Arnold vrs Clinton 2008 - Page 2 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

onetime2 · 09-17-2004, 05:07 AM

I'll just post my thoughts on it as I didn't read everyone's comments here...

8 years is more than enough. The switch from one President to another helps to get new blood into the government. Recycling old ideas after a 4 year break doesn't help to move the country forward, IMO. It would be easier for me to buy into a single 6 or eight year term for a President than it would be for me to buy into more than 8 years for an individual. Four years isn't quite enough, IMO, to let the President push his/her agenda and it isn't enough to force cooperation within Congress with the President. Basically, if the Congress is held by the party not holding the Presidency you can spend 4 years fighting with little real incentive to work together. If the Congres (or the President) knew they HAD to work together for the next 8 years I think there's a shot at putting the partisanship aside.

Now, as far as a foreign born President...

I say absolutely. There is no reason in the world for the restriction. There are checks and balances in place to offset the power of the Presidency and the odds of some foreign influence corrupting a foreign born President are not really any greater than an American born leader.

Pan's point about not needing to go outside the US for a leader doesn't resonate with me. It's not about "needing" to go outside but about finding the best person for the job. Where you're born doesn't preclude you from being a great leader and loving America.

My vision of the world is more of unity than separation. I think it's inevitable that we will be more and more an international community rather than strictly a nationalistic state. Opening our system to those outside of the US is but a small step toward the inevitable.

shakran · 09-17-2004, 05:30 AM

Allowing Arnold to run would be appallingly stupid. How easy would it be for an enemy state to send agents over, have 'em wait the 20 years, and then run? That's the whole reason the "natural citizen only" clause is in there.

onetime2 · 09-17-2004, 05:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shakran

Allowing Arnold to run would be appallingly stupid. How easy would it be for an enemy state to send agents over, have 'em wait the 20 years, and then run? That's the whole reason the "natural citizen only" clause is in there.

How would this person fool the press scrutiny, FBI/CIA/every other intelligence agency in the world's investigations, etc that a run for the Presidency entails?

Then when he/she becomes President all those checks and balances written into the Constitution would also have to somehow become irrlevant for it to make a difference.

And, on top of that, he/she would have to be pretty convincing to get the Congress and American public behind the plans of the enemy state this person is loyal to.

Stompy · 09-17-2004, 07:47 AM

Is Hillary even going to run, or is this all sepculation?

filtherton · 09-17-2004, 08:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

'''Irrelevant, bitter remark implying the existence of a vast liberal conspiracy.'''

Irrelevant, annoyed remark pointing out flawed logic in above bitter remark.

Ustwo · 09-17-2004, 09:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by filtherton

Irrelevant, annoyed remark pointing out flawed logic in above bitter remark.

Do me a favor, when you quote me directly, make it a real quote ok?

Quote:

Why the Press Loves John McCain
Jacob Weisberg
Posted Monday, Oct. 4, 1999, at 4:15 PM PT

...Why do the hacks love McCain? You could start with our admiration for a quality not many of us possess: physical courage. But I think the deeper admiration is for the guts McCain showed in his Vietnamese captivity and which he's shown consistently ever since. Everyone knows by now the story told in McCain's book, how he voluntarily suffered five and a half years as a P.O.W. in Vietnam after refusing an early release. McCain wasn't just a war hero. He was a kind of spirit of resistance personified, a man who writes in his book (click here for a Ballot Box review) that he found freedom in captivity by tormenting his torturers, even at the cost of additional abuse. McCain is a Faulknerian character, in a very different sense than Bill Clinton is. And I think that at this point, even those of us who think Clinton has been a good president hunger for a successor more deserving of our respect.

Reporters who have covered McCain in the Senate have seen Republican politics considerably enlivened by this defiant character. McCain is barely tolerated by his party's leadership, and he hardly conceals his contempt for Trent Lott and Mitch McConnell. He has broken with his colleagues over campaign-finance reform, over legislation to punish cigarette makers, and over corporate welfare. There's a bit of the "strange new respect" phenomenon in the way journalists respond to these positions. When a conservative politician takes liberal stands, he is often described as having "grown." Yet McCain remains a genuine conservative, the farthest to the right of any of the other plausible candidates in the race (a category that excludes the born-again Bible slinger Steve Forbes). Reporters respect McCain less because he takes liberal positions than because of the way he puts his beliefs ahead of his career as a matter of course.

http://slate.msn.com/id/1003748/

While the reporter obviously is a lefty if he thinks McCain is far right (note this was in the 2000 primary and the reporter doesn't even mention Bush hehe) but the obvious is there. McCain takes 'liberal' stances despite being 'farthest to the right'. Hense the press loved him, and he loved talking to the press.

So please Filthy do me the favor of just distoring what I say, not changing it.

pan6467 · 09-17-2004, 09:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by onetime2

How would this person fool the press scrutiny, FBI/CIA/every other intelligence agency in the world's investigations, etc that a run for the Presidency entails?

Then when he/she becomes President all those checks and balances written into the Constitution would also have to somehow become irrlevant for it to make a difference.

And, on top of that, he/she would have to be pretty convincing to get the Congress and American public behind the plans of the enemy state this person is loyal to.

Really, you mean like the mud being thrown now? People believe what they want to believe. If we allow a foreigner to run and someone comes out (even with cold hard proof) that the man has worked for say, the Chinese government 20 years ago, but yet he is loved enough by the people it looks like he will be elected, people will say it's just mud, it doesn't matter. So I don't buy into what you're saying. If the press found something.... "Well the press is biased."

It's what we are heading for. We are desensitizing ourselves to scandals and someday soon someone with some truly bad mojo may run and the scandals will be ignored because we are so tired and used to mud and scandals we don't read or care anymore.... (not talking VietNam scandals... these Bush and Kerry things are BS and everyone knows it.)

However you stick to an issues only race and people find out real fast where you stand.

I still contend if we have to go outside to find our leader we may as well hang it up. Does any other country (except Isreal, but all Jews are considered citizens) allow a non natural citizen to run for their leader? Does Canada? NO you have to be Canadian. Does Australia? No you have to be Aussie. Does the UK? no, maybe back in the days of the monarchy but no you'll never see a german born PM in the UK.

Checks and balances? That's hysterical, if a president wanted to fuck us up all he would have to do is disband the military, or send all of them into a foreign war and leave our shores wide open. By the time we realized what happened and tried to impeach him it would be over. (Very very paranoid thought there .... but again why allow that thought to even be thereby allowing the scenario to be a possibility?)

shakran · 09-17-2004, 07:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by onetime2

How would this person fool the press scrutiny, FBI/CIA/every other intelligence agency in the world's investigations, etc that a run for the Presidency entails?

Pretty easy really. Look at all the soviet spies that WORKED for the FBI / CIA when they were spies. Not really that hard to get 'em in if you know what you're doing.

Quote:

Then when he/she becomes President all those checks and balances written into the Constitution would also have to somehow become irrlevant for it to make a difference.

So you're saying the president doesn't actually have any effect on this country?

I'm not suggesting that a foriegn national could get elected and would then make the army launch nukes at itself.

Quote:

And, on top of that, he/she would have to be pretty convincing to get the Congress and American public behind the plans of the enemy state this person is loyal to.

Yeah, well, Bush got the american public behind plans that are causing major harm to our country. Guess it's not too hard to be convincing now is it?

onetime2 · 09-19-2004, 12:12 PM

The belief that foreign countries can possibly get an agent into the Presidency is absurd. Thinking that he would then be able to disband the military or anything else along those lines is pure Hollywood.

Having agents in the FBI or CIA is a far cry from having one in the Presidency. If it were so easy, then why haven't Russian agents run the intelligence agencies?

And, of those spies you point to within the CIA and FBI weren't quite a few American? Of course, so being born in America has absolutely nothing to do with their level of security risk.

But hey, if you guys really think this way there's obviously nothing anyone can say to convince you otherwise. After all, if I tried, perhaps it was because I am really an agent of the enemy.

09-17-2004, 05:07 AM	#41 (permalink)
onetime2 Junkie Location: NJ	I'll just post my thoughts on it as I didn't read everyone's comments here... 8 years is more than enough. The switch from one President to another helps to get new blood into the government. Recycling old ideas after a 4 year break doesn't help to move the country forward, IMO. It would be easier for me to buy into a single 6 or eight year term for a President than it would be for me to buy into more than 8 years for an individual. Four years isn't quite enough, IMO, to let the President push his/her agenda and it isn't enough to force cooperation within Congress with the President. Basically, if the Congress is held by the party not holding the Presidency you can spend 4 years fighting with little real incentive to work together. If the Congres (or the President) knew they HAD to work together for the next 8 years I think there's a shot at putting the partisanship aside. Now, as far as a foreign born President... I say absolutely. There is no reason in the world for the restriction. There are checks and balances in place to offset the power of the Presidency and the odds of some foreign influence corrupting a foreign born President are not really any greater than an American born leader. Pan's point about not needing to go outside the US for a leader doesn't resonate with me. It's not about "needing" to go outside but about finding the best person for the job. Where you're born doesn't preclude you from being a great leader and loving America. My vision of the world is more of unity than separation. I think it's inevitable that we will be more and more an international community rather than strictly a nationalistic state. Opening our system to those outside of the US is but a small step toward the inevitable. __________________ Strive to be more curious than ignorant.

09-17-2004, 07:47 AM	#44 (permalink)
Stompy Banned from being Banned Location: Donkey	Is Hillary even going to run, or is this all sepculation? __________________ I love lamp.

09-19-2004, 12:12 PM	#49 (permalink)
onetime2 Junkie Location: NJ	The belief that foreign countries can possibly get an agent into the Presidency is absurd. Thinking that he would then be able to disband the military or anything else along those lines is pure Hollywood. Having agents in the FBI or CIA is a far cry from having one in the Presidency. If it were so easy, then why haven't Russian agents run the intelligence agencies? And, of those spies you point to within the CIA and FBI weren't quite a few American? Of course, so being born in America has absolutely nothing to do with their level of security risk. But hey, if you guys really think this way there's obviously nothing anyone can say to convince you otherwise. After all, if I tried, perhaps it was because I am really an agent of the enemy. __________________ Strive to be more curious than ignorant.

09-17-2004, 05:30 AM	#42 (permalink)
shakran Tone.	Allowing Arnold to run would be appallingly stupid. How easy would it be for an enemy state to send agents over, have 'em wait the 20 years, and then run? That's the whole reason the "natural citizen only" clause is in there.