board77

Old_Begonia wrote:

Would you also vote for a president under the age of 35?

Yes.

I would vote Mummpizz for president.

Now that you mention it, I am looking for a new job ... but I'm already over 35, and I think it's time for a female president, what about Jnyusa? I would vote for her.

Interesting how varied our responses.

I've sometimes wondered if there mightn't be merit in raising the age limit for president. My logic is this: at the time the Constitution was written, the average age at death was, what, 55? And today it's 75? Or something like that? Insurance companies and the IRS assume death at 85.
I wonder if our bodies, (and minds), mature at a different rate now? I know I've heard that girls are menstuating much younger, which is converse to my argument. And men's bodies seem to come to full maturity between 30 & 35. I also know there is some maturation of the frontal lobes of the brain, (the part that understands and project consequences more clearly, among other things), that takes place, (hopefully), in the mid-twenties.

I wonder at what point development ends and decrepitude begins?
I suppose that's as varied as we are. :cheers

Sorry, Iavas, I fear this thread is headed for Osgiliath.

I voted for Arnold, because he was just what California needed at the time. A shakeup. I haven't followed much what he has done, but there hasn't been outrage as far as I can tell, so he must be either doing nothing, or fixing things... both of which are good.

California is a mess, and I have no idea how it's going to be fixed. The whole government should be reworked from scratch, but that's obviously not going to happen.

As for voting him in as president. I used to be in favor of changing the constitution about the requirements to be president (long before Arnie showed up), because we are all supposed to be equal after all . I was in favor of a "35 years as a citizen" change, because if someone has been a citizen for as long as a person must age in the US to be president... well then that seems enough.

However, more recently, I've been leaning towards the native-born opinion. We have more than enough people to choose from. The fact that someone non-native-bord could rise high enough in politics to be in a position to win the presidency raises WAY too many red flags in my eyes. There are plenty of things to do to help run the country. But the man in the big chair has to be American from somewhere deeper than their citizenship.


As for raising/lowering the age requirement, I think it's set just about right. If anything it should be raised, but the voters will take care of that as needed. I don't think somone at 35 would have the experience needed to get the votes. But then again, the american people are stupid when they vote so who knows...

Just to bring it back on track, remember the scene in the car between John Spartan (Sly Stallone) and Lenina Huxley (Sandra Bullock) in Demolition Man, a movie made 12 years ago?

Lenina Huxley: I have, in fact, perused some newsreels in the Schwarzenegger Library.

John Spartan: Hold it. The Schwarzenegger Library?

Lenina Huxley: Yes. The Schwarzenegger Presidential Library. Wasn't he an actor when you...

John Spartan: But how? He was President?

Lenina Huxley: Yes! Even though he wasn't born in this country, his popularity at the time caused the 61st Amendment which states...

John Spartan: I don' wanna know. President.

From my point of view, citizenship should not be impaired by the place of birth; you either are a citizen or you aren't, restricting specific rights to "born there" citizens implies citizenship of 1st and 2nd degree, and equals the US constitution with the rules of a local Moose Club.

But that is just my personal opinion. My country is far from having a candidate who was not born here, I wish we had, this would colour up our lifes a bit.

"Maturity"? I don't know what that is. I see people, including myself, getting more conservative and frightened as they grow old, therefore should some offices reserved for young people only - because only they are simply flexible enough to see things in a new way. Our political caste (here) lives with administrations that keep people in their place for some 8-12 years on the average; that's just too long to keep enthusiasm and mental flexibility up and running.

Mummpizz wrote:

From my point of view, citizenship should not be impaired by the place of birth; you either are a citizen or you aren't, restricting specific rights to "born there" citizens implies citizenship of 1st and 2nd degree, and equals the US constitution with the rules of a local Moose Club.

Well, at the time, and for much of America's history, there were a large number of immigrants, and having just fought through a war of independance, they didn't want to have to deal with someone becoming a citizen, while having allegience to another country, and being wildly popular because of so many people originating in that country, thus being elected to the presidency and suddenly, we're making all kinds of concessions to that country of origin.

Thus, they included the requirement. Just being a citizen wasn't enough, you had to have been American and nothing else. No allegiences to foriegn countries.

Now, of course, I've just made the case for changing the rule, because surely we've gone past having to worry about such nonsense! And 5 years ago I probably would have agreed...

However, having seen the world's opinion of America recently, I wouldn't trust a soul from outside the US to run the US.

halplm wrote:

However, more recently, I've been leaning towards the native-born opinion. We have more than enough people to choose from. The fact that someone non-native-bord could rise high enough in politics to be in a position to win the presidency raises WAY too many red flags in my eyes. There are plenty of things to do to help run the country. But the man in the big chair has to be American from somewhere deeper than their citizenship.

halplm - I agree, by and large, but I've always wondered whether my perspective is colored as a born American. I'd be interested in hearing from immigrant Americans on this.

I would also respectfully point out that problem number one is the "man in the big chair". This country has gone without a woman president for too long

- TP

tolkienpurist wrote:

halplm wrote:

However, more recently, I've been leaning towards the native-born opinion. We have more than enough people to choose from. The fact that someone non-native-bord could rise high enough in politics to be in a position to win the presidency raises WAY too many red flags in my eyes. There are plenty of things to do to help run the country. But the man in the big chair has to be American from somewhere deeper than their citizenship.

halplm - I agree, by and large, but I've always wondered whether my perspective is colored as a born American. I'd be interested in hearing from immigrant Americans on this.

I would also respectfully point out that problem number one is the "man in the big chair". This country has gone without a woman president for too long

- TP

No disagreement on that point.

As for perspective being colored because you're born American, this would only be the case if you were driven to become President. The thing is, there's plenty that could be done if you're foreign born to help run the country.

At that point, if it was so important that you become president... I'd question you're motivations.

Arnie, for example, is running the 5th largest economy in the world... if that's not high enough in the pecking order... I seriously question what he wants out of it.

halplm wrote:

No disagreement on that point.

As for perspective being colored because you're born American, this would only be the case if you were driven to become President. The thing is, there's plenty that could be done if you're foreign born to help run the country.

At that point, if it was so important that you become president... I'd question you're motivations.

Arnie, for example, is running the 5th largest economy in the world... if that's not high enough in the pecking order... I seriously question what he wants out of it.

Well, it's always been an interest of mine - politics in general, including the highest role. That said, I'm mindful of the facts that:
(1) My views tend to be extreme - either far left or far right; for years now, they've been an atypical combination of the two - to come to the center far enough to run for any nat'l. office, forget about President, would mean a lot of values compromise...unless my values balance out to the middle, which could happen of course
(or unless the middle balances to my values )
(2) Right now, mainstream America is very comfortable with native-born Caucasian middle-to-upper-class heterosexuals married with two kids and preferably at least one pet and happily Christian. I am, one might say, "not that", not to criticize those who are. Unless Americans become more comfortable with differences, nat'l. office may be out of my reach.
(3) Local government law appeals to me more in a number of ways.

Um, the point being - yes, I'm interested in being President - or generally, in national politics (I never lost the five year old dream), but I'm also realistic about stuff.

OK, now that I've rambled on enough about me...

I tend to agree with you that there are dozens of other ways for non-native Americans to get involved. BUT. This in and of itself isn't a good justification, is it? Obviously, if we tell any other group (e.g. women), "Well, there are lots of other ways for you to get involved - just accept that this one thing isn't open to you" - that's not sufficient. So, what is our rationale? Are we assuming that no matter how long immigrants spend in this country, or no matter how little time they spent in their home country, they will always have other loyalties? Even if they were adopted as babies and have no recollection of their country of birth?

Understand, I want to agree with you, but I think we need to find more of a rationale than "there are lots of other possibilities available" to such people.

- TP

halplm wrote:

Well, at the time, and for much of America's history, there were a large number of immigrants, and having just fought through a war of independance, they didn't want to have to deal with someone becoming a citizen, while having allegience to another country, and being wildly popular because of so many people originating in that country, thus being elected to the presidency and suddenly, we're making all kinds of concessions to that country of origin.

Thus, they included the requirement. Just being a citizen wasn't enough, you had to have been American and nothing else. No allegiences to foriegn countries.

Yup, that explains the state of the art in 1800. Meanwhile, the US have overcome slavery, bossism and manchester capitalism, wouldn't it be wise to change that rule?



Or maybe it wouldn't. If Adolf Hitler hadn't been elegible for German Chancellorship because he was a born Austrian the world would look different.

well, certainly. My only point with "other stuff to do" is that it's a question of motivation. Ideally, someone would be in public office to serve their constituents. If one can only find fulfilment in their political career by becoming President (or at least having the option to become president), then I would question WHY that is. To me it would seem that there is something they could only accomplish at that lvl of office. I don't think there's much that would require being President to accomplish, and most of them would be things that a President should be extremely hesitant to do.

I think I'm rambling... Basically it comes down to removing an element of doubt. We're constantly deceived by our politicians, and there's no way to get around that. However, having them being born in the US, we can be reasonably sure that they're not heavily influenced by interests outside of the US.

If they were, those influences would be fairly easy to see and have in the open. Ties that may have existed before coming to the US, or foreign familial ties are much more difficult to know and understand in a public forum.

Do I think that somone foreign born could be an exceptionally good president? Absolutely. However, given how many people we have in the US, I see not problem restricting our choices to that group. And if it eliminates the possability that someone with questionable ties and allegiences takes our top office, I think it is prudent.

Another simple way to look at it is... if you elect someone born in another country... you're elevatign that country above your own. It doesn't matter how superficial or inconsequential the place of someone's birth is. It's still a statement of "Our country couldn't produce a good enough leader for us, but this country did." That's both not true and not healthy for any country.

I think the only reason this is even a discussion is that the US allows so VERY much to people foreign born that it seems "wrong" to say "Yeah, you can do anything... except be president." How many other countries in the world would let someone foreign born run one of their most populated regions? Somehow it's viewed as hypocritical, but it's not. It's simply setting the Presidency aside as something that is not a "normal" job. Makes sense to me.

And now I've continued to ramble... sorry.

Mummpizz wrote:

halplm wrote:

Well, at the time, and for much of America's history, there were a large number of immigrants, and having just fought through a war of independance, they didn't want to have to deal with someone becoming a citizen, while having allegience to another country, and being wildly popular because of so many people originating in that country, thus being elected to the presidency and suddenly, we're making all kinds of concessions to that country of origin.

Thus, they included the requirement. Just being a citizen wasn't enough, you had to have been American and nothing else. No allegiences to foriegn countries.

Yup, that explains the state of the art in 1800. Meanwhile, the US have overcome slavery, bossism and manchester capitalism, wouldn't it be wise to change that rule?

I responded to this in that same post. Yes, the world has changed a lot. The US still has a lot of enemies. More than in 1800 probably. Well, enimies might not be the right word.... hostile rivals might be better.

To be honest, I don't care much about that "locals only" rule. There are bigger injustices in the world than that, and there's a good many "born americans" (I don't like that phrase as it sounds like "reborn christian") fit for the job. If the current pres isn't one of them it's just bad luck as it happens all the time.

Lidless, I've referred to that scene many times since Arnie first began his campaign to recall his predicessor. It wasl hilarious 12 years ago, I can tell you, especially from Stallone. I have no idea what their real-life relationship is like, but it still struck me as some sort of inside joke. And now... Who knows?

But bear in mind, this is not about Arnold. I haven't followed a lot of what he's been up to either. Like halpm, I've only heard a little squawking from some liberal special interest groups. So it's likely he's doing something right.
He might actually suck. But at this point, California politics is so full of creepy, dishonest, power-hungry Machiavellians, they make him look like a saint.

As for the constitutional change, my reservations, and perhaps halpm's, are curiously linked to Hollywood: I've simply seen too many movies. It seems very possible, not to say plausible, to me that a mole could conceivably retain his committment to another government or cause for 35+ years, simultaneously rising to sufficient heights in US politics so as to charm the socks off of everyone.
The one wildcard in this scenario, (okay, this part is Hollywood too), is the press. Most of the time I despise them. But when it comes to digging up dirt on potential candidates, they can't be beat.

It's a weird, screwy, massively imperfect system. But it works for us.

An American President also needs a golf handicap of less than 18.

at least according to a very intelligent book I read somewhere

I was in the mood for a little mindless entertainment the other night, so I watched "Last Action Hero." In the world in which Arnold's character is living, the video stores feature 'The Terminator' with Stallone as the star!

Also, at one point, Arnie is telling the young boy who has become his sidekick what sort of perils he'll have to face growing up, and the boy interupts him: 'You said 'government' twice!'

"Well, yeah," deadpans Ahnold, "that's because it's twice as bad as anything else!"

In terms of him as a politician rather than an actor, I'm undecided about him. I think he's got lots of guts and discipline, and is generally a straight shooter, but on the other hand, he referred to nurses as 'set dressing'!

Hope he winds up in hospital sometime soon, with some nurses who REMEMBER what he said!

I think this attitude goes hand-in-hand with the charges brought against him for sexual harrassment by 16 ex-girlfriends. His wife said Arnie has taken 'lessons' in how to treat women since then, and has had an attitude ajustment. Apparently his attitude needs a bit more work, so he stops seeing nurses as useless sex objects, as they are all-to-frequently portrayed in Hollywood movies!

Surely Arnie said that nurses set dressings.

Arnies handicap is Maria.