In fairness, Arnold Schwarzenegger already has political experience as governor of California. He’d be the most qualified celebrity for the Whitehouse if he was a naturally born citizen.
Reagan was an actor, and he was instrumental in the process of fucking up our society to the degree that it is now. He spearheaded deregulation. One of the direct outcomes of that is the rampant increase of wealth inequality, as well as the now-“normal” boom/bust economic economic cycle that started with Black Monday in 1987 and has been getting markedly worse with each crash.
The sample size is 2, and both of them were terrible people before they got into politics.
Reagan was an authoritarian bootlicker who helped out communists as the President of SAG, he was already a fascist and was voted in because he was a fascist that was good at public speaking.
Not even gonna get into how shitty of a human being Trump was before being president, except to point out he was the biggest voice accusing Obama of faking his birth certificate.
I think the point is that Schwarzenegger, unlike Reagan, has political experience. He has proven himself not to be as much as a puppet as Reagan was, at least.
All I really remember from The Governators time was how many parks got built.
It was actually kind of ridiculous because the signs went up into all kinds of places I had been using for hiking for years, dirt lots or unmanaged areas that connected to wilderness. Then bam, sign goes up with a big green ✅ and Swartzennegers name. No park at first just the signs. And a shit ton of them. Like a ridiculous number. It took time from there but they were all eventually turned into parks and green spaces.
He gets a lot of shit because he is an over the top character, but California has done far worse. Newsom is worse. Davis did less.
I actually think he’d do a great job. I just don’t think it’s likely to happen due to the constitutional requirements, which would never be changed in a normal political environment, much less in this one.
I mean he was kinda milquetoast, but also, California is like, fucking impossible to manage. I don’t think people realize how strange and departed interests are in Sacramento. It’s a clusterfuck because California is so variable in its territory, people, and ideologies.
I’ve appreciated his efforts to use his platform to try to be a voice of reason to other Republicans in recent years. He’s flawed, but he’s a legit role model with a head on his shoulders.
Yeah, I’ve never really understood his fascination with Repubs. He doesn’t carry their idealogy. It’s kinda weird. He’s like a baby swan who the first politician he saw was a Republican and so he’s a Republican. He even says as much in some interview.
I am familiar with Keynesian economics. I am not suggesting that regulations fully prevent crashes, either then or now.
What I am saying is that removing the guardrails so you can cut corners even more aggressively in the interest of profit works great until you crash in a way that the guardrails would have made the crash suck a lot less.
I’m not familiar with “Keynesian economics”. However I do think cutting corners is something that is common with many industries. It isn’t because of profit but is more related to the desire not to go out of business. Competition is normally a good thing as it drives down prices while increasing options for customers. The fix to this is to bad behavior with fines or outright bans.
lmao you fucking muppet it’s the foundational ideology to what you’re trying to express. The fact that you freely admitted that you haven’t heard of it is an implicit admission of complete ignorance on the topic you’re attempting to push. Kindly cease attempting to misinform people.
I have never heard of “Keynesian economics” until today and I haven’t seem any paper, journals or other such media to back your claims. I’m not a professional economist but it seems like you are just following someone or something blindly.
So before you get mad you should look to draw your own conclusions and be familiar with what you are arguing. I my intention wasn’t to provoke you. Lemmy is full people stating options and half truths as absolute facts. I’m not guilt free but at least I’m willing to admit my arrogance. Try not to be a gate keeper
Except that was the same thing that gave us Reagan. He was an actor. Then governor of California. Then president. We are still paying for all his bullshit.
Could you quote the part where it says they can become president?
All I can find is that they become citizens:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the US Constitution explicitly states:
No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President
As I understand, this is based on settled case law, Schneider vs Rusk, where it was decided that preventing natural born citizens from holding office such as president violates due process. As you quoted above, “All citizens naturalized…are citizens”.
This is the lynchpin to progressive candidate Cenk Uygur’s bid for presidency in 2024. He expects this case law to be challenged and decided in the Supreme Court, and anticipates a victory there for himself and the 25million-some other naturalized citizens who wish to enjoy the due process they’ve earned.
Personally, I think he’s right that Biden is a fool for ignoring the current 10-15 point deficit in the polls vs trump. Biden needs to get out of the way for literally any other dem to come in and sweep the election, and hopefully this will be how it happens!
Yeah that pretty much sums it up. Court cases rule and set precedent based on interpretation of existing laws…in this case how the 14th amendment applies/changes section 1.5 from Article II about who can hold office as president.
Supreme Court is usually expected to uphold this type of precedent by default, but as the highest court in the land, they can overturn it if/when Cenk’s case makes it to them.
If they do uphold it, a later supreme court could reinterpret the existing law and overturn this ruling as a result. This was the case with Roe. Congress could codify this interpretation into law by amending the constitution with something even more clear than the 14th amendment, like “naturalized citizens can hold office of presidency.”
To me the 14th seems pretty clear in its intent already, and I think the prior ruling clearly should stand…you’d have to have some wildly politically active judges to misinterpret something like that. Oh wait…!😅 so we shall see.
Wait, coming back to this: like, yea. Of course. He wasn’t alive when the constitution was created. The date the paper was signed has no bearing on today. “At the time of this constitution” could easily mean people at that time and into the future.
He was naturalized and a naturalized citizen is a citizen eligible for presidency :)
In fairness, Arnold Schwarzenegger already has political experience as governor of California. He’d be the most qualified celebrity for the Whitehouse if he was a naturally born citizen.
Reagan was an actor, and he was instrumental in the process of fucking up our society to the degree that it is now. He spearheaded deregulation. One of the direct outcomes of that is the rampant increase of wealth inequality, as well as the now-“normal” boom/bust economic economic cycle that started with Black Monday in 1987 and has been getting markedly worse with each crash.
That was not because he was an actor. That was because Reagan was stupid enough to listen to the wrong people.
OP’s point is that there is a correlation between celebrity presidents and terrible decisions affecting the nation.
The sample size is 2, and both of them were terrible people before they got into politics.
Reagan was an authoritarian bootlicker who helped out communists as the President of SAG, he was already a fascist and was voted in because he was a fascist that was good at public speaking.
Not even gonna get into how shitty of a human being Trump was before being president, except to point out he was the biggest voice accusing Obama of faking his birth certificate.
Correct. Third’s a charm? Fuck no. No more chances.
Or you know, don’t vote for terrible people instead of basing it on what their job was? Just an idea.
We aren’t disagreeing. Celebrities are my exception.
I think the point is that Schwarzenegger, unlike Reagan, has political experience. He has proven himself not to be as much as a puppet as Reagan was, at least.
That said, good thing he can’t run.
Reagan was also Governor of California before he became president.
All I really remember from The Governators time was how many parks got built.
It was actually kind of ridiculous because the signs went up into all kinds of places I had been using for hiking for years, dirt lots or unmanaged areas that connected to wilderness. Then bam, sign goes up with a big green ✅ and Swartzennegers name. No park at first just the signs. And a shit ton of them. Like a ridiculous number. It took time from there but they were all eventually turned into parks and green spaces.
He gets a lot of shit because he is an over the top character, but California has done far worse. Newsom is worse. Davis did less.
I actually think he’d do a great job. I just don’t think it’s likely to happen due to the constitutional requirements, which would never be changed in a normal political environment, much less in this one.
Let’s remember that a lot of people think of Trump doing a great job.
Never again.
I mean he was kinda milquetoast, but also, California is like, fucking impossible to manage. I don’t think people realize how strange and departed interests are in Sacramento. It’s a clusterfuck because California is so variable in its territory, people, and ideologies.
I’ve appreciated his efforts to use his platform to try to be a voice of reason to other Republicans in recent years. He’s flawed, but he’s a legit role model with a head on his shoulders.
Yeah, I’ve never really understood his fascination with Repubs. He doesn’t carry their idealogy. It’s kinda weird. He’s like a baby swan who the first politician he saw was a Republican and so he’s a Republican. He even says as much in some interview.
I don’t think you understand economics. The economy naturally booms and crashes since the dawn of time.
The key is to slow down the boom and speed up the crash so we don’t end up with the economy totally crashing
I am familiar with Keynesian economics. I am not suggesting that regulations fully prevent crashes, either then or now.
What I am saying is that removing the guardrails so you can cut corners even more aggressively in the interest of profit works great until you crash in a way that the guardrails would have made the crash suck a lot less.
I’m not familiar with “Keynesian economics”. However I do think cutting corners is something that is common with many industries. It isn’t because of profit but is more related to the desire not to go out of business. Competition is normally a good thing as it drives down prices while increasing options for customers. The fix to this is to bad behavior with fines or outright bans.
lmao you fucking muppet it’s the foundational ideology to what you’re trying to express. The fact that you freely admitted that you haven’t heard of it is an implicit admission of complete ignorance on the topic you’re attempting to push. Kindly cease attempting to misinform people.
I have never heard of “Keynesian economics” until today and I haven’t seem any paper, journals or other such media to back your claims. I’m not a professional economist but it seems like you are just following someone or something blindly.
So before you get mad you should look to draw your own conclusions and be familiar with what you are arguing. I my intention wasn’t to provoke you. Lemmy is full people stating options and half truths as absolute facts. I’m not guilt free but at least I’m willing to admit my arrogance. Try not to be a gate keeper
And then later
Lol no. I’m not gonna let you just pretend you came out of the gates with a diplomatic tone.
You’re arguing in bad faith. I called you on it, and your response indicates you don’t know what you’re talking about.
Except that was the same thing that gave us Reagan. He was an actor. Then governor of California. Then president. We are still paying for all his bullshit.
The most qualified doesn’t mean the best qualified, though.
Can’t disagree with that!
Natural born is a common misconception. Naturalized is sufficient - he can be president if he wants. 14th amendment clarifies this point.
Could you quote the part where it says they can become president?
All I can find is that they become citizens:
Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the US Constitution explicitly states:
As I understand, this is based on settled case law, Schneider vs Rusk, where it was decided that preventing natural born citizens from holding office such as president violates due process. As you quoted above, “All citizens naturalized…are citizens”.
This is the lynchpin to progressive candidate Cenk Uygur’s bid for presidency in 2024. He expects this case law to be challenged and decided in the Supreme Court, and anticipates a victory there for himself and the 25million-some other naturalized citizens who wish to enjoy the due process they’ve earned.
Personally, I think he’s right that Biden is a fool for ignoring the current 10-15 point deficit in the polls vs trump. Biden needs to get out of the way for literally any other dem to come in and sweep the election, and hopefully this will be how it happens!
TY, that’s really interesting.
So, of I understand correctly, it’s not exactly codified law.
Even if the supreme court upholds that ruling, they could overturn it in the future?
Yeah that pretty much sums it up. Court cases rule and set precedent based on interpretation of existing laws…in this case how the 14th amendment applies/changes section 1.5 from Article II about who can hold office as president.
Supreme Court is usually expected to uphold this type of precedent by default, but as the highest court in the land, they can overturn it if/when Cenk’s case makes it to them.
If they do uphold it, a later supreme court could reinterpret the existing law and overturn this ruling as a result. This was the case with Roe. Congress could codify this interpretation into law by amending the constitution with something even more clear than the 14th amendment, like “naturalized citizens can hold office of presidency.”
To me the 14th seems pretty clear in its intent already, and I think the prior ruling clearly should stand…you’d have to have some wildly politically active judges to misinterpret something like that. Oh wait…!😅 so we shall see.
The second quote says natural born OR a citizen. The first one says a naturalized person is considered a citizen.
It checks out?
Didn’t double check but I think he wasn’t a citizen when the constitution was shipped.
So going by the literal wording alone, he would not qualify.
Wait, coming back to this: like, yea. Of course. He wasn’t alive when the constitution was created. The date the paper was signed has no bearing on today. “At the time of this constitution” could easily mean people at that time and into the future.
He was naturalized and a naturalized citizen is a citizen eligible for presidency :)
Someone else already commented that a court found that it would apply to naturalized citizens, so that is sufficient for me.
However, the text itself says “at the time OF THE ADOPTION of this Constitution”, i.e. the specific point in time when it was adopted.