NationStates Jolt Archive

Now if someone could give me a recent article or something on the proposed Amendment (I honestly know little about it), it would be appreciated.

What is your opinion on the issue? Should people like Arnold, who are obviously American, be allowed to run for President?

anyone should be allowed to run for president
if they're foreign, they will almost certainly not win, but heck they should be allowed anyways

Sure...as long as they ain't no stinkin Arab.

Am I kidding or not? You decide.

Vote Chirac for american president :D

Putin for president.

Citizen for 20+ years, living in America for 25+ years, etc.

I think absolutely they should. Then I could RULE THE WORLD!!! MWHAHAHAH!!!

WOO! My opinion doesnt matter!

Vote Chirac for american president :D
WooHoo!

That's an amazingly offensive poll btw.

That's an amazingly offensive poll btw.
This is simply because you are overly sensitive and like to whine. I said no, never let them run.

Citizen for 20+ years, living in America for 25+ years, etc.

I like your idea - I think that I would add a clause saying that some1 who was already a really powerful politician ouside the US couldn't run


AHNULD FOR PRESIDENT! (jk)

anyone should be allowed to run for president
if they're foreign, they will almost certainly not win, but heck they should be allowed anywaysexactamente

No, we are not letting Arnold run. I don't care, if we can keep another Regean from becoming prez on a technicality, that's fine.

No, we are not letting Arnold run. I don't care, if we can keep another Regean from becoming prez on a technicality, that's fine.
Yes we are - the former editor-in-cheif at my school paper (named Arnold, born in USA) is planning to run for pres someday

Arnold would make a good president. If he ran, he would get a lot of votes just because he's Arnold. And we need another Regan. Regan was an excellent president.

No he wasn't. Have you ever heard the phrase "trickle down economics"? It's complete bull.

I don't think that Ahnold would ever run for President. I can't imagine him winning any states besides California. I mean, he's just the GOP's token celebrity.

What's a foreigner?

NO

There is no way I would support a foreign born person for President of the USA.

NO

There is no way I would support a foreign born person for President of the USA.Does the question about someone's place of birth really play a role, given the poor quality of all the candidates the two parties have come up with in the last 30 years or so? Shouldn't you be focussing more on the positions than on the persons?

How is the poll offensive? It's an actual issue...and if you're talking about the last option...well...your opinion won't matter when it comes down to it. Congress wouldn't ask the world to vote on the matter...they'd ask Americans.

Also, don't turn this thing into a "I hate Arnold" or even a "I hate Reagan" thread. Obviously the majority of Conservatives (myself included) like Reagan, and the majority of liberals or democrats dislike him.

Personally, I think Arnold could win if he ran. Now, that's not saying he'd be the next FDR, but I think if he ran he would have a good chance of winning. Why?

1. He's famous....really....REALLY....famous...
2. Unlike Jesse Ventura, he has a party and seems to know what he's doing. California didn't go to hell when the Terminator got in office.
3. He's rather moderate...he's pro-death on the abortion issue and other things. He'd get democrat votes.

It's just...when it comes down to who the GOP will nominate for 2008...I see Santorum...and while he's not a bad guy...he's seen as an extremist. If Kerry wins, we'll have 4 pointless years that accomplish nothing. 8 would be too much to handle. America would die of boredom.

Does the question about someone's place of birth really play a role, given the poor quality of all the candidates the two parties have come up with in the last 30 years or so? Shouldn't you be focussing more on the positions than on the persons?

Like I said before, using the obvious example on most people's minds, Arnold is an American. There's no arguement otherwise. He is the American dream. Still, because he wasn't born here he can't run. Does that make him any less of a citizen? Does that mean he'd be any worse of a politician? Like him or not, I hope it's not because he was born in Austria.

Like I said before, using the obvious example on most people's minds, Arnold is an American. There's no arguement otherwise. He is the American dream. Still, because he wasn't born here he can't run. Does that make him any less of a citizen? Does that mean he'd be any worse of a politician? Like him or not, I hope it's not because he was born in Austria.No, it's not because he was born in Austria. It's because he is not necessarily the brightest mind. And since you all are not indigenous in America a question like the one posted here is completely pointless.

I wouldn't have any great objection to amending the Constitution to allow naturalized citizens to run for the Presidency. The rules set out seem reasonable--citizen for 20 years and resident for 25 years.

But it won't happen, at least not as long as there's a viable foreign-born naturalized citizen who would be an immediate frontrunner (read Arnold Schwarzenegger). Why?

Because to amend the Constitution requires a 2/3 majority in both houses of Congress and 2/3 of the states to ratify it, and you've got to figure that at least 1/3 of those Governors/Senators/Representatives have eyes on a White House run. Why make the field any bigger? Why allow for more competition? Nah--you might get some politicians supporting it in a poll, or even talking like they'll support it, but when the rubber hits the road, they'll find a reason to avoid the vote altogether.

And since you all are not indigenous in America a question like the one posted here is completely pointless.

I hope you're not serious. Obviously most Americans have ancestors who were immigrants, but that has absolutely nothing to do with the current discussion. The question of the poll and the thread is a current issue in American politics. Your comment, Ankher, is "completely pointless".

I really don't care either way, and don't find Arnold particularly offensive, but I do find it rather humorous that conservatives who are usually awfully worried about the intentions of the Founding Fathers have no such concern in this case.

Would they be so unconcerned, were Arnold a Democrat?

I would say...no.
Call be an evil American pigdog, but I would really rather not have somebody with stronger ties to, say, Spain than the US. And anyway, they would HAVE to have lived here for 20+ years, since American citizens have to have lived here for 20+ years (Something like that), I REALLY wouldnt want some random guy to come over here, become popular in a years time, then turn out to be some forign nationalist who turns the US into New Spain, or something.
Meh.

It's just...when it comes down to who the GOP will nominate for 2008...I see Santorum...and while he's not a bad guy...he's seen as an extremist. If Kerry wins, we'll have 4 pointless years that accomplish nothing. 8 would be too much to handle. America would die of boredom.
Santorum? This (http://www.markfiore.com/animation/security.html) may change your mind about he being a bad guy

My money is on either Guliani or McCain in '08

If foreigners were allowed to run for president I would move there and run myself. A Canadian as American Prez. How does that sound. Its about as american as a foreigner can get :)

VOTE UPITATANIUM IN 2020!

I hold nothing against any foreigners from any nation, but no foreigners should be allowed to run fro the President.

I'm an American, I wished to be goverened by Americans, though the one we have now is not that good with the homefront. I don't want a British born, Austrialian, Russian, Italian, Indian etc. president!

Our American ancestors fought the Revolution so we could have independence from any kind of foreign rule, how different is it if a German for example moved to the US became a citizen and became president?

To any of you who live in another nation, how would you feel if an American became a citizen and ran for president, prime minister etc.?

If the Constitution were amended, how long do you think it would take for Rupert Murdoch to buy himself the Presidency?

OF course Foreign born people should be allowed to run for president. Even an Arab. We live in a global society. If a person has lived in the U.S. for most of their lives, has contributed to the country, has been a citizen, and done more than most NAtive Born americans, they have all the right in the world to run!

Also, that means pleanty of people i know wouldnt be allowed to run for president, even thought they've been american for nearly 99.9% of their lives(and by this im talking about people born in foreign countries but raised in the U.S.)

If we keep governing ourselves using nationalistic ideals, where will that get us? Il tell you, it will get us into another world war. The way forward is unity, not conflict

And yes, i am a U.S. Citizen. Oh, and however it was that said that Arabs were bad, i SINCERELY hope you were joking. YOud better hope too, becaus ei have Arab friends, and that doesnt make me a terrorist, it just makes me more open minded to teh world and its many cultures.

Of course foreign-born citizens should be allowed to run for President. Arguing otherwise screams of illegitimate discrimination.

Imagine this scenario: Your parents are immigrants legally residing in the US (and the overwhelming majority of Americans have immigrant ancestors at some point up the family tree). They've lived in the US a long time and are due to pledge their allegiance and become full citizens tomorrow. Your mother, pregnant with you, crosses the border into Canada to buy cheaper groceries (imagine the US decided to slap ridiculous tariffs on Canadian salmon; it's happened to Canadian steel). Unfortunately, she begins labor quite unexpectedly and slightly ahead of schedule, while strolling through the aisles of the grocery store. She gets rushed off to the nearest (Canadian!) hospital and gives the quickest birth ever recorded. You spend the first few hours of your life in Canada and quickly return home, never to visit that hippie commie country ever again. [I say this in jest, I love Canada.]

The next day your parents become US Citizens, and as their child, you are quickly made a citizen yourself. You live out the rest of your life never to leave the US, becoming the quintessential representation of all US culture and an ideal presidential candidate. However, because your parents were not citizens at the time of your birth, and because you were not born on US soil (only a few miles away), you are ineligible to become President.

Well, that sucks ass.

Now, imagine a pregnant Mexican woman who crosses the border one afternoon to buy cheaper gasoline in the US. Same scenario, she gives birth in a (US!) hospital, so her child is a natural-born US citizen. Said child is (miraculously) isolated from any form of US culture, in fact, never even learns English. However, this child buys a house in the US, right on the border, and spends a few hours there every day for fourteen years (returning to Mexico for everything other than sleep, for instance), and is then eligible to run for US President.

Retarded law? Most likely.

No he should not and yes it is "descrimination"

The decession was to make sure nobody was beholden to their birth country. At the time of the Revolution there were many "loyalists" and they did not want to give the most powerful postion whose interests might not be for this country.

Sure we loose some very capable people but that is the breaks.

Consider this. How many people call themselves <country> American vs American?

How many Muslims call themselves Muslims and then americans?


The consititution should not change at a simple whim. Especially since Arnold wants Presidency almost to the point of selling his soul. Arnold is very chrismatic.

Luckily it is no simple order to change the consititution.

Bring on the debates! That is what the country is supposed to be about! ;)

No. No matter how long someone from overseas is here, or how good their intentions are, there is a wealth of cultural reference that they will be missing. They may not have a vested interest in the country, either.

Besides, I don't want Arnold Schwartzenegger to be the president.

If the Constitution were amended, how long do you think it would take for Rupert Murdoch to buy himself the Presidency?
Damn straight! Let's make sure that only American billionaires like Bill Gates can buy elections!



btw, that's sarcasm to point out the silliness of the quoted statement. I only say this because people who post things like that seem to need to have sarcasm pointed out explicitly.

Damn straight! Let's make sure that only American billionaires like Bill Gates can buy elections!



btw, that's sarcasm to point out the silliness of the quoted statement. I only say this because people who post things like that seem to need to have sarcasm pointed out explicitly.
Maybe that shows the true problem with your set up, he never managed to buy power in his home nation or the UK. Sure he has influence through the trash he prints but no real political power.
When was the last time someone who was not very wealthy became president? And not one of these by default presidents, as you bump off your leaders more than most there are a few who have fallen into the big seat rather than climbed.

People who weren't born in America should not be able to be our president. It will never happen. We don't need any goat herders from abroad tossing virgins in the volcano because taxes are rising. It's bad enough we have liberals.

People who weren't born in America should not be able to be our president. It will never happen. We don't need any goat herders from abroad tossing virgins in the volcano because taxes are rising. It's bad enough we have liberals.
My question remains. When was the last time some one who was not very rich became president of the US?

No. No matter how long someone from overseas is here, or how good their intentions are, there is a wealth of cultural reference that they will be missing. They may not have a vested interest in the country, either.What wealth of cultural reference? All that USAmericans do is mimic what others have brought to the country. Stop pretending you folks had a real grown culture. All the world knows that the backbone of your society lies in the military instead of a common heritage and culture. To me US society and its "culture" are as fake and hollow as the dome on your parliament building.

Most of our early Presidents were foriegners. Look at your history, fool.

BTW I, under current law, am finally eligible to be elected to the presidency.

To those of you over 18, please write in: Big Jim P For president.

Jim

Fidel Castro for Prez '04!

What wealth of cultural reference? All that USAmericans do is mimic what others have brought to the country. Stop pretending you folks had a real grown culture. All the world knows that the backbone of your society lies in the military instead of a common heritage and culture. To me US society and its "culture" are as fake and hollow as the dome on your parliament building.

Oh, bloody hell, Ankher, what do you want? Do you want us all to dress up in beaded deerskin clothes and pretend that the country as such has been around longer than it has? Even philistines have some culture, you know. If you came over to the US for longer than a holiday, and went to someplace off the beaten track, you may find that we're just as human as anyone else in the world, and snobbery over the fact that you have more history doesn't change that. I think the people who came to the US, the ones who created this country into what it is now, came to escape the leather-bound attitudes of the majority of people in their country of origin. They saw all this open space to get lost in, and decided to take a powder on der faderland. Whatever there is good about the old world, it wasn't good enough to keep them there.

The US ain't perfect, but neither is any other country. I've seen worse places to be. The point is, if you weren't born here, you wouldn't have some of the information you might need to do the job right, no matter how much time you spend trying to learn it. I'm not saying it couldn't be done, but it could be a difficult job for anyone.

Oh, bloody hell, Ankher, what do you want? Do you want us all to dress up in beaded deerskin clothes and pretend that the country as such has been around longer than it has? Even philistines have some culture, you know. If you came over to the US for longer than a holiday, and went to someplace off the beaten track, you may find that we're just as human as anyone else in the world, and snobbery over the fact that you have more history doesn't change that. I think the people who came to the US, the ones who created this country into what it is now, came to escape the leather-bound attitudes of the majority of people in their country of origin. They saw all this open space to get lost in, and decided to take a powder on der faderland. Whatever there is good about the old world, it wasn't good enough to keep them there.

The US ain't perfect, but neither is any other country. I've seen worse places to be. The point is, if you weren't born here, you wouldn't have some of the information you might need to do the job right, no matter how much time you spend trying to learn it. I'm not saying it couldn't be done, but it could be a difficult job for anyone.What have Philistines to do with this? Do you know what Philistines are at all?
And the point is, US-Americans are so proud of their country and its cheap values and morals, and they constantly try to patronize the world. And this attitude is just inacceptable. In this quest to impose your way of living onto the rest of the world you seem to forget that your own cultural set-up is not your own and that it is only a superficial copy from other sources. No country is perfect, but not every country is instigating an imperialism of values like the US does. And that at home your propagated values are only lip service all the world can see at Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib (http://www.antiwar.com/news/?articleid=2444) (and don't tell me this is just the inappropriate behavior of individuals, this is clearly systemic). But thank whoever is above that the US is already losing its grip on the world.
I would never come to the US, because I could never feel safe from all the weirdos in your society and from your system of government and justice.

What have Philistines to do with this? Do you know what Philistines are at all?
And the point is, US-Americans are so proud of their country and its cheap values and morals, and they constantly try to patronize the world. And this attitude is just inacceptable. In this quest to impose your way of living onto the rest of the world you seem to forget that your own cultural set-up is not your own and that it is only a superficial copy from other sources. No country is perfect, but not every country is instigating an imperialism of values like the US does. And that at home your propagated values are only lip service all the world can see at Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib (http://www.antiwar.com/news/?articleid=2444) (and don't tell me this is just the inappropriate behavior of individuals, this is clearly systemic). But thank whoever is above that the US is already losing its grip on the world.
I would never come to the US, because I could never feel safe from all the weirdos in your society and from your system of government and justice.


philistine

adj 1: of or relatin to ancient Philistia or the the culture of the Philistines [syn: Philistine] 2: smug and ignorant and indifferent or hostile to artistic and cultural values [syn: anti-intellectual] n 1: a person who is uninterested in intellectual pursuits [syn: lowbrow] 2: a member of an Aegean people who settled ancient philistia around the 12th century BC [syn: Philistine]


Source: WordNet ® 2.0, © 2003 Princeton University

irony
n 1: Incongruity between what might be expected and what actually occurs: “Hyde noted the irony of Ireland's copying the nation she most hated” (Richard Kain).



You know what? It's kind of ironic, having to explain to someone who thinks Americans are uncultured and uneducated what the word "philistine" means.

as long as he/she DOES know how to run a country

Oh, bloody hell, Ankher, what do you want? Do you want us all to dress up in beaded deerskin clothes and pretend that the country as such has been around longer than it has? Even philistines have some culture, you know. If you came over to the US for longer than a holiday, and went to someplace off the beaten track, you may find that we're just as human as anyone else in the world, and snobbery over the fact that you have more history doesn't change that. I think the people who came to the US, the ones who created this country into what it is now, came to escape the leather-bound attitudes of the majority of people in their country of origin. They saw all this open space to get lost in, and decided to take a powder on der faderland. Whatever there is good about the old world, it wasn't good enough to keep them there.

The US ain't perfect, but neither is any other country. I've seen worse places to be. The point is, if you weren't born here, you wouldn't have some of the information you might need to do the job right, no matter how much time you spend trying to learn it. I'm not saying it couldn't be done, but it could be a difficult job for anyone.
It's funny how when People from the US refer to the people who founded the US they see them as people repressed by their own countries striking out for freedom. But when they refer to the Australian founders they see them all as convicts. True Australia got it’s share of convicts, but many people went there by choice. You could say that many of the US founders were wanna be convicts, i.e. they would have been convicts if they had been caught.
A lot of the people who went to the US went because they had failed in their own country and wanted some where with fewer laws to restrict their entrepreneurial exploits.
As then many countries exist where people have greater indiviual freedoms than those who live in the US.

No. It may seem racist, but, well... it's how it has to be. Imagine if we had a president who was born in Spain. While he's still in office, we go into war with Spain. What then?

It's funny how when People from the US refer to the people who founded the US they see them as people repressed by their own countries striking out for freedom. But when they refer to the Australian founders they see them all as convicts. True Australia got it’s share of convicts, but many people went there by choice. You could say that many of the US founders were wanna be convicts, i.e. they would have been convicts if they had been caught.
A lot of the people who went to the US went because they had failed in their own country and wanted some where with fewer laws to restrict their entrepreneurial exploits.
As then many countries exist where people have greater indiviual freedoms than those who live in the US.

Oh, believe me, America wasn't all people who wanted to get away, many of them were convicts. Not wanna-be convicts, real ones. A lot of them were sent over by their respective colonizing nations as indentured servants, and a lot of them wound up here as the result of slavery. A huge number of them came here to make a success of their lives that simply couldn't be acheived in their home countries. For instance, it was very hard to own land in Europe, because it had all been taken up and was not sold cheaply enough for anyone to afford it, and the restrictions that the laws imposed made it difficult for anyone to get ahead. They could come to the US and buy a huge tract of land cheaply, and if they liked, they could wander out into the wilderness and leave laws behind, because there was nobody out there to enforce them.

The real point though, is that Americans are just people. There are good and bad, educated and uneducated, cultured and uncultured. Maybe we send out some rotten ambassadors to the rest of the world, but do you think you could guarantee that your country has never allowed anyone to leave the country and give the rest of the world a bad impression of them? We're not all like what you see on TV or in the movies, or even in the newspaper. There are all kinds here. Maybe even people you could like and respect, if you ever gave them a chance.

Maybe a better question is this. Would you like it if an American were able to get elected president where you live? Do you think that they'd be able to do the job, and know enough about what's going on in the country? How about we expand that to anyone, from any other country?

I bet there are plenty of weirdos where you are too. We don't hold the monopoly on that. The crop of weirdos never seems to fail anywhere.

Actually, maybe it would be alright. Something in his presidential oath saying "I will always make decisions to benefit the American country and if the Cabinet deems that I am not doing that, then I shall be ejected from office" or something like that.

No. It may seem racist, but, well... it's how it has to be. Imagine if we had a president who was born in Spain. While he's still in office, we go into war with Spain. What then?
There'd be no war against Spain... dah... Another war prevented :D

No.

philistine
adj 1: of or relating to ancient Philistia or the the culture of the Philistines [syn: Philistine] 2: smug and ignorant and indifferent or hostile to artistic and cultural values [syn: anti-intellectual] n 1: a person who is uninterested in intellectual pursuits [syn: lowbrow] 2: a member of an Aegean people who settled ancient philistia around the 12th century BC [syn: Philistine]
Source: WordNet ® 2.0, © 2003 Princeton University
irony
n 1: Incongruity between what might be expected and what actually occurs: “Hyde noted the irony of Ireland's copying the nation she most hated” (Richard Kain).
You know what? It's kind of ironic, having to explain to someone who thinks Americans are uncultured and uneducated what the word "philistine" means.No, it's not. I am not natively speaking or writing English, but since one of my hobbies is ancient history I know pretty well what Philistines are, but I had not been aware until now that there have been some weird and racist meanings assigned to the word, that seem to come from the strange and judeo-centered views expressed in the Bible.
And for the situation of US education (and please do not confuse US with America) : you must surely admit that the discrepancy between the small number of well-educated people and the broad masses who have only a framgentary knowledge of the world and its interconnections is steadily growing, do you not?
And you must also admit that your politicians and media have a tendency to view the rest of the world as inferior and dependent of the US, but without any real explanation why the US should be regarded as the best possible state or society in the world.
Have you ever thought about why the current wave of terrorism is targeted so much on the US?

No, it's not. I am not natively speaking or writing English, but since one of my hobbies is ancient history I know pretty well what Philistines are, but I had not been aware until now that there have been some weird and racist meanings assigned to the word, that seem to come from the strange and judeo-centered views expressed in the Bible.
And for the situation of US education (and please do not confuse US with America) : you must surely admit that the discrepancy between the small number of well-educated people and the broad masses who have only a framgentary knowledge of the world and its interconnections is steadily growing, do you not?
And you must also admit that your politicians and media have a tendency to view the rest of the world as inferior and dependent of the US, but without any real explanation why the US should be regarded as the best possible state or society in the world.
Have you ever thought about why the current wave of terrorism is targeted so much on the US?

We're not all happy with the way our government and media represent us. That's why some of us have decided to exercise our privilege to vote in the upcoming election, although you should know as well as anyone in the world that what gets voted isn't always what you want or even what you get.

As for the lack of education, that's not because it isn't available. That is a source of some shame to many of us. There are people in every country, though, who remain voluntarily ignorant. Still, did you realise that in Afghanistan and Iraq, the majority of people are illiterate? They don't even have access to the information in print, and it's not their fault. They didn't have a free public education. Ours isn't perfect, but at least it's there.

I know that the US isn't perfect, or even anything that every country should aspire to. It's not perfect, but there are worse places. Not that this gives us the right to swoop down on anyone who isn't doing things our way, but I'm not in control of that. Most of us aren't. Hell, a lot of us are manipulated emotionally into supporting what our government does in our name. It doesn't work on all of us, though.

I just wish that the normal, intelligent people in the rest of the world would realise that we have normal, intelligent people too. We're not really able to exercise complete or even partial control over what is done in our name. This isn't anything exclusive to the US government, either. Other governments do the same thing, and emotionally manipulate their citizens to feel one way or another about other countries when it suits the agenda.

Just try to understand that not all of us are the way you imagine. The majority of us just want to earn a living, and raise our kids, and maybe even get a little bit ahead of the game. A lot of us couldn't care less what the rest of the world does or doesn't do, so long as we have the basic freedom to get on with our lives.

I like your idea - I think that I would add a clause saying that some1 who was already a really powerful politician ouside the US couldn't run


AHNULD FOR PRESIDENT! (jk)
A European bodybuilder who happens to have an accent and a Hollywood resume running for president can't be as bad as a lying war monger who doesn't even know what war is like and takes over countries that his daddy didn't totally anihilate. If Schwartzenegger runs for president then 50 Cent should run for president. He'd win! :p :headbang:

Most Americans are actually foregners, the questions should be; Should Native Americans throw all this immigrants out? :gundge:

Most Americans are actually foregners, the questions should be; Should Native Americans throw all this immigrants out? :gundge:

They already tried that.

They already tried that.

Encore

They already tried that.
Hooray for rifled muskets!

Hooray for rifled muskets!
well more truthfully hooray for small pocks and scarlet fever and a few others.
the u.s. doesn't have the ethnic content of much of latin american because of depopulation from disease, just as latin american isn't 90% native for the same reason. 80 to 95% of the injuns killed by white folk coming to american died from disease.

I don´t think that foreigners should be allowed to run for office in another country. But I think citizens of it should be allowed to run for it regardless whether they are born in the country or not.
I would actually like to see Arnold Schwarzenegger becoming President of the US one day.

well, any respectable country would not have let foreigners in in the first place.

:rolleyes:

(they'd probably do a better job than 'presidents' originally from the countries in question...)

And you must also admit that your politicians and media have a tendency to view the rest of the world as inferior and dependent of the US, but without any real explanation why the US should be regarded as the best possible state or society in the world.


No, get it right. I view you foreigners as inferior and dependant. Our government and media have to pretend to like you.

The only problem I can see with foreignes running for president in the US is that they'd most probably win.

And if they won, they'd most certainly do a better job running the US better than almost any "real" American.

No, get it right. I view you foreigners as inferior and dependant. Our government and media have to pretend to like you.
Well that’s the type of ill educated ill informed tripe that I would expect to come from an ex colonial lackey. You can have what ever delusional thoughts you want, you can sit in a corner and repeat them to your self why rocking back and forward as much as you like it won’t make them true. Oh I’m not annoyed at you, quite the reverse I look on you as I do many of your ilk and as many Europeans view your kind of American, as a small child yet to learn the ways of the world and needing patience. I don’t want to lump all citizens of the US in with you in your little padded cell as some appear to be quite lucid. A charge that you appear not to be culpable of.
If you were joking or being ironic, well that’s a first for and American! (sorry generalising again, but my pea brained counterpart appears to recognise and respond better to this kind of pseudo intelligent banter).

The only problem I can see with foreignes running for president in the US is that they'd most probably win.
And if they won, they'd most certainly do a better job running the US better than almost any "real" American.
What is a "real" American anyway. I don´t think so by the way. It always depends on the individual.
I could also imagine that Tony Blair could become US president. When he quits in Britain, he could move to the US, become citizen and run for it. Sounds unrealistic, it is unrealistic but I don´t think it would be bad. On the conterary.
But I think it is more likely that Anie becomes President. He would be able to be president for shure. He has proven in California that he is a real politician.

What is a "real" American anyway. I don´t think so by the way. It always depends on the individual.
I could also imagine that Tony Blair could become US president. When he quits in Britain, he could move to the US, become citizen and run for it. Sounds unrealistic, it is unrealistic but I don´t think it would be bad. On the conterary.
But I think it is more likely that Anie becomes President. He would be able to be president for shure. He has proven in California that he is a real politician.
Well, it's a bit of a stretch to say that Arnold has become a "real" politician. He's still far more celebrity than politician.

But like I said five pages ago on this thread, it'll never happen because he would need the support of too many people who want to be President themselves in order to change the Constitution.

Well, it's a bit of a stretch to say that Arnold has become a "real" politician. He's still far more celebrity than politician.

But like I said five pages ago on this thread, it'll never happen because he would need the support of too many people who want to be President themselves in order to change the Constitution.
He has: He knows how he needs to act to get support and applause. He showed that very efficient at the Republican Convention when he actually played on anti-european sentiment in the US. There was an interesting note on the conservative german newspaper F.A.Z. (Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung).
A creative dealing with the truth belongs to the dealings of a politician. At the Convention of the Republicans he went deep into the movie klischee and described very detailed his early fears: "I saw communism with my own eyes." His emmigration to the US he exaggerated to an escape from "socialism": "As a child I saw how Austria after the withdrawl of the Soviets turned into a socialists country."
Strange astonishment between Vienna and Graz (the hometone of Schwarzenegger). Historians calculated that it was impossible for Schwarzenegger (born in 1947) to see Soviet tanks in his home region since they were never at that region. The till today deep "black" (in the german-speaking world that stands for conservative (or christian-conservative) in contrast to red for the socialists) Steiermark (Graz is the capital of this Austrian state) belonged to the British occupied arrea. His szenario rather belonged to the "collective memory" of the Austrian people. The head of the social democratic party (since 1999 in opposition) is annoyed: " The terminator is drawing a very false picture of Austria." Especially due to the fact that all Austrian chancellors up untill 1970 belonged to the conservative ÖVP party. When the young bodybuilder left the country in 1968 they even had an absolute majority in parliament and ruled alone.
Doesn´t matter: A movie star needs a clear story - for that a Hollywood star takes historic inaccuracies into account.

Yes. Let them run.

Definitely not--it's what the UN is trying to do already.

Definitely not--it's what the UN is trying to do already.
If you are against the UN you should support Arnold. He is against the UN as well.

If you are against the UN you should support Arnold. He is against the UN as well.

Arnold still grew up in socialist Europe. He's seriously for gun control--therefore, I could never support him.

Arnold still grew up in socialist Europe. He's seriously for gun control--therefore, I could never support him.
I wrote about the fact how "socialist" Austria was when he lived there. It is most amusing that he uses this stereotyping himself to suit his career. That shows that he is an intelligent politican. Though I assume he is too much of a "liberal" Republican for you.
Though he may attract more the political centre (like the Reagan democrats) which is needed for an majority in an election. He proved that in California.
But if you prefer to go for Donalds Rumsfeld in 2008 you are free: or whom would you prefer?

I wrote about the fact how "socialist" Austria was when he lived there. It is most amusing that he uses this stereotyping himself to suit his career. That shows that he is an intelligent politican. Though I assume he is too much of a "liberal" Republican for you.
Though he may attract more the political centre (like the Reagan democrats) which is needed for an majority in an election. He proved that in California.
But if you prefer to go for Donalds Rumsfeld in 2008 you are free: or whom would you prefer?

I would vote for the Libertarian candidate. Someone seemed to assume that since I was against socialism that I was a Republican--and a very conservative one at that.

Not the case. I believe in the US Constitution. I believe that we don't have the right to tell anyone else what to do, provided they aren't hurting someone else.

I'm pro-choice, against religion in the government, pro-gun, pro economic freedom, pro personal responsibility, and pro-death penalty. If someone wants to get hooked on drugs, it's their right. They kill or hurt someone while under the influence (actually in any circumstance, not just on drugs), they pay a VERY stiff penalty.

And I am most certainly against any kind of government influence one way or another on the marriage issue. Government shouldn't be involved at all.

However, if I absolutely HAD to vote for either Kerry or Bush, Bush would win, by a VERY slim margin. For one reason: He's not a gun-grabber like Kerry is. Do I like the Patriot Act? No way in hell. Any kind of government invasion of privacy is flat-out wrong.

The second amendment is the only amendment that allows us to defend the rest of the amendments. This is why I'll always vote for someone pro-gun.

I would vote for the Libertarian candidate. Someone seemed to assume that since I was against socialism that I was a Republican--and a very conservative one at that..
No, because you wrote about "socialists Europe". I don´t know how you use the word socialism. But we use to call the Eastern bloc that way. Austria never belonged to it though. Neither politically nor economically. But it Europe-bashing has become pretty popular in the US. What evil thing has Europe actually done? Some countries have disagreed with the US and? Has that harmed it in any way? I don´t like Schroeder and Chirac and their policy but the rhetorical response to their policy is completly out of proportion. It is not the case that France is a thread to the security of the US. But given the rhetoric that could be assumed to be the believe.
By the way: To call everything non-libertarian socialists is a rather strange view. In that respect even the US would be socialists.
But that is not how this word is used.



I'm pro-choice, against religion in the government, pro-gun, pro economic freedom, pro personal responsibility, and pro-death penalty. If someone wants to get hooked on drugs, it's their right. They kill or hurt someone while under the influence (actually in any circumstance, not just on drugs), they pay a VERY stiff penalty..
And I am most certainly against any kind of government influence one way or another on the marriage issue. Government shouldn't be involved at all.
.
I agree with you in many points: especially the drug and marriage issue. But we have civil marriage here. Where someone marries in a church too is legally irrelevant.
That is a really a different concept.

However, if I absolutely HAD to vote for either Kerry or Bush, Bush would win, by a VERY slim margin. For one reason: He's not a gun-grabber like Kerry is. Do I like the Patriot Act? No way in hell. Any kind of government invasion of privacy is flat-out wrong..
I don´t know who I would vote for. Since I´m not American why should I look to all the details.
I agree with Bush tax cut which are giving a stimulous to the economy. Though I don´t like his use of religion and the religious right which belongs after all to his most loyal followers. Probably because I´m from Europe and we are not used to such religious remarks from our politicans any more. Which I see as positive. Probably I would vote for him, none the less. Rather go with the devil you now than the one you don´t know. Voters in Europe often make their decisions on this basis as well.

The second amendment is the only amendment that allows us to defend the rest of the amendments. This is why I'll always vote for someone pro-gun.
It allows you to carry arms: The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed if I rember right. Though that keeps you to the question how you prevent evil-doers (like criminals) from getting them.

No, because you wrote about "socialists Europe". I don´t know how you use the word socialism. But we use to call the Eastern bloc that way. Austria never belonged to it though. Neither politically nor economically. But it Europe-bashing has become pretty popular in the US. What evil thing has Europe actually done? Some countries have disagreed with the US and? Has that harmed it in any way? I don´t like Schroeder and Chirac and their policy but the rhetorical response to their policy is completly out of proportion. It is not the case that France is a thread to the security of the US. But given the rhetoric that could be assumed to be the believe.
By the way: To call everything non-libertarian socialists is a rather strange view. In that respect even the US would be socialists.
But that is not how this word is used.



I agree with you in many points: especially the drug and marriage issue. But we have civil marriage here. Where someone marries in a church too is legally irrelevant.
That is a really a different concept.


I don´t know who I would vote for. Since I´m not American why should I look to all the details.
I agree with Bush tax cut which are giving a stimulous to the economy. Though I don´t like his use of religion and the religious right which belongs after all to his most loyal followers. Probably because I´m from Europe and we are not used to such religious remarks from our politicans any more. Which I see as positive. Probably I would vote for him, none the less. Rather go with the devil you now than the one you don´t know. Voters in Europe often make their decisions on this basis as well.


It allows you to carry arms: The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed if I rember right. Though that keeps you to the question how you prevent evil-doers (like criminals) from getting them.


When I say "socialist Europe", I mean the governments that are in most of western Europe. Where a much larger portion of wages goes to taxes, to support all kinds of government sponsored programs, telling people what to do, and things like that.

I'm not bashing Europe. I'm bashing the accepted type of governments in Europe. I believe in personal responsibility--I don't want a group of people coming in and telling me what I can and cannot do. The governments of Europe are much closer to that than the US government is--though we're catching up at a frightening pace.

I do not believe in welfare. I do not believe in government controls of private organizations, businesses, and the people. This is what I'm against, where it is more accepted in Europe. The US is a country of rebels and those that have authority issues. Europe has been and is still used to the idea of being "ruled". We don't have leaders in the US, we have civil servants. The problem is, many of our citizens over here are thinking that our elected officials ARE leaders--when they're most certainly not.

Why should "married" people have any more or less rights than someone single? In my opinion, there should be no laws or rules governing marriage for bonuses or penalties. Marriage is strictly a religious issue--leave it as such. It should have no bearing on governmental rules or regulations. If a wife dies, and her name was on a house title, they better have put legal docs in place to pass her half to the husband, and vice-versa. They shouldn't have to in the first place, but lawyers have screwed up the world so much that we can't not have legal documentation these days...

Gun control: Problem there is, we have enough people that are making enough noise to foolishly ban them from law-abiding citizens. This won't take guns off the street. More and more studies are showing that gun control doesn't work in a free country. It only works where you can take away the rest of the freedoms of the people--like in Japan. There is a great deal of control weilded by the government there, though it is still considered to be a rather free nation. It's not really.

Most of our early Presidents were foriegners. Look at your history, fool.

BTW I, under current law, am finally eligible to be elected to the presidency.

To those of you over 18, please write in: Big Jim P For president.

Jim

Yes and yet they still liked the idea of being born here.....

When I say "socialist Europe", I mean the governments that are in most of western Europe. Where a much larger portion of wages goes to taxes, to support all kinds of government sponsored programs, telling people what to do, and things like that..
What you do is generalisations. Europe consists of different countries. The EU has 25 different members with different systems of taxation and different welfare states. Scandinavia has the biggest once - which is by the way accepted there by most people. A country like Slovakia has a flat tax of 19%. Lower taxes than the US. The same is the case for other countries in Eastern Europe.
The tax quota is different from country to country. But in many countries it is not much higher than in the US.
Different is also the social state: many countries require mandatory insurances for health, retirement. That also gives security to the people.
Probably it is better to have a health insurance than not having one. And this system insures that all can afford one. Freedom as has an economic side. Lech Walensa (the man who ended communism in Poland - so really not a commie) said: Man is not really free if he hasn´t money in his pocket.
This attitude seems not to be so commen in the US though. It is most dangerous for any democratic state if huge parts of its population life in poverty: that can give rise to political extremism. That is an experience of our history you don´t have. But that is the basis for the idea that basic social security is needed.

Europe has been and is still used to the idea of being "ruled". We don't have leaders in the US, we have civil servants. The problem is, many of our citizens over here are thinking that our elected officials ARE leaders--when they're most certainly not..
Currently the US is ruled by President Bush who used to say: Leaders must led. And if I look to the political developments I can´t see how else you could describe him: a strong leader. Whether his policy is positive or negative is another question. But it is certainly rather in the direction of more government in many areas such as security internally and externally. And if he is reelected -which seems to be most likely - it is surely the case because many people see him as a strong leader in difficult times.

Why should "married" people have any more or less rights than someone single? .
People should get children otherwise the populations begans to decline and the economy goes down. Though government can´t force people in a free country of course. But it can give incentives via lower taxes for example.

Gun control: Problem there is, we have enough people that are making enough noise to foolishly ban them from law-abiding citizens. This won't take guns off the street. More and more studies are showing that gun control doesn't work in a free country.
I think it does. But it is a mentalaty issue. It is so much linked to US history that it seen as a betrayl to even question it whether it makes sense today.
There are also much more violent crimes in the US than in Europe. So obviously people are more eager to believe that they need guns.

Zaxon.


but coming back to the issue: Why do you think that a US citizen who wasn´t born in the US shouldn´t have the right to run for president?
And by the way: I don´t know US law: But does the also count for children of US nationals who were born abroad?

What is a "real" American anyway. I don´t think so by the way. It always depends on the individual.
I could also imagine that Tony Blair could become US president. When he quits in Britain, he could move to the US, become citizen and run for it. Sounds unrealistic, it is unrealistic but I don´t think it would be bad. On the conterary.
But I think it is more likely that Anie becomes President. He would be able to be president for shure. He has proven in California that he is a real politician.

I hope he doesn't, for your sakes, he's made a total hash of trying to run the UK!

Zaxon.


but coming back to the issue: Why do you think that a US citizen who wasn´t born in the US shouldn´t have the right to run for president?
And by the way: I don´t know US law: But does the also count for children of US nationals who were born abroad?

A child born of citizens of the US is by default a US citizen. Just as anyone born within the borders of the US is a US citizen, even if the parents are illegal aliens.

I think it's necessary for the person to grow up here, to understand what makes the country tick from an early age. Not to have to switch political theory or ideals halfway through their lives.

Sure, there are exceptions to that, like what if 1) they came to the US when they were 1, or if 2) the citizen born abroad didn't come back to the US until they were an adult.

The point of the law is to not have international entanglements influencing the president's decision. Number 1 has family of other nationality, and therefore, international entanglement. Same is possible for number 2. I honestly don't think too many people would vote for someone who didn't live here for most of their lives.

In this day and age, international entanglements are everywhere--but that is what the spirit of the law was meant to avoid.

What you do is generalisations. Europe consists of different countries. The EU has 25 different members with different systems of taxation and different welfare states. Scandinavia has the biggest once - which is by the way accepted there by most people. A country like Slovakia has a flat tax of 19%. Lower taxes than the US. The same is the case for other countries in Eastern Europe.
The tax quota is different from country to country. But in many countries it is not much higher than in the US.

Okay, my bad on the economic side--yes, you were right, I was looking at the Scandinavian countries.



Different is also the social state: many countries require mandatory insurances for health, retirement. That also gives security to the people.
Probably it is better to have a health insurance than not having one. And this system insures that all can afford one. Freedom as has an economic side. Lech Walensa (the man who ended communism in Poland - so really not a commie) said: Man is not really free if he hasn´t money in his pocket.
This attitude seems not to be so commen in the US though. It is most dangerous for any democratic state if huge parts of its population life in poverty: that can give rise to political extremism. That is an experience of our history you don´t have. But that is the basis for the idea that basic social security is needed.


See, this is where it breaks down. Since when is it anyone's but my responsibility to take care of me? And since when am I beholden to take care of someone I don't even know or care a whit about? This is what the US was based on. Paying for what we care about and not being forced by others to do anything more or less. Being left alone to live our lives the way we want to live them. It is the individual's responsiblity to learn a trade and make the money to keep themselves alive.



Currently the US is ruled by President Bush who used to say: Leaders must led. And if I look to the political developments I can´t see how else you could describe him: a strong leader. Whether his policy is positive or negative is another question. But it is certainly rather in the direction of more government in many areas such as security internally and externally. And if he is reelected -which seems to be most likely - it is surely the case because many people see him as a strong leader in difficult times.


He's one of the deluded ones.



People should get children otherwise the populations begans to decline and the economy goes down. Though government can´t force people in a free country of course. But it can give incentives via lower taxes for example.


I'm not saying no one should have kids. What does this have to do with taking marriage out of government? I said it should be a strictly religious issue. If you want to provide for your kids or spouse or any other category of loved ones, fill out the civil law paperwork. Marriage need not be brought under government control.



I think it does. But it is a mentalaty issue. It is so much linked to US history that it seen as a betrayl to even question it whether it makes sense today.
There are also much more violent crimes in the US than in Europe. So obviously people are more eager to believe that they need guns.

Think what you want about gun control, but the places that have the most gun violence in the US are the places where guns are SEVERELY limited.

See, this is where it breaks down. Since when is it anyone's but my responsibility to take care of me? And since when am I beholden to take care of someone I don't even know or care a whit about? This is what the US was based on. Paying for what we care about and not being forced by others to do anything more or less. Being left alone to live our lives the way we want to live them. It is the individual's responsiblity to learn a trade and make the money to keep themselves alive.
.
Are people all in the same way able to take care of themselves?
Is a low-educated working class person in the same way able to cope with the difficulties of life as an upper-class kid. I´m not against social differences. They are necessary and useful. But if a society has two big gaps it tends to turn unstable. And they are people who are not able to take care of themself: What about sick people, old people, children, e.g. There are cases where there is no family who cares about them. Bad luck, bad destiny, no responsiblity for the government?

The reason for the welfare state was actually not mercy for the poor people. The poor people - you know - they began to rebell. An european experience. The social state was in my country - Germany - actually establish to keep them quiet.
If I see the high amount of homeless folk an crime in some parts of the US I wonder whether that has anything to do with the social situation in some areas. Crime always existed. But there are certain groups more vulnerable to violent crimes and drug abuse. That is a fact. I wonder about the high number of prisoners in the US (2 million). Now lets start with maths: 2 million people are about 0,7% of the US population (around 300 million). Germany has 50.000 prisoners out of a population of 82 million. So about 0,06%. Meaning counted in relationship to the population: ten times more. How much does that cost actually to keep all those prisons. And I wonder how the unemployment statistic would look if this number would be added to the unemployed. Not as good any more. It is entirely your business how you want to deal with those issues. And it is entirely our business how we handle it. I see many disadvantages in the US system in that respect. But it is of course your choice.
And whether it is really so much cheaper? Well, I don´t know.

Your country had the luck only to go through one big economic crisis: By the way: that was solved due some state inteventionists policies which you certainly call socialists. Others had more - and more severe political ramifications such as the rise of political extremism - and have therefore drawn other conclusions from that.

Vote for me 2040 I promise to make france the 151st state and besides juring the previous presidents term over 400,000 million people died of natural causes The death will go on if hes reelected.

Are people all in the same way able to take care of themselves?
Is a low-educated working class person in the same way able to cope with the difficulties of life as an upper-class kid.


I'd say they're more capable in dealing with the difficulties of life, actually.




I´m not against social differences. They are necessary and useful. But if a society has two big gaps it tends to turn unstable. And they are people who are not able to take care of themself: What about sick people, old people, children, e.g. There are cases where there is no family who cares about them. Bad luck, bad destiny, no responsiblity for the government?


There are hard times in the world for everyone, at some point. I'm not saying it's fair. I'm saying dealing with an unfair issue by forcing another unfair situation on everyone is not the way to do it. Two wrongs don't make a right.



The reason for the welfare state was actually not mercy for the poor people. The poor people - you know - they began to rebell. An european experience. The social state was in my country - Germany - actually establish to keep them quiet.
If I see the high amount of homeless folk an crime in some parts of the US I wonder whether that has anything to do with the social situation in some areas. Crime always existed. But there are certain groups more vulnerable to violent crimes and drug abuse. That is a fact. I wonder about the high number of prisoners in the US (2 million). Now lets start with maths: 2 million people are about 0,7% of the US population (around 300 million). Germany has 50.000 prisoners out of a population of 82 million. So about 0,06%. Meaning counted in relationship to the population: ten times more. How much does that cost actually to keep all those prisons. And I wonder how the unemployment statistic would look if this number would be added to the unemployed. Not as good any more. It is entirely your business how you want to deal with those issues. And it is entirely our business how we handle it. I see many disadvantages in the US system in that respect. But it is of course your choice.
And whether it is really so much cheaper? Well, I don´t know.


And where is personal responsibility? Where is choice? The government cannot make these decisions for people. Not here. People need to pull themselves up and make something of their lives. They can do it here. Many just don't try. It's too much work. I've been there. I've picked myself up. I now have a career thanks to wanting to actually work. No, the jobs weren't all happy and fun. Then again, no job is at all times. But I still did them, and raised enough money to keep learning, and advancing.


Your country had the luck only to go through one big economic crisis: By the way: that was solved due some state inteventionists policies which you certainly call socialists. Others had more - and more severe political ramifications such as the rise of political extremism - and have therefore drawn other conclusions from that.

The socialist programs that FDR implemented after the stock market crash of 1927 did nothing but put the US further into unemployment, and had zero effect at turning the economy around. Unemployment was at its highest in 1940. FDR's programs did nothing but serve as a socialist mouthpiece and give the citizens of the US false hope about the actual situation. He flat-out LIED that things were getting better. Kind of like what George Bush is doing today....

We've had a few other economic crisises in this country other than in 1927.

I don't understand how the rest of the world, if asked whether an American should be allowed to run their country, would reply with a resounding "NO", yet when we ask the question in reverse, and Americans say no, they're being exclusionist.

I don't understand how the rest of the world, if asked whether an American should be allowed to run their country, would reply with a resounding "NO", yet when we ask the question in reverse, and Americans say no, they're being exclusionist.
Well: I would say the only criteria for someone in order to run for office is that he/she is citizen of the country. Whether he/she is born there or not is not important for me. It depends on the person. Would I reject a person of foreign decedent to run my country? Well, it depends. If he/she has lived in the country and showed that he/she identifies himself/herself with it I wouldn´t. It really depends on the person and what he/she is standing for.
There are after all foreign politicians I like more than many domestic ones. I for example like Blair or Clinton. If they would migrate here and apply for citizenship and they are learning the language I could imagine voting for them.
Of course rather a hypothetical question since their is no person who falls into that category. But I could imagine it.
America in contrast to other countries is a nation of immigrants. So I wonder how such an exclusionist practise from excluding citizens from running for president just because they weren´t born in the country can be justified. Why not letting the people decide whether Arnold Schwarzenegger for example should become president some day via an election? Why excluding him from this competition?

Well: I would say the only criteria for someone in order to run for office is that he/she is citizen of the country. Whether he/she is born there or not is not important for me. It depends on the person. Would I reject a person of foreign decedent to run my country? Well, it depends. If he/she has lived in the country and showed that he/she identifies himself/herself with it I wouldn´t. It really depends on the person and what he/she is standing for.
There are after all foreign politicians I like more than many domestic ones. I for example like Blair or Clinton. If they would migrate here and apply for citizenship and they are learning the language I could imagine voting for them.
Of course rather a hypothetical question since their is no person who falls into that category. But I could imagine it.
America in contrast to other countries is a nation of immigrants. So I wonder how such an exclusionist practise from excluding citizens from running for president just because they weren´t born in the country can be justified. Why not letting the people decide whether Arnold Schwarzenegger for example should become president some day via an election? Why excluding him from this competition?

I suppose a trite answer to that would be that we've got enough troubles with the questionable natives running for office, we don't need to add to those troubles by including foreign-born crooks to the mix. I guess personally I question his motives and his objectives, being that he married into the Kennedy clan early on, and Maria has been doing some heavy campaigning on his behalf. It would indicate that he's had the presidency in mind for some time now. I dislike him for totally unrelated reasons because he has failed to notice that Germans (and Austrians too) have not got the sense of humor to succeed at comedy.

As for America being a nation of immigrants, the same could be said of any country in North America, as well as Australia and a good percentage of the southern regions of Africa. We're not exceptional in this, and I don't see it as a reason for us to allow people who may not have a comprehensive knowledge of or interest in our country's wellbeing to take control of it. Of course, I still believe that the office of president was meant to be that of a chairperson over delegates from each territory, and nothing more. I certainly do not feel that he should be considered the absolute ruler of the earth. Unfortunately, the people who run for the presidency seem to feel that they should hold absolute power, and that the office should be passed around among high-ranking friends, like some big political circle-jerk.

Ah. I give up.

Well: I would say the only criteria for someone in order to run for office is that he/she is citizen of the country. Whether he/she is born there or not is not important for me. It depends on the person. Would I reject a person of foreign decedent to run my country? Well, it depends. If he/she has lived in the country and showed that he/she identifies himself/herself with it I wouldn´t. It really depends on the person and what he/she is standing for.
There are after all foreign politicians I like more than many domestic ones. I for example like Blair or Clinton. If they would migrate here and apply for citizenship and they are learning the language I could imagine voting for them.
Of course rather a hypothetical question since their is no person who falls into that category. But I could imagine it.
America in contrast to other countries is a nation of immigrants. So I wonder how such an exclusionist practise from excluding citizens from running for president just because they weren´t born in the country can be justified. Why not letting the people decide whether Arnold Schwarzenegger for example should become president some day via an election? Why excluding him from this competition?


You bring up a good point. Unfortunately, I'm going to use it in a way you probably didn't intend.

Moles. This stops moles from becoming president. This way, someone can't come into the country, proclaim their love of capitalism, and suddenly be the most powerful agent for someone else in the world.

There are hard times in the world for everyone, at some point. I'm not saying it's fair. I'm saying dealing with an unfair issue by forcing another unfair situation on everyone is not the way to do it. Two wrongs don't make a right..
What is the logical consequence of this position? Getting rid of government, getting rid of taxes, privatisation of everything? Schooling only for those who can afford it, the parents of poor people are to be blamed that they can´t afford that they sent their children to schools?
I know that schooling in the US is for free. But if you are denouncing government social policy you bring that into question. I would agree with the statement that there should be a discussion what government should do and what it shouldn´t do. This is a discussion any country has to make from time to time. But your position seems to be that state involvement in any form is bad. The consequence of this is to reduce it to an minimum position. The logical consequence would actually be to get rid of the state alltogether and to privatise not just education but also security and all other things.
I know that certain liberatarian groups would actually like that. There are by the way some of those groups in Europe as well. Though they are politicaly not very relevant.




And where is personal responsibility? Where is choice? The government cannot make these decisions for people. .
What decision should government make? The government is elected by the people. So it acts on the basis of a democratic mandate of the people. It has legitimacy to act. Those legitimacy of executive and legislative actions has its limíts set by the constituition. But the constituition doesn´t ban government from conducting a social policy. So it is a legitimate decision of the democratic process.


Not here. People need to pull themselves up and make something of their lives. They can do it here. Many just don't try. It's too much work. I've been there. I've picked myself up. I now have a career thanks to wanting to actually work. No, the jobs weren't all happy and fun. Then again, no job is at all times. But I still did them, and raised enough money to keep learning, and advancing.
I think that people have self-responsibilty. They can not claim the support of the state if they have their own financial reserves. And if they want it they have to look for work and have to take any job available to them. Also they may be used to work for city and local government. If people receive state support the state has also the right to demand a return from them.
If they refuse to do so they should loose the right to get support. So: demanding and supporting should belong together.


The socialist programs that FDR implemented after the stock market crash of 1927 did nothing but put the US further into unemployment, and had zero effect at turning the economy around. Unemployment was at its highest in 1940. FDR's programs did nothing but serve as a socialist mouthpiece and give the citizens of the US false hope about the actual situation. He flat-out LIED that things were getting better. Kind of like what George Bush is doing today....
We've had a few other economic crisises in this country other than in 1927.
Well: the policy of President Hoover was certainly worse. He responded with protectionism. Roosevelts programms at least improved the infrastructure and gave people a job. It is certainly better if government demands people to work for the money it is giving to them rather than to support them and to demand nothing in return. I doubt that a policy of doing nothing would have improved the situation by the way.
The tax cuts of President Bush have some parallels to Roosevelts programs. He increased government spending for them: that was creating more supply on the market.
President Bush gave a tax cut - and increased the deficit. This tax cuts are causing more private supply of course.
Both are working from the supply side and both are giving a stimulous to the economy.
Whether that is sustainable remains to be seen. What certainly needs to be done is a reduction of the deficit though. Otherwise it could some day become necessary to raise taxes for it.

You bring up a good point. Unfortunately, I'm going to use it in a way you probably didn't intend.
Moles. This stops moles from becoming president. This way, someone can't come into the country, proclaim their love of capitalism, and suddenly be the most powerful agent for someone else in the world.
And you think that naturalized Americans can´t be agents of another country?
I understand that the United States is really one of the few countries in the world that gives automatically citizenship to everybody born in that country. So - if tourists or even refugees are coming there to stay for a while their children are automatically American citizens. For me quite frankly spoken this rule is only understable given the American history. Otherwise it wouldn´t be explainable.
Why should be the child of foreigners become an American citizen just because they coincidentally happened to be in the US when the pregnancy ended?
This child would have the right to run for president - if I understand it right. That is even the case if he/she is growing up abroad. I actually had a colleague at school who happened to be American citizens only because he was born there. But he never lived there - except at the time of his birth.
Isn´t it be more likely that such a person would be a foreign spy or going for foreign interests than an immigrant who is a naturalized American and has lived in the country for decades?

The Federalist Papers #68 - Alexander Hamilton - The Mode of Electing the President - New York Packet, Mar. 14, 1788 (http://www.worldnewsstand.net/1/federalist/68.htm)

Nothing was more to be desired than that every practicable obstacle should be opposed to cabal, intrigue, and corruption. These most deadly adversaries of republican government might naturally have been expected to make their approaches from more than one quarter, but chiefly from the desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils. How could they better gratify this, than by raising a creature of their own to the chief magistracy of the Union? But the convention have guarded against all danger of this sort, with the most provident and judicious attention. They have not made the appointment of the President to depend on any preexisting bodies of men, who might be tampered with beforehand to prostitute their votes; but they have referred it in the first instance to an immediate act of the people of America, to be exerted in the choice of persons for the temporary and sole purpose of making the appointment. And they have excluded from eligibility to this trust, all those who from situation might be suspected of too great devotion to the President in office. No senator, representative, or other person holding a place of trust or profit under the United States, can be of the numbers of the electors. Thus without corrupting the body of the people, the immediate agents in the election will at least enter upon the task free from any sinister bias. Their transient existence, and their detached situation, already taken notice of, afford a satisfactory prospect of their continuing so, to the conclusion of it. The business of corruption, when it is to embrace so considerable a number of men, requires time as well as means. Nor would it be found easy suddenly to embark them, dispersed as they would be over thirteen States, in any combinations founded upon motives, which though they could not properly be denominated corrupt, might yet be of a nature to mislead them from their duty.

The Federalist Papers #68 - Alexander Hamilton - The Mode of Electing the President - New York Packet, Mar. 14, 1788 (http://www.worldnewsstand.net/1/federalist/68.htm)
What I see is the justification for the electoral college system. Where does is explicitly say that foreign-born people have to be excluded from running for president?

I´ve heard that there is a law for that in the US. Though this discussion is about the fact whether that is right or not. Laws can be changed and even the constituition has amendments who can be changed. Prohibition was one example for it. Or the attempt of President Bush to get an amendment banning gay marriages.

And you think that naturalized Americans can´t be agents of another country?
I understand that the United States is really one of the few countries in the world that gives automatically citizenship to everybody born in that country. So - if tourists or even refugees are coming there to stay for a while their children are automatically American citizens. For me quite frankly spoken this rule is only understable given the American history. Otherwise it wouldn´t be explainable.
Why should be the child of foreigners become an American citizen just because they coincidentally happened to be in the US when the pregnancy ended?
This child would have the right to run for president - if I understand it right. That is even the case if he/she is growing up abroad. I actually had a colleague at school who happened to be American citizens only because he was born there. But he never lived there - except at the time of his birth.
Isn´t it be more likely that such a person would be a foreign spy or going for foreign interests than an immigrant who is a naturalized American and has lived in the country for decades?


It can help prevent them, that's all I'm saying. If someone didn't at least grow up here, they're probably not going to be voted into office.

I did mention, in a previous post, your exact example, and that is was one of a small set of holes.

What is the logical consequence of this position? Getting rid of government, getting rid of taxes, privatisation of everything? Schooling only for those who can afford it, the parents of poor people are to be blamed that they can´t afford that they sent their children to schools?
I know that schooling in the US is for free.


It is most certainly NOT free. I pay a great deal in property taxes to support those induction institutions.


But if you are denouncing government social policy you bring that into question. I would agree with the statement that there should be a discussion what government should do and what it shouldn´t do. This is a discussion any country has to make from time to time. But your position seems to be that state involvement in any form is bad. The consequence of this is to reduce it to an minimum position. The logical consequence would actually be to get rid of the state alltogether and to privatise not just education but also security and all other things.
I know that certain liberatarian groups would actually like that. There are by the way some of those groups in Europe as well. Though they are politicaly not very relevant.


I don't want government completely gone. It is a necessary evil. However, yes, I do want it extremely limited in size and what it can do. Yup, I'm a Libertarian. My party is the third largest in the nation at this point. It is gaining ground in both number of members and number of government offices filled. It may not be anywhere near as popular as the Republicrats, but many of us in the US are getting sick and tired of a government that takes what we earn and spends it on controlling the populace.


What decision should government make? The government is elected by the people. So it acts on the basis of a democratic mandate of the people. It has legitimacy to act. Those legitimacy of executive and legislative actions has its limíts set by the constituition. But the constituition doesn´t ban government from conducting a social policy. So it is a legitimate decision of the democratic process.


Actually, it does. It's called the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. All those nifty hate laws that censor or punish any kind of speech--illegal. The only reason all this social policy is happening is because the Supreme Court is not doing its job.


I think that people have self-responsibilty.


There's one thing we agree on.


They can not claim the support of the state if they have their own financial reserves.


And where we diverge. They can't claim support of the state for ANY reason.


And if they want it they have to look for work and have to take any job available to them.


If they want to live at all, they need to do some work of some sort. Be it working for money to afford food from the store, or working in a field to grow their own.



Also they may be used to work for city and local government. If people receive state support the state has also the right to demand a return from them. If they refuse to do so they should loose the right to get support. So: demanding and supporting should belong together.


Now you're getting somewhere. Local government I can handle. It's the global central control of the federal government I want limited.



Well: the policy of President Hoover was certainly worse. He responded with protectionism. Roosevelts programms at least improved the infrastructure and gave people a job.


Roosevelt's programs helped far fewer than they hurt. It did nothing to curb the continually growing unemployment rate, which peaked in 1940. It took us a war to reset everything from his programs.


It is certainly better if government demands people to work for the money it is giving to them rather than to support them and to demand nothing in return. I doubt that a policy of doing nothing would have improved the situation by the way.


Here's the difference between Europe and the US. The government doesn't have the right to DEMAND any thing EVER from its citizens. It doesn't RULE. Everyone keeps forgetting that.


The tax cuts of President Bush have some parallels to Roosevelts programs. He increased government spending for them: that was creating more supply on the market. President Bush gave a tax cut - and increased the deficit. This tax cuts are causing more private supply of course. Both are working from the supply side and both are giving a stimulous to the economy. Whether that is sustainable remains to be seen. What certainly needs to be done is a reduction of the deficit though. Otherwise it could some day become necessary to raise taxes for it.

Dead on. I want lowering of taxes, and the elimination of at least 70% of the federal government as it is today. That's my point. People have to be responsible for themselves. The government should have no part in it.

It is most certainly NOT free. I pay a great deal in property taxes to support those induction institutions..
Without that many people couldn´t afford to sent their children to school. Do you want that?



I don't want government completely gone. It is a necessary evil. However, yes, I do want it extremely limited in size and what it can do. Yup, I'm a Libertarian. My party is the third largest in the nation at this point. It is gaining ground in both number of members and number of government offices filled. It may not be anywhere near as popular as the Republicrats, but many of us in the US are getting sick and tired of a government that takes what we earn and spends it on controlling the populace. .
Given the fact that the US has a two-party system and a direct-mandate system third parties don´t have much chances in your country though.



Actually, it does. It's called the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. All those nifty hate laws that censor or punish any kind of speech--illegal. The only reason all this social policy is happening is because the Supreme Court is not doing its job..
What has social policy to do with free speech? You are free to criticise it. So what?


Now you're getting somewhere. Local government I can handle. It's the global central control of the federal government I want limited..
Well: I´m from the Federal Republic of Germany: so the subsidiary principle (meaning that things who are better done on a local level should rather be done there rather than on a central level) ought to be fulfiled.


Roosevelt's programs helped far fewer than they hurt. It did nothing to curb the continually growing unemployment rate, which peaked in 1940. It took us a war to reset everything from his programs..
The unemployment rate would have been much higher without them. How high did it get anyway?


Here's the difference between Europe and the US. The government doesn't have the right to DEMAND any thing EVER from its citizens. It doesn't RULE. Everyone keeps forgetting that...
That is your opinion though. Others may disagree. You are right: It is not the goverment who has the right to decide about spending. It is parliament - or as you say: Congress.
I should have stated that more clearly.
You have a system of representative democracy just as we have. And it are those representatives who take the decision. And they are authorized to do so, also in the US.
And those representatives are governing the country.
The advantage of a democratic system is the possibilty to change the leadership without bloodshed. It is not the best form of government, but we know no different as Churchill said.

Dead on. I want lowering of taxes, and the elimination of at least 70% of the federal government as it is today. That's my point. People have to be responsible for themselves. The government should have no part in it.
That is a political position. A position you would need to rally support for: either in one of the two parties or within a third party. But given the political system of the US and the voting system (which is like in the UK) third parties have less of a chance than in a partial-proportionate system (which we have in many European countries - like Austria, Netherlands, Swizerland, Austria, Italy, Germany, e.g.). We have actually four parties in parliament currently and a coalition government.
Given the international situation I see that the US is going to get rather more government than less - especially in the area of defense. Noone knows how things may develop. But there could be a situation were you would need to institute a draft to keep and maintain all international missions you are involved in.
So: quite frankly spoken I don´t see a development towards generally less government in the US. Well, probably on the social sector - but over all rather an expansion of US government control and power. And of course: all those things have to be financed in some way. At the end it is going to be the taxpayer.

It can help prevent them, that's all I'm saying. If someone didn't at least grow up here, they're probably not going to be voted into office.
I did mention, in a previous post, your exact example, and that is was one of a small set of holes.
If you see it as a hole I would doubt it is that small though. There are many quite a sum of people who are born in the US without having any connection in any other way to it. It is your decision how you write your citizenship law. But in the case of most other countries it doesn´t follow that line to give even the children of tourist who are coincidentally born on its territory the citizenship.
Germany completly follows another principle: It follows the decendent principle. So, the citizenship of a child depends on the nationality of its parents. If one is German national the child is. The place of birth is irrelevant.
Foreigners can of course apply for citizenship if they have legally lived in the country for eight years. But there is no automaticity for it.

Without that many people couldn´t afford to sent their children to school. Do you want that?


They are the ones that decided to have the child. It is their responsibility to provide for it. That's how responsibility works.


Given the fact that the US has a two-party system and a direct-mandate system third parties don´t have much chances in your country though.


We're working on that.


What has social policy to do with free speech? You are free to criticise it. So what?


The point is, the government can't tell us how to talk or act. That is the purpose of the First Amendment.


That is your opinion though. Others may disagree. You are right: It is not the goverment who has the right to decide about spending. It is parliament - or as you say: Congress.


Once again, you're confusing the US with Europe. It's not Congress' right to do anything. It's their job to do what we want. Not to arbitrarily give to those that helped them get into office, by putting a bunch of extra "pork" in all their bills, thereby robbing the US citizen of yet more money.


I should have stated that more clearly.
You have a system of representative democracy just as we have. And it are those representatives who take the decision. And they are authorized to do so, also in the US.
And those representatives are governing the country.
The advantage of a democratic system is the possibilty to change the leadership without bloodshed. It is not the best form of government, but we know no different as Churchill said.


The problem with it is that it can turn into mob rule, not taking into account the rights of the individual. The United States is not a democracy. It's a Federal Republic. Where the individual is supposed to matter more than the greater whole, so the individual doesn't get stepped on--so they can be free.


That is a political position. A position you would need to rally support for: either in one of the two parties or within a third party. But given the political system of the US and the voting system (which is like in the UK) third parties have less of a chance than in a partial-proportionate system (which we have in many European countries - like Austria, Netherlands, Swizerland, Austria, Italy, Germany, e.g.). We have actually four parties in parliament currently and a coalition government.


Believe me, there are several of us that are trying to change that. Unfortunately, too many are voting out of fear, and voting for the lesser of two evils, and that keeps this awful two-party system going.


Given the international situation I see that the US is going to get rather more government than less - especially in the area of defense. Noone knows how things may develop. But there could be a situation were you would need to institute a draft to keep and maintain all international missions you are involved in.


I hear ya. And I hate the idea of our gluttonous behemoth of a government getting any bigger than it already is.


So: quite frankly spoken I don´t see a development towards generally less government in the US. Well, probably on the social sector - but over all rather an expansion of US government control and power. And of course: all those things have to be financed in some way. At the end it is going to be the taxpayer.

Yup. And like I said, our numbers are growing, and will continue to grow, until we can actually put a dent in the federal election landscape.

Once again, you're confusing the US with Europe. It's not Congress' right to do anything. It's their job to do what we want. Not to arbitrarily give to those that helped them get into office, by putting a bunch of extra "pork" in all their bills, thereby robbing the US citizen of yet more money..
No, I´m not confusing things. You are doing it. There is NO IMPERATIVE MANDATE. An imperative mandate would be that the representative has to follow the constituancy in any issue. That is simply not the case. Sorry: you are wrong. The representative is elected for 2 years (Senate 6 years) and has at that period a free mandate (he/she is free to decide). That is the way it is.

The problem with it is that it can turn into mob rule, not taking into account the rights of the individual. The United States is not a democracy. It's a Federal Republic. Where the individual is supposed to matter more than the greater whole, so the individual doesn't get stepped on--so they can be free...
But can the individual be really free if the mob - as you put it - is not pacified? Wouldn´t they rise up against such an order? Just an historic experience. And you forget that those people are individuals themselfes. So, your suggestion would make the better-well of happy: those indidivuals. But not many other individuals who would object it.
Regarding democracy and republic: The definition differ: We don´t have a system of a direct democracy either. We have a system of a representative democracy - which you refer to as republic. But it is a democratic system: a government of the people by the people and for the people as the ideal says. And it is elected in democratic elections: one man one vote.
Congress can´t do whatever it wants. But it has the right to pass legislature within the limits set by the constituition. That is the way it is.



Believe me, there are several of us that are trying to change that. Unfortunately, too many are voting out of fear, and voting for the lesser of two evils, and that keeps this awful two-party system going....
But that has also to do with your voting system: one candidate per constituency - personalisiation. That gives smaller parties very little chance.


I hear ya. And I hate the idea of our gluttonous behemoth of a government getting any bigger than it already is.....
I personally see direct interventions of the government in personal lives as much worse than paying a little tax. I would actually prefer some taxation rather than a draft army for example. I think that is a much bigger invasion in personal freedom than taxes.
I would rather prefer a little more taxes than that.


Yup. And like I said, our numbers are growing, and will continue to grow, until we can actually put a dent in the federal election landscape.
How much would you need to win only one costituency. Certainly depends on but it would be more than 30%.
Even if you got 5% nationwide you would likely not get even one seat. That is the result of your election system.
Smaller parties have it easier in most countries in Europe. In my country 5% of the votes would be enough to be in parliament.
However I tell you: Experience proves that new parties make compromises after a while and either disappear or become part of the establishment. Well, they change it a bit, but they are more changed than they change.