President Schwarzenegger

[Dutchy]

How do you like the sound of that? :)

I know he can't run for president, but shouldn't the law be changed so someone not born in the USA could run for president? While typing that I already think it won't happen, but still: what do ya say?

BTW, would he stand a change? I think he would.

[ReaperFett]

I think he would have a chance, as he starts with a name.


And hey, if he wants to run for Prime Minister over here, I'd gladly vote for him to remove Blair :)

[Telan Desaria]

I myself, am not an American. I however, can relate.

I do not feel that someone of external heritage should be permitted to rise to the penultimate rank within a nation's political hierarchy. A Frenchman could not become the Party Chairman in the People's Republic of China, a German could no become the Soviet Premier, nor could a Brazilian become the American president.

It is my feeling that someone who has grown up outside of the natural and political boundaries of their would be country has no idea what it is to exist daily with the restrictions and freedoms granted by another's country.

Another question arises is legality. Perhaps one who has entered a nation illegally and not been deported wishes to become chancellor. Should they be allowed? My opinion - no. The moment they declare themselves an illegal migrant, they should be deported. If a Pole came across the border and wanted to run for the Stadttag of the Templhof, they should be immiedately removed. One cannot be the ultimate champion of a nation's laws without following them.

[Telan Desaria]

- And I would not want to see Herr Schwartzenegger elected for Reichkanzellor. He would bow before others too soon. Though I am thoroughly unpleased with the current German government.

[CMJ]

I think he has an excellent shot at Governor of California. :p

[Jedieb]

It's the governership that he's going to go after and he's got a decent shot at taking it.
"Listen to me California, vote for me now or regret it later!"

[Marcus Telcontar]

It is my feeling that someone who has grown up outside of the natural and political boundaries of their would be country has no idea what it is to exist daily with the restrictions and freedoms granted by another's country.


Absolute and total BS. I find Immargants often have a better ideas of what a country stands for than the ones born to it. I dont see why Arnie cant be President. I reckon it would be rather cool actually :)

[Darth Viscera]

Penultimate means 2nd worst.

I think that having a foreigner take up the highest office in the land is a bad idea, if only because it reminds me of Hitler. There may be conflicts of interest, as there are currently in the middle east. I don't want my head honcho to be the president of North America, I want him to be the president of the U.S.A.

[ReaperFett]

If someone spent most of their life in a country, why shouldn't they? Can you honestly say that living in a country when you were 0-20 suddenly makes you more knowledgable? US Citizen means you are a citizen of the US, which should entitle you to FULL privelages. Else, why give citizenship?

[Charley]

Considering America is a country of immigrants, I find the law regarding the President's citizenship to be a bit archaic and racist.

[Darth Viscera]

Oh well. The founding fathers made up the rule so that Presidents would always think of America first, and it's a good rule. A man who had spent the first 20 years of his life in a different country might very well be less inclined to think of American interests as opposed to those of the country that he was born and raised in.

[Marcus Telcontar]

And do you think some redneck in Texas is more qualified to think of america first than a refugee from say Iraq?

Look, your born there != you understand what the place means. Also, what is in USA's best interest != the right thing to do.

What would you rather, Arnie or Dubya?

[ReaperFett]

I believe it'd be Arnie or Gore due to stances.

[Charley]

While you almost have a point Mark, don't get too far ahead of yourself. I don't agree with the concept of a "president off the boat". It takes decades upon decades of naturalization here in order to be presidential material, IMO. What I disagree with is having children born in foreign lands or immigrating when they are children, and being barred the presidency in late years of their lives.

Too fresh off the boat, and you lack the paradigms to properly represent the American people. But given enough time and experience, the presidency should be open to any who can earn the position.

So, between the Texas redneck and the Iraqi refugee, the Texas redneck wins every time. Even with good ideas and good intentions, if you don't understand the paradigm and understand the people, you lose miserably.

[Marcus Telcontar]

There are Iraqi refugees that have been in the USA for 20 years, you know. I dont think fresh off the boat is good, yes. But how about someone who has been in the USA for 20+ years?

edit : Ahhh, re-read post, yes, question answered. I think we can agree on your statement Charley. Someone who been in the country a long time should be allowed to run

[Darth Viscera]

Originally posted by Marcus Elessar
And do you think some redneck in Texas is more qualified to think of america first than a refugee from say Iraq?

Look, your born there != you understand what the place means. Also, what is in USA's best interest != the right thing to do.

What would you rather, Arnie or Dubya?

I think that some redneck from Texas is more qualified to think of America first than, say, a refugee from Iraq. The redneck would be more likely to serve the interests of his country (his home from birth), while the refugee might be conflicted in matters of state pertaining to Iraq.

I believe that a president should at least be raised in America. Upbringing matters a lot in the way a person thinks of a country.


Also, what is in USA's best interest != the right thing to do.

It's astonishing how easily you dismiss "Of, by and for the people".

That pretty much sums up the reason why foreigners are not allowed to run for president. That kind of anti-American thinking and its guiding premises would be highly counterproductive in the oval office, and the president would be impeached. As the oldest current government on this planet, our brand of freedom and democracy is right for everyone in that it creates long-lasting peace and stability and prosperity. We fight, at home and in the halls of congress and in the lands of the oppressed peoples of Earth, to preserve democracy and the greatest way of life ever seen on this planet, and spread it throughout the world. What's in our best interest is in the world's best interest. A President has to understand that.

[ReaperFett]

That pretty much sums up the reason why foreigners are not allowed to run for president. That kind of anti-American thinking and its guiding premises would be highly counterproductive in the oval office, and the president would be impeached.
No, he is right. Please, cut this "Everyone who disagrees with me is anti-US" bull, it's all you ever seem to spurt.


What's in our best interest is in the world's best interest.
I'd love to know how.

[Charley]

What kind of leader is expected to short-change the homefront for some global "greater good"? That isn't a very prudent thing to do.

[ReaperFett]

Was it in the US' best intrests to join in World War I? They were pretty safe from any problems where they were. But in the world's best intrests, the US joining in was a major plus for the others on their side.

[Charley]

That isn't a good example.

The Lusitania incident and Zimmerman telegraph are key polarizing elements in public opinion on WWI isolationism. After those events, domestic sentiment had changed significantly to support joining the war.

[ReaperFett]

DUe to not having overly much care in US politics (With BLair in power, you try to avoid looking at politics :)), I can't exactly list many cases as examples ;)


But hey, least you're not going to be joining the "United States of Europe", where a president elected by the USE leaders will meet on our behalf and where our foreign policy has to be the same as the other countries, and where your fearless leader has decided that the public doesn't need to vote for it :rolleyes

[Marcus Telcontar]

What's in our best interest is in the world's best interest

Explain to me how you can possibly justify that ridiculous statement.


As the oldest current government on this planet

Ahem. Try Britain for starters.


That kind of anti-American thinking

Hey, I dont know if you have noticed, but I'm not American. I'm not going to think 'American'. I absolutly detest some of the BS that comes out of America. I GLAD that I think Un-American at times.

-_-

What is genuinely right is not always American.


greatest way of life ever seen on this planet, and spread it throughout the world.

* gags *

You need to go visit some places, mate. Start with Australia first.


What kind of leader is expected to short-change the homefront for some global "greater good"? That isn't a very prudent thing to do.

Example - John Howard. I wish there was an election and we can vote that idiot out.

[Telan Desaria]

My apologies for my incorrect word useage. I will pretend I typed ultimate.

And as for general knowledge

United States Citizen - anyone under the protection of the Federal Government of the United States. This title applies only to those living outside of any State of America - the 50. Any person given the rights of a citizen living within but not a resident thereof, iis classified as a United States Citizen.

America Citizen - Any person born within the borders of the 50 states. Highest form of citizenship. Governmentally speaking, the true people of the United States bear this title, whilst others are considered 2nd class. Any person naturalized as a citizen does not gain this status: it can be gained only through legal birth.



Before you begin debating what is and is not a citizen, begin thinking who should and who should not? The problem with the country of Romania. After the 2nd World War, every one from the surrounding countries entered it and pushed the natives out of key fields and employment because they would work cheaper. Merely because someone crosses a border and begins squeezing out children to secure their own status, should they be given a legal status or punioshed for such a heinous crime?

I seem to be speaking in circles as I edit this. Sorry for the confusion.



But I still believe birth is the only way to achieve a governmental position.

On tyhe note of Hitler, however, the Anschluss with Austria in 1936 was not the first. According to prior legal conventions, any person of German ancestry living or born into Austrian citizenship could run for a German office. And likewise so. Logical, yes. Both countries have the same - closely - heritage, language, and culture.

Is it so with, say, Russia and China? They have a border.

Or the United States and Mexico?

Or France and Italy???

[Darth Viscera]

Originally posted by Marcus Elessar
Ahem. Try Britain for starters.

You can't possibly be suggesting that the U.K. has the same type of government now as it did 200 years ago, when the deranged old autocrat George III was issuing decrees that his feces should be established as a trade commodity, forcing people to resign when they introduced bills he disagreed with, and Thomas Jefferson was giving speeches in Congress. To even begin to insinuate that would be a tremendous insult to the current British government.

[ReaperFett]

...no, that sounds better than what we have right now pretty much :)

[Darth Viscera]

Originally posted by ReaperFett
...no, that sounds better than what we have right now pretty much :)

Don't even joke about that, Fett, unless you like the smell of mass graves in the morning. That card-carrying basketcase picked American cities at random and issued orders that they be razed along with their inhabitants. No, not at the height of the war, before the war even started. Why do you think that even the loyalists in Congress soon became eager to leave the blessing of His Majesty's dominion? The fool killed people like it was a bodily function. He single-handedly destroyed the British Empire.

[Telan Desaria]

America was the downfall of the British Empire. It suggested they abandon Hong Kong, leave the rest of China open after the Boxer Rebellion, and liberated several former colonies - including British possessions in Africa. George III didnot help matters, but its the Stripes and Stars which the British may pay their homage for the destruction of their once mighty dominion.

[Darth Viscera]

There would be no United States of America if not for the madness of King George.

[ReaperFett]

No, the reason the Empire was destroyed is because unions dont work. You control a lot of countries, they will rebel. The US affair was a major reason, but had there not been a controlled US, it would still have happened.

Also, abandon Hong Kong? They did that in the 90s.