Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community  

Go Back   Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community > The Academy > Tilted Politics


 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 09-15-2004, 06:25 PM   #1 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Arnold vrs Clinton 2008

And i'm not talking Hilary!


http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,132537,00.html

Quote:
WASHINGTON — Schwarzenegger for president in 2008?

No, he's not eligible. Born in Austria (search), he's barred by the Constitution. But that would change under an amendment introduced Wednesday by a fellow California Republican.

Rep. Dana Rohrabacher's proposal would allow anyone who's been a U.S. citizen for 20 years to run for the nation's highest office. That would include Arnold Schwarzenegger (search) -- bodybuilder, movie star and now governor of California.

Schwarzenegger, who became a citizen in 1983, has said he supports amending the Constitution so foreign-born citizensher he might want to run, saying he's focused on governing California.

Rohrabacher said in an interview that Schwarzenegger was doing a great job as governor, but his real aim was to open up the presidential process. "We've got some talented people who might be able to help our country and provide some much-needed leadership, and there's no reason if they've been a citizen for over 20 years to exclude them," he said.

Sen. Orrin Hatch (search), R-Utah, has introduced similar legislation in the Senate.

In remarks prepared for the House floor, he suggested he really wanted to help a California congressman, and a Democrat at that.

"This is no ploy. I honestly believe that Tom Lantos should be able to seek the highest office in the land, just like any other elected official," he said.

Lantos, 76 and born in Hungary, said he saw no need to amend the Constitution.

"However, if the Austro-Hungarian Empire is re-established in the United States, I will invite Arnold Schwarzenegger to be my lieutenant," he said.

Constitutional amendments require passage by two-thirds of both the House and the Senate and then approval by three-fourths of the states.
So there is now a bill wanting to remove the restriction on only American born citizens being able to run for president. Do you think we should still have this restriction? Obviously the threat of someone putting a sleeper in the whitehouse is scary but how likely/unlikely is that?

Now for the second half of the title.

It has been suggested in the past of modifing the 8 years restriction to 8 consecutive years. Do you think this would be a good idea? The 8 years restriction is to prevent one person from getting to much power in the whitehouse. Does being removed for x many years also serve this same purpose?

Last edited by Rekna; 09-15-2004 at 07:46 PM..
Rekna is offline  
Old 09-15-2004, 06:32 PM   #2 (permalink)
Junkie
 
filtherton's Avatar
 
Location: In the land of ice and snow.
I don't see why it would be a problem. I think we should worry about our president being bought and sold by lobbyists much more than being planted by foreigners.

Last edited by filtherton; 09-15-2004 at 07:09 PM..
filtherton is offline  
Old 09-15-2004, 07:06 PM   #3 (permalink)
Junkie
 
And whats your opinion on the more than 8 years part?
Rekna is offline  
Old 09-15-2004, 07:09 PM   #4 (permalink)
Junkie
 
filtherton's Avatar
 
Location: In the land of ice and snow.
I guess if we love someone so much that we want them back after a four year breather i can't see how it would be a problem.
filtherton is offline  
Old 09-15-2004, 07:10 PM   #5 (permalink)
can't help but laugh
 
irateplatypus's Avatar
 
Location: dar al-harb
it's my opinion that 8 years should be the total time allowed in the office. if it's 4 years, a break, then 4 years... that would be fine. no more than 8 total though if you ask me.
__________________
If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.

~ Winston Churchill
irateplatypus is offline  
Old 09-15-2004, 07:19 PM   #6 (permalink)
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
 
Willravel's Avatar
 
We will have to see how Arnold fairs in the next election. He won't be running against small people or porn stars. This will be his first real election. He has done some good for California (Caleeeforrnia!), and he has botched a few things as well. A lot of people voted for him because of his film career, of course. The question is will people vote for a president based on a good film career alone? (Insert Regan joke here if you want, but I loved Regan)
As for Hillary Clinton becoming president, I'd be moving to Peru before she was sworn in. The way I figure it, Peru will not be a likely target for nuclear ICBMs in WWIII. Also, I hear Lake Titicaca is beautiful.
Willravel is offline  
Old 09-15-2004, 07:20 PM   #7 (permalink)
Junkie
 
I wasn't refering to hillary, i was refering to bill
Rekna is offline  
Old 09-15-2004, 07:41 PM   #8 (permalink)
can't help but laugh
 
irateplatypus's Avatar
 
Location: dar al-harb
lol, until i read your first couple of posts... i assumed you were talking about hillary as well.
__________________
If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.

~ Winston Churchill
irateplatypus is offline  
Old 09-15-2004, 07:46 PM   #9 (permalink)
Junkie
 
hehe modified the post a little to make it more clear
Rekna is offline  
Old 09-15-2004, 07:47 PM   #10 (permalink)
Pissing in the cornflakes
 
Ustwo's Avatar
 
8 is enough.
__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.
Ustwo is offline  
Old 09-15-2004, 08:11 PM   #11 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Please comment on both the 8 year limit and the american citizen limit
Rekna is offline  
Old 09-15-2004, 08:23 PM   #12 (permalink)
Huggles, sir?
 
seretogis's Avatar
 
Location: Seattle
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rekna
Please comment on both the 8 year limit and the american citizen limit
If anything, I feel that term limits should be much shorter across the board. Politicians get too comfortable in their positions.
__________________
seretogis - sieg heil
perfect little dream the kind that hurts the most, forgot how it feels well almost
no one to blame always the same, open my eyes wake up in flames
seretogis is offline  
Old 09-15-2004, 08:30 PM   #13 (permalink)
Lennonite Priest
 
pan6467's Avatar
 
Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA
George Washington himself stated, "8 years was long enough for any man to serve".

The most a man/woman can serve is 10.... as a VP who has come into office through death, resignation or whatever of the Pres. Then 2 elected terms as Pres.

Now in '88 to get around this the GOP talked about a Bush/Reagan ticket and then Bush resigning and then being VP again, Reagan being elevated then resigning after 2 years and Bush taking over. It was out there, but I knew people who seriously wanted that to happen.

As for Arnold.... NO WAY IN HELL. I do not believe we should ever change the rule of NATURAL BORN US CITIZEN. It's bullshit. First that tells me that we have sunk very, very low to the point we have to find someone from a foreign country to run ours. Secondly, We are deciding to mold the Constitution to benefit ONE man, not our country, not the people BUT ONE man. We do this we make a true mockery of whatever pride and greatness this country has left.

I am sorry if that sounds elitist or prejudiced in anyway.

What I don't understand is these Republicans (not all GOP just the ones that have no future vision and want to change the Constitution to their desires and whims and definitions of how people should live, and what is right and wrong), who say they are so patriotic and demand we follow the Constitution the way it was written, all of a sudden wanting all these fucked up amendments. Pathetic. The only amendment you heard Clinton EVER talk about was a balanced budget amendment.

The only one during Reagan's term (well ERA but that died fast under Reagan), was Line Item Veto.

Why don't we just make the amendment that there can only be a 2 party system? Then we can add every 20 years or so power shall change between parties regardless of the election.
__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"
pan6467 is offline  
Old 09-15-2004, 08:31 PM   #14 (permalink)
can't help but laugh
 
irateplatypus's Avatar
 
Location: dar al-harb
to flesh out rekna's thread, i haven't yet commented on the U.S. citizen part yet...

I think that the Constitution should be changed to allow such citizens... but with a few caveats if the position is for a national level position (congress or president)

1. they should be a citizen for at least 20 years prior, as the article mentions.

2. they should hold a state or local level office first.

3. be legally required to sign an afidavit to defend and uphold the constitution before they run. swearing in for the actual office after they've been elected seems too late for that.

4. have immigrated from a country that the U.S. has formal and friendly diplomatic relations.

i know it's a different sort of criteria, but i believe on one hand that they [immigrants] should be given the opportunity but i am also very cautious about its eventual ramifications.
__________________
If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.

~ Winston Churchill
irateplatypus is offline  
Old 09-15-2004, 08:48 PM   #15 (permalink)
Lennonite Priest
 
pan6467's Avatar
 
Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA
Irate,

Your #4 destroyed Arnold's chances right there.

Austria was not a US friendly country when he immigrated. It was primarily nuetral with leanings towards the Soviets.

I said it before I'll say it again.... if we have to look outside our country to find a leader we are doomed.

It won't stop with that amendment, people will then find a new person in the future who is beloved and has political aspirations, and by setting the precedent they'll change the amendment for that person....

It is fucking ignorant to change the amendment based solely on a popular opinion. Look at Prohibition.... have we not learned a damn thing from that experiment? The populace wanted it at the time.... it was a great event when it passed.... but the people wanting it did not consider anyone but themselves, not their peers not future generations. Just themselves.... and that is what we would be doing.... hell that's what we're doing with this "marriage amendment".
__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"
pan6467 is offline  
Old 09-15-2004, 08:49 PM   #16 (permalink)
Insane
 
what´s really fucked up is that the entire proposal is basically for ahnold. the great republican hope for 08. absolute proof that its all a popularity contest. yeah, peru is looking real good. arnold or hilarity.
pedro padilla is offline  
Old 09-15-2004, 08:55 PM   #17 (permalink)
Junkie
 
if were lucky we will start seeing smear campaigns next month....
Rekna is offline  
Old 09-15-2004, 09:07 PM   #18 (permalink)
Junkie
 
I think any amendment like this, the 8 years, or any power giving amendment (exceptions allowed) should have a clause built into it.

This clause should state this amendment does not go into effect for 30 years. This would insure that the amendment was not a power grab by one party to serve it's current purposes. Since the people in charge in 30 years will be different then the ones now it would minimize the partisinship in such a bill.
Rekna is offline  
Old 09-15-2004, 09:08 PM   #19 (permalink)
beauty in the breakdown
 
Location: Chapel Hill, NC
Arnold has a long way to go towards proving that he has anything approaching the ability to run a country... He hasnt done too badly in CA, but he's been there, what, a year?

Anyways, eight years is enough.
__________________
"Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws."
--Plato
sailor is offline  
Old 09-15-2004, 09:12 PM   #20 (permalink)
Insane
 
Location: Plano, TX
In my opinion, Arnold is more American and has more respect and admiration for this country than most native born Americans do. He's contributed to plenty of charity and national causes during his citizenship here, and if he or any other longstanding and upstanding citizen of the U.S. feel that they could contribute by running for the Presidency, by all means, I feel they should be allowed.

Case in point - my grandmother, mother, and uncle were all born in Japan. My grandmother met my grandfather in Japan and married him while he was serving our country in Okinawa in the Air Force during the 60's. They lived in the U.S. for all but two years of their lives and have been U.S. citizens by virtue of the fact that they were born on a U.S. military base and were fathered by a member of the U.S. military, but they would not be able to run for presidency if they were so inclined or able. I think that's kinda silly, personally... I mean, if someone's lived here for so long that they have become interested and willing to take on politics, why shouldn't we let them?
__________________
"The power of accurate observation is frequently called cynicism by those who don't have it." - George Bernard Shaw
Shizukana is offline  
Old 09-15-2004, 10:06 PM   #21 (permalink)
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
 
Willravel's Avatar
 
I know that appreciation for freedom comes from a place of less freedom. The law was originally put in place top protect the office of the president from spys, as far as I can conclude. If others know of a more sufficiant reason to keep people of foreign orgins out of the oval office, I'd be willing to consider said reason. Until then, Arnold is less likely to be a spy then Kerry or Bush.
Willravel is offline  
Old 09-16-2004, 12:12 AM   #22 (permalink)
Banned
 
Location: Swooping down on you from above....
Keep the US born citizen rule. I don't like the idea of foreginers running the place. I don't want a terrorist sleeper or some other fucker who wants to fuck up our country in the white house which could very well happen.
Flyguy is offline  
Old 09-16-2004, 12:44 AM   #23 (permalink)
Psycho
 
Eight years is plenty. There should be term limits on senators and congressmen also.
Absolutely no way should anyone not born here ever be president.
scout is offline  
Old 09-16-2004, 01:16 AM   #24 (permalink)
Please touch this.
 
Halx's Avatar
 
Owner/Admin
Location: Manhattan
I think if anything, it should require citizenship for 35 years (the age you need to be to run in the first place).

I would also support two 8-year stints.
__________________
You have found this post informative.
-The Administrator
[Don't Feed The Animals]
Halx is offline  
Old 09-16-2004, 03:53 AM   #25 (permalink)
Minion of the scaléd ones
 
Tophat665's Avatar
 
Location: Northeast Jesusland
Quote:
Originally Posted by Halx
I think if anything, it should require citizenship for 35 years (the age you need to be to run in the first place).

I would also support two 8-year stints.
I'm with Halx on this one. If you have come to this country and want to run it, your age vis the age requirement for the presidency (and any other age restricted office, for that matter) should be calculated from the day you got your citizenship.

As for term limits, I really don't think they're as good an idea as people make them out to be. Yes, they prevent complete tyrants from running the country for more that 8 years, but, if we vote them in, is that really a good thing? On the other hand, it also prevents people who have the talent and experience from being elected again. Bill Clinton, protestations from the conservative fringe notwithstanding, was the greatest president of my lifetime; certainly the greatest Republican president since Lincoln. (Sit down. Reagan was a jackass who was in the right place at the right time. Take the cold war away, and he's just another gladhander paying off his campaign contributors.) If he could have run again, we would not be saddled with our current plummeting position in the global community, and would probably still be enjoying a budget surplus.

But let's not make this a referendum about Clinton. He's my favorite, but that doesn't mean he's the only one in this position. Just the only one I can think of.

Now, back to Washington: "8 years should be enough for any man" was informed by two things:

1) The job of president is frickin' hard. Good presidents work 18 hour days, with maybe a couple of weeks off a year (lousy presidents spend an awful lot of time at their ranch). You could watch Clinton aging in office well beyond what would be expected for the time spent. Reagan, of course, slipped right into his dotage early in his second term. Three and a half terms killed FDR. Bush I went from mature to old in 4 years. It's a tough job that more than 8 years of may well kill you.

2) People wanted to make him king. Monarchy was in the air at the time. It was the prevailing myth of sovreignty, just as the will of the people is today. He wanted to avoid all of that, and I thank him for it. It took 140 years before someone bucked the custom, and by the end of FDR's life the world was a different place entirely than when Washington stepped down, and America's place in it had been turned upside down.

I honestly don't believe that we need to worry about this sort of thing. One way or another a president's term is limited - either the voters or death will remove him from office eventually. Seeing the damage Bush as done to this country in four years makes me believe that the length of time spent in office is largely immaterial. Could we term limit the real jackasses to two years but let the really good ones go as long as their health will allow? I don't think so, and intelligent people will disagree on which are which.
__________________
Light a man a fire, and he will be warm while it burns.
Set a man on fire, and he will be warm for the rest of his life.
Tophat665 is offline  
Old 09-16-2004, 04:22 AM   #26 (permalink)
Loser
 
I think we need to eliminate second terms and make one 6 year term with a stringent recall system (something more difficult to initiate than the California system).

The reason we need one term is because we need to eliminate candidate campaigning. We'll create a non-partisan organization to organize position statements from each candidate which are specific to each issue. Eliminating candidate campaigning would be impossible with a 2nd term, as the President could simply use public appearences for campaign purposes - virtually assuring re-election against a challenger who would be unable to compete with the President on facing the nation. The disemination of the candidate positions would be available via the Internet and regular mail, free of charge. Non-candidate campaigning (i.e. campaigning not funded or organized by candidates or their party officials) would be acceptable, however advertisements would be subject to similar criteria as all other advertising and legal remedies would be fast-tracked during a campaign cycle. Also, somewhere in the neighborhood of 6 or 8 mandatory, televised debates.
OpieCunningham is offline  
Old 09-16-2004, 06:10 AM   #27 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Location: Right here
I was going to post in support of a recall system in place for presidents, like opie suggested.

But I don't agree that we shouldn't have more than one term. Although, at first glance, the argument that presidents should not spend too much time campaigning is persuasive, I think the second re-election campaign has an important function:

how do we know when the US public supports the policies it's president is implementing? While I may disagree with them, the majority of the voting public may actually support what the current president is doing. Even if kerry took office at the end of an 8 year bush presidency (for example), he ought to continue with the policies that the majority of the voting public supported--just like bush should have done with clinton's popular policies.

it makes no sense, in regards to the long-term health and political environemnt of the nation, to whip one's constituency into a frenzy for the first couple of years and dismantle everything the prior president did.
__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann

"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman
smooth is offline  
Old 09-16-2004, 06:22 AM   #28 (permalink)
Lennonite Priest
 
pan6467's Avatar
 
Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shizukana
In my opinion, Arnold is more American and has more respect and admiration for this country than most native born Americans do. He's contributed to plenty of charity and national causes during his citizenship here, and if he or any other longstanding and upstanding citizen of the U.S. feel that they could contribute by running for the Presidency, by all means, I feel they should be allowed.

Case in point - my grandmother, mother, and uncle were all born in Japan. My grandmother met my grandfather in Japan and married him while he was serving our country in Okinawa in the Air Force during the 60's. They lived in the U.S. for all but two years of their lives and have been U.S. citizens by virtue of the fact that they were born on a U.S. military base and were fathered by a member of the U.S. military, but they would not be able to run for presidency if they were so inclined or able. I think that's kinda silly, personally... I mean, if someone's lived here for so long that they have become interested and willing to take on politics, why shouldn't we let them?
I don't follow you on this.

If you are born on a military base and one of your parents are citizens (whether natural or not) you are a natural born US citizen and can run for president.

So if your dad was serving in Vietnam and you were born in Vietnam you are still a citizen because of your father.

If your grandfather was a citizen, natural or immigrant and married a foreigner, she then becomes a US citizen automatically (although not a natural, but their children would be) regardless of country they reside in.
__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"
pan6467 is offline  
Old 09-16-2004, 07:29 AM   #29 (permalink)
Crazy
 
Maybe they should concentrate on giving all citizens a fair chance to run for president. Any citizen can run, if you have millions of dollars to campaign. Bush or Kerry? These are the choices??? There are plenty of people who could run this country better than either of these two, but they can't even get a chance to get their message out on a level comparable to either of the dems or repubs. I don't think the founding fathers intended democracy to mean the lesser of two evils.
student is offline  
Old 09-16-2004, 09:28 AM   #30 (permalink)
mml
Adrift
 
Location: Wandering in the Desert of Life
The vast majority of Americans (pretty much everyone except Native Americans) are now or their families were immigrants. We seem to no longer value the "Melting Pot" theory in this country. Diversity and multiculturalism make us stronger, as does the desire for freedom and democracy. If an individual is a citizen of the US for a given amount of time (I have traditionally thought 20 years, but I kind of like Halx's idea of 35 years) and meets all of the requirements of serving as President, I see no reason why that one freedom should be withheld.

I am generally opposed to term-limits, as they infringe upon my constitutional right to vote for the person I want in office. I am, however, torn about the issue when it comes to the Presidency. I think it is fairly certain that Reagan would have gotten another term and the Clinton would have gotten at least one more, so it is a very real concern. Does anyone know if any of our past Presidents have commented on this?

BTW changing the natural born citizen stipulation has also been considered by the Dems, who would love to see Governor Jennifer Granholm:
http://www.michigan.gov/gov

have the opportunity to run for the the highest office in the land.
mml is offline  
Old 09-16-2004, 12:35 PM   #31 (permalink)
Paq
Junkie
 
Paq's Avatar
 
Location: South Carolina
Quote:
Originally Posted by pan6467
I don't follow you on this.

If you are born on a military base and one of your parents are citizens (whether natural or not) you are a natural born US citizen and can run for president.

So if your dad was serving in Vietnam and you were born in Vietnam you are still a citizen because of your father.

If your grandfather was a citizen, natural or immigrant and married a foreigner, she then becomes a US citizen automatically (although not a natural, but their children would be) regardless of country they reside in.

pretty much.
basically, if you are born on american soil, then you are american or ar valid for american citizenship. Illegal immigrant swims the rio grande, lands, gives birth on the US side, etc, then that baby is a citizen.

Also, if your parents are citizens with good relations but stationed elsewhere for some reason, then they are american citizens as well. Most likely, they will get a dual citizenship with US and whatever country they were born in. I have several US citizen friends who were born in germany, either on a base or while the mother was travelling.

There are quite a few more rules than that, but that's about the jist of it. If you are born at an embassy, you're a citizen, as embassies are considered naturalized american soil.

obviously, some paperwork is involved
__________________
Live.

Chris
Paq is offline  
Old 09-16-2004, 12:52 PM   #32 (permalink)
Crazy
 
Delirious's Avatar
 
Location: Queens, NY
I personally never saw any of Reagan's films but I wonder if they were violent and explicit to the point of Arnold's films? (As viewed upon in his time of course)

If they can make such a big deal of Bush and his Vietnam record I'll bet they can find many things to tear Arnold apart on. There is no way he will ever be president.
Delirious is offline  
Old 09-16-2004, 01:00 PM   #33 (permalink)
Loser
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by smooth
But I don't agree that we shouldn't have more than one term. Although, at first glance, the argument that presidents should not spend too much time campaigning is persuasive, I think the second re-election campaign has an important function:

how do we know when the US public supports the policies it's president is implementing? While I may disagree with them, the majority of the voting public may actually support what the current president is doing. Even if kerry took office at the end of an 8 year bush presidency (for example), he ought to continue with the policies that the majority of the voting public supported--just like bush should have done with clinton's popular policies.

it makes no sense, in regards to the long-term health and political environemnt of the nation, to whip one's constituency into a frenzy for the first couple of years and dismantle everything the prior president did.
There are a number of reasons this is likely to be less of a concern than you imagine. For one, it addresses two major problems with a two-term Presidency:

1- The last year of the first term is spent almost exclusively on campaigning. This serves only one purpose: to get re-elected. It is a huge waste of time for the country.
2- The effects of the first term do not necessarily drive the acts of the second. During the first term, a President must be far more concientious of public opinion precisely because he must achieve a second term. The second term is, in essence, a free reign. Recall regulations would act as the impetus to listen to the citizens during the single term scenario. There is nothing in a second term which has that power.

As for continuing on the path laid out by the voting public - this is still easily achieved by whomever of the next set of candidates more closely matches the beloved, exiting President. Of course, in both cases (the existing and this scenario), the likelyhood that a new President will follow similar policies to the previous one is not anything close to a guarantee or even something I have seen much evidence of (though, it would depend on how fine a method of measuring policy differences you use).
OpieCunningham is offline  
Old 09-16-2004, 01:13 PM   #34 (permalink)
Pissing in the cornflakes
 
Ustwo's Avatar
 
While I think having the Terminator for president would be amusing, I don't think any laws need to be changed to allow him to run. Where as Reagan was an actor, he was politically active his entire life, even while acting. Arnold is more of an actor who got the idea to dabble in politics.

Even if Hilary Clinton was running in 2008 and the ONLY hope of the Republican party was for Arnold to run, I wouldn't support changing the constitution for it.

Of course 2008 should be Hilary vrs Rudy in my book
__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.
Ustwo is offline  
Old 09-16-2004, 01:20 PM   #35 (permalink)
Insane
 
Location: Plano, TX
Okay, I'm an idiot, forget about that part of my post. :P I thought for some reason that natural born U.S. citizen meant you actually had to be born here. I know they're still considered U.S. citizens because they were born of a U.S. citizen but I could have sword you still had to be born within the confines of the U.S.

At any rate - the rest of my post still is valid.
__________________
"The power of accurate observation is frequently called cynicism by those who don't have it." - George Bernard Shaw
Shizukana is offline  
Old 09-16-2004, 01:23 PM   #36 (permalink)
Loser
 
Speaking to the thread title - I read it as Hillary Clinton, not Bill.

Assuming Bush wins 2004 - as of today, the probable 2008 match-up will be McCain/Hillary. Assuming Kerry wins, McCain/Kerry. As of today, I would guess that McCain would win in either case. If Kerry does win, it will be interesting to see how Hillary/Obama is handled in 2012. These are long term projections which have as much value as me predicting a hurricane in Florida.

Rudy is a hack - he won't be able to compete with the big guys. Plus he has more baggage than anyone else mentioned in this thread.
OpieCunningham is offline  
Old 09-16-2004, 03:00 PM   #37 (permalink)
Pissing in the cornflakes
 
Ustwo's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by OpieCunningham

Rudy is a hack - he won't be able to compete with the big guys. Plus he has more baggage than anyone else mentioned in this thread.
True but personally I like him better then McCain, McCain is a camera whore, who will say whatever to keep his face in the public light.

Of course a McCain/Rudy ticket would be unbeatable by anyone, unless they could reanimate the corpses of FDR/JFK.
__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.
Ustwo is offline  
Old 09-16-2004, 07:19 PM   #38 (permalink)
Lennonite Priest
 
pan6467's Avatar
 
Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA
Quote:
Originally Posted by OpieCunningham
Rudy is a hack - he won't be able to compete with the big guys. Plus he has more baggage than anyone else mentioned in this thread.
It's funny about Rudy. I saw an MSNBC "Heroes and Legends" on him a little while ago and the man is a sleaze ball.

He told the press BEFORE his wife that he was filing for legal seperation. He had numerous affairs while in office with people who worked for him (sound familiar? Clinton gets gutted for it, Newt and Guilliani have their little trysts ignored and told it's no big deal). They played an interview of her coming out of their house and saying she was shocked and that he had told her that they would work on the marriage, that morning.

His first wife was his second cousin (even though the families were close) and when her time had come he told the church he didn't realize they were cousins so he could get annulled by the Catholic Church.

He made his name taking down selected Mafia big boys, while letting others slip through and get more powerful.

They said politically he was very weak, even though he was going to run for senate before he found out he had prostate cancer, and that if 9/11 hadn't happened he probably would not have been looked favorably upon.

They had old friends on saying he was a Democrat and a liberal, who saw the winds blowing and moved to the GOP because it meant a better chance to get ahead.

It's definately a "must see" if you ever get a chance. Personally, I liked Guilliani before seeing this (I'd have never voted for him but I respected him), and while some can claim it was bias journalism every fact they showed proof and his comments on them.
__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

Last edited by pan6467; 09-16-2004 at 07:21 PM..
pan6467 is offline  
Old 09-16-2004, 09:12 PM   #39 (permalink)
can't help but laugh
 
irateplatypus's Avatar
 
Location: dar al-harb
yeah, i hope ol' rudy doesn't end up on the GOPs ticket at any time. I'm even less of a McCain fan. A Guilliani/McCain ticket would be my election to for libertarian. but, i digress...

also, i think a presidential term subject to recall would be a bad move. the office of the presidency should be able to execute it's duties with having to worry about constantly shifting public opinion. we're too fickle a people to stick with a winning plan for long.
__________________
If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.

~ Winston Churchill
irateplatypus is offline  
Old 09-17-2004, 04:19 AM   #40 (permalink)
Pissing in the cornflakes
 
Ustwo's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by irateplatypus
yeah, i hope ol' rudy doesn't end up on the GOPs ticket at any time. I'm even less of a McCain fan. A Guilliani/McCain ticket would be my election to for libertarian. but, i digress...

also, i think a presidential term subject to recall would be a bad move. the office of the presidency should be able to execute it's duties with having to worry about constantly shifting public opinion. we're too fickle a people to stick with a winning plan for long.
The press loves McCain because he causes trouble with for the Republicans now and then.

I wonder how long that love would last if he were the Republican presidential canidate.
__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.
Ustwo is offline  
 

Tags
2008, arnold, clinton, vrs

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 09:00 AM.

Tilted Forum Project

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
© 2002-2012 Tilted Forum Project

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360