What do you think of the new effort to change our Constitution to allow foreign-born citizens the right to become President? Will it be for the better for the United States or will it be our ruin?
Name:
Anonymous2005-02-08 0:47 (sage)
AAANOLD 4PRZ
Name:
Anonymous2005-02-08 6:13 (sage)
... Well, considering the majority of the population suffers severe xenophobia and the prospect of a foreign born president would bring probally 30%-70% more voters out against such a canidate... Yea, won't matter for a while.
Name:
regret!Mjk4PcAe162005-02-09 4:06
2008 is not that far away. Sure, most of us are xenophobes but who doesn't like a celebrity. I don't want Arnold for President. Aside from that, everyone lives by the rule of "Looks white, is white". Xenophobes won't know or care if the candidate is, let's say, Canadian if he has been in the US for fourteen years.
Name:
Anonymous2005-02-09 7:26 (sage)
>>4
Looks white, sounds white, is white. Of course, america has seen ahnold blow up enough communists to make up for his foreigness...
Name:
Canuck2005-02-10 9:02 (sage)
Theres just he whole problem of possible benifits to the home nation. Say a Russian gets in, he could have a second agenda of trade agreements, or assist on a new governing system. Why is it that no nations (mabey a small hanful) do this, because that COULD happen.
Name:
Canuck2005-02-10 9:03 (sage)
Theres just he whole problem of possible benifits to the home nation. Say a Russian gets in, he could have a second agenda of trade agreements, or assist on a new governing system. Why is it that no nations (mabey a small hanful) do this, because that COULD happen.
Name:
Canuck2005-02-10 9:04 (sage)
Theres just he whole problem of possible benifits to the home nation. Say a Russian gets in, he could have a second agenda of trade agreements, or assist on a new governing system. Why is it that no nations (mabey a small hanful) do this, because that COULD happen.
Name:
Anonymous2005-02-13 1:55
This is a bad idea for an amendment (just like the other idea for an amendment). An argument for that claim can be based on history, and is not restricted to 'zomg xenophobia' as others suppose.
Hitler came from Austria, and ruled Germany.
Stalin, from Georgia, came into Russia which became the Soviet Union (which came to include Georgia).
learn from history. >>6 raises a decent point too.
Name:
Arc2005-02-13 6:11
George Washington came from Britain, and you let him lead your country !
Seriously, if someone has immigrated, and become a citizen, then where they were born shouldn't enter into it.
Name:
regret!lnkYxlAbaw2005-02-13 21:30
>>10
What if the King of England came and became President and started pushing Americans around? We, natural born US citizens, wouldn't like that. (I know, unreal example)
The way US elects Presidents is fine the way it is. We don't need more candidates running in our two party system or an increased possibility that the person running wants to benefit another country more than this one.
Name:
Anonymous2005-02-14 1:18
politics and capitalist democracy...
the parties want to maintain power, to maintain power you must placate or otherwise persuade the voters(elections) and maintain allied corporate interests(funding)
the voters are american, the corporations are american... the president will always look out for american interests, it is not a choice left up to him as an individual... wether born in america or born elsewhere
counter argument
allowing tax shelters for corporations is one grey-area example of a counter-intuitive/nationalistic policy
but globalization did it, the multinational corporations based in america are doing the same as the rest of the multinationals based in europe or asia etc... all their account numbers in offshore holding banks are likely consecutive, its called "remaining globally competitive"
forcing american based corporations to pay "extra" into the revenue stream by fully exposing themselves to governmental audit can only go so far... eventually they will simply go headquarter themselves somewhere else that is more favorable to profit margins
its purely a numbers game, legal technicalities, creative accounting
they caught enron and mci but thats just the tip of the global iceberg....
lets not bring up japan's corporate acrobatics... like owning their own banks and lending to themselves
at least we have a free press here, in china they would just cover it up or governmentally subsidize it entirely..
instead of doing a public media post-mortem when one of these "creative" corporations fail the way its been done here
Name:
Anonymous2005-02-14 17:59
>>... or an increased possibility that the person running wants to benefit another country more than this one.
Like a foreign-born president makes that any more or less likely than it already is. The ones in charge already have favoured friends and already cook up special deals for certain nations (or even corporations). Politics is politics, and the only things that ever change are the specific guy and the specific buddies involved in the behind-the-curtain deals.
Name:
Anonymous2007-10-10 3:03
We should just pass an amendment that just allows Arnold to be president. No other foreigners.
Passing an amendment requires the legislative action of both House and Senate, and THEN at least 38 states (in their own legislatures) have to go through a similar process. Anyone who thinks that entire process happens for such a capricious reason needs to get their head examined. Ahhhhhnold just won't be able to run in 2008. If you stupeholes started NOW, he MIGHT be able to run in 2018. MAYBE. Amending the US Constitution takes a lot of work ... which is why the anti-gun freakazoids love to rely on unconstitutional law and activist judges. For them -- lazy and deceitful fucks that they are -- amending the US Constitution to remove the 2nd Amendment is just TOO MUCH WORK and requires the cooperation of TOO MANY AMERICANS!
Name:
Anonymous2007-10-10 11:13
>>12
What's wrong with all that? If a state implements corporate welfare then it must raise tax thus decreasing the bility of citizens to pay into mutual funds who are by far better at making capital allocation decisions than the state. Corruption occurs and it is slightly exponential meaning the entire nation can stand to suffer a lot as a result. The Japanese ass raped their own economy in 1996 and have been losing business to the asian tigers ever since. The Singapore economic model is by far the most superior with draconian measures to prevent corruption, they are an almost perfect model of modern governmnet who's officials, investors and moguls depend entirely on the success of their businesses, not their ability to extract the highest share of the GDP at the cost of it's total.
Also what's wrong with insider trading? The stock market can adapt.
Seeing as obama is in, I guess we didn't need a constitutional amendment
Name:
Anonymous2011-06-29 22:15
>>11
Well, if a majority voted for him then I guess a majority would approve of this.
Use logic, dingus.
Name:
churro2011-07-08 21:35
The real problem here, is the Democrats trying to modify line three of the War Powers Act, which would give obama more influence and control over the armed forces.
This is the Amendment we need to watch out for
Name:
Anonymous2011-07-11 0:45
No way: If a Filipino becomes a president, you wouldn't call Pennsylvania Ave Pennsylvania avenue anymore
Name:
Anonymous2011-07-11 9:57
Little difference, no presidential candidate will have been a citizen for less than a significant proportion of their lifetime.