Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Could Arnold Schwarzenegger have ever been president?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
galaxy21 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-08-09 09:18 AM
Original message
Could Arnold Schwarzenegger have ever been president?
Edited on Sun Feb-08-09 09:29 AM by galaxy21
Obviously, because of the natural citizenship law, he can't be, but if they ever did change the law, which people have talked about, could he have actually ran and won the presidency? I know a lot of republicans that are convinced he could win if he was allowed to run, simply because of star appeal.

I think he would have had a tough time winning over the base, simply because he's pro choice, but once he actually got the nomination, I'm not sure. Of course, he's also had his fair share of scandals: he's unrepentant about his heavy steroid use over the course of his film career, and everyone knows about his affairs with other women. But I think a lot of Americans would think that because he was The Terminator he could take on terrorists and whatnot. A completely ridicious idea, of course.

I also know some democrats would like to change the law because of Jennifer Granholm, but then, they don't want Arnold being able to run either.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Richardo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-08-09 09:23 AM
Response to Original message
1. I think if the Constitution is ever amended it should not take effect for x years
To prevent it being a mere political tool for any current office holders.

That said, I'm not sure I'd support such an amendment.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Buzz Clik Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-08-09 09:23 AM
Response to Original message
2. Rhetorical question, no doubt.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lurky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-08-09 09:25 AM
Response to Original message
3. They thought Fred Thompson could do it, too.
Ever since Reagan, they think actors are the answer to everything.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
galaxy21 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-08-09 09:27 AM
Response to Reply #3
4. Yeah, but Arnold was a HUGE star, Reagan and Thompson were strictly B movie guys
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Deja Q Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-08-09 09:29 AM
Response to Reply #4
5. With small nuts and no brain due to all that steroid use.
Grey Davis was recalled for less. Why aren't Californians demanding the same for the Governator?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MADem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-08-09 09:36 AM
Response to Reply #3
11. Well, if that's the case, let's at least, for a change, have a GOOD actor.
Meryl Streep for President! Hell, she can play ANYONE!

Seems to me that the politicians who were formerly actors were "B" actors, if not in the films they appeared in, in their ABILITY to act.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ddeclue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-08-09 10:59 AM
Response to Reply #11
23. I hate Meryl Streep = most over rated actor in history...
:puke:

I'd rather watch AH-NULT... at least he can be funny...(even if he doesn't mean to be..)

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MADem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-09-09 01:57 AM
Response to Reply #23
27. I think she's great. I think Ah-nuld is a tool. The one smart thing
he does is (usually) get formulaic scripts that require very little acting chops but have an exciting and fast paced storyline for people who aren't too bright with short attention spans. He also pays close attention to production values, and he's not cheap when it comes to them. As a consequence, he puts out an entertaining product, though it doesn't have much "shelf life" really. It becomes campy as the years go by. Streep, on the other hand, delivers more enduring product.

I've enjoyed Meryl from Sophie's Choice and Kramer v. Kramer days onward. Silkwood, Deer Hunter, Angels in America, she kicked ass as a thinly disguised Nora Ephron (Carl Bernstein's ex-wife) in HEARTBURN (Jack Nicholson played the best/worst asshole you ever saw), Dancing at Lughnasa, and on and on. She's more than BRIDGES OF MADISON COUNTY, for sure.

She has been around for a long, long time, and for the time she's been on the scene, she really doesn't do a huge amount of films, but she's picky about her scripts, and she does quality work...IMO.

But hey, if you don't like her, you don't like her. I think she can act. I know even if it's a King of the Hill episode, if she's in it, there's quality in the writing and in the production. She just doesn't do crap as a rule.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
treestar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-08-09 10:57 AM
Response to Reply #3
22. Exactly, the ones they run are just puppets
Their "leaders" are generally just placeholders. That's why they think actors are fine. The real work gets done in the background.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrsBrady Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-08-09 09:29 AM
Response to Original message
6. well, you would have to change the constitution
and that doesn't happen very often.

...and I think I like it the way it is.

Even if there was a fer'ner that I liked... --there are still plenty of ways to serve your country besides running for president.

They (the constitution dudes) wanted to prevent a president from having loyalty to some other government/nation besides their own.
I think they knew what they were doing when they put that in the document. We wouldn't' want people buying there way in, no?
We have enough trouble with politicians doing that now as it is.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
galaxy21 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-08-09 09:34 AM
Response to Reply #6
9. Isn't there the same risk with dual citizenship though?
Edited on Sun Feb-08-09 09:34 AM by galaxy21
I can udnerstand the arguement for keeping it, I'm not sure myself, but honestly, I don't know if conflicting loyalties is the best reason.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrsBrady Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-08-09 09:38 AM
Response to Reply #9
13. well, a duel citizen isn't going to be president
I think that is the point.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
galaxy21 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-08-09 09:39 AM
Response to Reply #13
14. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think they can be, as long as they were born in America
Edited on Sun Feb-08-09 09:40 AM by galaxy21
Arnold can't be president because he wasn't born here, if he was and then his mother took him back to Austria, he could still run.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ian David Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-08-09 09:30 AM
Response to Original message
7. If Maria had convinced Ted Kennedy to legally adopt him, maybe? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MADem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-08-09 09:33 AM
Response to Original message
8. That would be an argument for throwing up one's hands and moving to the woods.
Arnold is a fucking idiot. His state's unemployment rate is almost ten percent, exceeding the national average. And it's important for California to do well--they are a HUGE engine to the national economy.

I have no desire to change the law. It's a good law, and it ensures that we don't end up with "rock stars" who have allegiances to other interests.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
galaxy21 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-08-09 09:47 AM
Response to Reply #8
16. Bush and Cheney were natural citizens and they still had allegiances to other interests
Edited on Sun Feb-08-09 09:50 AM by galaxy21
I don't think you can measure patriotism just by where someone was born.


Arnold would be a bad president, but not because he wasn't born in the America.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MADem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-08-09 10:52 AM
Response to Reply #16
20. I like the Constitution the way it was written on this score.
You can enjoy your opinion all you'd like. I simply don't share it and I never will.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
liberal N proud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-08-09 09:35 AM
Response to Original message
10. Look at how easy it was for Ronnie Raygun to win
Put a celebrity figure up there and the stupid voters will fall for it.

There is nothing wrong with the Constitution as it is regarding this. It requires anyone wanting to change America through the office of President to do it through a generation change. It tempers that effect to favor the American ideal the founding fathers set forth.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KharmaTrain Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-08-09 09:37 AM
Response to Original message
12. To Quote Jesse Jackson...The Question Is Moot...
Before he could ever run for the top job, he'd have to get through the GOOP primary. You are right, his chances of winning a solid majority in his splintered party are all but impossible. Remember, Gramps still was losing 30% of the vote in the primaries AFTER he secured the delegates to clinch the nomination. Ahnold wouldn't fare much better...and probably a lot worse.

Should the law be changed? There hasn't been a reason to up to this point and I don't see it anytime in the future. I don't the good 'ole boys voting for some "feriner".

Cheers...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
boomerbust Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-08-09 09:46 AM
Response to Original message
15. This Man
Should Have Been POTUS
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
skepticscott Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-08-09 09:52 AM
Response to Original message
17. THe GOP will never nominate a pro-choice candidate
not in our lifetimes, anyway. Compromising on that issue would split the party and keep them from ever winning a general election. In any case, amending the Constitution because of one person is a fundamentally bad idea. There are more than enough crappy candidates who were born in this country.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
galaxy21 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-08-09 09:55 AM
Response to Reply #17
18. They've nominated pro choice people before, of course, they just havn't realized it
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MADem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-08-09 10:54 AM
Response to Reply #18
21. GHW Bush was forced to "publicly renounce" his pro-choice views.
He sent Barbara out to dogwhistle the choicers that "he didn't mean it, he had to say it."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
galaxy21 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-08-09 11:08 AM
Response to Reply #21
24. Poppy ended up appointing two judges that uphelpd roe vs wade
I sympathise with someone who may be pro life, but honestly, they need to realize the republicans are never going to do anything about roe vs wade anyway. Even Reagan appointed Sandra Day O'Connoer, and then later claimed he was "tricked" and didn't know she was staunchly pro choice. Yeah, right.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MADem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-09-09 01:17 AM
Response to Reply #24
26. They've been using that dogwhistle for years, too. And likely laughing behind their hands about it.
There are enough examples of "pro life" jerks tossing a few hundred bucks at their girlfriends and telling them to "take care of it."

John Fund comes to mind. And the girl in question, he dated her MOTHER before he dated (and impregnated) her. Ewww.

Bob Barr is another.

They sure have been able to get out the vote on that issue though. They rile up the fundies and out they come. Of course, abortions are going down in number as that RU486 pill is often the first line of defense when there's a dicey situation. Also, birth control has improved over the years. And people are more sensible with the "no glove/no love" business because you can die, or assuming you respond to expensive drugs, live chronically sick, from an intemperate screw.

Now, the new phony dogwhistle is "Cain't let them queers git married!!! If they git married, why, EVERYONE will wanna be queer!!!!"

I'm not quite sure if that's their logic, but it sure seems that way. And it also seems that a lot of the preachers griping about gay marriage get found in no-tell motels with men who make a fair amount of cash engaging in acts of prostitution. Funny how they take their own closeted lies and wishes and project them on everyone!

We've had that "oooh nooo--gay marriage!!!" in my state for several years now, and all that's happened is...well, nothing. I can tell you from personal experience that I had no desire to "turn gay" as a result of the law change, and neither has anyone I know to not be gay. I imagine a few wedding planners, venues, caterers and gift registry department stores have benefitted from the change in the law, and of course the couples have, but other than that, well, ho-hum! Sky hasn't fallen, cats and dogs aren't doing it...it's business as usual!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
skepticscott Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-08-09 12:04 PM
Response to Reply #18
25. In the past they have, yes
But in the foreseeable future, not very likely. Not with the people they have running the party right now. No one who matters in the GOP is pro-choice or pro-gay rights.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
salguine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-08-09 09:55 AM
Response to Original message
19. Could Arnold Schwarzenegger have ever been governor of California? The point is,
the moment he announced his candidacy, he was in, because he's Arnold Schwarzenegger. That's how the voters of this country think. If he'd run, he would have gotten the nomination, and I don't doubt for a minute he'd have been elected. Whether he should have been is a different question.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Algorem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-09-09 02:26 AM
Response to Original message
28. he vill be fuhrer i mean president.his vill vill triumph.
wasn't he paying onan hatch to get that law changed?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Dec 26th 2024, 03:18 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC