|
|
Post by Gee-Are on Feb 4, 2008 12:20:09 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by DamieQue™ on Feb 4, 2008 12:26:37 GMT -5
The Governor is the elected official... I'm guessing that gives him an edge, but if it's about ideology - I guess it depends on do you buy into the Kennedy lore or not. If you do - then perhaps you lean towards Obama.
|
|
|
|
Post by Warner Fite on Feb 4, 2008 12:33:27 GMT -5
That makes her an excellent wife....because that's what she is to that man. Very few women would support their man in this area or spectrum while standing firm in their own beliefs....and inspite of her family ties as a Kennedy, she unapologetically supports her husband in all of his political endeavors, no matter how ass-backwards they are from time to time, while still speaking her mind on State and National policy.....I admire her a great deal for this. Plus, it's never been a secret, at least not in California, how Shriver hold on to her political beliefs. |
|
|
|
Post by Gee-Are on Feb 4, 2008 12:35:13 GMT -5
That's true Pun. This is on the national stage though. However, this could never come back to bite them, because Schwarzenegger could never run for U.S. Pres.
|
|
|
|
Post by DamieQue™ on Feb 4, 2008 12:46:18 GMT -5
I think she has a duty to support him as his wife, but she is free to hold and espouse a different political view. Darth Cheney... I mean Dick Cheney and his daughter have an obligation to love one another as family - but I think they're both entitled to their own political views
<---= Post 900
|
|
|
|
Post by Warner Fite on Feb 4, 2008 12:54:33 GMT -5
That's true Pun. This is on the national stage though. However, this could never come back to bite them, because Schwarzenegger could never run for U.S. Pres. You think so, huh? Never underestimate the power of backroom politics, Ghost, never. Here in conservative California, where the immigration issues rules king, nobody as early as the 1990's ever imagined anybody other than a white and American-bred man would be govenor of the state of California. But it was backroom politics....backroom politics, my friend, coupled with the right political affiliation, that landed Arnold's steriod-using, 1,000 orgy, male-chauvenistic, immigrant azz in the seat of the 8th largest economy in the world to govern... and before some of that, he married a Kennedy! Only in America, Ghost....do not underestimate this. If Obama can run for President and be 3/4 succesful, then Arnold can run and be the next Reagan....and believe me, people would love to see "another" Reagan run this country again, excluding present company ;D |
|
|
|
Post by Gee-Are on Feb 4, 2008 12:54:40 GMT -5
The father/daughter is a different relationship than husband/wife.
Hardly anyone expects the father and daughter to agree on everything.
I just can't recall such a high profile political union being so split.
I don't personally have problem with it.
@ Damie-Congrats on 900
|
|
|
|
Post by Gee-Are on Feb 4, 2008 12:58:33 GMT -5
That's true Pun. This is on the national stage though. However, this could never come back to bite them, because Schwarzenegger could never run for U.S. Pres. You think so, huh? Never underestimate the power of backroom politics, Ghost, never. Here in conservative California, where the immigration issues rules king, nobody as early as the 1990's ever imagined anybody other than a white and American-bred man would be govenor of the state of California. But it was backroom politics....backroom politics, my friend, coupled with the right political affiliation, that landed Arnold's steriod-using, 1,000 orgy, male-chauvenistic, immigrant azz in the seat of the 8th largest economy in the world to govern... and before some of that, he married a Kennedy! Only in America, Ghost....do not underestimate this. If Obama can run for President and be 3/4 succesful, then Arnold can run and be the next Reagan....and believe me, people would love to see "another" Reagan run this country again, excluding present company ;D Dude...even though the war polls low amongst most Americans, terrorism and terrorist cells are still hot topics. People are trending toward not trusting immigrants across the board. We are certainly moving forward at an exponential pace regarding issues of acceptance and inclusiveness. However, do you REALLY think that people would elect a foreign-born person to the WHITE HOUSE? IT may happen, but I highly doubt that it would ever happen in Schwarzenegger's lifetime, let alone mine. |
|
|
|
Post by Warner Fite on Feb 4, 2008 13:13:32 GMT -5
Ghost, I think you have you're "immigrant" issues crossed up.
Immigrants, as you frame it, seems to be anybody who immigrates to America...great.
Immigrants, as the status quo frames it, is anybody who immigrates from another country darker than the hue of the staus quo.
Kennedy's are Irish immigrants...Clinton is PWT from Arkansas, a social-economic immigrant, if you will. ;D...you could go down the line. But I think you see that parallel I'm drawing up here...
But while we're at it...Obama is leading in the polls, so....
To think that Arnold (to lazy to spell last name, sue me..) can't make a succesful run at the Presidency is a little out of touch, no disrespect intended.
But if you say so....
|
|
|
|
Post by Gee-Are on Feb 4, 2008 13:16:53 GMT -5
No disrespect taken. But my assertions are based upon the rule in the Constitution or some other legal U.S. paperwork that states that the U.S. President has to be American born and bred.
Is that not correct?
I wasn't speaking on the philosophical growth of the people. Certainly if he can be governor of the state of California, he has a potential appeal to the rest of the U.S.
I'm saying legally, I don't believe he can, and I don't believe that people will be that willing to change the law on HIS behalf.
|
|
|
|
Post by Gee-Are on Feb 4, 2008 13:20:42 GMT -5
He can't as of now run, due to the constitution and 12th amendment. It was an issue for a while for McCain because he was born in Panama Canal Zone but his dad was there working for the Navy, so he's good.
|
|
|
|
Post by DamieQue™ on Feb 4, 2008 13:21:08 GMT -5
The father/daughter is a different relationship than husband/wife. Hardly anyone expects the father and daughter to agree on everything. I just can't recall such a high profile political union being so split. I don't personally have problem with it. @ Damie-Congrats on 900
And about Arnold being President. I acknowledge the point that Big PUN is saying, all politics is local - but it's not going to happen. Not because they can't get behind closed doors and conspire, but because it would actually require an ammendment to the Constitution for it to even be allowed. It's been over 15 years since there was an ammendment to the Constitution. |
|
|
|
Post by Warner Fite on Feb 4, 2008 13:30:08 GMT -5
No disrespect taken. But my assertions are based upon the rule in the Constitution or some other legal U.S. paperwork that states that the U.S. President has to be American born and bred. Is that not correct? I wasn't speaking on the philosophical growth of the people. Certainly if he can be governor of the state of California, he has a potential appeal to the rest of the U.S. I'm saying legally, I don't believe he can, and I don't believe that people will be that willing to change the law on HIS behalf. Ohhhhhh! I see....you're speaking from the rule of Conveniences...oops, I mean, Constitutions. I'm clear now...LMAO! Provide some insight for me Ghost....guide me here: Aren't the constitutions written, in part, for the States to adopt and utilize as a guide as the States saw fit during the times their own (states) constitutions were written?...if this is so, you really believe that if a direct immigrant, who runs for Govenor of California and wins, couldn't and wouldn't be certified as candidate to run for the Presidency? Are you serious? Do you think the 12th amendment couldn't be challenged or further amended? Hmmm..... |
|
|
|
Post by DamieQue™ on Feb 4, 2008 13:35:18 GMT -5
It can be changed... that's what the whole ammendment process is about making changes to be in-line with a changing society. But it seems to take a lot of bicameral political momentum and popular support for it to happen. I doubt that there's a real ground swell to change the constitution so that Arnold can run for President. Theoretically it could happen, but realistically I don't see it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Warner Fite on Feb 4, 2008 13:35:30 GMT -5
The father/daughter is a different relationship than husband/wife. Hardly anyone expects the father and daughter to agree on everything. I just can't recall such a high profile political union being so split. I don't personally have problem with it. @ Damie-Congrats on 900
And about Arnold being President. I acknowledge the point that Big PUN is saying, all politics is local - but it's not going to happen. Not because they can't get behind closed doors and conspire, but because it would actually require an ammendment to the Constitution for it to even be allowed. It's been over 15 years since there was an ammendment to the Constitution. Point 1: Agree Point 2: The Conveniences....I'm sorry, that's my freudian slip....I mean, Constitutions, have been amended countless times for the purposes of re-shaping the policies in this country. Believe me, Arnold is Reagan reincarnated, and as a result, the Conveniences, I mean, Constitutions, could and likely would be amended if and when he runs for the Presidency.... I have heard that 12 amendment over and over again... |
|
|
|
Post by Gee-Are on Feb 4, 2008 13:35:31 GMT -5
No disrespect taken. But my assertions are based upon the rule in the Constitution or some other legal U.S. paperwork that states that the U.S. President has to be American born and bred. Is that not correct? I wasn't speaking on the philosophical growth of the people. Certainly if he can be governor of the state of California, he has a potential appeal to the rest of the U.S. I'm saying legally, I don't believe he can, and I don't believe that people will be that willing to change the law on HIS behalf. Ohhhhhh! I see....you're speaking from the rule of Conveniences...oops, I mean, Constitutions. I'm clear now...LMAO! Provide some insight for me Ghost....guide me here: Aren't the constitutions written, in part, for the States to adopt and utilize as a guide as the States saw fit during the times their own (states) constitutions were written?...if this is so, you really believe that if a direct immigrant, who runs for Govenor of California and wins, couldn't and wouldn't be certified as candidate to run for the Presidency? Are you serious? Do you think the 12th amendment couldn't be challenged or further amended? Hmmm..... Again...Of course I believe it CAN be challenged or changed, but do I think it WILL? Hell no. Not during Ahhhnold's political lifetime. |
|
|
|
Post by Warner Fite on Feb 4, 2008 13:39:07 GMT -5
It can be changed... that's what the whole ammendment process is about making changes to be in-line with a changing society. But it seems to take a lot of bicameral political momentum and popular support for it to happen. I doubt that there's a real ground swell to change the constitution so that Arnold can run for President. Theoretically it could happen, but realistically I don't see it. Theorectically and Realistically, huh? Boy, I would like to see those two run a head-to-head race...I think we ALL know the predicatable outcome.... |
|
|
|
Post by Warner Fite on Feb 4, 2008 13:39:57 GMT -5
Ohhhhhh! I see....you're speaking from the rule of Conveniences...oops, I mean, Constitutions. I'm clear now...LMAO! Provide some insight for me Ghost....guide me here: Aren't the constitutions written, in part, for the States to adopt and utilize as a guide as the States saw fit during the times their own (states) constitutions were written?...if this is so, you really believe that if a direct immigrant, who runs for Govenor of California and wins, couldn't and wouldn't be certified as candidate to run for the Presidency? Are you serious? Do you think the 12th amendment couldn't be challenged or further amended? Hmmm..... Again...Of course I believe it CAN be challenged or changed, but do I think it WILL? Hell no. Not during Ahhhnold's political lifetime. I see..... and lol@ "Ahhhnold"! |
|
|
|
Post by DamieQue™ on Feb 4, 2008 14:17:34 GMT -5
It can be changed... that's what the whole ammendment process is about making changes to be in-line with a changing society. But it seems to take a lot of bicameral political momentum and popular support for it to happen. I doubt that there's a real ground swell to change the constitution so that Arnold can run for President. Theoretically it could happen, but realistically I don't see it. Theorectically and Realistically, huh? Boy, I would like to see those two run a head-to-head race...I think we ALL know the predicatable outcome....
If all the Republicans got together and said they wanted it, it STILL wouldn't happen because:
1. They are currently a minority
2. They would have to have signifianct support from Democrats - and why would they want to empower a Republican candidate who otherwise couldn't run without their help?
Not gonna happen PUN. (IMO) |
|
|
|
Post by Gee-Are on Feb 4, 2008 14:23:54 GMT -5
Yeah, so unless the Dems think they have a good naturalized citizen to boost, what's in it for them? Let's say they find one, the Repubs already have one, so they change it, and we have 2 naturalized citizens running, then where are we?
Handing the country over to Al-Qaeda...SMH
>>>>using terror tactics to keep the Governator out of office.
|
|
|
|
Post by Gee-Are on Feb 4, 2008 20:17:24 GMT -5
okay hypothetically, let's say Pun is right, and the 12th amendment is changed. Arnold is on the ballot and he's running against Obama...Who does Shriver endorse? or does she stay silent on the campaign trail
|
|
|
|
Post by Warner Fite on Feb 4, 2008 20:49:04 GMT -5
okay hypothetically, let's say Pun is right, and the 12th amendment is changed. Arnold is on the ballot and he's running against Obama...Who does Shriver endorse? or does she stay silent on the campaign trail She doesn't endorse either, but supports her husband.... |
|
|
|
Post by Gee-Are on Feb 4, 2008 20:50:29 GMT -5
If I'm Arnold I don't buy that, "It's gon be some endorsin' up in this camp!"
|
|
|
|
Post by Warner Fite on Feb 4, 2008 21:04:29 GMT -5
If I'm Arnold I don't buy that, "It's gon be some endorsin' up in this camp!" LMAO!.... hey, according to you and Damie's theorecticals, it's likely it won't ever happen anyway. |
|
|
|
Post by DamieQue™ on Feb 4, 2008 21:18:07 GMT -5
If I'm Arnold I don't buy that, "It's gon be some endorsin' up in this camp!" LMAO!.... hey, according to you and Damie's theorecticals, it's likely it won't ever happen anyway. |
|
|
|
Post by Warner Fite on Feb 4, 2008 23:50:11 GMT -5
LMAO!.... hey, according to you and Damie's theorecticals, it's likely it won't ever happen anyway. Yes, I did notice...what was the outcome again? Do I think it would be harder? Yes. Do I think it's realistic? Yes. Did you think Mitt Romney, A member of the antiquated CLDS, could run in the state of Massachusettes as a Mormon and win?... The state of Massachusettes? Anything can happen in this country....even amending the 12th....besides, you said it's been 15 years since the last, 20 before that.....a bit overdue, huh? |
|
|
|
Post by DamieQue™ on Feb 5, 2008 0:12:11 GMT -5
LOL - you're laughing but it's true. In the last 100 years there have only been 12 amendments to the Constitution, 2 in the last 30+ years. It just doesn't happen often - and for it to happen it has to have popular support. Where is the popular support? You see how hard they fought over Supreme Court Justices right? You think an amendment would be easier? Yes, I did notice...what was the outcome again? Do I think it would be harder? Yes. Do I think it's realistic? Yes. Did you think Mitt Romney, A member of the antiquated CLDS, could run in the state of Massachusettes as a Mormon and win?... The state of Massachusettes? Anything can happen in this country....even amending the 12th....besides, you said it's been 15 years since the last, 20 before that.....a bit overdue, huh?
2. The fight over Supreme Court Nominees was easier in comparison than Bush getting his Constitutional Amendment to define marriage as 1 man 1 woman. Here's the evidence: Supreme Court Nominees - in place and serving. Constitutional Amendment for Bush? Nowhere to be found.
3. It's already been proposed and it went nowhere
4. By your "anything can happen" argument I guess we could also look forward to the 13th amendment being overturned and slavery being legalized - I mean it's possible right? |
|
|
|
Post by Warner Fite on Feb 5, 2008 12:15:42 GMT -5
Yes, I did notice...what was the outcome again? Do I think it would be harder? Yes. Do I think it's realistic? Yes. Did you think Mitt Romney, A member of the antiquated CLDS, could run in the state of Massachusettes as a Mormon and win?... The state of Massachusettes? Anything can happen in this country....even amending the 12th....besides, you said it's been 15 years since the last, 20 before that.....a bit overdue, huh?
2. The fight over Supreme Court Nominees was easier in comparison than Bush getting his Constitutional Amendment to define marriage as 1 man 1 woman. Here's the evidence: Supreme Court Nominees - in place and serving. Constitutional Amendment for Bush? Nowhere to be found.
3. It's already been proposed and it went nowhere
4. By your "anything can happen" argument I guess we could also look forward to the 13th amendment being overturned and slavery being legalized - I mean it's possible right? 1. Massachusettes is a liberal state for the Irish Catholic American...Tolerant? Interesting choice of words given the racial and cutural history tolerance that Massachusettes is so well known for.... it should be noted that that region of the country is populated with conservative Catholics to this day and a Mormon governed that state. So Romney being elected in a state that is overwhelmingly conservative Catholic is a feat, whether you want to admit that or.....or whether Romney had a Sam Adams in one had and baby in the other 2. Who said anything about the 13 amendment Damie? Oh wait, you'll predictably say, "well 'Pun, you did say anything can happen in this country"...so now we're being literal? of course not, but the possibility of the 12th being admended is a possibility.... 3. The Bush proposed amendment isn't a finished fight, but that's neither here nor there... 4. The 13th being overturned is a possibility...*smh*...if that's the way you want to frame this discussion and my example, have at it dawg.... |
|
|
|
Post by DamieQue™ on Feb 5, 2008 12:28:40 GMT -5
1. Massachusetts is a fairly tolerant liberal state - YOU could win there WITH a Sam Adams in your hand and a baby that wasn't your own in the other
2. The fight over Supreme Court Nominees was easier in comparison than Bush getting his Constitutional Amendment to define marriage as 1 man 1 woman. Here's the evidence: Supreme Court Nominees - in place and serving. Constitutional Amendment for Bush? Nowhere to be found.
3. It's already been proposed and it went nowhere
4. By your "anything can happen" argument I guess we could also look forward to the 13th amendment being overturned and slavery being legalized - I mean it's possible right? 1. Massachusettes is a liberal state for the Irish Catholic American...Tolerant? Interesting choice of words given the racial and cutural history tolerance that Massachusettes is so well known for.... it should be noted that that region of the country is populated with conservative Catholics to this day and a Mormon governed that state. So Romney being elected in a state that is overwhelmingly conservative Catholic is a feat, whether you want to admit that or.....or whether Romney had a Sam Adams in one had and baby in the other Okay - Massachusetts - gay marriage. Moving on.2. Who said anything about the 13 amendment Damie? Oh wait, you'll predictably say, "well 'Pun, you did say anything can happen in this country"...so now we're being literal? of course not, but the possibility of the 12th being admended is a possibility.... No one is arguing possibility - we're talking about likelihood. 3. The Bush proposed amendment isn't a finished fight, but that's neither here nor there... If they couldn't pass it while holding the Senate, Congress, and Presidency, when do you suppose they'll pass it?
It demonstrates that even though there was support for it in society, and among the Republican party, they STILL couldn't get it passed. I am demonstrating (I think) just how difficult it is to get an amendment to the constitution made even when it enjoys popular support which is WHY I'm saying it's unlikely.
www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/07/AR2006060700830.html
In any event the link I originally posted is about the fact that people have already talked about amending the 12th... it was in 2004. It's 2008 - and where is it in the process?
www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/02/22/elec04.prez.schwarzenegger.ap/index.html4. The 13th being overturned is a possibility...*smh*...if that's the way you want to frame this discussion and my example, have at it dawg.... That's the way YOU'RE framing it. They're all possible, and they're all HIGHLY unlikely. That's what I've been getting at. |
|
