of course, other theories hold that the pope is the Devil, and that witches and Marxists conspire with Satanists (e.g. Catholics, if we throw the papal theory in there) to bring about a Communist revolution and institute the thousand years of Satan's reign, or some-such. Really, they'll write novels about this stuff. Or, worse yet, thick scholarly volumes in which impressive fancy is passed off as fact with, to borrow a phrase, nearly Biblical certitude.

° Rupert tripping over Pluto and smashing into Uranus - I'm actually going to have to look it up. What the hell is Rupert's real name?

 

One of the more sensible comments I saw on this topic when it first came around last year, was that it might well be a good idea to have such an amendment. But, it should not come into force immediately, or people holding office now shouldnt be permitted to use it to run for PResident, or some such other limitation. The basic logic was that its silly to meddle with the constitution effectively for one person.

 

Tiassa,

Would you then say George Bush's policies are un-American? Is he a wolf in sheep's clothing? I see him as the ultimate American - from a historical perspective. I am still confused when people find this 'imperialism' to be shocking; there is nothing new under the sun.

As for liberalism being a pipe dream, everyone has their head in the clouds. Bush practices Grantism, so what? Sometimes we see the president's dirty underwear, othertimes they are very adept at hiding it. To complain and single out Bush is unnecessary - would you rather have an IQ cutoff point for presidential eligibility

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

?
The people voted for him alright so he obviously must be doing something that works. Maybe he gives the people what they want, not what is good for them. But then no one knows what is good for the country - not you, not me, not him; it's no longer that simple.

Conservatism as a ferocious beast? What would liberalism be then? Raging dragon? Conservatism is not itself unreasonable - just the people who skewer it. Liberalism on the other hand.. to dangerous.. to risque. That is not what the people want.

What do the people want?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

The benefits of freedom. And for this you find fault with conservatives..? There is no standard on what should be taken conservatively and what should be taken liberally - it is all arbitrary. So what is the problem here - what's wrong with the government, or what's wrong with us?

 

Not only is this amendment a bad idea, they are trying to push it forward as an amendment for those who are born outside the country to have equal rights. Right... Orrin Hatch, the leader of equal rights movements.

The biggest fear I have with this ammendment, is that if it somehow gets put through, there will be a constitutional convention - and that is the very last thing we need under the Bush administration. Anything can be changed there.

For more on the Schwarzenager fiasco - www.arnoldexposed.com

 

Watch out, all the Communist sleeper cells from the olden days will be eligable for the presidency. They've been waiting all this time for the right moment, now it's time to strike!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

- N

 

Who can know forsure if Arnie realy WANTS to be president?? Certainly by 2012, he could be sick + tired of politics. It bores me already , and Ive only voted once..

In principl though, this amendment sounds like a good idea. I mean, theres really nothing legal to stop a bankrupt, a convicted criminal whos just left jail, a psycotic madman or a pimp from becoming president! A respected + famous US citizen, who proves himself a decent governer but who just happened to be born a foreigner, seems like a beter choice than very many of our native borns. As others on this thread keep saying, better than Dubya!